On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think so. But maybe others will find a justification for doing so.
I don't think it is valid - although it's totally underspecified. user=phone implies the user portion is a tel URI, and tel:anonymous.invalid;phone-context=+1 isn't legitimate - so i can see why a parser would fail it, as even if it was matching a local-phone-number only hex digits would be allowed. perhaps an interoperable stack would treat any user=phone URI which fails to parse as a normal SIP URI. That said, as it's only used in the contact header, the user portion has no semantic meaning (as Paul pointed out it has the maddr parameter), i'd be tempted to treat it as an opaque string after extracting enough routing information and just include it in the response. Not sure other intermediaries will correctly handle any requests with it as the R-URI though. ~ Theo _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
