[SIPForum-techwg] Proposed text for anonymous URIs
Elwell, John
john.elwell at siemens-enterprise.com
Wed Apr 29 15:11:12 EDT 2009
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Lindsay [mailto:blindsay at nortel.com]
> Sent: 29 April 2009 18:38
> To: Richard Shockey; Elwell, John; Sumit Garg; techwg at sipforum.org
> Subject: RE: [SIPForum-techwg] Proposed text for anonymous URIs
>
> Hi,
>
> I don't think we just should stick to RFC 3398 for this.
> All of these
> other standards came after RFC 3398,
[JRE] RFC 4497, which on this subject is not far away from RFC 3398, was
somewhat later.
In addition, my company's experience with basing implementations on RFC
4497 has been good - I am not aware of any field issues with this.
> and many SIP-PSTN interworking
> functions would be implemented based on one of these standards.
[JRE] But they seem to be saying different things, so we can't be in
line with all of them anyway.
John
>
> Regards
> Brian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Shockey [mailto:richard at shockey.us]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 1:05 PM
> To: 'Elwell, John'; 'Sumit Garg'; Lindsay, Brian (CAR:AR00);
> techwg at sipforum.org
> Subject: RE: [SIPForum-techwg] Proposed text for anonymous URIs
>
> +1 IMHO we should stick to IETF RFC's. I'm not thrilled by quoting
> +either
> ITU or 3GPP documentation in this specification.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org
> > [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org]
> > On Behalf Of Elwell, John
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 12:59 PM
> > To: Sumit Garg; Brian Lindsay; techwg at sipforum.org
> > Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] Proposed text for anonymous URIs
> >
> > Sumit,
> >
> > Thanks. However, that is just "unavailable at hostportion", which is
> > different from what is specified by 3GPP, for example. So whilst a
> > number of bodies might have views on what should be
> included in a From
>
> > URI in this situation, there isn't much consistency:
> different bodies
>
> > have specified different things.
> >
> > For example, the IETF has specified "the gateway SHALL
> include a URI
>
> > identifying the gateway in the From header" in RFC 4497. As
> another
> > example, in RFC 3398 it states "If the CIN is not present,
> then the
> > gateway SHOULD create a dummy From header field containing
> a SIP URI
> > without a user portion which communicates only the hostname of the
> > gateway (e.g., 'sip:gw.sipcarrier.com)." Meeting the RFC 3398
> > requirement would also meet the RFC 4497 requirement.
> >
> > Should we not stick to what is specified in RFCs?
> >
> > John
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Sumit Garg [mailto:sgarg at cedarpointcom.com] >
> Sent: 29 April
>
> > 2009 13:07 > To: Elwell, John; Brian Lindsay;
> techwg at sipforum.org >
> > Subject: RE: [SIPForum-techwg] Proposed text for anonymous
> URIs > >
> > John, > Try the link below...
> > > http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Q.1912.5-200403-I/en
> > >
> > > The Table is table 27...1st row.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org [mailto:techwg-
> > bounces at sipforum.org] > On Behalf Of Elwell, John > Sent:
> Wednesday,
>
> > April 29, 2009 3:15 AM > To: Brian Lindsay; techwg at sipforum.org >
> > Subject: Re: [SIPForum-techwg] Proposed text for anonymous
> URIs > >
> > Brian, > > Q.1912.5 is not visible on the ITU-T web site. Q.1912
> > itself certainly > doesn't specify anything of this nature (it
> > pre-dates SIP!).
> > >
> > > The ANSI spec does not seem to be freely available, so we should
> > not > reference that.
> > >
> > > I guess that if the sip:unknown at unknown.invalid format
> is included
>
> > in > one or more other specs and is reasonably well used, we could
> > simply > specify the format without necessarily referencing those
> > other specs.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Brian Lindsay [mailto:blindsay at nortel.com] > > Sent: 23
> > April 2009 14:48 > > To: Elwell, John; techwg at sipforum.org > >
> > Subject: RE: [SIPForum-techwg] Proposed text for anonymous
> URIs > >
> > > > Hi John/all, > >
> > > > If you would like an approach that refers to specs, then
> > > replace my
> > > > last bullet as follows:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > - A URI representing an unavailable/unknown number as > >
> > described by 3GPP > > TS 23.003, PacketCable
> > PKT-SP-CMSS1.5-I04-070412, ITU-T Q.1912.5, or > > ANSI
> T1.679-2004
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Elwell, John
> > [mailto:john.elwell at siemens-enterprise.com]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 8:43 AM > > To: Lindsay, Brian
> > (CAR:AR00); techwg at sipforum.org > > Subject: RE: [SIPForum-techwg]
> > Proposed text for anonymous URIs > > > > > > > > >
> -----Original
> > Message----- > > > From: Brian Lindsay
> [mailto:blindsay at nortel.com]
> > > > > Sent: 22 April 2009 20:45 > > > To: Elwell, John;
> > techwg at sipforum.org > > > Subject: RE: [SIPForum-techwg] Proposed
> > text for anonymous URIs > > > > > > > > > Hi John/all, > > >
> > > > > For the following text:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > ----------
> > > > > ---------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > For calls incoming to the Service Provider Network
> from the >
> > > PSTN, if > > > the PSTN did not supply an E.164 calling
> number and
> > did > not request > > > calling number privacy, the SP-SSE SHOULD
> > send a URI > without a user > > > part, for > > > example:
> > > > >
> > > > > From: "Unknown" <sip:gateway.serviceprovider.net>;tag=0728361
> > > > >
> > > > >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > ----------
> > > > > ---------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to modify as follows:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > ----------
> > > > > ---------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > For calls incoming to the Service Provider Network
> from the >
> > > PSTN, if > > > the PSTN did not supply an E.164 calling
> number and
> > did > not request > > > calling number privacy, the SP-SSE SHOULD
> > send a URI in > one of the > > > following > > > formats:
> > > > >
> > > > > - A URI without a user part, for example:
> > > > >
> > > > > From: "Unknown"
> <sip:gateway.serviceprovider.net>;tag=0728361
> > > > >
> > > > > - A URI with "unknown" or "unavailable" in the user
> part, and
> > > > > "unknown.invalid" in the host part, for example:
> > > > >
> > > > > From: <sip:unavailable at unknown.invalid>;tag=0728361
> > > > [JRE] I would like to hear other opinions on whether the SIP
> > Forum > > should be specifying specific values for user parts or
> > domain names.
> > > > Alternatively, if there are other standards we can
> reference > >
>
> > (e.g., from > > 3GPP), that might be a suitable solution.
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > techwg mailing list
> > > Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
> > > Unsubscribe or edit options at:
> > > http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > techwg mailing list
> > Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
> > Unsubscribe or edit options at:
> > http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg
>
>
More information about the techwg
mailing list