Re: [Iptel] [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc

["DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS" <mdolly at att.com>]

I think 2 separate PAI parameters.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Lee, Yiu [mailto:Yiu_Lee at cable.comcast.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 9:01 PM
To: DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS; Ian Elz; iptel at ietf.org; sipping at ietf.org;
Jean-Francois Mule; Daryl Malas
Subject: RE: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc

Hi Martin,

Forgive me that I am not an expert for SS7. So, you support to separate
OLI and CPC into two parameters. I have no objection for it, I just want
to see how we move forward.

Thanks,
Yiu

-----Original Message-----
From: DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS [mailto:mdolly at att.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 8:54 PM
To: Lee, Yiu; Ian Elz; iptel at ietf.org; sipping at ietf.org; Jean-Francois
Mule; Daryl Malas
Subject: RE: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc

How could you come to that conclusion for a North American deployment?

CPC and OLI have separate meanings.

CPC: Information sent in the forward direction indicating the category
of the calling party and, in case of semiautomatic calls, the service
language to be spoken by the incoming, delay and assistance operators.
The format of the calling party's category is shown below.

OLI:  Information sent in the forward direction indicating toll class of
service. Identification of the originating line.

Agreed, they are never seen by an end point (walled garden only), as
they both will be asserted, therefore needed to be associated with the
PAI. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Lee, Yiu [mailto:Yiu_Lee at cable.comcast.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 8:40 PM
To: Ian Elz; DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS; iptel at ietf.org; sipping at ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc

After reading all the mails in the list, I think we agree:

1. OLI-CPC should be carried in one parameter. Exact syntax yet to be
defined.
2. This parameter should be inserted by originating network but not the
UAC (From vs. PAI).
3. This parameter is useful for both SIP-URI and TEL-URI.

We haven't agreed if we allow the parameter carries multiple values (due
to SIP->ISUP interop)

Now my question is what is next step?

-----Original Message-----
From: sipping-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:sipping-bounces at ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Ian Elz
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 8:21 AM
To: DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS; iptel at ietf.org; sipping at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc

Martin,

Sorry my choice of words. 'back to ISUP' was not meant to imply a
backward direction message but where the interworking from SIP -> ISUP.

ISUP -> SIP working is easy as ISUP will only contain one value but if
SIP contains multiple values as Paul has suggested then we need to be
able to map these to a single value in ISUP.

Ian Elz

System Manager
DUCI LDC UK
(Lucid Duck)

Office: + 44 24 764 35256
gsm: +44 7801723668
ian.elz at ericsson.com


-----Original Message-----
From: DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS [mailto:mdolly at att.com]
Sent: 01 April 2008 13:16
To: Ian Elz; iptel at ietf.org; sipping at ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc

Ian,

CPC: Information sent in the forward direction indicating the category
of the calling party and, in case of semiautomatic calls, the service
language to be spoken by the incoming, delay and assistance operators.
The format of the calling party's category is shown below.

OLI:  Information sent in the forward direction indicating toll class of
service. Identification of the originating line.

Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Elz [mailto:ian.elz at ericsson.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 4:58 AM
To: Paul Kyzivat
Cc: iptel at ietf.org; DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS; sipping at ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Sipping] draft-mahy-iptel-cpc

Paul,

My comments are made based upon the content of the latest draft (06).

The introduction begins:

   "SS7 ISUP [4] defines a Calling Party's Category (CPC) parameter that
   characterizes the station used to originate a call and carries other
   important state that can describe the originating party.  When
   telephone numbers are contained in URIs, such as the tel URI [2], it
   may be desirable to communicate any CPC associated with that
   telephone number or, in the context of a call, the party calling from
   it."

Based upon this the current requirement appears to be to support the
ISUP CPC/OLI.

If the requirement is greater than this then that is a discussion that
we should have before the draft is finalized.

The issue with mutual exclusivity exists in the current ISUP
implementations. If that limitation is to be overcome then that
requirement also needs to be discussed. If we are to move from mutual
exclusivity of values then we need to ensure that interworking back to
ISUP is supported. The resolution of the overlapping cases as you have
indicated may have to be at the discretion of the network operator.

Ian Elz

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP Use
sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip Use
sip at ietf.org for new developments of core SIP
_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
Iptel at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel