El Jueves, 14 de Enero de 2010, Paul Kyzivat escribió:
> To be anonymous with a tel URI, just lie and use somebody else's number.
> Or, you could do something like:
>
> tel:0;phone-context=anonymous.invalid
>
> But AFAIK there is no *standard* way of doing it.
That's the problem :(
--
Iñaki
To be anonymous with a tel URI, just lie and use somebody else's number.
Or, you could do something like:
tel:0;phone-context=anonymous.invalid
But AFAIK there is no *standard* way of doing it.
Thanks,
Paul
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> El Miércoles, 13 de Enero de 2010, Paul Kyzi
> > > I've tested it with my SIP parser which is 100% strict
> > > according to RFC 3261 grammar and RFC 3966 (TEL). Such
> > > SIP URI is valid according to BNF.
> >
> > Does your parser allow invalid characters within the
> > local-number-digits or does it not allow
> > "anonymous;phone-context
El Miércoles, 13 de Enero de 2010, Neel Neelakantan escribió:
> True, for example a TEL URI allows "#" symbol while it's not allowed in a
> SIP URI userinfo part.
>
>
> [Neel]
> The # should be escaped in the userinfo part.
The following SIP URI can be "converted" into a TEL URI:
sip:%2312
I'm going to get a bit nit-picky here. The text from 3261 says:
The set of valid telephone-subscriber strings is a subset of
valid user strings. The user URI parameter exists to
distinguish telephone numbers from user names that happen to
look like telephon
] Is anonymous user allowed in sip-uri with
user=phone?
El Miércoles, 13 de Enero de 2010, Brett Tate escribió:
> > > In case it matters, "anonymous" does violate the character
> > > set for the digits portion of telephone-subscriber. Thus
> > > although may
El Miércoles, 13 de Enero de 2010, Brett Tate escribió:
> > > In case it matters, "anonymous" does violate the character
> > > set for the digits portion of telephone-subscriber. Thus
> > > although maybe not desirable, a strict parser may reject
> > > the INVITE with a 400 response.
> >
> > It's
> > In case it matters, "anonymous" does violate the character
> > set for the digits portion of telephone-subscriber. Thus
> > although maybe not desirable, a strict parser may reject
> > the INVITE with a 400 response.
>
> It's just a semantic subject. No strict SIP parser should
> reject s
El Miércoles, 13 de Enero de 2010, Brett Tate escribió:
> > > Of course, "anonymous" is not a valid TEL number so the above
> > > SIP URI (which comes from a TEL URI due to the presence of
> > > "user=phone") makes no sense (IMHO).
> >
> > It makes no sense. But the decision that it makes no sense
> > Of course, "anonymous" is not a valid TEL number so the above
> > SIP URI (which comes from a TEL URI due to the presence of
> > "user=phone") makes no sense (IMHO).
>
> It makes no sense. But the decision that it makes no sense is up
> to a server for the domain of the URI.
In case it mat
Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> El Miércoles, 13 de Enero de 2010, ROHIT CHAUDHARY escribió:
>> Hi experts,
>>
>> A sip-uri with user part as "anonymous" is allowed. But if the user
>> parameter is phone, ie, the user part is to be treated as
>> telephone-subscriber of tel-url (RFC 3966), then shou
El Miércoles, 13 de Enero de 2010, ROHIT CHAUDHARY escribió:
> Hi experts,
>
> A sip-uri with user part as "anonymous" is allowed. But if the user
> parameter is phone, ie, the user part is to be treated as
> telephone-subscriber of tel-url (RFC 3966), then should it be allowed,
> something lik
Hi experts,
A sip-uri with user part as "anonymous" is allowed. But if the user parameter
is phone, ie, the user part is to be treated as telephone-subscriber of tel-url
(RFC 3966), then should it be allowed, something like this:
Is this a valid sip-url or should it be answered with 400 Bad R
13 matches
Mail list logo
