> RFC 3261 tells in 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." > > > > As far as i understand it doesn't say that user=phone MUST NOT be > present if user-uri isn't a phone number. It only distinguishes > user-names from phone-numbers which look like phone-numbers if the > parameter isn't present. > > Am I wrong?
In my opinion, it is incorrect to add user=phone when the user portion is not present or cannot be decoded as a telephone-subscriber. However since RFC 3261 isn't explicit and sipcore doesn't want to resolve the topic, interoperability issues concerning topic remain. The following are a few email threads concerning the topic. https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/sip-implementors/2010-January/0240 20.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore/current/msg01783.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/martini/current/msg01262.html > I have this case and the UAS doesn't respond anything - even not > a 400 Bad Request. > > By the way, is it okay not to send any response in such a case? They likely interpret the situation as though the request was malformed and the 400 response would also be malformed. For interoperability reasons, I recommend that the server tolerate the situation and that the client's vendor recognize that sending such a request may cause interoperability issues. _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
