Calling Party Number
audet at NORTELNETWORKS.COM
Thu Jul 6 16:17:57 EDT 2000
Yes, I agree with your points.
This should probably be documented.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Klaghofer Karl ICN EN HC SE 81
> [mailto:Karl.Klaghofer at ICN.SIEMENS.DE]
> Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 12:37 PM
> To: ITU-SG16 at MAILBAG.INTEL.COM
> Subject: Calling Party Number
> Some further thoughts on this issue,
> A calling party may provide both E.164 number and PNP number
> within H.323
> (applies also in case of calling party being in SCN (e.g. PBX).
> I agree, the E.164 address should be in H.225.0 Calling Party
> Number IE; the
> PNP address should be within the
> Setup-UUIE.sourceAddress.partyNumber.privateNumber field.
> A second E.164 number - if received from the SCN - may be
> sent further by
> an ingress GWY within a second H.225.0 Calling Party Number
> IE if the two
> calling party number option is supported.
> The alternative to map this second E.164 number received into
> Setup-UUIE.sourceAddress.partyNumber.publicNumber field is
> not recommended,
> since we currently in H.225.0 have the problem that the
> SetupUUIE.presentatioIndicator and
> SetupUUIE.screeningIndicatir always apply
> to all alias addresses in Setup-UUIE (PNP, E.164, etc) which
> might be a
> Furthermore, you may want to provide any kind of
> modified/prefixed calling
> party number (e.g. by GWY or GK). This should then be placed within
> Setup-UUIE.sourceAddress.dialledDigits field.
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Francois Audet [mailto:audet at NORTELNETWORKS.COM]
> Gesendet am: Donnerstag, 6. Juli 2000 19:38
> An: ITU-SG16 at mailbag.cps.intel.com
> Betreff: Re: Reference which version of Q.931, etc.?
> I do not know of any impact directly. However, it will be
> necessary to
> verify what the impact might be, if any.
> As an additional though, Q.931 supports two Calling Party
> IEs. Do we need
> two calling party structures in ASN.1 for equivalent support?
> I am not sure.
> I tought the 2 Calling Party IEs are only use when one is
> public-network-provided (i.e., verified by Ma Bell) and the
> other is "user"
> or "private-network" provided. In that case, it might be
> sufficient to only
> use the information element (the 2 of them) since it will
> always be E.164
> numbers (at least for the E.164 number). I could see 2 IEs
> (one with the
> verified E.164 number, the other with the un-verified
> user-provided number),
> or 1 IE (with the verified number) and 1 ASN.1 with the
> private number.
> What do you think?
> For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to
> listserv at mailbag.intel.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the sg16-avd