[Sip] ISDN/SIP interworking [ETSI TS 183 036]

Javi Muñoz <javi@trajano.us.es> Wed, 30 November 2011 17:59 UTC

Return-Path: <javi@trajano.us.es>
X-Original-To: sip@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3093D11E807F for <sip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 09:59:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.119
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.119 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.180, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M5ZUadnoxR3u for <sip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 09:59:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.us.es (mail.us.es [193.147.175.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 324CA1F0C4D for <sip@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 09:59:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 7499 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2011 18:59:02 +0100
Received: from unknown (HELO us.es) (192.168.2.13) by us.es with SMTP; 30 Nov 2011 18:59:02 +0100
Received: (qmail 19962 invoked by uid 507); 30 Nov 2011 17:59:01 -0000
Received: from 127.0.0.1 by antivirus3 (envelope-from <javi@trajano.us.es>, uid 501) with qmail-scanner-2.08 (clamdscan: 0.97.3/14042. Clear:RC:1(127.0.0.1):. Processed in 0.03139 secs); 30 Nov 2011 17:59:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO antivirus3) (127.0.0.1) by us.es with SMTP; 30 Nov 2011 17:59:00 -0000
Received: from 192.168.1.13 (192.168.1.13) by antivirus3 (F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/406/antivirus3); Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:59:00 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Status: clean(F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/406/antivirus3)
Received: (qmail 9550 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2011 18:59:00 +0100
Received: from trajano.us.es (193.147.162.130) by us.es with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 30 Nov 2011 18:59:00 +0100
Received: from [193.147.162.138] (adriano.us.es [193.147.162.138]) (authenticated bits=0) by trajano.us.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id pAUHx0RC029756 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <sip@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:59:00 +0100
Message-ID: <4ED66EFC.2020905@trajano.us.es>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:59:24 +0100
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Javi_Mu=F1oz?= <javi@trajano.us.es>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; es-ES; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111103 Thunderbird/3.1.16
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: sip@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Sip] ISDN/SIP interworking [ETSI TS 183 036]
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip>
List-Post: <mailto:sip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 17:59:04 -0000

Three questions about it:

(a) ISDN/SIP interworking spec [ETSI TS 183 036] proposes that in the 
Q.931/SIP interworking, some EIs Q.931 are codec to SDP and/or inserted 
in the SIP body as a PSTN XML element.
Under what criteria, an Q.931 EI should be?:

(1) Coding to SDP

AND / OR  (this is also important)

(2) Inserted in the SIP body as a PSTN XML element

or

(3) Coding to the URI SIP or and SIP header

or

(4) None (only interpreted by the AGW, without being carried over SIP)



(b) Why does [ETSI TS 183 036]define the mapping of the IE "User to 
user" to the SIP header User-to-User [draft-johnston-sipping-cc-uui-09], 
instead of transporting it over an PSTN XML element? (the IE "User to 
user" must be transported transparently by the nerwork)



(c) Although as optional, [ETSI TS 183 036]defines the coding to SDP of 
the "High Layer Characteristics Identification" field of the IE 
HLC[Q.931].According to Q.931, this EI HLC should be used by the 
end-to-end terminals, not by the LEs (or AGWs in NGN). Then:
(1) Why this SDP coding?
(2) And why is it optional?

Regards,

Javi