caller ID and implementer's guide

[Paul Long]

(Again, apologies if you've already received this. It didn't bounce off the
reflector to me either, so I'm sending it again.)

Pete,

I didn't make myself clear. I wasn't talking about whether someone might be
emotionally or "litigiously" upset. My point was that the admittedly silly
situation of transmitting H.261 over an H.263 channel clearly violates the
Recommendations, regardless of whether I know that the remote entity expects
this. Likewise, setting the extension bit of octet 3 in the calling party
number IE to 0 and therefore including octet 3a is also a clear violation of
H.225.0v1 and v2, regardless of whether the receiving entity expects this
non-compliant behavior. There is no way to get around 7.2.2.1's "_shall_ be
set to '1'." These are both non-interoperable, proprietary scenarios.

Let me say it in yet another way (and yes I am running out of ways to say it):
A v1 or v2 EP must set this bit to 1, and no EP, regardless of revision, must
ever set it to 0 if the remote EP is v1 or v2. This is not merely my
opinion--this is in effect what H.225.0v1 and v2 say.

Paul Long
Smith Micro Software, Inc.

        -----Original Message-----
        From:   Pete Cordell [SMTP:pete.cordell at BTINTERNET.COM]
<mailto:[SMTP:pete.cordell at BTINTERNET.COM]>
        Sent:   Thursday, May 13, 1999 4:05 AM
        To:     ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM <mailto:ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM>

        Subject:        Re: caller ID and implementer's guide

        Paul,

        I now understand where you are coming from when you say that the first
        scheme is proprietary.

        However, I think it's slightly different because, although someone
might be
        upset if you sent H.261 data to an H.263 decoder, they are unlikely to
sue
        you for disclosing information that has been requested to be kept
private,
        as might be the case if the calling party's telephone number is
displayed
        when it has been requested not to be.  Hence the need for trust,
because if
        the entity you send the information to does not honour your request,
you
        could end up with some very expensive legal fees!

        (As a side note, some sort of calling party id is probably required
for
        legal reasons, such as tracing emergency calls.  Hence remaining
private by
        not including the calling party id is not an option.  I'm not sure if
this
        is what we are talking about , but what is really needed is something
that
        only lets those that are allowed to know to access the information.
The
        case of the switched network is slightly different to that of IP
because the
        former is essentially a secure network behind a firewall.  The
Internet and
        most other IP networks does not generally mirror this model and so a
        different solution is required.  What is probably required is a
        supplementary service that does call tracing using suitable
        cryptographically secure tokens that are known only to those that are
        allowed to do call tracing.)

        Pete

        =============================================
        Pete Cordell
        pete.cordell at btinternet.com <mailto:pete.cordell at btinternet.com>
        =============================================