I wonder whether RFC 4474 isn't doing fine when you assume that E.164 numbers apear in an email style format. The assumption there is, however, that devices display the domain part as well (which they don't do today) and user's actually configure their authorization policies in a way that it includes both the E.164 number and a corresponding domain name.
Hence, this is not a standardization problem but a usability issue. Do I misunderstand your proposal? Ciao Hannes Elwell, John wrote: > On this thread I would like to explore what can be done in terms of > avoiding the issues concerned with RFC 4474 and E.164-based SIP URIs by > migration towards the use of email-style URIs. > E.164-based URIs will still be needed, particularly for interworking > with PSTN but also in those SIP environments where E.164 numbers are > more easily handled (e.g., phones with number-based user interfaces). > But perhaps we can explore more the possibility of using the two forms > in parallel, e.g., E.164-based in PAI (e.g., as TEL URI) and email-style > in From. I know Dan has an interesting straw man on this topic, which I > will allow him to present himself. > > John > _______________________________________________ > Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip > This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol > Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip > Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip > _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
