Subject: [Sip] What is the mapping of ANI II digits to rpi-np?

From: Bryan Byerly <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 11:59:20 -0400

Hi guys,

I have received several requests to allow bidirectional translation of
ANI II digits to its SIP equivalent in SIP INVITEs.  I see that in
draft-ietf-sip-privacy-02.txt, "Appendix A: Nature of Party" there is
rpi-np syntax that seems like it might address this mapping.

Although the complete bidirectional mapping is not obvious to me; I
could guess at a mapping.  However, for interoperability's sake, I think
it would be useful to have an explicitly defined bidirectional mapping.

So, I have 2 questions:
1) What is the proposed bidirectional mapping between ANI II digits and
rpi-np tokens.  (NOTE: The definition of ANI II digits can be found at:
http://www.nanpa.com/number_resource_info/ani_ii_assignments.html).
2) Is rpi-np the standards track representation equivalent in SIP to ANI
II digits?

By the way, I think defining this mapping in a Best Current Practices
doc might be useful to other implementors as well.

many thanks for your help,
Bryan

Bryan J. Byerly
[email-masked]

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 20:05:12 EDT

To all,

In a message dated 9/28/01 5:11:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [email-masked] 
writes:

<< Hi guys,
 
 I had initially sent out a question on this issue and received no
 responses; so I'm trying again... :^)
 
 I'm trying to understand the appropriate translation of ANI II digits to
 their SIP equivalent.  However, when
 I try to match the currently defined ANI II digits from
 http://www.nanpa.com/number_resource_info/ani_ii_assignments.html
 against the keywords defined in
 Appendix A of draft-ietf-sip-privacy-02.txt, it appears to be a sparse,
 non-invertible mapping.
 
 So, I have a few questions:
 1) Is there a more recent version of this syntax?
 2) Could someone define a less sparse, invertible mapping as a best
 current practice?
 3) Should we instead just define a new tag such as, ";ani-ii=number" ?
 4) Other ideas? >>

<<My comment:
It seems best to use your suggestion 3 - simply define a tag for 
"ani-ii=number" and use the currently defined numbers, not some newly 
invented list of keywords that have unknown meanings. Let's not reinvent the 
wheel!

Mike Pierce