Re: [Sip] Thoughts on gateways, user=phone, and the Identity/DTLS-SRTP problem

[Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan at acmepacket.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:pkyzivat at cisco.com]
>
> But I do think one ought to attempt to honor the intent of the provider
> of the URI. IMO 3263 is pretty clear about how a sip uri is to be routed.

Yes, but I'm not clear which part of 3263 *isn't* being honored.  You set your req-uri to sip:123456789 at example.com, it reaches example.com, example.com says "hmm, not one of my users, I'll consider this a telephone number, and try the SIP-trunk or PSTN or whatever".  It reached the intended sip target domain (example.com).


> [snipped stuff]
> I'm not getting your point. Return routing will be based on a different
> URI provided by the other party. All this discussion applies to that as
> well. Whether reverse routing is possible is irrelevant here.

Dean had said we would need to get "phones" to NOT use "user=phone", while GW's do - both using a sip: From.  I had thought you were saying a sip scheme demands a SIP path be used.  So my point was that just because I can get a SIP request to sip:pkyzivat at cisco.com, with a signed From of sip:123456789 at acmepacket.com, and you store that in your address book, does not mean you can then 2 days later get a request to sip:123456789 at acmepacket.com to stay SIP to me.  It does not mean I wanted to only be reachable by SIP, and it does not mean *you* (the human) only want to reach me via SIP when you send it.  That's all - just reiterating the same as before really.  Nothing to see here, move along... :)

-hadriel
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip