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

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com> Wed, 02 April 2008 01:53 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 7EF8128C286; Tue, 1 Apr 2008 18:53:59 -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 9200428C1AA; Tue, 1 Apr 2008 18:53:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 b2dIQfYpWjwC; Tue, 1 Apr 2008 18:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 934FB28C147; Tue, 1 Apr 2008 18:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,590,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="5100279"
Received: from ams-dkim-2.cisco.com ([144.254.224.139]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Apr 2008 03:53:54 +0200
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150]) by ams-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m321rrTf009039; Wed, 2 Apr 2008 03:53:53 +0200
Received: from xbh-ams-331.emea.cisco.com (xbh-ams-331.cisco.com [144.254.231.71]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m321rsqP007568; Wed, 2 Apr 2008 01:53:54 GMT
Received: from xfe-ams-332.cisco.com ([144.254.231.73]) by xbh-ams-331.emea.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 2 Apr 2008 03:53:53 +0200
Received: from [10.61.64.81] ([10.61.64.81]) by xfe-ams-332.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 2 Apr 2008 03:53:52 +0200
Message-ID: <47F2E744.4050600@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 21:54:12 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS" <mdolly@att.com>
References: <28F05913385EAC43AF019413F674A0171246EDB0@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com> <45AEC6EF95942140888406588E1A6602043FD676@PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com> <28F05913385EAC43AF019413F674A0171246EDB5@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com>
In-Reply-To: <28F05913385EAC43AF019413F674A0171246EDB5@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Apr 2008 01:53:53.0000 (UTC) FILETIME=[6740CE80:01C89464]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=6476; t=1207101234; x=1207965234; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=pkyzivat@cisco.com; z=From:=20Paul=20Kyzivat=20<pkyzivat@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[Sipping]=20draft-mahy-iptel-cpc |Sender:=20; bh=NbMMGUM9L2z7zTO8GbruAyIvzGa6KPRGfRdh/FpxNCU=; b=lUCWfjGcS2phDzfDsI6+B4URhD2MPd0wemIrXWSg8E1/8laQ+Vh74CXRyy QQEwZ6ILfF07jKs78gsrewvoMQseroFi6NGayYh7iCLbK3g3bzkDdYAhhkZs mGs76PIu0l;
Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-2; header.From=pkyzivat@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim2001 verified; );
Cc: iptel@ietf.org, Jean-Francois Mule <jf.mule@cablelabs.com>, Ian Elz <ian.elz@ericsson.com>, sipping@ietf.org
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

If the semantics are to be defined by SS7 then it makes sense to have 
the same two parameters that it has. But is that the right thing?

If you dig thru the stuff in there, some of the values indeed fall into 
mutually exclusive sets. Others seem to be orthogonal. (E.g. police vs 
celular, or test vs lots of things.) Why not decompose these things into 
orthogonal dimensions and have a parameter for each? If not all 
combinations are conveyable in SS7 it won't be a problem going from SS7 
to SIP, and when going the other way it can simply be a policy about 
which attributes trump which other attributes.

	Paul

DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS wrote:
> I think 2 separate PAI parameters.  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee, Yiu [mailto:Yiu_Lee@cable.comcast.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 9:01 PM
> To: DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS; Ian Elz; iptel@ietf.org; sipping@ietf.org;
> Jean-Francois Mule; Daryl Malas
> Subject: RE: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc
> 
> Hi Martin,
> 
> Forgive me that I am not an expert for SS7. So, you support to separate
> OLI and CPC into two parameters. I have no objection for it, I just want
> to see how we move forward.
> 
> Thanks,
> Yiu
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS [mailto:mdolly@att.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 8:54 PM
> To: Lee, Yiu; Ian Elz; iptel@ietf.org; sipping@ietf.org; Jean-Francois
> Mule; Daryl Malas
> Subject: RE: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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