Mike,
I think 3966 is not exactly backwards compatible with 2806 in the areas
you are asking about. It has to some extent been tightened up, as well
as extended.
As I read it, phone-context is allowed but not required in a global
number in 2806, and is required in a local number. In 3966 it is not
permitted in a global number.
In 2806 the phone-context may start with a plus (global number prefix)
or may not. In 3966 it either starts with a plus, or else it is an FQDN.
The bottom line is that there are common usages that are compatible with
both RFCs, but there there are definitely things compatible with 2806
that are not compatible with 3966.
Paul
Fortinsky Michael wrote:
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
