RE: [Iptel] Is trunk group a new namespace?

Jonathan,

While I like the practical side of the proposal, two observations came to
mind:

1. It is not at all clear that contact header is limited to gateway "port"
resource. RFC3398 does not say so. The rest of the TG draft actually uses
contact to mean calling party tel-uri. I would venture to guess that most
existing ISUP gateways use contact header to indicate IAM calling party
attribute in some shape or form.

2. We now have created one precedence where a tel uri is only a tel uri in
syntax that is not intended to represent any real telephone resource. I
believe it is important that the TG draft say something on how such tel uri
can be formed in contact header. Further it must point out the possibility
that tel uri contained in contact header may not be a real tel uri.

BTW, I think it is even less likely to have calling exchange's LRN in IAM
(if I interpret your example correctly).

Regards,

Shan Lu       

>-----Original Message-----
>From: iptel-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iptel-bounces@ietf.org] 
>On Behalf Of Jonathan Rosenberg
>Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 12:11 AM
>To: shanlu@sentito.com
>Cc: iptel@ietf.org; 'Vijay K. Gurbani'
>Subject: Re: [Iptel] Is trunk group a new namespace?
>
>
>Actually, I don't see why its needed to specify any kind of 
>keyword at all.
>
>Let us remember that we are talking about the contact header field. As 
>Cullen has pointed out, it doesn't identify the originator but 
>rather a 
>port on a gateway. As such, just because there was no calling number 
>doesn't mean one could not use a tel URI to identify the gateway line. 
>Seems like something of the form:
>
>tel:<lrn>;phone-context="<provider-domain>"
>
>would suffice, in which case one could add a trunk group to this and 
>then turn it into a sip uri:
>
>sip:732766;phone-context=provider.com;tgrp=TG-1@provider.com;user=phone
>
>
>I don't think that we need to say anything about how the tel URI is 
>constructed, merely that any URI that is a reasonable 
>descriptor for the 
>gateway "port" resource itself will suffice.
>
>-Jonathan R.
>
>
>
>shanlu@sentito.com wrote:
>
>>>From: Vijay K. Gurbani <vkg@lucent.com>
>>>To: Shan Lu <shanlu@sentito.com>
>>>CC: iptel@ietf.org, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
>>>Date: Jan 21, 2005 - 3:32pm
>> 
>> 
>>>Shan Lu wrote:
>>>
>>>>Vijay,
>>>>
>>>>Is it the proposal to use the following:
>>>>
>>>>Contact:<sip:1;tgrp=2@3.4.5.6>, where DS0 number is 1 and TG is 2?
>> 
>> 
>>>Yes, something to that effect. I will flesh it out further
>>>in the rev'd I-D.
>> 
>> 
>> Wait. Doesn't this take a full circle back to our earlier 
>discussion? I
>> thought we agreed upon the need for a keyword, such as "anonymous" or
>> "teluri", no?
>> 
>> Without such a keyword, how do you inform recipient of the 
>above sip uri
>> that "tgrp" stands for "Trunk Group" and not "The Gourmet 
>Roasted Pizza"?
>> Unless you think the DS0 number is sufficient.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Shan Lu
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Iptel mailing list
>> Iptel@ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel
>> 
>
>-- 
>Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
>Director, Service Provider VoIP Architecture   Parsippany, NJ 
>07054-2711
>Cisco Systems
>jdrosen@cisco.com                              FAX:   (973) 952-5050
>http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
>http://www.cisco.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>Iptel mailing list
>Iptel@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel
>

_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
Iptel@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel