Subject: Re: What we have, what we don't have and need, what we don't need

From: [email-masked] (Igor Faynberg)
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 15:41:04 -0400

Chip Sharp wrote:
>
>While this is true, we do have to consider that because a DP is defined by
>ITU it doesn't mean that it is available on a particular version of a
>particular vendor's product.  Even if it is available, it doesn't mean a
>telco has deployed it.  

That is correct, unfortunately for all of us. But to support specific services, 
telco would need to support specific DPs. For example, to support ICW, the 
"Called Party Busy" trigger would be needed (or, maybe, a clever use of some 
other triggers).  [A good question for Lev Slutsman: what trigger is used for
his Advanced Internet Caller ID Delivery? ]

>I don't think that IETF should track every such
>permutation, it is a reality we have to deal with. :-\

Just to nitpick, "combination" rather then "permutation." :-)
But this is not what I proposed. My proposal was to define parameters that
the PSTN would pass to the Internet in order to start a PI... service by
looking at the trigger or triggers that launch the service itself.

>But this isn't much different from any other telco protocol (ISDN, R2MFC,
>SS7, etc.).
>

Even slightly better, in my opinion. (I really think that the DP-specific vs. 
DP-generic war between the US and Europe left the common infrastructure--DPs 
themselves as well as the Information Flows and Information Elements intact.)

>So if we "do no more than support the full list of triggers" (you make it
>sound so easy ;-), we will be able to interwork with all the various
>vendor/national implementations out there?
>

I sincereley hope so, but--Chip is right--I cannot know that for sure. My
proposal is for making the first step.  Note also that the DPs are in the
switches, and we tacitly agreed to keep the same architecture that we
developed in PINT, that is talk to the IP host through the Executive System/SCF.Consequently, the triggers for the services in question as well as 
associated signaling to the SCP will take place in the PSTN no matter what
(and we don't even care how). The piece that we are to deal with is what
is available (and what we need) at the SCP. My conjecture is that all we
will need will be available, but let us test it!

---------
This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List.

---

From: [email-masked] (Igor Faynberg)
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 16:09:09 -0400

Marty Tennent wrote:

>...

>This is applied for orginating calls.  Are you referring to the
>complementary T_Busy trigger below?  If so, what are the feature
>interactions between the two triggers?  Which one has
>precedence??
>
>Perhaps Mr. A.R. Blackburn with BellSouth Technology would like
>to address this.  Also, the Terminating Called Party Busy is an
>AIN 0.2 trigger.  What makes you think this has been implemented
>and will be available?  Very few 0.2 triggers have been, except
>for the example above to my knowledge.
>
>Marty Tennant
>Low Tech Designs, Inc.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Igor Faynberg <[email-masked]>
>
>1) A call arrives at the trigger "Called Party Busy."
>
>
>

Actually, even though the best place to implement ICW is indeed the
terminating switch, the DP I had in mind was DP 5 of CS-1 O_BCSM 
(O_called_party_busy), for precisely the reasons Marty has listed.
[Theoretically though, every switch has both the terminating and originating
halves of the BCSM, so even the terminating switch may act on that DP.]
But I intentionally did not make any difference between the originating
and terminating parts, because as far as the Internet is concerned, its
service starts AFTER the thing arrived at the SCP from wherever it had
arrived.

That should make the support of multiple implementations much easier. At
the last BOF, we have already seen two different approaches from local
and long distance providers, so we will have much more than AIN 0.2 vs
other triggers. 

I only hope that we would not need to sort those out as long as 

	1) we agree on what we need from the PSTN at the SCP/Exec. System

	2) we agree that this information can be provided in
           order to deliver services in question.

Igor

P.S.: Incidentally, this message came to PINT but not to PIN.  It really should
have been the other way around: ICW is not a PINT subject, that HAS been
decided. Steve and I did not mind that the discussion on separation between
PINT and PIN take place on both lists, but this thread, I believe is becoming
clearly PIN-related.

---------

---

From: "Slutsman, Lev A, ALSVC" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 17:16:52 -0400

Igot Faynberg wrote:
>
>[A good question for Lev Slutsman: what trigger is used for

The Specific_Digit_String trigger type is used. As mentioned in Q.1224, this
trigger may be used to provide for customized (incoming) call routing on a
specific directory number.

 Lev

> ----------
> From: 	Marty Tennant[SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 	Monday, April 05, 1999 3:10 PM
> To: 	Igor Faynberg; pint list
> Subject: 	Re: What we have, what we don't have and need, what we don't
> need
> 
> A critical question that must be asked is - are there other
> triggers active - particularly those that you might never have
> asked for?  For example, BellSouth in Atlanta has implemented a
> service called BusyConnect(sm).
> 
> They have activated an AIN 0.2 trigger on an officewide basis
> called O_Called _Party_Busy so that the originating party never
> get a busy signal, but a recorded announcement (advertisement)
> advising you of the opportunity to press "1" to activate
> BusyConnect, which turns around and dials *66 for you.
> 

---------