Subject: [Sipping] Comment on draft-haluska-sipping-directory-assistance-07

From: "Haluska, John J" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:21:27 -0400

Hi Keith,

Thanks much for taking the time to look at this.

Regarding your comment about ISUP, you are correct that it is referring to ANSI ISUP. I will ensure that this is clearly identified.

Regarding your comment about  draft-mahy-iptel-cpc, part of what this document aims to do is to point out gaps where standardized solutions are lacking, and identify potential options.Conveying OLI information in SIP is one such gap. The cpc parameter is mentioned as one possibility but the draft also identifies issues with that mechanism.

Thanks again, I very much appreciate your time and your comments.

John

= = = = = =
I was just glancing through:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-haluska-sipping-directory-assistance-07

I believe the ISUP used within this document in parts is the North American specific version, and as it currently stands the document is not applicable where such specifics do not apply.

I would suggest that either:

-       the document is reviewed and suggestions incorporated from ISUP experts outside North America; or

-       the document states up from that it is North American specific.

I also note that the document makes reference to draft-mahy-iptel-cpc. While this is used by a number of other SDOs, it has expired and I do not know what the future of it is. My understanding was that RFC 5341 defined the registration policy as below, but I know of no work in progress to put that in place:

4.2.  Registration Policy for tel URI Parameters

   As per the terminology in [3] and actions accorded to such a role,
   the registration policy for tel URI parameters shall be
   "Specification Required, Designated Expert" (the former implicitly
   implies the latter.)

   The Designated Expert when deliberating on whether to include a new
   parameter in the tel URI registry may use the criteria provided below
   to reach a decision (this is not an exhaustive list but
   representative of the issues to consider when rendering an equitable
   decision):

   o  If the tel URI -- with the parameter under consideration -- will
      be converted to a URI used by other signaling protocols such as
      the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP [5]) or H.323 [7], then the
      expert must consider whether this parameter merely encapsulates
      signaling information that is not meaningful to the processing of
      requests in the domain of the converted URI.  For example, certain
      Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) User Part (ISUP, [8])
      parameters have no equivalent corollary in SIP; thus their
      presence or absence in a SIP URI will not hinder the normal rules
      for processing that URI.  Other parameters may affect the normal
      processing rules associated with the URI; in such cases, the
      expert must consider carefully the ramifications, if any, of the
      presence of such parameters.

   o  Certain parameters of a tel URI can be optional.  These parameters
      act as metadata about the identifier in the tel URI.  Optional
      parameters should provide additional information to a service for
      which they apply instead of acting as enablers of that service in
      the first place.  The service must continue to be invoked and
      operate normally even in the absence of these parameters.

regards

Keith