Every single endpoint that I've seen does NOT use a Tel URI per se, but rather, a Tel URI embedded in a sip URI as per RFC 3261/19.1.6.
Insisting on Tel URI seems kind of out of touch with reality. On Apr12 2008 02:04 , "Dean Willis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Apr 11, 2008, at 8:39 AM, Juha Heinanen wrote: >> Paul Kyzivat writes: >> >>> (Except of course that may introduce interop problems with devices >>> that >>> don't support tel. But those will be fixed by SBCs :-) >> >> i think it is mandatory for sip phones to support tel. otherwise it >> is >> impossible to for a sip phone in another domain to 302 caller to a >> pstn >> number. >> > > I too think tel: support is critical. > > To refine the above, without tel: it is generally impossible to 302 a > caller to a PSTN node without also specifying a route for reaching > that node. > > If one were to redirect to sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];user=phone, one might > still reach the correct telephone, but one would be constrained to do > so by using the resources at the specified domain, which might or > might not present an authorization problem. > > The only way we have to redirect a caller to a PST node that is to be > reached by the caller's best available means is to use a tel: URI. > > -- > Dean > _______________________________________________ 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
