El Jueves, 12 de Marzo de 2009, Hadriel Kaplan escribió: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:sip- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Iñaki Baz > > Castillo > > > > About it I would really understand why TEL2SIP conversion is *so* > > complex. Why > > TEL parameters are appended to the SIP userinfo part instead of being > > converted into SIP URI parameters? > > Any useful reason for it? > > In theory the idea is that a parameter is an attribute of the thing, so a > user parameter is an attribute of the user part, while the URI parameter is > an attribute of the whole URI. So originally it made sense that the TEL > URI parameters be SIP user part ones, because they were attributes of the > number itself, not of a SIP URI. > > There was also some concern about namespace collision of parameter names, > if the two types of URI's just happened to define the same param name with > different meaning. (though the odds of that are nill)
Thanks, let me one question more: When converting to SIP URI, RFC 3261 doesn't mandate that the TEL URI number is "cleaned" (visual separators removed). This is confusing: tel1 = tel:+123-456 tel2 = tel:(+1)-23-45-6 Both TEL URI are equal since the number is compared after removing visual separators, but when converting to SIP: sip1 = sip:[email protected];user=phone sip1 = sip:(+1)[email protected];user=phone both SIP URI are different since userinfo doesn't match. Or perhaps userinfo should be compared by removing visual separators when the SIP URI contains a "user=phone" parameter? Thanks. PD: This is too much complex, really a pain. I suspect it is really unusable and nobody will implement it "properly". -- Iñaki Baz Castillo _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
