El Miércoles, 13 de Enero de 2010, Paul Kyzivat escribió: > This says that if the user field contains an e164 telephone-subscriber > than user=phone SHOULD be present. It doesn't state the converse: that > if the user part *doesn't* contain a telephone-subscriber then there > should not be a user=phone. > > So I don't think this can be viewed as a syntactic error. It needs to be > considered a semantic distinction and only considered by something > responsible for the domain that has knowledge of the semantics of user > names in that domain.
BTW, how to indicate anonymous caller in a TEL URI? perhaps it's not possible (due to grammar restrictions) so a SIP URI must be used for this purpose? -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
