<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2651.65">
<TITLE>RE: Calling Party Number</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Yes, I agree with your points.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>This should probably be documented.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> From: Klaghofer Karl ICN EN HC SE 81</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> [<A HREF="mailto:Karl.Klaghofer@ICN.SIEMENS.DE">mailto:Karl.Klaghofer@ICN.SIEMENS.DE</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 12:37 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> To: ITU-SG16@MAILBAG.INTEL.COM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Subject: Calling Party Number</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Francois,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Some further thoughts on this issue,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> A calling party may provide both E.164 number and PNP number </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> within H.323</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> (applies also in case of calling party being in SCN (e.g. PBX).</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> I agree, the E.164 address should be in H.225.0 Calling Party </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Number IE; the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> PNP address should be within the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Setup-UUIE.sourceAddress.partyNumber.privateNumber field.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> A second E.164 number - if received from the SCN - may be </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> sent further by</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> an ingress GWY within a second H.225.0 Calling Party Number </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> IE if the two</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> calling party number option is supported.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> The alternative to map this second E.164 number received into</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Setup-UUIE.sourceAddress.partyNumber.publicNumber field is </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> not recommended,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> since we currently in H.225.0 have the problem that the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> SetupUUIE.presentatioIndicator and </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> SetupUUIE.screeningIndicatir always apply</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> to all alias addresses in Setup-UUIE (PNP, E.164, etc) which </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> might be a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> problem.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Furthermore, you may want to provide any kind of </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> modified/prefixed calling</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> party number (e.g. by GWY or GK). This should then be placed within</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Setup-UUIE.sourceAddress.dialledDigits field.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Regards,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Karl</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Von: Francois Audet [<A HREF="mailto:audet@NORTELNETWORKS.COM">mailto:audet@NORTELNETWORKS.COM</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Gesendet am: Donnerstag, 6. Juli 2000 19:38</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> An: ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Betreff: Re: Reference which version of Q.931, etc.?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Francois,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> I do not know of any impact directly. However, it will be </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> necessary to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> verify what the impact might be, if any.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> As an additional though, Q.931 supports two Calling Party </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> IEs. Do we need</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> two calling party structures in ASN.1 for equivalent support?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> I am not sure.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> I tought the 2 Calling Party IEs are only use when one is</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> public-network-provided (i.e., verified by Ma Bell) and the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> other is "user"</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> or "private-network" provided. In that case, it might be </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> sufficient to only</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> use the information element (the 2 of them) since it will </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> always be E.164</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> numbers (at least for the E.164 number). I could see 2 IEs </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> (one with the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> verified E.164 number, the other with the un-verified </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> user-provided number),</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> or 1 IE (with the verified number) and 1 ASN.1 with the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> private number.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> What do you think?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> For help on this mail list, send "HELP ITU-SG16" in a message to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> listserv@mailbag.intel.com</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>