From: "Elwell, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The problem is the changing of domain part as the E.164-based URI traverses service providers, so that it no longer represents the true origin of the request.
Well, yes. If you change the domain part of a URI as it traverses service providers, you're going to break things. If you mean "what the user +123456789 means in cisco.com's domain", say <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. If you mean "what the user +123456789 means in siemens.com's domain", say <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. And there's no reason to believe that there is any relationship between the two -- unless you have authoritative information about *both* domains. If you mean "the E.164 number +123456789", say <tel:+123456789>. I don't see anything that will go wrong if people pay attention to what URIs are defined to mean. Now there is a problem with signing tel: URIs, how do you determine that the signer has the authority to sign a particular tel: URI, but that's a delegation-of-authority problem that is not inherently different from other delegation-of-authority problems -- you need a publicly-known root authority and a tree of delegations. Dale _______________________________________________ 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
