I pretty much agree with Dale.

It would be good if people would RTFM before posting questions like this one. Section 5.2 of 3261 says:

      Request-URI: The Request-URI names the domain of the location
           service for which the registration is meant (for example,
           "sip:chicago.com").  The "userinfo" and "@" components of the
           SIP URI MUST NOT be present.

      To: The To header field contains the address of record whose
           registration is to be created, queried, or modified.  The To
           header field and the Request-URI field typically differ, as
           the former contains a user name.  This address-of-record MUST
           be a SIP URI or SIPS URI.

This makes it pretty clear that the R-URI and To-URI of register MUST be sip or sips.

I do have some sympathy though. I think it *ought* to be ok to use a tel uri in the To: header. Of course that won't by itself be enough to get the domain to assume responsibility for the phone number - that would have to already have been established somehow. But it would provide a way for a UA to say it wants to accept calls to that number that happen to reach the domain.

        Paul

Dale R. Worley wrote:
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 02:54 -0800, Litty Preeth wrote:

Suppose there is a sip soft-phone with a tel URI say  "tel:
+358-555-1234567". If i want to register that phone to a SIP
registrar handling the domain say "xyz.com" then what would be the
sheme of the request uri of that REGISTER request - sip or tel ? I
mean  would it be tel:xyz.com or sip:xyz.com


Maybe I'm not seeing how you want to use SIP, but I think such a request
would be meaningless.  A REGISTER is for informing the proxy that
handles a SIP domain, e.g., "sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" that requests for
<sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" should be routed to <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.  A
REGISTER can never provide information about how to handle requests for
a tel: URI.

Perhaps people have started building registrars/proxies that route tel:
URIs and use REGISTER messages, but that is an extension of RFC 3261
that I've never heard of.

Dale


_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors

_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors

Reply via email to