> -----Original Message----- > From: Francois Audet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 8:04 PM > To: Dan Wing > Cc: [email protected]; Paul Kyzivat; Juha Heinanen > Subject: RE: [Sip] E.164 - who owns it > > Well, you can still do video over PSTN with H.320. I still > view this as "telephony".
Sorry -- please pick something you cannot do over the PSTN. Instant Messaging, presence, high-quality video (HDTV), whatever. > Not sure I understand the question. Let me reword my previous email into a question: If you have a non-SIP telephony application that trunks towards the PSTN, and it is configured to process tel URIs, and it is asked to initiate a call that exceeds the capabilities of the PSTN (instant messaging, presence, HDTV-quality video, whatever you prefer) -- would it route the call towards a "SIP trunk" in order to gain the ability to set up that call, abort the call, or just ignore it all and trunk towards the PSTN? An additional question (statement, actually) is: We can't influence how that non-SIP telephony application provides for its own identity and authentication of tel URIs. (This is getting me to lean more towards my email-identity straw-man. With it, we can step out of this festering, smelly pile of trying to get E.164 working well with SIP and move to email-style SIP URIs. The IETF is capable of building an end-to-end identity/authentication solution around email-style SIP URIs; we have one (RFC4474) that works if we prohibit SBCs and B2BUAs from modifying SDP). -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
