Re: [Iptel] [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc
"Sumit Garg" <sgarg@cedarpointcom.com> Mon, 31 March 2008 14:34 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 0A27A3A6EB1; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 07:34:47 -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 BEB2C3A6EB1; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 07:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.729
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.729 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.535, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
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 JE0UQxKUw6n9; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 07:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MAILSRV01.cedarpointcom.com (mail.cedarpointcom.com [67.151.79.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 117843A6E7E; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 07:34:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MAIL02.cedarpointcom.com ([192.168.1.222]) by MAILSRV01.cedarpointcom.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:34:31 -0400
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:34:27 -0400
Message-ID: <59184B4E920E854DA8ACF8E44917D49F0212FA17@MAIL02.cedarpointcom.com>
In-Reply-To: <28F05913385EAC43AF019413F674A0171246ED59@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc
Thread-Index: AciP4AyvKryZizHZQY6C6ocMt54MXQAIlJywAAK4S+AAMbwRkAABXNtAAAB7UjAAAviUEAAANmtwAAEbLZAAACdBYAAEWukAAAAuGPAAL1JxYAAQWaPAACW43EA=
References: <28F05913385EAC43AF019413F674A0171246ED3F@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com><C0E80510684FE94DBDE3A4AF6B968D2D03063D37@esealmw118.eemea.ericsson.se><59184B4E920E854DA8ACF8E44917D49F0212F776@MAIL02.cedarpointcom.com> <28F05913385EAC43AF019413F674A0171246ED45@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com> <5D1A7985295922448D5550C94DE2918001D9EE30@DEEXC1U01.de.lucent.com> <28F05913385EAC43AF019413F674A0171246ED59@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com>
From: Sumit Garg <sgarg@cedarpointcom.com>
To: iptel@ietf.org, sipping@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Mar 2008 14:34:31.0234 (UTC) FILETIME=[54EF2A20:01C8933C]
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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1107804769=="
Sender: iptel-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: iptel-bounces@ietf.org
I see the following areas of concern: i.) cpc/oli and overlap in values: I do not really see a major issue, I see the problem if the values were being conveyed in number format, in text format I do not see any reason why a value would be misinterpreted...a value which is not understood would automatically be inferred as default as per the policy at the receiver. I do not see a major concern in PSTN-SIP direction. In the SIP to PSTN direction, there can never be any concern for non-overlapped values...for the Overlapped values..it is a matter of implementation, local predefined policy at the UAS or it making a decision based on country-code (in the E.164) /phone-context. i.) Should it be part of P-A-I?? I believe what we intend to define is the URI parameter....which particular header to use is more of an implementation guideline, the CPC would generally be in P-A-I....but the implementation could pick another Header if it likes. For e.g. in PacketCable world, P-DCS-Billing-Info could also be used as it carrier info about not only the charge party, but also the calling party. From Header would generally be a bad idea, but, again it depends on the trust-relationship UAS has with the UAC. When OLI is being conveyed there are lots of extra options (Referred-By, Billing-Info, History-Info and even the P-A-I). SIP as opposed to ISUP provides us the freedom to carry this information derived from every leg if need be. ii.) SIP URI parameter Vs. tel-URI parameter: This is the most interesting case. Do we expect the information conveyed to be useful only in interworking scenarios or could it prove to be useful in pure SIP scenarios too? If the thinking is that such information would be useful in pure SIP environments...then it would probably make sense to have it as a SIP URI parameter. The interworking case would still work without issues....as a telephony information can always be conveyed in a SIP URI, but the reverse is not true. I would prefer having 1 mapping parameter either SIP/TEL rather than whetever TISPAN is trying to do. -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: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [mailto:drage@alcatel-lucent.com] Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 7:26 PM To: DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS; Sumit Garg; iptel@ietf.org; sipping@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc My understanding of the cpc work in iptel is that is currently held pending the approval of the internet draft defining the approval regime for tel URI parameters. I believe the current status of this is to make the approval of tel URI parameters standards track required, although that could have altered - not in a position to look it up currently. Which brings us to the next issue in that I understand that at least some of the TISPAN people want to use this as a SIP URI parameter as well as a tel URI parameter. These are two distinct sets of parameters and therefore a tel URI parameter does not automatically become a SIP URI parameter. Is this so? Are there any indications which we want to be able to use with SIP URIs as well as tel URIs. regards Keith ________________________________ From: sipping-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sipping-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of DOLLY, MARTIN C, sbcuid Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 6:15 PM To: Sumit Garg; iptel@ietf.org; sipping@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Sumit, For as long as the values are clear, this approach would be acceptable. Martin ________________________________ From: sipping-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sipping-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sumit Garg Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 2:09 PM To: iptel@ietf.org; sipping@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc I agree with Ian, we should avoid multiple parameters. The way a lot of stuff is done in tel-uri might be useful.... We would only need 1 parameter: i.) user-type=<cpc/oli-values> Renamed to user-type as we do not necessarily tie it to originating side.....we might find other needs in the future. For the current scenario, the number itself would help the implementation decide whether it is CPC/OLI. A global number inherently has a country code which would help decide the valid values (cpc/oli) Otherwise the phone-context could be used to decide the same. For implementations which use neither..i.e. for which context is implicit...they would implicitly know whether it is cpc/oli. -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: Ian Elz [mailto:ian.elz@ericsson.com] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 12:10 PM To: DOLLY, MARTIN C, sbcuid; Sumit Garg; iptel@ietf.org; sipping@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Martin, I saw you email with the list of values. I was not proposing to remove the values but to combine them into an extended list which encompassed both OLI and CPC. ANSI does not use CPC to any extent while ETSI/CCITT uses CPC for the same purpose as ANSI uses OLI. An expanded combined single parameter may be suitable for all the required values. If you look at what is proposed by 3GPP you will see that it is proposed to reduce the different CCITT operator CPC values by using 'language' in Accept-Contact. There may be options to use similar techniques to enable all the OLI values to be handled correctly. Ian Elz System Manager DUCI LDC UK (Lucid Duck) Office: + 44 24 764 35256 gsm: +44 7801723668 ian.elz@ericsson.com ________________________________
_______________________________________________ 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