Hey Paul, Inline... > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 11:33 PM > > What you are describing is a "do what I mean" system rather than a "do > what I say" system.
Yes, but I should have been clearer - I'm not advocating we try to standardize it or some such. It just is the reality. So we can just continue assuming user=phone and such make it an e164, for the purpose of the identity mechanism for e614 (whatever the mechanism is). Those who treat other things as e164 will just apply the same rules to them. We may just need a "I signed this as e164" flag if the identity mechanism is different than for non-e164, or some such concept. > It of course then enhances the belief that peering arrangements must be > bilateral, because you need to negotiate the mapping of dial strings. > (And if your business is managing these boundaries then this may be a > good thing.) Actually, that is very much NOT in the best interest of those managing such things. Any configuration whatsoever slows down peering bring-up time, and that does not help sell more border boxes. It is in the best interest of border-box vendors to make it as plug-play/standard as possible. (and I don't think peering is bilateral because of dial-string formats, but that's getting off-topic) > But a system where everyone uses E.164 numbers, and where they *say* > they are E.164 numbers, would simplify a lot of that. Yeah, no disagreement there. -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
