I agree with Attila. I have no idea why it is being done this way. But
since there is also a Privacy header perhaps it is assumed that you
won't be displaying this anyway, so what it says is immaterial.
Paul
Attila Sipos wrote:
>>> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Iñaki Baz
> Castillo
> Sent: 18 June 2008 12:21
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [Sip-implementors] "sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" is the correctway to hide
> the caller?
>
> Hi, RFC 3261 says that a UAC wanting to hide its identity should use a From
> like this:
>
> sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Is it the unique correct way to do it? For example, when I receive a call
> from my carrier gateway (Nortel CS2K) with "Privacy: id" the From is:
>
> sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Is it valid? does each SIP implementation choose its own hidden URI?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> --
> Iñaki Baz Castillo
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sip-implementors mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sip-implementors mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
>
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
