Jon, At the microphone I believe you were referring to section 11 of RFC4474. The first paragraph is relevant to today's discussion in SIP and I highlighted a specific sentence. The highlighted sentence does not consider session border controllers which, on today's deployments, _are_ the majority of cases (majority of call minutes and the majority of phone calls):
11. Identity and the TEL URI Scheme Since many SIP applications provide a Voice over IP (VoIP) service, telephone numbers are commonly used as identities in SIP deployments. In the majority of cases, this is not problematic for the identity ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ mechanism described in this document. Telephone numbers commonly ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ appear in the username portion of a SIP URI (e.g., 'sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];user=phone'). That username conforms to the syntax of the TEL URI scheme (RFC 3966 [13]). For this sort of SIP address-of-record, chicago.example.com is the appropriate signatory. The rest of the section is available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4474#section-11 but discusses only the TEL URI (which has no domain name). We will need more text in Jason's document to discuss this in more detail. -d _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
