As far as I know, RFC 3840 and RFC 3841 do not provide any guidance concerning the meaning of user=phone within sip-uri.
However, the user=phone topic was raised while working on draft-ietf-martini-gin since some wanted to allow user=phone when no userinfo. The conclusion was to not fix the RFC 3261 user=phone ambiguity; however RFC 6140 section 5.3 does prevent adding the user parameter when including parameter "bnc". > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Coffee [mailto:mcof...@commetrex.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 8:51 AM > To: Brett Tate > Cc: Suraj Singh; sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Query regarding user=phone in SIP RURI > > RFC3840 and 3841 may provide some guidance. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brett Tate" <br...@broadsoft.com> > To: "Suraj Singh" <surajkrsi...@gmail.com>, sip- > implement...@lists.cs.columbia.edu > Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 6:27:36 AM > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Query regarding user=phone in SIP RURI > > > 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
