Re: [Iptel] Originating trunk group without calling number(Was[Re:Comments on Trunk Group ID])
"Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@lucent.com> Mon, 29 November 2004 18:56 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19511 for <iptel-web-archive@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Nov 2004 13:56:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CYqmb-0000Lz-Cf for iptel-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:01:57 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CYqet-00021a-Uf; Mon, 29 Nov 2004 13:54:00 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CYqcj-0001fz-Dd for iptel@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 29 Nov 2004 13:51:46 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19009 for <iptel@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Nov 2004 13:51:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com ([192.11.222.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CYqhg-0000Dm-Jd for iptel@ietf.org; Mon, 29 Nov 2004 13:56:53 -0500
Received: from ihmail.ih.lucent.com (h135-1-218-70.lucent.com [135.1.218.70]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iATIpAUQ004426; Mon, 29 Nov 2004 12:51:10 -0600 (CST)
Received: from [135.185.173.147] (il0015vkg1.ih.lucent.com [135.185.173.147]) by ihmail.ih.lucent.com (8.11.7p1+Sun/EMS-1.5 sol2) id iATIp5X15259; Mon, 29 Nov 2004 12:51:10 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <41AB6F99.1060005@lucent.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 12:51:05 -0600
From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@lucent.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Windows/20041103)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Shan Lu <shanlu@sentito.com>, 'Takuya Sawada' <tu-sawada@kddi.com>
Subject: Re: [Iptel] Originating trunk group without calling number(Was[Re:Comments on Trunk Group ID])
References: <016501c4ce46$0172a660$eb00000a@SAJAK>
In-Reply-To: <016501c4ce46$0172a660$eb00000a@SAJAK>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e8a67952aa972b528dd04570d58ad8fe
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IETF IPTEL WG <iptel@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: iptel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IP Telephony <iptel.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel>, <mailto:iptel-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/iptel>
List-Post: <mailto:iptel@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iptel-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel>, <mailto:iptel-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: iptel-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: iptel-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f60d0f7806b0c40781eee6b9cd0b2135
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Continuing our leftover discussion on representing the trunk group if the calling party was not present in an incoming session setup request...a question for the IPTEL co-chairs is embedded in the writeup below. With the subsequent confirmation from rfc2806bis author regarding the inappropriateness of the following tel URI (despite it being syntactically correct): tel:-;phone-context=example.com;tgrp=foo I would like to revisit my earlier suggestion to use the following URI when the calling party is not known: sip:anonymous;phone-context=example.com;tgrp=foo@example.com If we go this route, Shan Lu raises good questions on the choice of this URI. But I believe that these questions have answers that fit within the current usage of SIP. Namely, > I am a little confused about this. The draft started by defining a > tel-uri extension "tgrp" and now we seemed to end up reserving a > section of userinfo space in sip uri. My other concern with reserving > sip uri userinfo space is that we may need SIP WG blessing, which > will further delay the draft, if we can get the nod at all. I don't think that this is insurmountable. Note that RFC3261 uses the display name "Anonymous" and a URI of anonymous@anonymous.invalid for privacy reasons. While I agree that the use of such display names and URI is not normative in RFC3261, the inherent understanding is that this use of 'anonymous' is okay (at least, that is my read of the specification). So, I do not believe that we will need to seek the blessing of the SIP WG to use the username 'anonymous'. IPTEL co-chairs can provide further guidance if my understanding is flawed on this count. > Also, a format that stays completely within tel-uri can be used in > applications other than SIP. I believe that using the anonymous SIP URI in this manner is a way to plug a corner case that you have identified; namely that the calling party's number may be absent in the ISUP request coming into a gateway. This is an exception; the normal case will be to populate the Contact with the SIP equivalent of the tel URI of the calling party. > While I agree that the above sip uri format solves our > issue at hand, questions came to mind. For example, when calling > number IS present, do we use "tgrp" as part of tel-uri or do we use > sip uri similar to above? When the calling number is present, the Contact is populated with the SIP equivalent of the tel URI of the calling party. The username of anonymous MUST not be used in such cases. We will make this a normative behavior in the I-D. Questions? Comments? Thanks, - vijay _______________________________________________ Iptel mailing list Iptel@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel
- Re: [Iptel] Originating trunk group without calli… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [Iptel] Originating trunk group without calli… Henning Schulzrinne
- RE: [Iptel] Originating trunk group without calli… Shan Lu
- Re: [Iptel] Originating trunk group without calli… Vijay K. Gurbani