Subject: RE: [Iptel] getting group consensus on moving forward with our workitems

From: "Jain, Rajnish" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 17:26:16 -0500

Jonathan,

Based on our implementation experience of the trunk-group I-D, I'd
suggest we proceed w/ the I-D. 

Thanks,
Rajnish

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Jonathan Rosenberg
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 4:03 PM
To: list iptel
Subject: [Iptel] getting group consensus on moving forward with our
workitems

Folks,

At the iptel meeting today, there was consensus in the room on plans for
moving forward with various drafts. I'd like to verify that consensus by
asking the list if folks are OK proceeding with the following:

* Proceed to wglc on draft-ietf-iptel-tel-np once a revision appears in
the archives

* Proceed to wglc on
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-iptel-trunk-group-02.txt
immediately following the ietf

* adopt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-stastny-iptel-tel-enumdi-00.tx
t
as a work item of iptel

* do not adopt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rosen-iptel-dialstring-00.txt
as a work item. The author will take it directly to IESG as an
individual draft.

* do not adopt the expired tel cpc draft
(http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-mahy-iptel-cpc-01.txt) as a
work item. If folks have a problem that they believe is addressed by
this work, please bring that forward in the next few weeks.

* tgrep will go to IESG after a revision incorporating comments from
Cullen and the pending comments from Jonathan

Thanks,
Jonathan R.
-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
Director, Service Provider VoIP Architecture   Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
[email-masked]                              FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.cisco.com

_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel

_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel

---

From: "Farahmand, Fardad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:52:46 -0500

Hi,

I agree that the cpc draft is needed especially if one is not using rfc3204.  I would like to see this draft move forward as a WG item.  I also have a couple of suggestions for the author.

First, it would be nice to see a clarification in this draft for cases where the From header does not have user's identity and  P-Asserted-ID or P-Preferred-ID is present containing a tel-uri.  

Second, include a complete list of cpc values.  

Thanks,
Fardad

-----Original Message-----
From: Takuya Sawada [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 5:20 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Iptel] getting group consensus on moving forward with our
workitems

Hi,

I am not so happy to hear that cpc work will not move forward.
At least when interworking with ISUP or emulating the legacy PSTN,
cpc parameter seems to me to be useful.

For example, cpc=test paramter in P-Asserted-Identity header may
indicate that it is a test call so that it uses testing routing table
and is free of charge through the connection.
With cpc=priority, it can express it requires the call handling
with priority. (This should be done with R-P header, though)
With cpc=payphone, it may require to apply special charge rate, etc.

The scope of cpc work is probably limited to the legacy concept but
is useful in a certain situation.
Is it possible to move this forward to make an RFC as a working group
item, or as an individual submission?

Regards,
Takuya

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-stastny-iptel-tel-enumdi-00.txt 
> as a work item of iptel
> 
> * do not adopt 

--------
Takuya Sawada
KDDI Corporation (KDDI)
Garden Air Tower, 3-10-10, Iidabashi, 
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 102-8460, Japan
Tel: +81-3-6678-2997
Fax: +81-3-6678-0286
[email-masked]