Francois, Did you mean "appropriate" or "inappropriate" below?
Up until that message, I liked what Francois and Paul have been saying concerning using just publishing TEL and email-style SIP URIs. It seems that E.164-based SIP URIs will still be used as aliases for email style, essentially because when somebody dials a telephone number, ENUM look-up on the TEL URI will yield an E.164-based SIP URI, and onward routing will be on that basis. But that is no reason for publishing an E.164-based SIP URI on your web site or business card. Also for many purposes the email-style should be sufficient in From, although it might cause a problem when delivered to a PSTN gateway or a device that can only display a telephone number. We can, however, also deliver a TEL URI in P-Asserted-Identity, which would solve that problem. In this way, RFC 4474 (or whatever we end up with to get around the problem of SBCs altering SDP) will never need to sign an E.164-based URI. A PSTN gateway would put an email-style SIP URI in From, identifying the gateway rather than the party on the PSTN, and the RFC 4474 signature will be sufficient for DTLS-SRTP purposes (since DTLS-SRTP is only as far as the gateway). John > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Francois Audet > Sent: 10 April 2008 19:13 > To: Paul Kyzivat > Cc: [email protected]; Dan Wing > Subject: Re: [Sip] E.164 - who owns it > > Yeah, I'd say putting sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];user=phone in From > (or anything "on-the-wire") is very appropriate. > > I don't think we are disagreeing actually. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 11:05 > > To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055) > > Cc: Dan Wing; [email protected]; Juha Heinanen > > Subject: Re: [Sip] E.164 - who owns it > > > > > > > > Francois Audet wrote: > > > > > >>> Agreed. > > >>> > > >>> Cutting to the chase, I'd put the following on my business card: > > >>> > > >>> tel: +1-408-495-2456 > > >>> sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> Interestingly, that doesn't indicate that you are > > reachable via sip > > >> using the numeric address. > > > > > > Yes, I did that on purpose. I don't see a point in doing it. > > > > > >> A sip caller given the tel might figure that out, but > > might not. If > > >> you had user enum, and the caller used it, then all is > > well. But if > > >> not, and if the caller just blasts the tel uri to his SP, it may > > >> figure it out, and may not. > > >> > > >> You are going to ask why the caller would use the tel > form in that > > >> case. > > >> One reason would be because the UI of the device only supports > > >> numeric input. > > > > > > So, a SIP user (or anybody young enough to prefer IM > > paradigm to phone > > > paradigm) will use sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > The old luddites with a PSTN-looking phone will keep on > > dialing digits > > > on their phone. That's where the Tel URI is useful. > > > > > > The niche market for > sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];user=phone is very > > > small. Beyond people on this mailing list, I really don't see who > > > would care. I really believe that practically speaking, > > > sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];user=phone > > > is meant to be used "on-the wire" as opposed to by users. > > > > > > sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~= http://www.att.com > > > sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];user=phone ~= > > > http://www.att.com/gen/landing-pages?pid=3308 > > > > > > I think we are rat-holing on imaginary issues. > > > > Perhaps. The above is a bit esoteric. A more realisic issue > > is what to put in From, where at the moment you can't put > > multiple choices. So I have to choose whether to cater to the > > luddites or the young. (I'm not young, but I don't think I'm > > *quite* a luddite. Just saddled with a lot of legacy stuff I > > don't have the option of changing or am too cheap to change. > > (I *am* cheap.)) > > > > At least with P-A-I you can put both a sip and a tel. The > > alternative being explored on this list of including both in > > normal sip signaling would solve that. > > > > Paul > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
