I'm coming back to an old question as it appears to me RFCs says
differently about.
Quoting an old answers from Paul:
"If user=phone is present, then the syntax of the user part must conform
with the TEL URI syntax as defined in RFC 3966.
That syntax says that the number must start with a "+" unless it
contains a ";phone-context" parameter.
So the following are legal:
sip:+12125551...@example.com;user=phone
sip:1234;phone-context=example....@example.com;user=phone
sip:1234;phone-context=+12125550...@example.com;user=phone
sip:2125551...@example.com
and the following is *not* legal:
sip:2125551...@example.com;user=phone"
All the above basically matches RFC3261, Section 19.1.6.. The section
talks about tel to sip URI conversion.
On the other hand, RFC3966, Section 12 says:
"When the '+' sign is not present, but a telephone number is
represented by the user portion of the URI, the SIP URI SHOULD
contain the optional ';user=phone' parameter; e.g.,
To: sip:83...@sip.example.net;user=phone"
Also section 12.1 suggest to insert a user=phone parameter, despite the
section refers to tel URI without mentioning sip URI.
Can anybody clarify this point? How the request sip URI (not tel URI)
coming from the trunking GW should be ?
Andrea
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
