[Bug 26866] add support for requesting handles for a vCard field or URI

[bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org]

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26866

--- Comment #25 from Mikhail Zabaluev <mikhail.zabaluev at nokia.com> 2010-08-26 02:14:47 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> (In reply to comment #20)
> > What about making ENUM lookups to resolve a tel URI?
> 
> What about them, indeed...
> 
> How do these work? Is the idea that tel:+44123456789 somehow points (via ENUM)
> to sip:office at example.com, and then you call office at example.com instead?
> 
> One way to represent this would be for RequestHandles("tel:+44123456789"), and
> similar Addressing calls, to "normalize" to "sip:head-office at example.com", but
> I think that's only right if the mapping is (semi-)permanent and meant to be
> user-visible.

ENUM is built on DNS entries, so the mapping is technically permanent up to its
TTL. I could imagine someone making it work dynamically based on registration
state or other things, but I don't think it's the primary purpose.

I don't see a problem making the mapping user-visible.

> The other way to represent it would be to have the handle represent the tel
> URI, and do the ENUM lookup lazily when you actually interact with it (i.e.
> request a Channel - as an implementation detail, the CM should cache the
> mapping for a while, perhaps for the duration of the session). This would be
> correct if the contact being called is conceptually "tel:+44123456789", and the
> mapping via ENUM is considered to be an implementation detail of how we call
> it, which I think is probably more appropriate?

Good points. Maybe ResolveContactsByVCardField could be a way to demand a
network lookup if applicable, as opposed to more immediate
GetContactByVCardField, but with lazy resolution it's not imperative to have
it.

If we'd like to expose the actual URI, however, would it be appropriate to
create the channel with TargetID/TargetHandle as translated per implicit
lookup?

Another question: is it sane for EnsureChannel({ ..., TargetURI:
'tel:+77777777777' }) to have different behavior from EnsureChannel({ TargetID:
'tel:+77777777777'})? The latter is supposed to produce the same result as when
the ID is first requested as a handle, and ENUM as part of handle normalization
is probably not a good idea.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.