Re: [SIP] phone-context and RFC2543bis
William Marshall <wtm@research.att.com> Fri, 07 April 2000 18:48 UTC
Received: from lists.bell-labs.com (share.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.58]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA15077 for <sip-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 14:48:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E74434434C; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 14:46:13 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: sip@lists.bell-labs.com
Received: from mail-blue.research.att.com (mail-blue.research.att.com [135.207.30.102]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4679044336 for <sip@lists.bell-labs.com>; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 14:46:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from alliance.research.att.com (alliance.research.att.com [135.207.26.26]) by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96E0B4CE02 for <sip@lists.bell-labs.com>; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 14:48:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from fish-ha.research.att.com (fish-ha.research.att.com [135.207.27.137]) by alliance.research.att.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA10708 for <sip@lists.bell-labs.com>; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 14:48:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: William Marshall <wtm@research.att.com>
Received: (from wtm@localhost) by fish-ha.research.att.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/8.8.5) id OAA18384 for sip@lists.bell-labs.com; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 14:46:37 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 14:46:37 -0400
Message-Id: <200004071846.OAA18384@fish-ha.research.att.com>
To: sip@lists.bell-labs.com
Subject: Re: [SIP] phone-context and RFC2543bis
Sender: sip-admin@lists.bell-labs.com
Errors-To: sip-admin@lists.bell-labs.com
X-Mailman-Version: 1.1
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <sip.lists.bell-labs.com>
X-BeenThere: sip@lists.bell-labs.com
I agree completely that there is a great need for phone-context. Draft-dcsgroup-sip-proxy-proxy-01 made a simple suggestion that Figure 4 in RFC2543 be updated with the current syntax from draft-antti-telephony-uri-12, since it apparently came from there to begin with. Discussions in Adelaide seemed to focus on the question of whether ";phone-context" appeared to the left of the "@" or to the right of the "@". To the left of the "@" there are already defined some tags, such as "isub=" and "postd=", so there is obviously not an issue with parsers. Making it part of the telephone-subscriber syntax seems cleaner in that it avoids confusion in cases such as sip:somethingorother@gateway;phone-context=mycarrier where the meaning isn't at all clear; whereas sip:somethingorother;phone-context=mycarrier@gateway means the username has some strange characters in it, and sip:somethingorother;phone-context=mycarrier@gateway;user=phone means to apply the telephony-subscriber syntax to the username. BTW, our use of phone-context is to store the fact that LNP dip was done, and the results. Bill Marshall wtm@research.att.com -----original message----- Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 10:51:38 -0500 From: Alan Johnston <alan.johnston@wcom.com> To: SIP <sip@lists.research.bell-labs.com> Subject: [SIP] phone-context and RFC2543bis Based on reports from Adelaide, it sounds like the consensus of the working group was to progress the Call Flows I-D (draft-ietf-sip-call-flows-00.txt) to Informational RFC as soon as possible. One item that needs to be resolved first is the "phone-context" tag which is used extensively in the Gateway dialing sections of the document for private phone numbers (extensions). In RFC2543, support for phone numbers in SIP URLs was included by including parameters from the then current version of the Tel URL I-D if "user=phone" was present. Since then, there have been additional drafts of this document (currently draft-antti-telephony-url-12.txt). One of the critical additions to the Tel draft since RFC2543 was the addition of the phone-context tag used for local numbers to identify the scope in which the number is valid. I believe this tag needs to be included in SIP URLs in the next SIP draft. For example, the U.S. directory assistance telephone number can be written in global form as: sip:+1-314-555-1212@gateway.carrier.com;user=phone However, if the number was only valid if dialed from within the U.S., the number could be written as a local phone number as: sip:314-555-1212@gateway.carrier.com;phone-context=+1 Where the phone-context tag indicates that it is only valid from within country code 1. Another more compelling use of the phone-context tag is in dealing with private numbers - numbers that are not part of the public number space, but are part of a private numbering plan administered by a corporation or organization. The examples in the Call Flows document are of this kind: sip:777-1234@gateway.mycarrier.com;phone-context=mycarrier In this example, it appears that the host portion (gateway address) of the URL is sufficient to specify the context of the private number. However, for cases where a gateway is shared among multiple customers, each with possibly overlapping private numbering plans, the use of phone-context is required: sip:777-1234@gateway.mycarrier.com;phone-context=mycarrier-customer1 The use of the phone-context tag also allows interdomain private dialing, something impossible in todays PSTN. For example, dialed digits for a particular dialing plan could be sent to a proxy for gateway lookup sip:444-1000@proxy.wcom.com;phone-context=carrier-customer2 The proxy would lookup the gateway based on dialed digits and phone-context. If the proxy did not have gateway information for that carrier (domain), the request could be proxied to that domain with the Request-URI becoming: sip:444-1000@proxy.carrier.com;phone-context=carrier-customer2 These are just a few examples of the use of this tag. Are there any reasons why this tag should not be supported in SIP URLs in the next draft of RFC2543? Alan Johnston MCI WorldCom _______________________________________________ SIP mailing list SIP@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/sip _______________________________________________ SIP mailing list SIP@lists.bell-labs.com http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/sip
- [SIP] phone-context and RFC2543bis Alan Johnston
- Re: [SIP] phone-context and RFC2543bis William Marshall
- Re: [SIP] phone-context and RFC2543bis Alan Johnston
- RE: [SIP] phone-context and RFC2543bis Dean Willis