El Wednesday 18 June 2008 13:31:41 Attila Sipos escribió: > >>Is it valid? > > it's valid in that it's parseable but obviously it's not standard. > And since it's different from "sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]", > it's unlikely it will have the desired effect. > > >>does each SIP implementation choose its own hidden URI? > > All should use "sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but > it wouldn't surprise me if others used other non-standard > anonymous uri's.
Is there Nortel people here? Why does Nortel CS2K use: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] instead of: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ? -- Iñaki Baz Castillo [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
