> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul > Kyzivat > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 4:07 PM > > Joel M. Halpern wrote: > > Case 1 - No ;user=phone option > > In the absence of a ;user=phone option, the user part of the SIP URI > > should be considered an opaque string. It should not be considered an > > E.164 number, even if it is formatted as a telephone subscriber number. > > I can legitimately use [EMAIL PROTECTED] as a SIP URI. And > > if the whitehouse.com deliberate confusion is still active, they could > > use [EMAIL PROTECTED] as a SIP URI. > > It is reported that some SIP devices will display the phone number > > without the domain for such URIs. That is a UI error, not a protocol > > error. The protocol can not make the UI do the right thing. > > I agree with you. But common practice is otherwise.
Definitely. If the user part even smells like an e164, it's treated as one by a lot of folks. :( -hadriel _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list http://www.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
