> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 09 April 2008 03:31 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Sip] E.164 - who owns it > > > From: "Dan Wing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > If those URIs included ";user=phone", there is a transitive > relationship between the SIP URI and the TEL URI. Without > ";user=phone", I agree that no meaning is supposed to be applied > to the user-part (the part to the left of the "@"). > > True. In that case, we have SIP URIs which are essentially aliases > for tel URIs. But in that case, any signing should be of the > fundamental tel URI, which then obviates the problem with an SBC that > translates one alias-URI into another. [JRE] But what about other parameters on the right hand side. For example, is tel:+123456789 an alias for: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];user=phone;gr=abd76gd6 ?
I don't think so. And is: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];user=phone; an alias for: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];user=phone;gr=abd76gd6 ? I don't think so And is: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];user=phone;gr=abd76gd6 an alias for: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];user=phone;gr=abd76gd6 ? Possibly, assuming by routing the first one to provider.net it eventually gets changed to the latter and routed accordingly. You might ask whether these are valid examples. I believe they are, because the GRUU draft says just add a gr parameter to the AoR, and I believe the user=phone parameter is part of the AoR in this case. Of course, you wouldn't have a GRUU in a From header field, so this is perhaps not relevant to the RFC 4474 discussion (hence the change of thread name), but it is germane to the issue of how a Request URI can change as it is routed through intermediaries. 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
