Paul,

My feeling would be that as an endpoint making calls, you will probably only be dealing with dialled numbers, and will therefore use the e164 field.

When you're registering with a gatekeeper, however, you may need to do different. For example, I have here an internal phone number within Madge (31359), and a DDI number (+44 1753 661 359). I could see a sensible way of modelling that situation as being for my endpoint to register a PrivatePartyNumber of the former and a PublicPartyNumber of that latter. The gatekeeper then needs to cope with the difference between the two, and who dials what to get hold of you. If you use only the e164 number field, you either register one or the other (and expect the gatekeeper to translate), or register both. The advantage of differentiating them in some way (either using typed numbers or letting the gatekeeper "invent" another number for you) is that (particularly in the world of H.225.0 Annex G) the gatekeeper will probably only publicise public numbers to third parties (after all, a four or five digit number can't be expected to identify individuals uniquely if the scope is larger than a single organisation). If, then, you accept that such differentiation is useful, that means you're asking extra intelligence within your gatekeeper. It may make it "easier" for gatekeepers to have that extra intelligence if you register typed, rather than dialled, numbers.

Regards, Chris -- Dr Chris Purvis - Senior Development Engineer, WAVE CC Software Madge Networks Ltd, Wexham Springs, Framewood Road, Wexham, Berks. ENGLAND Phone: +44 1753 661 359 email: cpurvis@madge.com

-----Original Message----- From: Paul Long [mailto:Plong@SMITHMICRO.COM] Sent: 14 April 1999 6:57 To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: e164 vs. partyNumber aliases

Okay, but what is the status of the e164 alias? For example, if a user enters a "telephone number" at a v1 EP, it must be provided as an e164 alias. Will all other entities continue to recognize this as a telephone number? Now if a user does the same thing at a v2 EP, can the number be provided as an e164 alias _or_ a partyNumber? Will all entities continue to support both types of aliases, or is e164 deprecated as of v2? As an EP vendor, I'd really hate to require the user to indicate whether the number they just entered is an "e164 alias" or a "party number." Yucko... Maybe, just to be safe, the number should be provided in both forms, but I think some entities get confused when confronted with multiple aliases, or at least the semantics of such a thing is ambiguous.

Paul Long Smith Micro Software, Inc.

    -----Original Message-----
    From:   Callaghan, Robert

[SMTP:Robert.Callaghan@ICN.SIEMENS.COM] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 12:14 PM To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM Subject: Re: e164 vs. partyNumber aliases

    Paul,

    The E164 alias, in use, is the user dialed number not

a structured E.164 address. The partyNumber is the structured E.164 or Private Number.

    Bob

---

    Robert Callaghan
    Siemens Information & Communication Networks
    Tel: +1.561.997.3756    Fax: +1.561.997.3403
    Email:  Robert.Callaghan@ICN.Siemens.com

---

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Paul Long [mailto:Plong@SMITHMICRO.COM]
    Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 12:38 PM
    To: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com
    Subject: e164 vs. partyNumber aliases


    What is the difference between an e164 alias and a

partyNumber alias? Was e164 found lacking, and does partyNumber now supercede it? Are we supposed to stop using e164? If not, how do we decide which form to use?

    Paul Long
    Smith Micro Software, Inc.