Private telephone number in H.323v4

Paul E. Jones paulej at PACKETIZER.COM
Tue Jun 19 21:26:10 EDT 2001


I believe that the intent with v4 was to more strongly encourage people to use the partyNumber field with properly-specified numbers.  (The Bob method.)  I'm not sure that Glen's method was intended to contradict the Bob method, but it did pre-date the Bob method and should probably have been updated in light of the later addition of the Bob method to more strongly align with the Bob method.  However, the Glen method supporters may disagree with that-- particularly as the Glen method relates more specifically to service provider gateways and the Bob method related more toward enterprise dialing (I think).  Nonetheless, I agree that we should have consistency between the two documents. :-)


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Francois Audet 
  To: 'Robert CALLAGHAN (E-mail)' ; 'Glenn FREUNDLICH (E-mail)' 
  Cc: 'SG16 ITU-T (E-mail)' ; 'Paul JONES (E-mail)' 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 7:27 PM
  Subject: Private telephone number in H.323v4


  I just realize a contradiction in H.323v4 and H.225.0v4 concerning the encoding of "private telephone numbers" (i.e., the type we all use at work):
    a.. H.225.0v4 says that "Private telephone numbers" shall be encoded in the UUIE as private numbers, and NOT in the Q.931 information elements (Calling party IE, etc.). Let's call this the "Bob method". See Table 18/H.225.0 Note 1. 
    b.. H.323v4 says that the Q.931 information element is used for "telephone numbers", and that the UUIE is used for things that are not telephone numbers. Let's call this the "Glenn method". See H.323v4/ and
  There is no conflict with both method for "public" telephone number, but there is a conflict for "private" telephone numbers.

  Which method is right, Bob's or Glenn's?

  François AUDET, Nortel Networks
  mailto:audet at, tel:+1 408 495 3756

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the sg16-avd mailing list