Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> El Miércoles, 13 de Enero de 2010, ROHIT CHAUDHARY escribió:
>> Hi experts,
>>
>> A sip-uri with user part as "anonymous" is allowed. But if the user
>> parameter is phone, ie, the user part is to be treated as
>> telephone-subscriber of tel-url (RFC 3966), then should it be allowed,
>> something like this:
>>
>> <sip:anonymous;[email protected];user=phone>
>
> As you said, "if the user parameter is phone the user part is to be treated
> as
> telephone-subscriber of tel-url (RFC 3966)".
>
> Of course, "anonymous" is not a valid TEL number so the above SIP URI (which
> comes from a TEL URI due to the presence of "user=phone") makes no sense
> (IMHO).
It makes no sense. But the decision that it makes no sense is up to a
server for the domain of the URI.
So this should not be objected to until it reaches a server for the
host1.com domain. It will then have the job of interpreting the user
part of the URI, and will presumably reject it. But if it *wants* to
accept it, I guess it may.
Thanks,
Paul
> In order to get a better anonymous URI I would use just:
>
> From: Anonymous <sip:[email protected]>;tag=1928301774
>
> This is, with no "user" param. However RFC 3261 doens't specify very well how
> to set an "anonymous" URI/sender.
>
>> Is this a valid sip-url or should it be answered with 400 Bad Request?
>
>>From the point of view of the SIP ABNF grammar it's correct.
>
>
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
