RE: [Iptel] The 'npdi' parameter

Paul's answer is correct.   If a sip URI does not carry the phone number
(e.g., sip:jacksmith@spA.com), npdi is meaningless in the sip URI.    If
the sip URI carries the phone numbers (e.g., with user=phone), then all
the tel URI parameters including the npdi, rn and other could be
included in the user part of that sip URI.

James

-----Original Message-----
From: iptel-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iptel-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Paul Kyzivat
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 10:28 AM
To: Miguel Garcia
Cc: iptel@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Iptel] The 'npdi' parameter

Miguel,

Doesn't all the syntax that applies to tel URIs also apply to sip/sips 
URIs with user=phone? Does that have to be restated for each new 
extension to tel?

	Paul

Miguel Garcia wrote:
> Hi:
> 
> I was reading the Number Portability parameters for the Tel URI, 
> draft-ietf-iptel-tel-np-08.txt, and I have no problem with the draft 
> itself. But I was wondering if the 'npdi' parameter should be also 
> defined for SIP URIs that carry telephone numbers.
> 
> Let's assume I have a SIP UA that encodes E.164 numbers as SIP URIs, 
> perhaps with the "user=dialstring" defined in 
> draft-rosen-iptel-dialstring-02.txt. If a node does an NP translation,

> we don't have the means to indicate that the query to the NPDB has
taken 
> place. But if the E.164 number is encoded as a tel URI there is.
> 
> In my opinion this claims for the npdi parameter to be applicable to
SIP 
> URIs as well. Any thoughts?
> 
> /Miguel
> 

_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
Iptel@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel

_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
Iptel@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel