I reckon the real problem in this scenario is the inclusion of the user=phone parameter in the address-of-record in the first place. If the parameter is used to signify that the number is known to be a PSTN number, its only value is to indicate the fact to someone who wants call the address-of-record. It doesn't seem to be a very satisfactory mechanism for this purpose, but if it is used, the original problem could be solved by registering two address-of-records, one with the parameter, and one without. In our products we do a similar thing when we register with a digits-only user component _and_ a more general user component, in order to cater for callers who can only specify digits, and to cater for users who can specify more cuddly names.
Barry Desborough > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 04 January 2002 05:05 > To: Shail Bhatnagar > Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg; Barry Desborough; sip-implementors > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] user=phone in registered addresses > > > > > Hi, > according to bis-05 statement as below: > 1384 When the registrar has determined that the client is > permitted to make > the request, the registrar MUST > 1385 extract the address of record from the To header field of the > REGISTER. Note that the registrar MUST > 1386 extract the entire To header field URI in order to use > it as an index > in the location service. > > It says entire URI in To- header has to be used as index. > That too with > "MUST". Therefore both the addresses will have to be different > registrations. > I think this statement in draft bis-05 adds complexity. > Statement according to previous draft where it didnt give any explicit > statements on "how TO header has to be taken as key while doing > registrations". > This would let the implementer have his own policy as just considering > "user@domain" which was recommended in bis-04 > > regards, > Shetti > > > > > Shail Bhatnagar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 01/04/2002 10:06:46 AM > > To: Jonathan Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc: Barry Desborough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, sip-implementors > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (bcc: Shrinivas > Shetti/HSSBLR) > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] user=phone in registered addresses > > > > > Jonathan, Are you suggesting that following 2 registrations > should update the same record > > To: <sip:1234@proxy;user=phone> > To: <sip:1234@proxy> > > Is an implementation free to treat them as same or different ? > > thanks, > Shail > > Jonathan Rosenberg wrote: > > > > Barry Desborough wrote: > > > > > Any opinions on this matter? > > > > > > Another manufacturer's UA is registering, using > user=phone in its To:, > > > From: > > > and Contact: headers. My UA is a simple POTS access > device. All the > user > > > can > > > do is enter telephone digits. When I try to call from my UA to the > other > > > device, omitting the user=phone parameter, the registrar > can't resolve > > > the > > > URL. > > > > > > Now it seems to me that the user=phone parameter is only > useful in the > > > Contact: header - the registration should be done without this > parameter > > > in > > > the To: and From: headers. After all, the registered address is a > pretty > > > abstract value - all that really matters is that the registrar can > > > resolve > > > the Contact: URL from it. Is this reasoning correct, or > am I missing > > > something? > > > > This has been a continuing source of confusion, and is > currently logged > > as issue #281, in fact. > > > > Generally, the mapping of an incoming request URI to obtain > a key into > > the DB of registered contact is a matter of local policy, > but it needs > > to be done in a consistent and coherent manner, in order to avoid > > interop problems. This particular item, use of user=phone, > has been a > > source of trouble for some time. > > > > I believe that the correct thing to do in this particular > case is that > > the registrar should not user the user=phone when using the > > address-of-record from the REGISTER. Furthermore, it ought to be > > stripped from the incoming r-uri, although it probably > should not have > > been there in the first place if the caller has no idea about the > > meaning of the numbers being entered. Generally, the > user=phone is in > > there if the number is known to represent a PSTN number, rather than > > just a string of digits that are of local significance. > > > > -Jonathan R. > > > > -- > > Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 72 Eagle Rock Avenue > > Chief Scientist First Floor > > dynamicsoft East Hanover, NJ 07936 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] FAX: (973) 952-5050 > > http://www.jdrosen.net PH: (973) 952-5000 > > http://www.dynamicsoft.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sip-implementors mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors > > > > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
