I have a couple of questions related to the definitions of the
phone-context parameter that can appear it the TEL URI.
My confusion is due to apparent inconsistencies between RFC3966 and
RFC2806.
RFC3966 says that it is backwards compatible with RFC2806, but this is
not clear to me.
(1) In the definiton of a tel: uri
RFC2806 says that the phone-context can appear in both a global and
a local TEL URI
RFC3966 says that the phone-context can appear only in a global TEL
URI
(I know that a global TEL URI can include any extension parameter,
but I assume that if phone-context was allowed in a global TEL URI, it
would have been specified explicitly).
(2) In the actual definition of the phone-context parameter:
RFC2806 says that the phone-context can start with or without a
leading "+"
RFC3966 says that the phone-context can start only with a leading
"+" when it is a number (I am ignoring the option of the domain name)
Can someone enlighten me?
Is it true that RFC3966 is backwards compatible with RFC2866? (does not
really seem to be true)
If the two definitions are not consistent, then how should an
implementation behave? Only according to the latest RFC (RFC3966)?
Thanks.
Mike
============================================
Michael Fortinsky
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
