Is is silly and inappropriate to assert the validity of
anonymous@anonymous.invalid, because there is no such domain. Hence
nobody is in a position to make such an assertion.
But it could be appropriate to assert sip:anonymous@somedomain. This
would presumably mean: this is from *some* valid user of somedomain, but
which one is being withheld. This has more utility in domains with many
users than in those with just a few.
This has even been discussed in the ongoing work in the ietf STIR wg.
Thanks,
Paul
On 7/2/14 12:30 PM, Joel Gerber wrote:
It's valid, but more than slightly silly. Why even send a PAID if it's not
going to have valid information?
For PPID, it still would be valid, but pretty much guaranteed that it will be
ignored.
Joel Gerber
Network Specialist
Network Operations
Eastlink
E: joel.ger...@corp.eastlink.ca T: 519.786.1241
-----Original Message-----
From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu
[mailto:sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Rajesh
Sent: July-02-14 12:17 PM
To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: [Sip-implementors] Anonymous URI in SIP PAI header
Hi,
May i know whether it is valid to add Anonymous URI (
anonymous@anonymous.invalid) in the PAI (P-Asserted-Identity) header filed.
Thanks
Regards
Rajesh
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
