From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> That, treating anything that smells like an E.164 like an E.164, may well be common practice. But it seems to me a) it is a practice which is inherently misleading and error prone b) it is a practice we can not sensibly design for / around. c) It is not the working group's problem to repair security flaws introduced by such behavior. It is the vendor's problem.
I agree with you strongly. If one wants to specify an E.164 number, one should use a tel: URI (with the right qualifiers). In a Sip: URI, one can only map an E.164-like user-part into an E.164 number if one knows that the policy of the specified domain is to do so. It does sound like many systems make broader assumptions. We may want to introduce the concept of using tel: URIs in SIP systems, by which the UA delegates the proxy to choose the "best way" to get to the specified E.164 destination. Dale _______________________________________________ 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
