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 should it be allowed, >> something like this: >> >> <sip:anonymous;phone-context=natio...@host1.com;user=phone> > > As you said, "if the user parameter is phone the user part is to be treated > as > telephone-subscriber of tel-url (RFC 3966)". > > 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. So this should not be objected to until it reaches a server for the host1.com domain. It will then have the job of interpreting the user part of the URI, and will presumably reject it. But if it *wants* to accept it, I guess it may. Thanks, Paul > In order to get a better anonymous URI I would use just: > > From: Anonymous <sip:anonym...@atlanta.com>;tag=1928301774 > > This is, with no "user" param. However RFC 3261 doens't specify very well how > to set an "anonymous" URI/sender. > >> Is this a valid sip-url or should it be answered with 400 Bad Request? > >>From the point of view of the SIP ABNF grammar it's correct. > > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors