25 nov 2008 kl. 18.11 skrev Iñaki Baz Castillo: > El Martes, 25 de Noviembre de 2008, Victor Pascual Ávila escribió: >> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:39 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> Hi, whatever "cool" RFC's/draft's say, the fact is that most of >>> SIP end >>> points (AKA "phones") use "From" header to render the CallerID to >>> the >>> *human* and they ignore P-Asserted-Identity or deprecated >>> "Remote-Party-Id" headers. >> >> Using the From display name occurs frequently, but I wouldn't be >> quite >> so emphatic. >> https://www.sipit.net/SIPit23_Summary > > Using the From Display Name as CallerID is dangerous IMHO. > > Imagine a phone receives a call with From: > > From: "111111" <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Also imagine that the phone renders "111111" as CallerID (so the > human expects > 111111 is calling him). But the human can't answer now and decides > to call > later by pressing "Missed calls" in his phone menu over the received > call. > The INVITE the phone will generate as this RURI: > <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > so the human is, in fact, calling to 222222 (while he expect being > calling to > number 111111).
As you say, it's important to show both the calling URI - which is corresponding to the Caller ID number in ISDN - and the Caller ID name. Just showing the Caller ID name - or display name - is not a good solution at all. How to sort out the mess with PAI and RPID is another story. Not fun at all. /O _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
