Thank you very much for your valuable information Paul!

I did some homework after receiving your kind reply. But I still have some new 
question concerning your answer, I hope you (or some other fellow guys on the 
mail list) will again take some time to give me some help. Thank you in advance!


Following I will first quote your answer to my previous post in parts and ask 
my questions below the qoute. Qoutes from your reply will start with a '>' on 
each line, and I enclose the key portion of your answer to make them stand out, 
if necessary.


>In principle, the domain portion of the sip URI *should* denote the 
>domain which hosts that particular number. But often these are 
>constructed using whatever domain is convenient, usually that of the 
>caller's service provider. ***Further explanation of that is a longer story 
>than I want to type here.***


Could you please refer me to some materials describing the detailed story about 
how a numeric SIP URI is handled in practice?




>Other times a server acting on behalf of the caller may do it. In that 
>case the string of digits that were dialed need to be conveyed to the 
>server that will do the translation, by encoding them as a URI.
>


I learned from some other place that the proxies traversed by a request can not 
change the To header field of the request. So what role does the server acting 
on behalf of the caller to translate a dialed number to a URI play? Is it a 
normal proxy or is it a B2BUA? references to this subject is greatly 
appreciated!




>In all these cases, the call will presumably be routed to a server for 
>example.com. It then may handle it directly if it is responsible for 
>that number. Or ****it may translate to an E.164 number and route it to 
>another server in a different domain****. The detailed routing of phone 
>numbers is complex, so I won't discuss it here.


How can an E.164 number be routed in SIP? By "a different domain", do you mean 
a separate SIP network or the PSTN? Again, references to this subject is 
greatly appreciated!




Thanks you again Paul and those who may tried to help!


Regards, 
Zhang


------------------ Original ------------------
From:  "Paul Kyzivat"<[email protected]>;
Date:  Sat, May 4, 2013 10:53 PM
To:  "sip-implementors"<[email protected]>;
Subject:  Re: [Sip-implementors] A question about Section 8.1.1.2 of RFC3261(To 
header filed)


Zhang,


On 5/4/13 6:31 AM, SIP Learner wrote:
> Hi, everyone!
>
>
> I am a newcomer to SIP and I have a problem with Section 8.1.1.2 of RFC3261.
>
>
> Following is a short qoute from Section 8.1.1.2 of RFC 3261 (I enclosed the 
> key sentence within asterisks to make them stand out):
>
>
> "A UAC may learn how to populate the To header field for a particular request 
> in a number of ways... Frequently, the user will not enter a complete URI, 
> but rather a string of digits or letters (for example, "bob"). ...*** The RHS 
> will frequently be the home domain of the requestor, which allows for the 
> home domain to process the outgoing request."***
>
>
> As far as I know, when Alice (whose SIP URI is [email protected]) is trying 
> to call Bob (whose SIP URI is [email protected]), her UA will (at least 
> initially) populate the To header field of the outgong INVITE with 
> [email protected]. But according to the above quote enclosed in asterisks, when 
> sending outgoing request to Bob, Alice (the requestor) will FREQUENTLY inclue 
> [email protected] in the To header field, where atlanta.com is Alice's home 
> domain. What does this mean? I am really confused :-(
>
>
> Anyone please help me out with this, thank you very much!


>This is all about user interface, and isn't standardized.
>In common practice there is a big difference between numeric addresses 
>(phone numbers) and email-style addresses ([email protected]). For better 
>or worse, most of the focus with sip has been on phone numbers.
>
>For email-style addresses there isn't enough information in "bob" to 
>infer that it should be sip:[email protected]. So either the user must type 
>in more. If he just types "bob" then you *might* decide this means the 
>bob in the same domain as the caller, or else just consider it an error. 
>Or if you have access to an address book you could look up "bob" there 
>and translate it to a url.
>
>For numbers, things are handled differently depending upon the system, 
>and often revised while flowing through the network. The generally 
>preferred way to represent phone numbers in SIP is via a "tel:" URI (RFC 
>3966), or else a sip URI with the user part having the same format as a 
>tel URI. E.g.,
>
>tel:+12125551212
>sip:[email protected];user=phone
>
>In many respects the two URIs above are equivalent. The syntax beginning 
>with "+" denotes an E.164 number, including a country code.
>
>Some systems don't support the tel: uri itself, and expect the sip form.
>
>In principle, the domain portion of the sip URI *should* denote the 
>domain which hosts that particular number. But often these are 
>constructed using whatever domain is convenient, usually that of the 
>caller's service provider. Further explanation of that is a longer story 
>than I want to type here.
>
>Of course callers will typically not want to type that full sip URI, or 
>the tel URI, or even the E.164 number. They will usually type something 
>shorter that is unambiguous in the context of the caller. In that case 
>*something* will probably need to expand it into the E.164 form. 
>Sometimes the calling device can do that.
>
>Other times a server acting on behalf of the caller may do it. In that 
>case the string of digits that were dialed need to be conveyed to the 
>server that will do the translation, by encoding them as a URI. For 
>instance, perhaps the caller dialed "2125551212". The best sanctioned 
>way of representing that is:
>
>sip:[email protected];user=dialstring
>
>But often it may simply be sent as:
>
>sip:[email protected]
>
>or
>
>sip:[email protected];user=phone
>
>(The last, with user=phone, is *incorrect* but still sometimes used.)
>
>In all these cases, the call will presumably be routed to a server for 
>example.com. It then may handle it directly if it is responsible for 
>that number. Or it may translate to an E.164 number and route it to 
>another server in a different domain. The detailed routing of phone 
>numbers is complex, so I won't discuss it here.
>
>Business systems, with internal extensions may use variations on these 
>approaches.
>
>Good Luck,
>Paul
>
>
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors

Reply via email to