Re: [Sipping] SUMMARY: Trunk groups in R-URI

[[e-mail]]

In a message dated 9/4/02 7:21:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[e-mail] writes:


> SIP in general has no use for a concept of 'trunk groups';
> this is within the scope of telephony addressing, and belongs in the tel
> URL.
> 

[MAP] I'm further confused. If SIP has no use for the concept of 'trunk 
groups', why is this discussion going on?

I don't see that it is within the scope of "telephony addressing" either. I 
understand the tel:url to be intended to carry the telephone number. The 
current draft-antti-rfc2806bis-05.txt states that it is "for specifying the 
address of a terminal in the phone network". Isn't that what "tel" means? I 
suppose one could say that "tel" means "telephony" and that the header is 
intended to carry all the extraneous parameters associated with "telephony", 
but I din't think this was the accepted approach.

From a functional point of view, if a need to carry a trunk group identifier 
between entities really exists, it does not belong with the telephone number. 
I think we need to determine where such a thing "functionally" fits, not 
where it goes to keep the protocol pretty.

Mike Pierce
Artel