Frank,
the reason for these complicated rules is backwards compatibility. Originally numbers were only used in implicit form and assumed to be "(more or less) E.164" (this alternative of an alias address is now more correctly termed "dialled digits"). The indicator "private numbering plan" meant that the UUI contained the alias address. With version 2, structured party numbers were introduced (E.164 and private numbering plans). Still, the decision between party number information elements and UUI address-fields was mostly left to the implementor.
This unsatisfactory situation is clarified in version 4. The main principles are:
- for a calling number in implicit form or explicit E.164 form, use the calling party number information element, but for an explicit PNP number use the sourceAddress field;
- for a destination number in implicit form or explicit E.164 form, use the called party number information element, but for an explicit PNP number use the destinationAddress field (exception: in INFORMATION messages used for overlap sending, PNP number digits are also transported in the called party number information element);
- for a connected number, use the infornmtion element (here the PNP indicator has no special meaning);
- in all other cases use the UUI fields.
Ernst Horvath Siemens AG
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Frank Derks [mailto:frank.derks@PHILIPS.COM] Gesendet am: Dienstag, 21. August 2001 14:32 An: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM Betreff: Private Numbering Plans and the Called/Calling party number IEs
7.2.2.4/H.225.0 and 7.2.2.6/H.225.0 state that if the numbering plan information is set to "private" (in a packet based network originated call), that this indicates that the number itself is _not_ present in the IE, but in the User-User information. This is not the case for the Connected Number, as this is encoded per Q.951.
Strangely enough 7.3.10/H.225.0 states (under the description of destinationAddress) that, if an endpoint uses only a dialled digit string that this address _shall_ be placed in the Called party number IE and (under the description of sourceAddress) that if the source has an E.164 address that this _shall_ be contained in the Calling party number IE. This would seem to contradict the statements in 7.2.2.4 and 7.2.2.6.
Furthermore, it is not clear to me why private numbers can't just be put in the Called/Calling party number IEs?
Regards,
Frank
For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com