Re: [Sipping] draft-york-sipping-p-charge-info-12: ABNF

[Hadriel Kaplan <[e-mail]>]

If the goal is to make it an interoperable header to be used outside of a private network, rather than to just document a private header used by a particular vendor, then I would suggest this discussion be moved to DISPATCH rather than this supposedly-dead SIPPING mailing list.

Further, it would probably require changing the header name (per RFC 5727), and getting consensus on the syntax and semantics.  It would hopefully NOT require a new mini-WG, but could be an individual submission handled by the AD or an independent submission to the RFC Editor.

Lastly, I should note that this draft in its current form contradicts some actual deployed usage of this header - in particular, I can't remember where Sonus encodes the noa/npi fields, but I believe Dialogic encodes them as header-params in a "P-Charge-Info" header, not userinfo-params.  IF two vendors use the same header name but in different ways, then I think it argues even more strongly to use a brand-new header name for this draft. (and don't use "Charge", because that's already used by yet another vendor)

-hadriel



On Nov 29, 2011, at 2:01 PM, Richard Shockey wrote:

> Well well isn't this fascinating.
> 
> I was just having a conversation with Dan about this today.
> 
> This draft now takes on increasing significance as it solves a nasty little
> problem of billing in one way SIP traffic (Skype -  Google Voice etal) that
> is vexing the FCC and the carriers as they try to deal with what is
> legalistically called "phantom traffic".   It's the preference I'm told is
> if no calling party number is available use a CIC or OCN code of sorts. In
> two way it could state the preference for billing which is either The CPN or
> 'Charging Number' 
>