I think we are digressing from the original query. The question is not about routing of tel url. The query is why the public identities in >From and To header can not be tel for SUBSCRIBE. A better explanation only the RFC authors can provide.
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 7:52 PM, Klaus Darilion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Vikram Chhibber schrieb: >> >> IMO "pres" uri is meant for presentity/watchers participants for >> "presence" and related event packages. >> "sip" scheme is more generic and may include "sip protocol" >> participants including call and "presence". >> All these schemes are meant for IP domain. TEL scheme is defined to >> accommodate E.164 numbers from non-IP domain and SUBSCRIBE/NOTIFY >> framework is not defined for these entities unless you have some ENUM >> mapping available >> I am not sure whether this is convincing enough. > > Yes, ENUM is an perfect example why it should be valid. The client sends a > request to the proxy with tel URI in RURI and To header. The proxy performs > an ENUM lookup, gets back the SIP URI und forwards the call, thus the RURI > contains a SIP URI, but the To header contains still the tel: URI. > > Thus, IMO it is short-sighted to only allow pres and SIP(S) URIs. > > regards > klaus > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
