Oh you want current. :) No I got nothing. On Tuesday, August 17, 2010, Michael Jerris <mike@jerris.com> wrote:
Expiration 5/31/01 An actual RFC as opposed to a 10 year old now expired draft? Mike On Aug 17, 2010, at 2:25 PM, SP wrote: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sip-privacy-00
5.2 Anonymity Header Field Definition blah blah blah..."If privacy is requested, it MUST be one or more of "full", "uri", "name", or "ipaddr"."
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 17:52, Michael Jerris <mike@jerris.com> wrote: is there a specification which defines this "uri" value?
Mike
On Jul 22, 2010, at 2:36 PM, Sergey Okhapkin wrote:
FS doesn't recognize "uri" value of privacy tag, the recognized values are "yes", "full", "name" and "number". Any other value is interpreted as "off". See sofia.c, lines around 6660.
On Thursday 22 July 2010, mike.burlingame wrote: Ok so I am still kinda lost in trying to figure this one out here are the two headers that I am looking at - basically someone sends an invite to FS that ask's FS via RPID to hide the caller id info from downstream gateways so the A-LEG is the invite going to FS - FS takes the invite and spits out the B-LEG to go downstream HOWEVER FS does not copy the parameters correctly as you can see in the initial invite A-LEG requested in the RPID to be privacy=uri however on the B-LEG side FS set the RPID to privacy=off in turn telling gateways downstream to display the CID info.
A-LEG Remote-Party-ID: <sip:NUMBER@DOMAIN>;party=calling;screen=yes;privacy=uri
B-LEG Remote-Party-ID: "NAME" <sip:NUMBER@IPADDRESS>;party=calling;screen=yes;privacy=off
On Jul 22, 2010, at 09:35 AM, Michael Collins <msc@freeswitch.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 4:18 PM, mike.burlingame <
-- Shannon