caller ID and implementer's guide

[Paul E. Jones]

Paul,

I believe your latter assumption is correct-- we need the functionality of
octet 3a and would prefer to use it as prescribed in Q.931 rather than
invent some new "hack" to achieve the same functionality.

I don't believe that the question is unreasonable to ask-- we must find out
somehow.  Certainly, a decision like this cannot be made lightly and must be
made with all interested parties knowing about it.  If there are absolutely
no objections from any company providing H.323 products, I certainly see no
reason why we cannot allow it.

Regards,
Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Long <Plong at SMITHMICRO.COM>
To: <ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM>
Sent: Friday, May 14, 1999 11:58 AM
Subject: Re: caller ID and implementer's guide


> Randy,
>
> I agree, it has gone on too long, but... :-)
>
> Exactly, you've made my point for me!
>
> 1.      One cannot send SETUP to a v1 or v2 EP with the octet-3 extension
bit
> of calling party number set to 0, because H.225.0 v1 and v2 says that it
shall
> be set to 1.
>
> 2.      An H.323 entity cannot know (through in-band means) the version of
the
> destination EP before it sends SETUP.
>
> 3.      Therefore, an entity can never send SETUP to an EP with the
extension
> bit set to 0 and octet 3a present.
>
> I don't know how to make it any clearer. Either nobody understands what
I'm
> saying, or they do but really really REALLY want to use octet 3a "the way
God
> intended it to be used" :-) regardless of whether it violates some
revisions
> of H.225.0 and risks breaking compliant implementations. I believe the
latter
> is the case, but nobody wants to admit it.
>
> Paul Long
> Smith Micro Software, Inc.
>
>         -----Original Message-----
>         From:   Wuerfel, Randy P [SMTP:Randy.P.Wuerfel at ICN.SIEMENS.COM]
>         Sent:   Friday, May 14, 1999 10:18 AM
>         To:     ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
>         Subject:        Re: caller ID and implementer's guide
>
>         Perhaps this discussion has gone on too long, however I just
wanted to
> point
>         out that when Paul uses the phrase "an EP cannot send a SETUP
message
> to a
>         v1 or v2 EP ...", the phrase has no meaning (at least to me).  We
> support
>         users (people!) on our H.323 system that register with a GK.  The
> users are
>         mobile, and can thus register from any EP.  Thus, when I initiate
a
> call, my
>         ARQ indicates a destinationInfo alias address of a user that may
at
> that
>         moment be using any type of an EP.  Since my EP doesn't attempt to
> match a
>         transport address with an EP type (which would be a triviality
> anyway), I
>         have no idea of the EP type (v1, v2 or in the future v3) when I
send
> the
>         Setup message.
>
>         Don't I need an H.225.0 message returned from the destination EP
> before I
>         can determine its type?
>
>         Please consider the proposals that Karl Klaghofer has made to
resolve
> this
>         issue in Santiago.
>
>         ==========================================================
>         Randy Wuerfel
>         IP/Data Networks Development
>         Unisphere Solutions, Inc.               E-mail:
>         Randy.P.Wuerfel at icn.siemens.com
>         4900 Old Ironsides Drive                Fax: (408) 492-4666
>         M/S 200                         Tel: (408) 492-4375
>         P.O. Box 58075
>         Santa Clara, CA 95052-8075
>