[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       sip-implementors
Subject:    RE: [Sip-implementors] Fw: Via header
From:       "Gaurav Kheterpal" <gaurav.kheterpal () conexant ! com>
Date:       2005-08-26 13:35:14
Message-ID: 4D6E93075B31154298572E6B73CA849D01E5496C () noida-mail ! bbnet ! ad
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi,

Q: Can Req URI & To header have different Req URI format,(sip: / tel:)

> > It is syntactically legal to have different URI schemes in Request
URI and To URI. However, I am not sure what you are trying to achieve
with that. Anyway, the syntax of TEL URI in your INVITE is quiet weird
and completely in violation of the RFC. As per RFC 3966, a TEL URI is
represented in format:

telephone-uri        = "tel:" telephone-subscriber
telephone-subscriber = global-number / local-number
global-number        = global-number-digits *par
local-number         = local-number-digits *par context *par
par                  = parameter / extension / isdn-subaddress
context              = ";phone-context=" descriptor
descriptor           = domainname / global-number-digits

The convention user@host:port is not valid for TEL URI. If you need to
specify the domain, you need to put it as:

tel:+2432291234;phone-context=".....com"

Normally, the Request URI and TO URI can be in <tel:> format. It is
generally the FROM field which is not associated with a TEL URI due to
issues like lack of authentication for TEL URI scheme on the outbound
proxy server.

Q.If  Req URI supports Tel: Scheme & From  header are in SIP: URI scheme
like above dump,what is expected behaviour

> > With your INVITE, you will be getting a 400 Bad Request in the
parsing of Request URI itself irrespective of the URI scheme of TO and
FROM headers.

I hope this helps.

my 2 cents,

Gaurav


-----Original Message-----




********************** Legal Disclaimer ****************************
"This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the \
intended recipient.  Any unauthorized review, use or distribution by others is \
strictly prohibited.  If you have received the message in error, please advise the \
                sender by reply email and delete the message. Thank you."
**********************************************************************

From: sip-implementors-bounces@cs.columbia.edu
[mailto:sip-implementors-bounces@cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Sambit
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 5:31 PM
To: SIP Implementors; sip-implementors-bounces@cs.columbia.edu
Cc: SIP Implementors; sip-implementors-bounces@cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Fw: Via header

Hi All

INVITE tel:+2432291234@10.106.5.14:5060 SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 10.106.5.211:5060;branch=z9hG4bK710281
Max-Forwards: 70
From: 1432291234 <sip:1432291234@10.106.5.211:5060>;tag=710281
To: 2432291234 <tel:+2432291234@10.106.5.14:5060>
Call-ID: 710281@10.106.5.211
CSeq: 1 INVITE
Contact: sip:1432291234@10.106.5.211:5060;user=phone
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Length: 112

v=0
o=Sambit 710281 710281 IN IP4 10.106.5.211
s=Session SDP
c=IN IP4 10.106.5.211
t=0 0
m=audio 7000 RTP/AVP 0

Above dump for INVITE with Tel URL is correct ?

 Can Anybody give correct dumps for   INVITE with tel URL.

Q: Can Req URI & To  header have different Req URI format,(sip: / tel:)

 Q.If  Req URI supports Tel: Scheme & From  header are in SIP: URI
scheme
like above dump,what is expected behaviour

thanx in advance
Sambit


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]