Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc
"DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Sat, 29 March 2008 23:26 UTC
Return-Path: <sipping-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-sipping-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-sipping-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92B5728C187; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:26:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.540, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZHKF8V1FHvsG; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:26:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A6F93A6A8E; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:26:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: sipping@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipping@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BE583A6A8E; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:26:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BNKnLUyWYaGq; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:26:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C040A3A6A0C; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:26:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ilexp02.ndc.lucent.com (h135-3-39-2.lucent.com [135.3.39.2]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id m2TNQ31K025259; Sat, 29 Mar 2008 18:26:03 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from DEEXP02.DE.lucent.com ([135.248.187.66]) by ilexp02.ndc.lucent.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 29 Mar 2008 18:26:03 -0500
Received: from DEEXC1U01.de.lucent.com ([135.248.187.20]) by DEEXP02.DE.lucent.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 30 Mar 2008 00:26:00 +0100
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 00:25:59 +0100
Message-ID: <5D1A7985295922448D5550C94DE2918001D9EE30@DEEXC1U01.de.lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <28F05913385EAC43AF019413F674A0171246ED45@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc
Thread-index: AciP4AyvKryZizHZQY6C6ocMt54MXQAIlJywAAK4S+AAMbwRkAABXNtAAAB7UjAAAviUEAAANmtwAAEbLZAAACdBYAAEWukAAAAuGPAAL1JxYA==
References: <28F05913385EAC43AF019413F674A0171246ED3F@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com><C0E80510684FE94DBDE3A4AF6B968D2D03063D37@esealmw118.eemea.ericsson.se><59184B4E920E854DA8ACF8E44917D49F0212F776@MAIL02.cedarpointcom.com> <28F05913385EAC43AF019413F674A0171246ED45@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com>
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "DOLLY, MARTIN C, sbcuid" <mdolly@att.com>, Sumit Garg <sgarg@cedarpointcom.com>, iptel@ietf.org, sipping@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Mar 2008 23:26:00.0388 (UTC) FILETIME=[3F866840:01C891F4]
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33
Subject: Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc
X-BeenThere: sipping@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "SIPPING Working Group \(applications of SIP\)" <sipping.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:sipping@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0659099078=="
Sender: sipping-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: sipping-bounces@ietf.org
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: sipping-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sipping-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of DOLLY, MARTIN C, sbcuid Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 6:15 PM To: Sumit Garg; iptel@ietf.org; sipping@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Sumit, For as long as the values are clear, this approach would be acceptable. Martin ________________________________ From: sipping-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sipping-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sumit Garg Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 2:09 PM To: iptel@ietf.org; sipping@ietf.org 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:ian.elz@ericsson.com] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 12:10 PM To: DOLLY, MARTIN C, sbcuid; Sumit Garg; iptel@ietf.org; sipping@ietf.org 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: +44 7801723668 ian.elz@ericsson.com ________________________________
_______________________________________________ Sipping mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip Use sip@ietf.org for new developments of core SIP
- Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Sumit Garg
- Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Ian Elz
- Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Ian Elz
- Re: [Sipping] [Iptel] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Sumit Garg
- Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Sumit Garg
- Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc DOLLY, MARTIN C, sbcuid
- Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Jesske, R
- Re: [Sipping] [Iptel] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc DOLLY, MARTIN C, sbcuid
- Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc DOLLY, MARTIN C, sbcuid
- Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Ian Elz
- Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Sumit Garg
- Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc DOLLY, MARTIN C, sbcuid
- Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS
- Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Sumit Garg
- Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Ted Hardie
- Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Ian Elz
- Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS
- Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Ian Elz
- Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Francois Audet
- Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Alan Johnston
- Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS
- Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Lee, Yiu
- Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS
- Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Lee, Yiu
- Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS
- Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc Paul Kyzivat