caller ID and implementer's guide

[Pete Cordell]

Paul,

I disagree that these are proprietary solutions.

The first is a matter of policy and so falls into a slightly grey area, but
ideally the standard would say something like 'only send presentation
restricted information to an entity that you trust to honour the request.'

The second is definitely NOT an action you could take at a proprietary level
as the standards body still holds the right to define new IEs.  Any such
action would have to be approved by the standards body.  When I said '...YOU
could take further ownership...', the 'you' was intended to refer to SG16.

As such a change is small and localised, it would be safe to implement it
even if it was mentioned only in a determined document (which is the way the
procedure is supposed to work after all anyway!) which could be achieved at
the Chile meeting.  A fix in the ASN.1 would have to wait for the decided
version as that needs to wait until all such additions are present.

Pete

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Long <Plong at SMITHMICRO.COM>
To: ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM <ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM>
Date: 11 May 1999 21:53
Subject: Re: caller ID and implementer's guide


>Pete,
>
>Of course one can do anything with proprietary solutions, which is what you
>have described in both cases here.
>
>Paul Long
>Smith Micro Software, Inc.
>
>        -----Original Message-----
>        From:   Pete Cordell [SMTP:pete.cordell at BTINTERNET.COM]
>        Sent:   Tuesday, May 11, 1999 2:36 PM
>        To:     ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
>        Subject:        Re: caller ID and implementer's guide
>
>        My two cents - each worth one cent each...
>
>        1) You should only send private information in a clear text field
to
>an
>        entity that you trust to honour the request not to display it.  If
you
>know
>        enough about the entity to trust it, you probably know enough about
it
>to
>        know whether it will accept octet 3a.
>
>        2) If you must send this information to an entity that you don't
know
>        anything about, you could take further ownership of the use of
Q.931
>and
>        define a new IE and IE identifier (such as 0x6e or hi-jack one of
the
>ids
>        that you are very unlikely to use - 0x43) to mean 'calling party
>number with
>        presentation restriction'.  This would have the same format as a
>normal
>        Q.931 calling party number.
>
>        Pete
>
>        =============================================
>        Pete Cordell
>        pete.cordell at btinternet.com
>        =============================================
>
>