> -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Hadriel Kaplan wrote: > > 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). > > I have absolutely *no* problem with that, *if* it reaches example.com > before being translated. That is policy business between you and your > home proxy. > > I have a problem when it passes through foo.com which then decides this > is a phone number and routes it to a GW without it ever going to > example.com. And I am hearing you (I think) and others saying that is > common practice and in fact necessary in many cases for calls not to fail.
Ahhh... crap, we were talking past each other. No, it is not common usage afaik for a sip request to example.com to be shunted to the PSTN by foo.com. It may well be that's what would happen, but as far as I know it's incredibly rare for foo.com to get a request for example.com to begin with. Because afaict no one knows what "final" target domain to set for the req-uri, other than their local enterprise's or provider's, who then changes it to their next-hop domain, and so on. This works, because they're really all "routing" based on phone numbers at the end of the day. [I am ignoring the visited proxy model, because such roaming is still rare in SIP afaik] If a request for example.com were to arrive at foo.com, and it accepted it, I still think it could try it to the PSTN if example.com were a customer of foo.com's and the number was one of example.com's. (ie, if foo.com was a provider and had a pstn-fallback service for its enterprise customer example.com) But that's probably a nit? > > I had thought you were saying > > a sip scheme demands a SIP path be used. > > I believe it does, just as much as sips demands that a sips path be > used, http demands that an http path be used, etc. Interestingly, I had thought we decided sips did not carry that semantic a long time ago - if you set the req-uri to sips:[EMAIL PROTECTED], and it reached example.com over TLS, example.com formed the end of that URI domain and could send it into the PSTN or whatever at will. > If somebody gives you an http URL, do you think it is an intended usage > for you to transform it into an ftp URL? > It in fact may work to transform the http into an ftp URL. But if so > that is a special case that can only be known to work based on extra > context. If someone set an http URL, I would expect it to be HTTP to the target domain of that URL. But that web server could use FTP behind the scenes to retrieve its data to feed to you over HTTP, or could use TFTP, or NFS, or any protocol of its choosing. -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
