El Wednesday 02 July 2008 14:51:08 Paul Kyzivat escribió: > > 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.
Yes, I know that. That's why I want to use "tel". > 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. In my case I deliver calls to PSTN via a carrier. This carrier has a softswitch supporting PAI. I can't know *what* the carrier do with the PAI uri and how it passes it to SS7 network, but by experience I've realized of this behaviour when calling to a Spanish number (+34): P-Asserted-Identity: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> => the called PSTN phone will see 999000111. P-Asserted-Identity: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> => the called PSTN phone will see +34999000111 (ugly and not neccesary). P-Asserted-Identity: <tel:999000111> => the called PSTN phone will see 999000111. P-Asserted-Identity: <tel:+34999000111> => the called PSTN phone will see +34999000111 (ugly and not neccesary). P-Asserted-Identity: "999000111" <tel:+34999000111> => the called PSTN phone will see +34999000111 (Display Name is not rendered at all). So even if <tel:999000111> is not correct it is the working solution in my case. > 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. But when I deliver the call to PSTN I cannot control how the final PSTN provider will handle the number. > > 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. Agree :) > 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. True, thanks. > So again, IMO you should use the E164 format, and the recipient should > make the display nice. But I can't contorl the recipient. It's the whole PSTN network. > If that doesn't work, I have also seen: > > P-Asserted-Identity: "990-00111" <tel:+34999000111> As I said before it doesn't work in my case. But, should it work??? I've never read that the DisplayName should be rendered as CallerID number. Thanks for all. Regards. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
