Subject: [Sipping] Re: calling number blocking at sip/isup gateway

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 10:40:18 EST

In a message dated 1/29/02 10:41:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> Mike, I'm following this discussion with great interest because I am heavily
>  involved in importing the SIP-T work into ITU-T Study Group 11.  I'm
>  concerned with one assumption you make below -- an assumption many of us
>  make much of the time.  That is that the UAC calling into the PSTN has a
>  telephone number which it places into the From: header.  What about UACs
>  which do not have telephone numbers assigned?  Will they be barred from 
PSTN
>  access, or should we mandate that the gateway assign some sort of number
>  which it alone can cross-correlate to the original user@domain if need be
>  for malicious call trace, etc.?
>  
I imagine this is one of the fundamental issues to be resolved, even without 
me knowing the details of what has been discussed. Question is, should the 
PSTN require an E.164 number (or something that can be resolved to one) for 
everything it handles? (The obvious exception may be that 911 calls are 
allowed from a device that hasn't been assigned one.)

I guess I didn't really mean that the service provider would require an E.164 
number, just that it would require an explicit identification of the party 
originating the call (that is, in the case of a service provider that 
provides a "tariffed" service.) I guess all the "ENUM" discussion (which I 
will hear more about next week at SG16) is attempting to address this issue.

Mike

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

---

From: Michael Hammer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 14:46:10 -0500

Where exactly is the From information mapped?  Into
Display Info, Generic Name, or Generic Address?  I assume this is
not mapped into the Calling Party ID without an E.164 number.  Or is
the GW expected to provide one from a pool like PBX's typically provide
trunk numbers on my Caller ID box.

Perhaps we can have the user register and get one DHCP style?
;-)

Anyway, I don't recall seeing a draft that went to this level of
detail.  The SIP-ISUP draft focuses on message level mapping for the
most part.  (If I missed a draft let me know.)

Mike H.

At 10:40 AM 1/30/2002 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:

In a message dated 1/29/02 10:41:22 AM Eastern
Standard Time,

PSTN

I imagine this is one of the fundamental issues to be resolved, even
without

me knowing the details of what has been discussed. Question is, should
the

PSTN require an E.164 number (or something that can be resolved to one)
for

I guess I didn't really mean that the service provider would require an
E.164

number, just that it would require an explicit identification of the
party

provides a "tariffed" service.) I guess all the
"ENUM" discussion (which I

will hear more about next week at SG16) is attempting to address this
issue.

Mike

Sipping mailing list
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping