Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> Hi, for now I use P-Asserted-Identity with SIP URIs to set the callerID.
>
> If the call is national (Spain = +34) I don't add the international prefix
> (it's ugly to see it in national calls):
>
> P-Asserted-Identity: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> And if the call is international then I add the +34 prefix:
>
> P-Asserted-Identity: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Note that these are *not* syntactically phone numbers at all. They are
just names that happen to contain digits. If it works for you then I
guess its ok, but if you attempt to interoperate with somebody else all
bets are off.
Regarding the E164 syntax being ugly - isn't the @domain.com ugly too?
I presume you don't think so because it isn't being displayed. There is
no law that says the number part has to be displayed as received either.
If the E164 number begins with +34 and the phone displaying it serves
the +34 area, then it could display the number without the +34. This is
much more robust. What you are doing requires that you know the
preferences of the recipient at the time you originate the call. In
general that won't be known.
> It works ok but I prefer to use "tel" URI.
Good! For a long time I've been on a (so far unsuccessful) campaign to
get TEL used for phone numbers. One key advantage is that there is no
question that it is a phone number. Another is that sip URIs containing
phone numbers are embroiled in the ongoing controversy about whether the
domain name matters, and if it is authoritative for the number.
> I read in RFC 3966 that there are
> two kind of numbers:
>
> - Global Numbers: Use E614 format.
> Example: tel:+34999000111)
>
> - Local Numbers: Don't start by "+" and MUST contain a ;phone-context param.
> "Thus, the combination of the descriptor in the 'phone-context' parameter
> and local number is again globally unique."
> Example: tel:999000111;phone-context=+34
>
> I deliver calls via a softswitch that converts from SIP to ISUP and accepts
> PAI with tel URI, but I don't know if international calls sent with the
> following PAI will arrive with callerID = +34999000111:
If you read 3966 closely you will see that
tel:999000111;phone-context=+34
and tel:+34999000111
are *not* equivalent. And in fact the local format is not to be used for
addresses that have a global format. It is only intended to be used for
those that don't - e.g. private extensions without DID. So it makes
sense that the callerID is not as you hoped.
So again, IMO you should use the E164 format, and the recipient should
make the display nice.
If that doesn't work, I have also seen:
P-Asserted-Identity: "990-00111" <tel:+34999000111>
(Just guessing and Spanish phone number punctuation.)
Paul
> P-Asserted-Identity: <tel:9990000111;phone-context=+34>
>
> Or maybe it's easier if I create this PAI for national calls:
> P-Asserted-Identity: <tel:9990000111;phone-context=+34>
> and this one for international calls:
> P-Asserted-Identity: <tel:+349990000111;phone-context=+34>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
