Subject: Re: [Sipping] RE: Comments on draft-johnston-sipping-p2p-ipcom-01.txt

From: Arjun Roychowdhury <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 12:12:05 -0400

On Apr 7, 2005 11:59 AM, Michael Hammer (mhammer) <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 2) Include a parameter in the INVITE that conveys the mailto, whose
> value may not match the contact sip:user@domain.

It could be in an INVITE for the caller to indicate alternate URIs or
in responses from the callee to indicate alternate URIs. And this
scheme should be valid for any URI format (mailto: im: pres: etc )

regds
arjun

-- 
Arjun Roychowdhury

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP

---

From: "Michael Hammer \(mhammer\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 11:59:40 -0400

Juha,

The issue that was raised was whether one can assume from the single SIP
address in the Contact header, that the same user@domain can be used as
if a mailto:user@domain had been conveyed in the INVITE.

My understanding of the current state of address assignments was that
this was not guaranteed.

Two options suggested were:
1) Make a rule that if SIP address exists, then the mailto address MUST
also exist.
2) Include a parameter in the INVITE that conveys the mailto, whose
value may not match the contact sip:user@domain.

To me, 1) is implicit, 2) is explicit.  Was there a 3rd option that I
missed?

Mike

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Juha Heinanen [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 11:51 PM
>To: Michael Hammer (mhammer)
>Cc: Eunsoo Shim; Arjun Roychowdhury; sipping; Henning Schulzrinne
>Subject: RE: [Sipping] RE: Comments on 
>draft-johnston-sipping-p2p-ipcom-01.txt
>
>Michael Hammer \(mhammer\) writes:
>
> > Better to have an explicit email contact provided than play 
>guessing  > games.
>
>i don't like any guessing games either.  here is my requirement:
>
>- IF i have an email address mailto:user@domain, i MUST be able to be
>  reached (if i so wish and want to set it up) also using uri
>  sip:user@domain no matter if domain provides sip service or not.
>
>-- juha
>

---

From: Juha Heinanen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 08:22:53 +0300

> To me, 1) is implicit, 2) is explicit.  Was there a 3rd option that I

well, i don't know if you missed anything from your list, but my point
was that a user MUST (if user so wishes) be able to participate in p2p
sip network using his/her existing email address as his/her sip uri
(just by replacing mailto: with sip:) rather than being required to get
a NEW identity for sip purpose.

-- juha