Adam,
I understand your point. But there are a lot of people who seem to think
it is fine to take any user part that looks vaguely line a phone number
and treat it as such.
It was my take that Mr(Ms) +11234567890 specifically feels that way.
My understanding is still that even
"sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];user=phone" and
"sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];user=phone" are *different* and should be
announced as such. Certainly the routing rules are different for
reaching the two of them, and that can be significant.
IMO if you want an address that can be displayed simply as a phone
number, then you should use a TEL for it.
Paul
Adam Roach wrote:
> On 3/12/08 9:48 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>> Yet, if I normally get calls from:
>>
>> sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> and then later get a call from
>>
>> sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> then many people seem to think that only the number should be displayed.
>>
>>
>
> Actually, I think there is a subtle but critical correction to be made
> here. If I understand correctly, people want the two identifiers you
> cite to be considered different, and believe that the domain should be
> displayed.
>
> However, if you change your example to
> "sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];user=phone" and
> "sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];user=phone", then I suspect your statement
> stands. And I'm not sure that treating these as the same entity is wrong
> -- there's an indication that the user portion is formatted in a
> specific, well-defined way that other parties are expected to be able to
> interpret according to well-defined rules (RFC 3966). Without
> "user=phone", that's not true.
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://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
