Re: [Iptel] [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc
"DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS" <mdolly@att.com> Wed, 02 April 2008 00:53 UTC
Return-Path: <iptel-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: iptel-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-iptel-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62B163A6B3E; Tue, 1 Apr 2008 17:53:52 -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 95CB83A686B; Tue, 1 Apr 2008 17:53:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.891
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.891 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.708, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 dmpbUI3vKogg; Tue, 1 Apr 2008 17:53:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 820623A6A99; Tue, 1 Apr 2008 17:53:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: mdolly@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-13.tower-203.messagelabs.com!1207097618!11826442!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.54]
Received: (qmail 19306 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2008 00:53:38 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.54) by server-13.tower-203.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 2 Apr 2008 00:53:38 -0000
Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m320rh6T017887; Tue, 1 Apr 2008 20:53:43 -0400
Received: from OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com (ocst07.ugd.att.com [135.38.164.12]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m320reKv017877; Tue, 1 Apr 2008 20:53:40 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 19:53:40 -0500
Message-ID: <28F05913385EAC43AF019413F674A0171246EDB0@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com>
In-Reply-To: <45AEC6EF95942140888406588E1A6602043FD674@PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc
Thread-Index: AciTT0huJkK+FBR7RpWeyPG2fMdD0gAhlBHQAAUtSrAAAg5WcAAZKxkAAADr3EA=
References: <C0E80510684FE94DBDE3A4AF6B968D2D030D95A6@esealmw118.eemea.ericsson.se> <45AEC6EF95942140888406588E1A6602043FD674@PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com>
From: "DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS" <mdolly@att.com>
To: "Lee, Yiu" <Yiu_Lee@cable.comcast.com>, Ian Elz <ian.elz@ericsson.com>, iptel@ietf.org, sipping@ietf.org, Jean-Francois Mule <jf.mule@cablelabs.com>, Daryl Malas <D.Malas@cablelabs.com>
Subject: Re: [Iptel] [Sipping] 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: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: iptel-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: iptel-bounces@ietf.org
How could you come to that conclusion for a North American deployment? CPC and OLI have separate meanings. CPC: Information sent in the forward direction indicating the category of the calling party and, in case of semiautomatic calls, the service language to be spoken by the incoming, delay and assistance operators. The format of the calling party's category is shown below. OLI: Information sent in the forward direction indicating toll class of service. Identification of the originating line. Agreed, they are never seen by an end point (walled garden only), as they both will be asserted, therefore needed to be associated with the PAI. -----Original Message----- From: Lee, Yiu [mailto:Yiu_Lee@cable.comcast.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 8:40 PM To: Ian Elz; DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS; iptel@ietf.org; sipping@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc After reading all the mails in the list, I think we agree: 1. OLI-CPC should be carried in one parameter. Exact syntax yet to be defined. 2. This parameter should be inserted by originating network but not the UAC (From vs. PAI). 3. This parameter is useful for both SIP-URI and TEL-URI. We haven't agreed if we allow the parameter carries multiple values (due to SIP->ISUP interop) Now my question is what is next step? -----Original Message----- From: sipping-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sipping-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ian Elz Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 8:21 AM To: DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS; iptel@ietf.org; sipping@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Martin, Sorry my choice of words. 'back to ISUP' was not meant to imply a backward direction message but where the interworking from SIP -> ISUP. ISUP -> SIP working is easy as ISUP will only contain one value but if SIP contains multiple values as Paul has suggested then we need to be able to map these to a single value in ISUP. Ian Elz System Manager DUCI LDC UK (Lucid Duck) Office: + 44 24 764 35256 gsm: +44 7801723668 ian.elz@ericsson.com -----Original Message----- From: DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS [mailto:mdolly@att.com] Sent: 01 April 2008 13:16 To: Ian Elz; iptel@ietf.org; sipping@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Ian, CPC: Information sent in the forward direction indicating the category of the calling party and, in case of semiautomatic calls, the service language to be spoken by the incoming, delay and assistance operators. The format of the calling party's category is shown below. OLI: Information sent in the forward direction indicating toll class of service. Identification of the originating line. Martin -----Original Message----- From: Ian Elz [mailto:ian.elz@ericsson.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 4:58 AM To: Paul Kyzivat Cc: iptel@ietf.org; DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS; sipping@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Paul, My comments are made based upon the content of the latest draft (06). The introduction begins: "SS7 ISUP [4] defines a Calling Party's Category (CPC) parameter that characterizes the station used to originate a call and carries other important state that can describe the originating party. When telephone numbers are contained in URIs, such as the tel URI [2], it may be desirable to communicate any CPC associated with that telephone number or, in the context of a call, the party calling from it." Based upon this the current requirement appears to be to support the ISUP CPC/OLI. If the requirement is greater than this then that is a discussion that we should have before the draft is finalized. The issue with mutual exclusivity exists in the current ISUP implementations. If that limitation is to be overcome then that requirement also needs to be discussed. If we are to move from mutual exclusivity of values then we need to ensure that interworking back to ISUP is supported. The resolution of the overlapping cases as you have indicated may have to be at the discretion of the network operator. Ian Elz _______________________________________________ Sipping mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip Use sip@ietf.org for new developments of core SIP _______________________________________________ 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