The sec 19.1.4 of RFC3261 says...
"A URI omitting any component with a default value
will not match a URI explicitly containing that
component with its default value. For instance, a URI
omitting the optional port component will
not match a URI explicitly declaring port 5060. The
same is true for the transport-parameter,
ttlparameter,
user-parameter, and method components."
Therefore,
<sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];transport=UDP>
and
sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5060
are not equivalent URI.
In fact, all the following 4 URIs are different as per
RFC3261,
<sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5060;transport=UDP>,
<sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];transport=UDP>,
sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5060,
sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
But, I think, transport specific default port can be
added to IP address though sec 19.1.4 don't allow it.
However, I agree with sec 19.1.4 from domainname point
of view as DNS SRV may lead to different port than
default one.
As per me,
sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5060,
sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
are not equivalent whereas
sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5060,
sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
are equivalent.
Siddhartha
Office firewalls, cyber cafes, college labs, don't allow you to download
CHAT? Click here: http://in.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
