Private telephone number in H.323v4

Callaghan, Robert Robert.Callaghan at
Wed Jun 20 08:00:02 EDT 2001

The problem is that both H.323 and H.225.0 state that in the Q.931 elements
used for "telephone numbers" the code point indicating the presence of a
private number is used to indicate that the address is in the UUI.  It is
not possible to conform to this usage and to use this value to indicate that
the Q.931 element contains a private number.
Robert Callaghan
Siemens Enterprise Networks
Tel:  +1.561.997-3756  Fax:  +1.561.997-3403
Email:   <mailto:Robert.Callaghan at>
Robert.Callaghan at
-----Original Message-----
From: Francois Audet [mailto:audet at]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 7:27 PM
To: Callaghan, Robert; 'Glenn FREUNDLICH (E-mail)'
Cc: 'SG16 ITU-T (E-mail)'; 'Paul JONES (E-mail)'
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):
*         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.
*         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/
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 <mailto:audet at> , tel:+1
408 495 3756
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the sg16-avd mailing list