I can't answer why Nortel hasn't used "sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" but I can say that a most vendors have some non-RFC'd behaviour.
This happens because: 1. sometimes things are made-up before a standard has been fixed 2. then the standard is published but non-standard behaviour doesn't always get retro-fixed. The question is how serious a problem is it for you? What are the knock-on effects? -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Iñaki Baz Castillo Sent: 18 June 2008 12:34 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] "sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" is thecorrectway to hide the caller? 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 _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
