Also PPI is not end-to-end - it is intended only to go as far as the first proxy, where it is moved to PAI or discarded.
John > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Wing [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 05 April 2008 18:01 > To: 'Juha Heinanen' > Cc: [email protected]; Elwell, John > Subject: RE: [Sip] Migration from E.164 to email-style SIP URIs > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Juha Heinanen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 7:48 AM > > To: Dan Wing > > Cc: [email protected]; 'Elwell, John' > > Subject: Re: [Sip] Migration from E.164 to email-style SIP URIs > > > > Dan Wing writes: > > > > > On an outgoing request containing an e164-style URI in the From: > > > (or PAI, as you prefer), the domain additionally places > the user's > > > email-style URI into a new header (let's call it > "email-identity"). > > > It determines the mapping between a user's E.164 URI and > email URI > > > using a flat database (example: +14085551234 -> [EMAIL PROTECTED]). > > > > my proxy is currently is using P-Preferred-Identity header for that > > purpose. why is a new header needed? > > The header, containing the email-style URI, needs to be signed. > > I do not care if it is a new header or not, but I see value in not > overloading a header with an already-defined semantic (such as > P-Preferred-Identity). But this is a detail. > > -d > > _______________________________________________ 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
