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

"Sumit Garg" <sgarg@cedarpointcom.com> Thu, 27 March 2008 13:49 UTC

Return-Path: <iptel-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-iptel-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-iptel-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A9813A6F92; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 06:49:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.542
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.542 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.106, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1, 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 AVALZTsREBlo; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 06:48:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84B9428C639; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 06:48:57 -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 5E1A728C1FE; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 06:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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 w3xCZ2HbOoO3; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 06:48:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MAILSRV01.cedarpointcom.com (mail.cedarpointcom.com [67.151.79.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 864AB3A6FDF; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 06:48:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MAIL02.cedarpointcom.com ([192.168.1.222]) by MAILSRV01.cedarpointcom.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:46:29 -0400
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:46:37 -0400
Message-ID: <59184B4E920E854DA8ACF8E44917D49F0212F250@MAIL02.cedarpointcom.com>
In-Reply-To: <28F05913385EAC43AF019413F674A0171246ED1D@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Iptel] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc
Thread-Index: AciP4AyvKryZizHZQY6C6ocMt54MXQAIlJywAAK4S+A=
References: <45AEC6EF95942140888406588E1A6602043FCC34@PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com> <28F05913385EAC43AF019413F674A0171246ED1D@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com>
From: Sumit Garg <sgarg@cedarpointcom.com>
To: iptel@ietf.org, sipping@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Mar 2008 13:46:29.0788 (UTC) FILETIME=[F5CE65C0:01C89010]
Subject: Re: [Iptel] 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="===============0783990058=="
Sender: iptel-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: iptel-bounces@ietf.org

Over a period of time I have seen various efforts in that direction
which eventually get dropped...to list a few:

draft-schubert-sipping-saml-cpc-02.txt (Expired: jan 2007)

draft-mahy-iptel-cpc-06.txt (Expired:Sep 2007)

draft-ietf-sip-privacy-04.txt , Appendix A (Expired: 2002)

draft-rocky-sipping-calling-party-category-01.txt (Expired : 2006)

 

I've also seen implementation using parameters  like isup-oli for which
I could not even find a draft.

 

Based on this I believe conveying CPC/OLI in SIP is a real requirement.

Maybe for pure SIP scenario it could be done with caller-preferences,
but not in interworking scenarios.

 

From what I understand:

1. CPC in ISUP could be desired by the terminating exchange, however,
the scope of the OLI is only 1 call-leg and could be different from CPC
as it is more closely tied to the billing number.

3. CPC is ISUP only, OLI could be over MF also.

 

I don't really care what the tag-name in use is (oli/cpc)but, from where
I am looking I would say:

1.       cpc-param in P-Asserted-Id corresponds to cpc in ISUP (Better
than in From header as it is a tel-uri parameter).

2.       cpc-param in
History-Info/Diversion/P-DCS-Billing-Info/Referred-By etc. etc. could
correspond to OLI.

 

Is there some way of reaching consensus and moving on...rather than have
more aborted attempts in the future?

 

-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: iptel-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iptel-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 8:04 AM
To: Lee, Yiu; iptel@ietf.org; rohan@ekabal.com
Subject: Re: [Iptel] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc

 

Yiu,

 

There is not a standard way to pass CPC or OLI in SIP? Also,
draft-mahy-iptel-cpc-06.txt would not meet Nroth American deployment
needs because it blends CPC and OLI.

 

Martin

 

________________________________

From: iptel-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iptel-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Lee, Yiu
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 3:56 AM
To: iptel@ietf.org; rohan@ekabal.com
Subject: [Iptel] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc

Hi, 

This draft (draft-mahy-iptel-cpc-06.txt) is expired. Will this draft
become WG item? If not, is there any other standard way to carry CPC or
OLI parameter in SIP? 

Thanks, 
Yiu 

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