Francois,
See
H.225.0 Section 7.2.2.4 (Called Party Number):
Numbering plan identification (octet #3, bit 1-4)
- Encoded following the values and
rules of Table 4-9/Q.931. If set to "1001" (Private Numbering Plan)
in a packet based network originated call, this indicates that (1)the E.164
address is not present in SETUP, and (2)the call will be routed via an alias
address in the user-to-user information.
This says
that the identification of the Private Number Plan requires the call to be
routed based on an alias address in the UUI. This also means that the Private Number Plan cannot indicate
that a number conforming to a private numbering plan is present in the IE.
It is
possible to use the value indicating an Unknown Number Plan and place a private
number in the IE. However, this is
only a digit string without any defined structure.
Bob
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert
Callaghan
Siemens Enterprise
Networks
Tel: +1.561.997-3756 Fax: +1.561.997-3403
Email: Robert.Callaghan@ICN.Siemens.com
--------------------------------------------------------
-----Original
Message-----
From: Francois Audet
[mailto:audet@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001
1:40 PM
To: Callaghan, Robert; 'Glenn
FREUNDLICH (E-mail)'
Cc: 'SG16 ITU-T (E-mail)'; 'Paul
JONES (E-mail)'
Subject: RE: Private telephone
number in H.323v4
Hi Bob,
I'm not sure I
understand your point.
The way I read it now:
·
H.323 says "Put a
private number in the Q.931 IE"; and
·
H.225.0 says "Put
a private number in the UUIE".
Which one is it? I
think you are saying H.225.0 is right (I tend to agree and so does Paul). We
need to make sure everybody does (Glenn in particular), and H.323 should be
clarified, because I would assume most people who read it will think they are
supposed to put the IE in the Q.931 information element.
-----Original
Message-----
From: Callaghan,
Robert [SMTP:Robert.Callaghan@icn.siemens.com]
Sent: Wednesday,
June 20, 2001 05:00
To: Audet,
Francois [SC2:4K02:EXCH]; 'Glenn FREUNDLICH (E-mail)'
Cc: 'SG16
ITU-T (E-mail)'; 'Paul JONES (E-mail)'
Subject: RE:
Private telephone number in H.323v4
Francois,
The problem is that both H.323 and H.225.0 state
that in the Q.931 elements used for "telephone numbers" the code
point indicating the presence of a private number is used to indicate that the
address is in the UUI. It is not possible to conform to this usage and to
use this value to indicate that the Q.931 element contains a private number.
Bob
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Callaghan
Siemens
Enterprise Networks
Tel:
+1.561.997-3756 Fax: +1.561.997-3403
Email:
Robert.Callaghan@ICN.Siemens.com <mailto:Robert.Callaghan@ICN.Siemens.com>
--------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Francois Audet [mailto:audet@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 7:27
PM
To: Callaghan, Robert; 'Glenn
FREUNDLICH (E-mail)'
Cc: 'SG16 ITU-T (E-mail)'; 'Paul
JONES (E-mail)'
Subject: Private telephone number
in H.323v4
Hi,
I just realize a contradiction in H.323v4 and
H.225.0v4 concerning the encoding of "private telephone numbers"
(i.e., the type we all use at work):
· H.225.0v4
says that "Private telephone numbers" shall be encoded in the UUIE as
private numbers, and NOT in the Q.931 information elements (Calling party IE,
etc.). Let's call this the "Bob method". See Table 18/H.225.0 Note 1.
· H.323v4
says that the Q.931 information element is used for "telephone
numbers", and that the UUIE is used for things that are not telephone
numbers. Let's call this the "Glenn method". See H.323v4/7.8.2.1 and
7.8.2.2.
There is no conflict with
both method for "public" telephone number, but there is a conflict
for "private" telephone numbers.
Which method is right, Bob's or Glenn's?
----
François AUDET, Nortel Networks
<mailto:audet@nortelnetworks.com>, tel:+1 408 495 3756