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

["Francois Audet" <[e-mail]>]

Keith,
 
Tel URI vs SIP URI is one issue. My guess is Tel URI is OK, and it will map into a SIP URI fine. If we believe that this concept is applicable to URIs that are not telephone numbers, then it should be a SIP URI parameter instead. Don't really care either way.
 
The other issue is "From:" header versus "P-Asserted-ID". I believe this parameter is intended to be provided by the "network" and not the UAC. So it would seem to me that it should be in P-Asserted-ID parameter header and not From header. Especially if RFC 4474 is used.
 
I think Paul Kyzivat was even proposing a P-Asserted-ID parameter. That would work too.


________________________________

	From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
	Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 16:26
	To: DOLLY, MARTIN C, sbcuid; Sumit Garg; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
	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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of DOLLY, MARTIN C, sbcuid
		Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 6:15 PM
		To: Sumit Garg; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
		Subject: Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc
		
		
		Sumit,
		 
		For as long as the values are clear, this approach would be acceptable.
		 
		Martin

________________________________

		From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Sumit Garg
		Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 2:09 PM
		To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
		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:[e-mail]] 
		Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 12:10 PM
		To: DOLLY, MARTIN C, sbcuid; Sumit Garg; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
		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: [phone] 
		[e-mail] 

________________________________

_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel