Dean Willis wrote:
>
> On Apr 15, 2008, at 9:02 AM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
>> Francois Audet writes:
>>
>>> For the type of feature you are looking at, I think a Tel URI makes more
>>> sense. I'm just pointing out with the current state of SIP phones, it
>>> probably won't work.
>>
>> you are starting a new trend here. usually this wg has not worried what
>> people have actually implemented. instead it has kept on producing
>> countless rfc that are completely ignored by vendors.
>>
>> you have to face it that the only way to fix the 302 problem is to make
>> tel uris mandatory. if there is a list of fixes to rfc3261 somewhere,
>> please add it there.
>
>
> I'm initially attempted to agree.
>
> But do we need tel: URI support in a node that perhaps just does IM?
> That just does presence?
>
> Perhaps we do, if we see tel: routing and locating as becoming critical
> tools for the internet. Personally, I'm not sure this was what we had in
> mind when thinking about the locator/identifier issue.
Don't we want interop between IM and SMS? If so, then you want IM
devices to support tel URIs.
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
