2008/7/6 Johansson Olle E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> 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. > > Well, it's in the name :-) > > "Display name" should be the number that is rendered. Even though I > understand > that a lot of devices out there doesn't do the right thing.
Could you point it in any RFC? I've never read something like that. IMHO "Display Name" is just a "cool" and descriptive name, but not the real username. If my first name is "Bob" and my number is 1234 I expect that the called will see "1234" as calling number (and he can be my display name "Bob" as extra information). If my first name is numeric (I'm a machine) "111002" and my SIP username is 1234 I also expect that the called will see "1234" as calling number and not "111002". Also, I've tested sending INVITE to some softswitches with a From or PAI like this: "999000111" <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> And when those softswitches convert the call to PSTN the CallerID number is 999000222, never 999000111. Also, every phones I've tryed render the URI username as calling number and some of them (usually sofphones) render both Display Name and URI username, but in any case, when the user looks for a number in him missed calls or incoming calls, and presses in one of them to make a new call, the called number is *always* the username part and never the DisplayName. Anyway it's extrange for me since it's not the first time I hear that Display Name should be rendered as CallerID when all I read is the opposite. Could you please extend more your point? Thanks for all and best regards. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
