On Jun 25, 2008, at 2:24 AM, Elwell, John wrote:
[JRE] It also suffers an additional limitation to do with E.164
numbers.
So I would prefer to say:
"RFC 4474 suffers additional limitations relating to its use with E.
164
numbers and with gateways, session border controllers, and back-to-
back
user agents."
Does it really have issues with E,164 numbers, or only when they are
used through gateways? For example, I thought we had agreed that if
the ENUM entry for an E.164 points to a domain including an
authentication service, then that AS could reasonably issue Identity
headers on that phone number.
[JRE] One thing we have talked about in the past has been an
additional
parameter in a SIP URI. I am not saying we definitely need to do this,
but I would not want to close the door on this if the group
concludes it
would be a good thing. Another possible deliverable might a some
sort of
BCP to do with E.164 numbers in SIP URIs.
That is indeed one of the proposals for alerting an RFC4474 consumer
to the fact that the identity assertion is "weak" because it came from
the PSTN.
General guidance on E.164s in URIs might be a reasonable thing to do.
--
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
