> If we have user=phone in SIP RURI for a Re-Invite, > is it mandatory that DN must be provided in SIP RURI?
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. For information, see the following thread. https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/sip-implementors/2013-February/028941.html Concerning mid-dialog requests, the UA has little control over the contents of the request-uri since it is populated per received Contact or Record-Route entry. Because of the sip-uri equality impacts within responses or mid-dialog requests, I do not recommend the UA "fix" the user=phone setting per their own interpretation. Concerning the examples that you sent, your email client is likely corrupting them. Thus I have no comment upon them specifically. _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
