Subject: Re: [SIP] tel URL v. SIP URL

From: Sean Olson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 12:54:41 -0500 (CDT)

> Previously, I had thought the only germane distinction between the two was
> the absence of a host portion (and hence rules that do not allow the
> inclusion of the tel URL in headers that are used in hop-by-hop routing like
> Contact); the tacit host component of the tel URL in a Request-URI would be
> the UA at which the network (proxies using local routing tables or ENUM or
> what have you) feels this call should terminate.

I see no reason to bar tel: URIs for hop-by-hop routing. The tsp and
phone-context parameters provide sufficient context for a node that
understands the tel: URI scheme to route the message. In general, the
interpretation of a URI (sip, tel, whatever) may vary from node to node
depending on local provisioning etc. at that node. In this sense, a SIP URI
is no more or less definitive than a tel: URI.

> Jon Peterson
> Level(3) Communications

--
Sean Olson <[email-masked]>

_______________________________________________
SIP mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/sip