> Without a specific spec or a RFC, its hard to > tell who is right and who should change.
My understanding of RFC 3261 (and RFC 2543) is that user=phone indicates that the user portion can be decoded as a telephone-subscriber. However, RFC 3261 is too vague concerning the topic. It indicates to set user=phone when adding telephone-subscriber without explicitly indicating that it is the only use of user=phone. Thus some vendors interpret user=phone as though it doesn't imply that the user can be decoded as a telephone-subscriber. However, I disagree with this interpretation because it means that nothing indicates that the user portion can be decoded as telephone-subscriber. Since "user URI parameter exists to distinguish telephone numbers from user names that happen to look like telephone numbers", I find it strange to include user=phone to indicate that "anonymous" or "" are telephone numbers. RFC 3261 section 19.1.1: "The set of valid telephone-subscriber strings is a subset of valid user strings. The user URI parameter exists to distinguish telephone numbers from user names that happen to look like telephone numbers. If the user string contains a telephone number formatted as a telephone-subscriber, the user parameter value "phone" SHOULD be present. Even without this parameter, recipients of SIP and SIPS URIs MAY interpret the pre-@ part as a telephone number if local restrictions on the name space for user name allow it." > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Brett Tate <[email protected]> > To: Vivek Singla <[email protected]>; "Sip- > [email protected]" <Sip- > [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. _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
