On Apr 15, 2008, at 9:02 AM, Juha Heinanen wrote: > Francois Audet writes: > >> For the type of feature you are looking at, I think a Tel URI makes >> more >> sense. I'm just pointing out with the current state of SIP phones, it >> probably won't work. > > you are starting a new trend here. usually this wg has not worried > what > people have actually implemented. instead it has kept on producing > countless rfc that are completely ignored by vendors. > > you have to face it that the only way to fix the 302 problem is to > make > tel uris mandatory. if there is a list of fixes to rfc3261 somewhere, > please add it there.
I'm initially attempted to agree. But do we need tel: URI support in a node that perhaps just does IM? That just does presence? Perhaps we do, if we see tel: routing and locating as becoming critical tools for the internet. Personally, I'm not sure this was what we had in mind when thinking about the locator/identifier issue. -- Dean _______________________________________________ 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
