Virtually every network I know of which uses npdi, rn, and cic, use them as uri-user params in a SIP URI. (i.e., your first example)
-hadriel > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:sip- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Victor Pascual > Ávila > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 10:07 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Number Portability, TEL URI and E.164- > based SIP URI > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Victor Pascual Ávila > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > RFC 4694 describes some parameters in the TEL URI to carry the > > NP-related information. Unfortunately, TEL URIs are not always used in > > this context and E.164-based SIP URIs are used instead. Any experience > > on using parameters like rn, rn-context, npdi, cic or cic-context in > > SIP URIs? > > Digging into this, IMO there are the following two options: > > - As suggested in [1], the SIP URI embeds a TEL URI (but I am not sure > how many hosts would break on this) > > This was included in the early versions of the draft[1] (e.g. > sip:+1-202-544-6789;[email protected];user=phone) > > [1] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/sip-implementors/2008- > August/019944.html > [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yu-sip-np-02 > > - Include some non-defined SIP URI parameters (these will be ignored > when not understood). > > > I'm really wondering what current deployments are doing. > > Cheers, > -- > Victor Pascual Ávila > > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
