Thanks Brett, appreciate your response. I am going to check rfc 3966. Ericsson has a SIP server which doesn't like user=phone with Anonymous. Samsung has a SIP server which sends Anonymous with user=phone. Without a specific spec or a RFC, its hard to tell who is right and who should change. Vivek.
----- Original Message ----- From: Brett Tate <[email protected]> To: Vivek Singla <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: Sent: Friday, February 1, 2013 12:57 PM Subject: RE: [Sip-implementors] Any RFC reference for "user=phone" in case of an Anonymous From header Unfortunately, RFC 3261 is underspecified concerning the user=phone topic and sipcore doesn't seem to want to fix the issue. Thus do whatever you want. :) The following link is to one of the replies that I received concerning the topic. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore/current/msg01784.html Some vendors will not like receiving a user=phone when the user portion of sip-uri is missing or does not decode as a telephone-subscriber per RFC 3966 (or RFC 2806). Anonymous examples can be found within RFC 3261, RFC 3323, and RFC 3325. They do not include user=phone. > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:sip- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Vivek Singla > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 1:21 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Sip-implementors] Any RFC reference for "user=phone" in case > of an Anonymous From header > > > Hi, > I am looking for some RFC reference where I can find how to populate a > FROM header, when the caller is anonymous. > > Basically when we send user=phone, is it MUST to send a phone number. > > Alternatively, if I send anonymous in the FROM header, is it MUST to > not send user=phone? > > > Vivek. _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
