[SIPForum-discussion] SIP doubt: Is port supported/required in Tel-URI(RFC3966)?

[ajay bukan]

Hello,

Generally Tel-URI is a number example

tel:+1-201-555-0123
tel:7042;phone-context=example.com
tel:863-1234;phone-context=+1-914-555

I don't see any specific use of port in number. Generally port is with
along host where host is listening on the specified port

Also cross check the ABNF grammar of Tel-URI i don't see any port related
part directly

check if SBC's behavior is proper for altering Tel-URI or is this only for
SIP URI and you implementation modifying it for all the URI

Regards
Ajay

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:15 AM, Hector Macias Serrato <
rock_is_notdead at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hello everybody,
>
> We're looking at an scenario involving an SBC and apparently it has a
> built-in header manipulation that apparently is modifying the Tel-URI in a
> way that even when the port is not present in there, the sbc adds it to the
> Tel-URI and it has been reported that calls are not being succesful.
>
> What I would ask you guys is if the SBC is doing wrong when it adds the
> port to the URI even when is not present in the original message (I've
> searched the RFC 3966 and I've not found anything regarding ports so far),
> or all the URIs are meant to have a port defined and the application is
> failing and the sbc is just working as it's supposed to.
>
> Pls let me know any doubt about this inquiry,
>
> Many thanx in advance!!
>
> RGDS!
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the SIP Forum discussion mailing list
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE, or edit your delivery options, please visit
> http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
> Post to the list at discussion at sipforum.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20150217/e5b8e705/attachment-0002.html>