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

["DOLLY, MARTIN C, sbcuid" <[e-mail]>]

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