Re: [Iptel] Is trunk group a new namespace?

Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
> Also not as chair.
> 
> I've considered this further, and concluded that here is a case where 
> the pragmatic approach in the current draft is probably a better choice 
> than the more theoretical considerations that led me to consider the 
> idea of a new namespace.

Jonathan:

OK; pragmatism wins this one.

> As such, I agree with everything cullen suggests, but disagree on one 
> point. Cullen suggests:
> 
>  > Allow a trgp and phone-context parameter in a tel URI.
>  >
>  > Also allows these is a SIP uri even if that SIP URI is not mapable to a
>  > valid tel URI
> 
> I'd rather not do that. Instead, I'd rather declare this problem 
> (indicating a trunk group without a phone number) as out of scope. This 
> is not a tel URI issue at all - its an ISUP to SIP mapping issue. Our 
> job is to define a way to extend the tel URI to be able to indicate 
> trunk groups, and nothing more.

As I have so learnt in the past couple of weeks, the calling number
is optional in ISUP.  So, I would also agree that mapping an
absent ISUP parameter to a SIP element is an ISUP to SIP mapping
issue and outside the scopr of the trunk-group I-D.

I will consider this issue resolved, and will rev up the draft
with the WGLC and other discussions shortly.

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani  vkg@{lucent.com,research.bell-labs.com,acm.org}
Wireless Networks Group/Internet Software and Services
Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs Innovations, 2000 Lucent Lane, Rm 6G-440
Naperville, Illinois 60566     Voice: +1 630 224 0216

_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
Iptel@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel