Re: [Enum] RE: [Geopriv] Re: [Simple] tel URIs in common policy

["Tom-PT Taylor" <taylor at nortel.com>]

You make a good point, that inclusion of a number in an address does not 
equate to ownership.  Effectively, the same telephone number (an 
identifier) is potentially reachable through many addresses (i.e., many 
gateway-operating domains) if it is in the PSTN.  ENUM has chosen to add 
the concept of "ownership" to narrow down the range of possibilities ... 
and has thereby embroiled itself in politics.

Stastny Richard wrote:
> Jonathan wrote: 
>
> > > we need here sip:+1-232-555-1234 at foo.com;user=phone with
> > > the same number to indicate the foo.com domain of the carrier
> > > This is basically the essential information
> >
> > Right, and this is an address.
>
>
> Ok, let's say it is an address (in IETF terminology)
>
> Just for avoidance of doubt:
> A construct like sip:+1-232-555-1234 at foo.com;user=phone
> does NOT indicate that foo.com is necessarily the 
> carrier-of-record hosting the E.164 number. Therefor
> your next statement does not hold for the to-field
> (it may be true for the from field)
>  
>
> > > > Given this, the meaning of sip:<phone-number>@domain;user=phone
>
> means
>
> > > > that the domain is asserting ownership of the identity in the user
>
> part,
>
> > > > in this case a global phone number. As such, its appropriate to use
>
> this
>
> > > > form only when it is authoritatively known that the domain in
>
> question
>
> > > > "owns" that phone number.
>
>
> Examples: this URI may be used to send a request from a UA to his proxy
> in which case foo.com in most case does not have the ownership,
> it is just indicating the digit dialled.
> It is also used to send an invite to a gateway to the PSTN,
> etc.
...


_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum