Elwell, John wrote:
>
>
>> -----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.
IMO it is a little fuzzy whether URI parameters are actually part of an
AOR. When adding or looking up a URI in a location service, it is first
canonicalized by removing all URI parameters, including the "user"
parameter. As a result, both
sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];user=phone
sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
will route to the same place. Its not entirely clear to me whether the
gruu is to be constructed with the canonicalized URI or the original
one. But there seems to be nothing to prevent you from registering once
using user=phone, and another time omitting it, or using user=ip. And
you would get the same location service entry in both cases.
> 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.
I think the bottom line is that we can't just toss out the term "alias"
as something that is well defined. I think that A can be an alias for B
for one purpose, but not be an alias for B for some other purpose.
In this discussion, I think two From-URIs might sometimes be considered
aliases of one another if they result in the same callerid display to
the recipient, or if calls to both reach the same destination.
Thanks,
Paul
_______________________________________________
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
