Ernst, In a separate message on this list earlier today I suggested email-style along with TEL URIs. The latter would be used when interworking with PSTN and would allow number portability to be achieved.
Also, for enterprises email-style still gives number portability - an enterprise would keep its domain name even when changing the SIP carrier. Admittedly that model doesn't work for an individual user that relies on the carrier's domain. John > -----Original Message----- > From: Horvath, Ernst > Sent: 20 February 2008 10:53 > To: Elwell, John; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Henry Sinnreich > Cc: IETF SIP List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Richard Shockey > Subject: RE: [Sip] Infrastructure issues involving e164 numbers > > John, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Elwell, John > > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 11:13 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Henry Sinnreich > > Cc: IETF SIP List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Richard Shockey > > Subject: Re: [Sip] Infrastructure issues involving e164 numbers > > > > Hannes, > > > > I know the questions were directed at Henry. However, if I may > > intervene: > > > >[...] > > > > Let's concentrate on the end-to-end SIP case and provide a > > good security > > solution for that. One possibility might be to use > > email-style URIs for > > that. > > Unfortunately email-style URIs make identity portability > harder. Number portability is a regulatory requirement in > many countries and solved for E.164 numbers. I can imagine > that regulators might require an equivalent feature from SIP > providers. > > Ernst > > > > > John > > > > > > _______________________________________________ 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
