AW: Comments on H.225.0 v4 Whitedraft (sourceAddress)
Rich wrote: "...Note that we allow the E.164 number to be included in both the sourceAddress field and the Calling Party Number IE. If we're saying that it "shall" be in the IE, should we at least say that it "should not" be included in the sourceAddress field? ..."
YES, we should state that the real E.164 number of the calling user shall be in Calling Party Number IE and should not be in SourceAddress field.
Regards, Karl
----------------------------------------------------------- Karl Klaghofer / ICN EN HC SE 81 HiPath VoIP Enterprise Architecture & Standardization Hofmannstr. 51, 81359 Munich, Germany Tel.: +49 89 722 31488 Fax.: +49 89 722 37629 E-Mail: karl.klaghofer@icn.siemens.de
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Rich Bowen [mailto:rkbowen@CISCO.COM] Gesendet am: Freitag, 21. Juli 2000 02:06 An: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Betreff: Re: Comments on H.225.0 v4 Whitedraft (sourceAddress)
Karl,
Glad you noticed this. How about the following slight modification of the wording that you proposed:
"sourceAddress - Contains the alias addresses of the source. The primary address shall be first. Note that the E.164 Number of the source, if any, shall be contained within the Calling Party Number Information Element."
Note that we allow the E.164 number to be included in both the sourceAddress field and the Calling Party Number IE. If we're saying that it "shall" be in the IE, should we at least say that it "should not" be included in the sourceAddress field?
Regards, Rich
Klaghofer Karl ICN EN HC SE 81 wrote:
One more try, since it seems that my previous mail I sent out yesterday
did
not arrive. Regards, Karl Klaghofer
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Klaghofer Karl ICN EN HC SE 81 Gesendet am: Tuesday, July 18, 2000 12:02 An: 'ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com' Betreff: Comments on H.225.0 v4 Whitedraft (sourceAddress)
Rich and others,
H.225.0v4 White draft, section 7.3.10 Setup reads: "... sourceAddress - Contains the alias addresses for the source; the dialed digit string of the source is in the Q.931 Calling Party Number IE. The primary address shall be first. ..."
PROPOSED TO BE CORRECTED TO: "... sourceAddress - Contains the alias addresses of the source. Note that
the
E.164 Number of the source is contained within Calling Party Number Information Element. The primary address shall be first. ..."
Background: As part of the global v4 change to replace the term "e164" by the term "dialedDigits" in the whole H.225.0 document, the sentense in current v4 Whitedraft does not make sense anymore and should be corrected in v4 in Portland. I think what we wanted to say is that the E.164 number is contained within the Calling Party Number IE and not the dialed digit string ! Dialed digit string (unstructured number which maybe may
include
prefixes, etc would be put into sourceAddress.dialedDigits). Note: There might be further sections where the simple replacement of
the
term e164 by term dialed digits may have caused vagueness, since term
e164
in v2 was actually used for both - real E.164 but also unstructured
digit
strings.
Regards, Karl Klaghofer
Karl Klaghofer, Siemens AG Dpmt ICN EN HC D81, VoIP Architecture & Standardization Hofmannstr. 51, 81359 Munich, Germany Tel.: +49 89 722 31488; Fax.: +49 89 722 37629 Mail: karl.klaghofer@icn.siemens.de
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.com
Karl,
Thanks for the response. I'll also discuss this with others here at the meeting in Portland.
Regards, Rich
Klaghofer Karl ICN EN HC SE 81 wrote:
Rich wrote: "...Note that we allow the E.164 number to be included in both the sourceAddress field and the Calling Party Number IE. If we're saying that it "shall" be in the IE, should we at least say that it "should not" be included in the sourceAddress field? ..."
YES, we should state that the real E.164 number of the calling user shall be in Calling Party Number IE and should not be in SourceAddress field.
Regards, Karl
Karl Klaghofer / ICN EN HC SE 81 HiPath VoIP Enterprise Architecture & Standardization Hofmannstr. 51, 81359 Munich, Germany Tel.: +49 89 722 31488 Fax.: +49 89 722 37629 E-Mail: karl.klaghofer@icn.siemens.de
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Rich Bowen [mailto:rkbowen@CISCO.COM] Gesendet am: Freitag, 21. Juli 2000 02:06 An: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com Betreff: Re: Comments on H.225.0 v4 Whitedraft (sourceAddress)
Karl,
Glad you noticed this. How about the following slight modification of the wording that you proposed:
"sourceAddress - Contains the alias addresses of the source. The primary address shall be first. Note that the E.164 Number of the source, if any, shall be contained within the Calling Party Number Information Element."
Note that we allow the E.164 number to be included in both the sourceAddress field and the Calling Party Number IE. If we're saying that it "shall" be in the IE, should we at least say that it "should not" be included in the sourceAddress field?
Regards, Rich
Klaghofer Karl ICN EN HC SE 81 wrote:
One more try, since it seems that my previous mail I sent out yesterday
did
not arrive. Regards, Karl Klaghofer
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Klaghofer Karl ICN EN HC SE 81 Gesendet am: Tuesday, July 18, 2000 12:02 An: 'ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com' Betreff: Comments on H.225.0 v4 Whitedraft (sourceAddress)
Rich and others,
H.225.0v4 White draft, section 7.3.10 Setup reads: "... sourceAddress - Contains the alias addresses for the source; the dialed digit string of the source is in the Q.931 Calling Party Number IE. The primary address shall be first. ..."
PROPOSED TO BE CORRECTED TO: "... sourceAddress - Contains the alias addresses of the source. Note that
the
E.164 Number of the source is contained within Calling Party Number Information Element. The primary address shall be first. ..."
Background: As part of the global v4 change to replace the term "e164" by the term "dialedDigits" in the whole H.225.0 document, the sentense in current v4 Whitedraft does not make sense anymore and should be corrected in v4 in Portland. I think what we wanted to say is that the E.164 number is contained within the Calling Party Number IE and not the dialed digit string ! Dialed digit string (unstructured number which maybe may
include
prefixes, etc would be put into sourceAddress.dialedDigits). Note: There might be further sections where the simple replacement of
the
term e164 by term dialed digits may have caused vagueness, since term
e164
in v2 was actually used for both - real E.164 but also unstructured
digit
strings.
Regards, Karl Klaghofer
Karl Klaghofer, Siemens AG Dpmt ICN EN HC D81, VoIP Architecture & Standardization Hofmannstr. 51, 81359 Munich, Germany Tel.: +49 89 722 31488; Fax.: +49 89 722 37629 Mail: karl.klaghofer@icn.siemens.de
For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.comFor help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to listserv@mailbag.intel.comFor 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
participants (2)
-
Klaghofer Karl ICN EN HC SE 81 -
Rich Bowen