As far as I know, both true E.164 and those that "look like" E.164 are being changed, as well as NANP/local-exchange format, emergency code, and some cellular-specific number formats, etc. To be honest I really believe a lot of these truly are E.164 or non-local-scope numbers in nature/meaning, and just aren't using the exact format one would want. In other words it's as Paul says "do what I mean, not what I say".
Really some of the rules are pretty simplistic, including even just change it regardless of username format. But I would consider those just bad and need to be corrected, and will if email-style URI's start showing up. Really though I don't think there's much/any email-style URIs crossing provider borders. (inside Enterprises or within a provider may be, but that doesn't need rfc4474) Or maybe it's just my particular customers, or my kind of customers. I dunno. I find everyone on the IETF list has a different view of SIP, because they represent different users/markets. -hadriel > -----Original Message----- > From: Elwell, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 6:39 AM > To: Hadriel Kaplan; IETF SIP List > Subject: RE: [Sip] New I-D on why From/To-URIs are changed at provider > borders > > Hadriel, > > Thanks for this draft. One comments: > > When talking about changing the host part of SIP URIs, are you referring > just to SIP URIs containing an E.164 number in telephone-subscriber > format (e.g.: [EMAIL PROTECTED];user=phone)? Or are you also > talking about other forms of URI that look like E.164 number (e.g., > [EMAIL PROTECTED])? Presumably you are not talking about email > style URIs. > > John > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Hadriel Kaplan > > Sent: 18 February 2008 20:20 > > To: IETF SIP List > > Subject: [Sip] New I-D on why From/To-URIs are changed at > > provider borders > > > > As part of an off-line discussion regarding Kai Fischer's > > draft on e2e-security-media and whether his From-URI copying > > tactic would succeed or not at a policy level, if rfc4474 > > fails to do so, I gave my 2 cents on what some providers had > > been telling me. Dan asked me to write up a draft on it, in > > case people are interested. This is the draft: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kaplan-sip-uris-chan > > ge-00.txt > > > > -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 > > _______________________________________________ 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
