[Sip] RFC4474 and E.164

Jon,

At the microphone I believe you were referring to section 11 of RFC4474.  The
first paragraph is relevant to today's discussion in SIP and I highlighted a
specific sentence.  The highlighted sentence does not consider session border
controllers which, on today's deployments, _are_ the majority of cases
(majority of call minutes and the majority of phone calls):

   11.  Identity and the TEL URI Scheme

   Since many SIP applications provide a Voice over IP (VoIP) service,
   telephone numbers are commonly used as identities in SIP deployments.
   In the majority of cases, this is not problematic for the identity
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   mechanism described in this document.  Telephone numbers commonly
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   appear in the username portion of a SIP URI (e.g.,
   'sip:+17005551008@chicago.example.com;user=phone').  That username
   conforms to the syntax of the TEL URI scheme (RFC 3966 [13]).  For
   this sort of SIP address-of-record, chicago.example.com is the
   appropriate signatory.

The rest of the section is available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4474#section-11
but discusses only the TEL URI (which has no domain name).

We will need more text in Jason's document to discuss this in more detail.

-d

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip