Re: Number Portability, TEL URI and E.164-based SIP URI

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan <at> acmepacket.com> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: sip-implementors-bounces <at> lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:sip-
>> implementors-bounces <at> lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Victor Pascual
>> Ávila
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan <at> acmepacket.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Virtually every network I know of which uses npdi, rn, and cic, use them
>> as uri-user params in a SIP URI. (i.e., your first example)
>>
>> Well, while unknown uri parameters should be ignored there are good
>> chances that one network element will strip them. OTOH, uri-user
>> parameters are likely to be untouched but it's not clear to me how
>> many parsers support uri-user parameters properly.
>
> More than could handle a TEL URI, I would venture. :)
>
> -hadriel
>

Any idea why this (uri-user parameters) was left out from RFC 4694? I
did not follow that discussion but AFAIK this was originally included
in the earlier versions of the draft.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yu-sip-np-02

Thanks,
--

-- 
Victor Pascual Ávila

_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors <at> lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors