caller ID and implementer's guide

[Paul Long]

Pete,

I like it! We can put something like this in v3:

"The octet-3 extension bit of calling party number IE in SETUP may be set to 0
or 1, The behavior relating to this bit and octet 3a is defined in Q.931 with
the following exceptions. An unregistered EP shall set this bit to 1. A
registered EP shall set this bit to 1 if the callModel component of
AdmissionConfirm is set to direct or callModel is set to gatekeeperRouted and
the GK is v1 or v2. A GK shall set this bit to 1 and remove octet 3a if
"presentation allowed" is indicated and the destination EP is v1 or v2. A GK
shall remove the calling party number IE if "presentation restricted" is
indicated and the destination EP is v1 or v2."

You need to integrate the "next routing entity" stuff, because I haven't been
keeping up with it.

Mind you, adding a new calling party number IE that allows this bit to be set
to 0, which someone suggested, would allow _all_ entities to interoperate
regardless of version. However, if we absolutely must use the existing IE,
your proposed work-around is a good compromise.

Paul Long
Smith Micro Software, Inc.

        -----Original Message-----
        From:   Pete Cordell [SMTP:pete.cordell at BTINTERNET.COM]
        Sent:   Tuesday, May 18, 1999 4:16 AM
        To:     ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
        Subject:        Re: caller ID and implementer's guide

        Dear All,

        One solution to the version number paradox might work in the
gatekeeper
        routed mode.  An endpoint can find out during registration and prior
to
        sending SETUP the version number of the gatekeeper .  Based on the
version
        of the GK, an endpoint can decide whether to send presentation
restricted
        information to the GK.  If the remote endpoint, or the next 'routing
entity'
        is also registered with the GK, it will know its the version.  The GK
could
        remove the IE based on this information.

        On a wider scale, this also requires such information to be included
in
        Annex G.  Is it?

        Pete

        =============================================
        Pete Cordell
        pete.cordell at btinternet.com
        =============================================