[Iptel] WG: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc

["Jesske, R" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,
nevertheless what is the status now of cpc? Because cpc is needed in some cases like ieps of payphone.
And we could add the OLI.
 
Thanks and Best Regards
 
Roland


________________________________

	Von: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] Im Auftrag von DOLLY, MARTIN C, sbcuid
	Gesendet: Freitag, 28. März 2008 14:50
	An: Sumit Garg; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
	Betreff: Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc
	
	
	Sumit,
	 
	What is really needed is OLI & CPC for North American deployments. Prisons is an OLI value, not a CPC value. That is the issue with the cpc draft it mixes up two different parameters. OLI is what type of line, where CPC is call type ( for the most part).
	 
	Martin

________________________________

	From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Sumit Garg
	Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 9:13 AM
	To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
	Subject: Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc
	
	

	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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Sumit Garg
	Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 9:47 AM
	To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
	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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS
	Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:04 AM
	To: Lee, Yiu; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
	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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Lee, Yiu
	Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 3:56 AM
	To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
	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
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel