> -----Original Message----- > From: Francois Audet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 9:50 AM > To: Dan Wing > Cc: [email protected]; Paul Kyzivat; Juha Heinanen > Subject: RE: [Sip] E.164 - who owns it > > I'm still not sure I get it. > > If I present a Tel URI, and somebody uses it to reach me, and > it just happens > that we are both using SIP as our default "Telephony" client, > then sure, you > absolutely will be able to do whatever you want (IM, HD, etc.). > > The point is that if you choose to advertise a Tel URI > INSTEAD of a SIP URI, don't be > surprised if you have people reaching you with PSTN-capabilies only.
Sure, folks might contact me over the PSTN if I used a TEL URI, and I agree that I wouldn't be surprised. Afterall, the PSTN remains the lowest-common denominator for interactive communications. > Conversely, if you choose to advertize a SIP URI ONLY, then > you may be missing out entirely on people calling from PSTN. > > - At least, that's the theory... Advertising a SIP URI exclusively would be as silly as advertising an email URI exclusively. You always want a way to accept incoming PSTN calls (because it is the lowest common denominator for interactive communications), and a legitimate business would also want a physical address and a postal address to receive physical packages and deliveries. -d > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dan Wing [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 21:20 > > To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055) > > Cc: [email protected]; 'Paul Kyzivat'; 'Juha Heinanen' > > Subject: RE: [Sip] E.164 - who owns it > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Francois Audet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 8:04 PM > > > To: Dan Wing > > > Cc: [email protected]; Paul Kyzivat; Juha Heinanen > > > Subject: RE: [Sip] E.164 - who owns it > > > > > > Well, you can still do video over PSTN with H.320. I still > > view this > > > as "telephony". > > > > Sorry -- please pick something you cannot do over the PSTN. > > Instant Messaging, presence, high-quality video (HDTV), whatever. > > > > > Not sure I understand the question. > > > > Let me reword my previous email into a question: > > > > If you have a non-SIP telephony application that trunks > > towards the PSTN, and it is configured to process tel URIs, > > and it is asked to initiate a call that exceeds the > > capabilities of the PSTN (instant messaging, presence, > > HDTV-quality video, whatever you prefer) -- would it route > > the call towards a "SIP trunk" in order to gain the ability > > to set up that call, abort the call, or just ignore it all > > and trunk towards the PSTN? > > > > An additional question (statement, actually) is: We can't > > influence how that non-SIP telephony application provides for > > its own identity and authentication of tel URIs. > > > > (This is getting me to lean more towards my email-identity > > straw-man. With it, we can step out of this festering, > > smelly pile of trying to get E.164 working well with SIP and > > move to email-style SIP URIs. The IETF is capable of > > building an end-to-end identity/authentication solution > > around email-style SIP URIs; we have one (RFC4474) that works > > if we prohibit SBCs and B2BUAs from modifying SDP). > > > > -d > > > > _______________________________________________ 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
