> -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > But I do think one ought to attempt to honor the intent of the provider > of the URI. IMO 3263 is pretty clear about how a sip uri is to be routed.
Yes, but I'm not clear which part of 3263 *isn't* being honored. You set your req-uri to sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED], it reaches example.com, example.com says "hmm, not one of my users, I'll consider this a telephone number, and try the SIP-trunk or PSTN or whatever". It reached the intended sip target domain (example.com). > [snipped stuff] > I'm not getting your point. Return routing will be based on a different > URI provided by the other party. All this discussion applies to that as > well. Whether reverse routing is possible is irrelevant here. Dean had said we would need to get "phones" to NOT use "user=phone", while GW's do - both using a sip: From. I had thought you were saying a sip scheme demands a SIP path be used. So my point was that just because I can get a SIP request to sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED], with a signed From of sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED], and you store that in your address book, does not mean you can then 2 days later get a request to sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] to stay SIP to me. It does not mean I wanted to only be reachable by SIP, and it does not mean *you* (the human) only want to reach me via SIP when you send it. That's all - just reiterating the same as before really. Nothing to see here, move along... :) -hadriel _______________________________________________ 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
