On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Scott Lawrence<[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 09:12 -0400, M. Ranganathan wrote: >> This question relates to which header to use for user identification >> in sipxbridge calls originating from sipx and directed to the ITSP - >> specifically P-Asserted-Identity vs. P-Preferred-Identity. >> >> P-A-I is supposed to be used inside the trust domain ( i.e. the way in >> which sipx uses that today) >> and P-P-I is supposed to be used outside the trust domain. >> >> Sipconnect only talks about P-Asserted-Identity and >> hence thats what sipxbridge uses. I am wondering if >> sipxbridge is considered to be within the trust domain of the ITSP once >> it has successfully Registered - i.e. is it really correct to be using >> P-A-I and not P-P-I. >> >> >> I could test a few ITSP with the P-P-I header instead of P-A-I to see if that >> could cause any unexpected problems. >> >> This issue should probably be brought to the attention of the >> sipconnect forum for clarification. > > Aside from any theoretical considerations, is there any practical reason > to open the can and find out if there are worms in it?
Well, I suppose its a living :-) OK I will stay away from the can. > > We appear to have a solution that's working - don't fix it. > > > -- 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 sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/
