[SIP] phone-context and RFC2543bis
Alan Johnston <alan.johnston@wcom.com> Fri, 07 April 2000 17:25 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 NAA13110 for <sip-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 13:25:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from share.research.bell-labs.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8911244336; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 13:23:42 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: sip@share.research.bell-labs.com
Received: from crufty.research.bell-labs.com (crufty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.49]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 652DC44336 for <sip@share.research.bell-labs.com>; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 12:04:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lists.bell-labs.com ([135.104.27.211]) by crufty; Fri Apr 7 12:04:19 EDT 2000
Received: by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id C29CC44345; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 11:51:09 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: sip@lists.bell-labs.com
Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by lists.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98D4444341 for <sip@lists.bell-labs.com>; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 11:51:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 4D34752BB; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 11:51:08 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: sip@lists.research.bell-labs.com
Received: from scummy.research.bell-labs.com (guard.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.10]) by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4045B52B6 for <sip@lists.research.bell-labs.com>; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 11:51:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dusty.research.bell-labs.com ([135.104.2.7]) by scummy; Fri Apr 7 11:50:57 EDT 2000
Received: from dgesmtp01.wcom.com ([199.249.16.16]) by dusty; Fri Apr 7 11:50:55 EDT 2000
Received: from pmismtp01.wcomnet.com ([166.38.62.36]) by firewall.mcit.com (PMDF V5.2-33 #42260) with ESMTP id <0FSN00D1LLCUGR@firewall.mcit.com> for sip@lists.research.bell-labs.com; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 15:50:54 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from pmismtp01.wcomnet.com by pmismtp01.wcomnet.com (PMDF V5.2-33 #42258) with ESMTP id <0FSN00101LCT2Q@pmismtp01.wcomnet.com> for sip@lists.research.bell-labs.com; Fri, 07 Apr 2000 15:50:53 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from omta4.mcit.com ([166.37.204.6]) by pmismtp01.wcomnet.com (PMDF V5.2-33 #42258) with ESMTP id <0FSN00JGKLCTUW@pmismtp01.wcomnet.com> for sip@lists.research.bell-labs.com; Fri, 07 Apr 2000 15:50:53 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from wcom.com ([166.33.132.111]) by omta4.mcit.com (InterMail v03.02.05 118 121 101) with ESMTP id <20000407155316.ETTL14395@wcom.com> for <sip@lists.research.bell-labs.com>; Fri, 07 Apr 2000 15:53:16 +0000
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 10:51:38 -0500
From: Alan Johnston <alan.johnston@wcom.com>
To: SIP <sip@lists.research.bell-labs.com>
Message-id: <38EE040A.7CF5E3B2@wcom.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; U)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Accept-Language: en
Subject: [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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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] 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