Maybe I am missing the context here, but I thought that there was also a valid us case for separating the routing from the prioritization-
Citizen dials 911, and call is routed to PSAP. PSAP operator then makes a call to the local hospital, related to this incident. This call is entitled to the same level of priority as the call to the PSAP, but is not routed to the PSAP. Janet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/21/2008 11:07:47 AM: > From: "James M. Polk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > I believe the To: field is always supposed to be urn:service:sos, > > regardless of the choice in how to do this. I don't know if this > > helps the point you're making... > > > >I don't think people expect the To field to control either the routing > >or the prioritization, so I was being lazy about its value. > > fair - but this could be something to check against in most cases, right? > > It would guard against error, but not fraud. The problem is that > Jonathan's observation is correct: To prevent fraud, prioritization > must be controlled by the same datum that controls routing. > > Dale > _______________________________________________ > 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
_______________________________________________ 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
