[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: AW: AW: [Sip] SIPIT Interop problem with ;user=phone



On Tuesday, September 2, 2003, at 06:38 AM, Rosen, Brian wrote:

Getting more and more confused.

A "dial string" cannot go in a tel uri.
It can go in the user part of a sip uri.
I believe that every dial string is a special case of a local number which can be expressed as a tel URI with the appropriate phone context.

So, if a sip UA does not have the ability to automatically
translate dial strings to routable telephone numbers, it has
to be in a sip uri user part.  I don't think that is
controversial.
No, this is still very controversial.

The question is, does the UA need to mark the user part as
a dial string, or is it enough for the host mentioned in the
domain part of the sip uri to just know the difference?
I'd prefer to mark the userpart as a dial string, but I can
cope if we don't.
I would like to use the convention ;user=phone to indicate that the contents of the userpart can be interpreted (only by a host responsible for the domain of the SIP URI) as a valid tel URI. if that host sees a phone-context parameter which it recognizes, then it can interpret that "local number" as appropriate, which IMO includes treating it according to the appropriate dial plan as a "dialed string".

I believe that standardizing this convention makes it easier to configure hosts which handle multiple contexts, and easier to configure *senders* that do not understand their own dial plan. (I have no problem with SIP hosts interpreting user parts as phone numbers or dialed strings or email addresses or whatever in a completely locally configured manner when user=ip).

thus, depending on the level of dial plan awareness configured into a phone in pittsburgh, it might send any of the following URIs

sip:0;phone-context=pittsburgh.marconi.com@marconi.com;user=phone
sip:0@pittsburgh.marconi.com
sip:pittsburgh.operator@marconi.com

thanks,
-rohan

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: hisham.khartabil@nokia.com [mailto:hisham.khartabil@nokia.com]
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 5:21 AM
To: Richard.Stastny@oefeg.at; fluffy@cisco.com;
dean.willis@softarmor.com
Cc: Brian.Rosen@marconi.com; sip@ietf.org
Subject: RE: AW: AW: [Sip] SIPIT Interop problem with ;user=phone


So, the answer in any case is that it is somehow routable.
Therefore I conclude the allowing a sip URI to carry a dial
strings is not needed.

/Hisham

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Stastny Richard [mailto:Richard.Stastny@oefeg.at]
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 12:20 PM
To: Khartabil Hisham (NMP/Helsinki); fluffy@cisco.com;
dean.willis@softarmor.com
Cc: Brian.Rosen@marconi.com; sip@ietf.org
Subject: AW: AW: AW: [Sip] SIPIT Interop problem with ;user=phone


You should not need to route this call anyway, because
normally you should
not see such a context out of the context. The idea is: if
you know the context
then you also know how to route the call, if you do not know
the context,
you just say invalid number. In other contexts only global
understandable
URIs should be used

Richard

	-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
	Von: hisham.khartabil@nokia.com
[mailto:hisham.khartabil@nokia.com]
	Gesendet: Mo 01.09.2003 10:45
	An: fluffy@cisco.com; Stastny Richard;
dean.willis@softarmor.com
	Cc: Brian.Rosen@marconi.com; sip@ietf.org
	Betreff: RE: AW: AW: [Sip] SIPIT Interop problem with
;user=phone
	
	

	So, I'll ask the question again, this time for real:
	
	Under the informative text in 2806bis labeled "A Use of
"tel" URIs with SIP (Informative)", it says:
	
	"
	             2.   The outbound proxy does not use the same phone
	                  context, but can route to a proxy
that handles this
	                  phone context. This routing can be
done via a lookup
	                  table or the domain name of the phone
context might be
	                  set up to reflect the SIP domain name
of a suitable
	                  proxy. For example, a proxy may
always route calls
	                  with tel URIs like
	
	                  tel:1234;phone-context=munich.example.com
	
	                  to the SIP proxy located at
munich.example.com."
	
	
	So, how does the proxy route this message to
munich.example.com? Or how does it discover the proxy at
munich.example.com?
	
	The reason I'm asking this again is due to my proposal
in earlier emails to use a tel URI for dial strings and sip
URI for pure sip users.
	
	Is there something wrong with mandating that if an
entity placed a tel-URI in a sip request along with a
phone-context carrying a domain name, then that domain name
must be the address of a sip proxy?
	
	/Hisham
	
	> -----Original Message-----
	> From: ext Cullen Jennings [mailto:fluffy@cisco.com]
	> Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 2:48 AM
	> To: Stastny Richard; Khartabil Hisham (NMP/Helsinki);
Dean Willis
	> Cc: Brian Rosen; sip@ietf.org
	> Subject: Re: AW: AW: [Sip] SIPIT Interop problem with
;user=phone
	>
	>
	>
	> I don't know what I was thinking - I gave the wrong answer.
	> The context in
	> the tel does not at mean you should attempt to route the call
	> to there - it
	> is just an identifier of the namespace of who
understands the number.
	>
	> On 8/29/03 13:50, "Stastny Richard"
<Richard.Stastny@oefeg.at> wrote:
	>
	> >>> So, how does the proxy route this message to
munich.example.com?
	> >>>
	> >>> /Hisham
	> >>>
	> >>
	> >> The same way it routes sip:fluffy@munich.example.com
	> >
	> > Tell that to Dean :) He thinks it is not routable (that's
	> the point I was
	> > trying to make).
	> >
	> > Warning: this needs NOT to be true and IMHO this part of
	> > the informational section is misleading. In section 5.1.4
	> Local numbers
	> > it is clearly stated:
	> >
	> > "There are two ways to label the context: via a global
	> number or any    |
	> >  number of its leading digits (e.g., "+33") and via a
	> domain name,      |
	> >  e.g., "houston.example.com". The choice between the two is
	> left to     |
	> >  the "owner" of the local number and is governed by whether
	> there is a  |
	> >  global number or domain name that is a valid identifier
	> for a          |
	> >  particular local number.
	> >                                             |
	> >  The domain name does not have to resolve to any actual
	> host, but MUST  |
	> >  be under the administrative control of the entity managing
	> the local   |
	> >  phone context. "
	> >
	> > Since the domain name does not have to resolve to
an actual host,
	> > one cannot rely on this, so your statement may be wrong.
	> >
	> > Richard
	> >
	> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
	> > Von: hisham.khartabil@nokia.com
[mailto:hisham.khartabil@nokia.com]
	> > Gesendet: Fr 29.08.2003 17:31
	> > An: fluffy@cisco.com; dean.willis@softarmor.com
	> > Cc: Brian.Rosen@marconi.com; sip@ietf.org
	> > Betreff: RE: AW: [Sip] SIPIT Interop problem with
;user=phone
	> >
	> >
	> >
	> >
	> >
	> >> -----Original Message-----
	> >> From: ext Cullen Jennings [mailto:fluffy@cisco.com]
	> >> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 5:51 PM
	> >> To: Khartabil Hisham (NMP/Helsinki); Dean Willis
	> >> Cc: Brian Rosen; sip@ietf.org
	> >> Subject: Re: AW: [Sip] SIPIT Interop problem with
;user=phone
	> >>
	> >>
	> >> On 8/29/03 1:03, "hisham.khartabil@nokia.com"
	> >> <hisham.khartabil@nokia.com>
	> >> wrote:
	> >>
	> >>> Under the informative text in 2806bis labeled "A Use of
	> >> "tel" URIs with SIP
	> >>> (Informative)", it says:
	> >>>
	> >>> "
	> >>>            2.   The outbound proxy does not use
the same phone
	> >>>                 context, but can route to a proxy that
	> handles this
	> >>>                 phone context. This routing can be done
	> via a lookup
	> >>>                 table or the domain name of the phone
	> >> context might be
	> >>>                 set up to reflect the SIP domain name of
	> a suitable
	> >>>                 proxy. For example, a proxy may
always route calls
	> >>>                 with tel URIs like
	> >>>
	> >>>                 tel:1234;phone-context=munich.example.com
	> >>>
	> >>>                 to the SIP proxy located at
munich.example.com."
	> >>>
	> >>>
	> >>> So, how does the proxy route this message to
munich.example.com?
	> >>>
	> >>> /Hisham
	> >>>
	> >>
	> >> The same way it routes sip:fluffy@munich.example.com
	> >
	> > Tell that to Dean :) He thinks it is not routable (that's
	> the point I was
	> > trying to make).
	> >
	> > Regards,
	> > Hisham
	> >
	> >
	> >>
	> >>
	> >>
	> >
	> > _______________________________________________
	> > Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
	> > This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
	> > Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions
on current sip
	> > Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the
application of sip
	> >
	> >
	>
	>
	> _______________________________________________
	> Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
	> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
	> Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on
current sip
	> Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the
application of sip
	>
	


J*fj)b	bm?>
0'~ffX)ߣ"8bX+DYׯzZ)ay+y">-%RǬWz{h,rny۟zb{(˫*T"'~~{^hg'bqbz

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip