On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Robert Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hello >> >> The p-asserted Identity patch is confusing freeswitch it >> seems and this is having a negative impact on interop >> testing. Moreover, it does not support the header in the way >> ITSPs want. >> >> What ITSPs want is - if the From header is [EMAIL PROTECTED], >> the p-asserted-identity header should contain the specific >> caller-id that they want to see (normally placed in the from >> header and present in the Dial plan). Otherwise, the >> signaling should not contain such a header. This is not what >> the p-asserted-id change currently does. May I suggest a >> revision of this feature to work as above. >> > > According to the specs, PAI can co-exist with non-anonymous From headers
You are right. I corrected my mistake in my followup post. > and turning From headers to [EMAIL PROTECTED] whenever a PAI is added by > sipXproxy could create another set of problems. My thought is that if > we know of ITSPs that have special needs when PAI is present then the > best place to address these ITSP-specific needs is in the sipXbridge > itself as it is its main function. PAI must be added for [EMAIL PROTECTED] but it it is not necessary otherwise. Of course, it can simply be ALWAYS added. It must contain the caller id in all cases. Ranga > -- M. Ranganathan _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
