Re: [Iptel] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc
"Sumit Garg" <sgarg@cedarpointcom.com> Fri, 28 March 2008 13:15 UTC
Return-Path: <iptel-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-iptel-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-iptel-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A873C28C92A; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 06:15:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -97.867
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.867 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.032, BAYES_50=0.001, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_MOSTLY=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qf2GGbQCQdmG; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 06:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB65A28C950; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 06:14:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: iptel@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iptel@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D00D728C93F; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 06:14:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tl7O7ZX86N+V; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 06:14:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MAILSRV01.cedarpointcom.com (mail.cedarpointcom.com [67.151.79.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19D7328C25F; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 06:12:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MAIL02.cedarpointcom.com ([192.168.1.222]) by MAILSRV01.cedarpointcom.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:12:42 -0400
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:12:43 -0400
Message-ID: <59184B4E920E854DA8ACF8E44917D49F0212F59B@MAIL02.cedarpointcom.com>
In-Reply-To: <59184B4E920E854DA8ACF8E44917D49F0212F250@MAIL02.cedarpointcom.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: RE:draft-mahy-iptel-cpc
Thread-Index: AciP4AyvKryZizHZQY6C6ocMt54MXQAIlJywAAK4S+AAMbwRkA==
References: <45AEC6EF95942140888406588E1A6602043FCC34@PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com><28F05913385EAC43AF019413F674A0171246ED1D@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com> <59184B4E920E854DA8ACF8E44917D49F0212F250@MAIL02.cedarpointcom.com>
From: Sumit Garg <sgarg@cedarpointcom.com>
To: iptel@ietf.org, sipping@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Mar 2008 13:12:42.0814 (UTC) FILETIME=[680C75E0:01C890D5]
Subject: Re: [Iptel] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc
X-BeenThere: iptel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Telephony <iptel.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel>, <mailto:iptel-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/iptel>
List-Post: <mailto:iptel@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iptel-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel>, <mailto:iptel-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0816896420=="
Sender: iptel-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: iptel-bounces@ietf.org
I was surprised by the lack of responses. This is a real need as I believe intermediate exchanges could need special processing for calls from Prison etc. The reason I proposed using P-A-I as opposed to From header in the draft was: In case of anonymous calls, the From header is generally of the form anonymous@....... A derived tel-Uri with cpc would look like anonymous;cpc=payphone This violates the tel-URI syntax. P-Asserted-Id covers this scenario as well. If there is a defined standard mechanism for this requirement, could somebody please point me to the same? -Sumit "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- George Bernard Shaw From: iptel-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iptel-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sumit Garg Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 9:47 AM To: iptel@ietf.org; sipping@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Iptel] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Over a period of time I have seen various efforts in that direction which eventually get dropped...to list a few: draft-schubert-sipping-saml-cpc-02.txt (Expired: jan 2007) draft-mahy-iptel-cpc-06.txt (Expired:Sep 2007) draft-ietf-sip-privacy-04.txt , Appendix A (Expired: 2002) draft-rocky-sipping-calling-party-category-01.txt (Expired : 2006) I've also seen implementation using parameters like isup-oli for which I could not even find a draft. Based on this I believe conveying CPC/OLI in SIP is a real requirement. Maybe for pure SIP scenario it could be done with caller-preferences, but not in interworking scenarios. From what I understand: 1. CPC in ISUP could be desired by the terminating exchange, however, the scope of the OLI is only 1 call-leg and could be different from CPC as it is more closely tied to the billing number. 3. CPC is ISUP only, OLI could be over MF also. I don't really care what the tag-name in use is (oli/cpc)but, from where I am looking I would say: 1. cpc-param in P-Asserted-Id corresponds to cpc in ISUP (Better than in From header as it is a tel-uri parameter). 2. cpc-param in History-Info/Diversion/P-DCS-Billing-Info/Referred-By etc. etc. could correspond to OLI. Is there some way of reaching consensus and moving on...rather than have more aborted attempts in the future? -Sumit "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- George Bernard Shaw From: iptel-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iptel-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:04 AM To: Lee, Yiu; iptel@ietf.org; rohan@ekabal.com Subject: Re: [Iptel] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Yiu, There is not a standard way to pass CPC or OLI in SIP? Also, draft-mahy-iptel-cpc-06.txt would not meet Nroth American deployment needs because it blends CPC and OLI. Martin ________________________________ From: iptel-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iptel-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lee, Yiu Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 3:56 AM To: iptel@ietf.org; rohan@ekabal.com Subject: [Iptel] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Hi, This draft (draft-mahy-iptel-cpc-06.txt) is expired. Will this draft become WG item? If not, is there any other standard way to carry CPC or OLI parameter in SIP? Thanks, Yiu
_______________________________________________ Iptel mailing list Iptel@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel
- [Iptel] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Lee, Yiu
- Re: [Iptel] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS
- Re: [Iptel] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Sumit Garg
- Re: [Iptel] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Sumit Garg
- Re: [Iptel] [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc DOLLY, MARTIN C, sbcuid
- Re: [Iptel] [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Sumit Garg
- Re: [Iptel] [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Sumit Garg
- Re: [Iptel] [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc DOLLY, MARTIN C, sbcuid
- Re: [Iptel] [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Iptel] [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS
- Re: [Iptel] [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Sumit Garg
- Re: [Iptel] [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Iptel] [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS
- Re: [Iptel] [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Francois Audet
- Re: [Iptel] [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Iptel] [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS
- Re: [Iptel] [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Lee, Yiu
- Re: [Iptel] [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS
- Re: [Iptel] [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Lee, Yiu
- Re: [Iptel] [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS
- Re: [Iptel] [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Paul Kyzivat