Subject: [Iptel] Finalizing trunk-group I-D

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 10:19:50 -0600

Folks:

As part of WGLC, I have received the nits comments from the WG
reviewers who kindly volunteered their time in reviewing
the trunk-group I-D.  I will be issuing an updated rev
shortly.

There is one pending item that was being discussed on the
list; I will like to reach conclusion on this.  The issue
is summarized in the following email from the WG archives:

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/iptel/current/msg00726.html

In the interest of moving forward and concluding this particular
I-D, if I do not hear any counter proposals, I will consider
the issue resolved as outlined in the email.

Thank you for your patience in indulging this discussion, and
happy holidays.

Regards,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani  vkg@{lucent.com,research.bell-labs.com,acm.org}
Wireless Networks Group/Internet Software and Services
Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs Innovations, 2000 Lucent Lane, Rm 6G-440
Naperville, Illinois 60566     Voice: +1 630 224 0216

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

---

From: "Shan Lu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 17:51:36 -0500

Vijay,

I like your proposal in spirit, but am weary of the (over)use of
"anonymous". For everybody's benefit, you propose the following format when
calling party number is absent:

Contact: <sip:anonymous;phone-context=example.com;tgrp=[email-masked]>,

where the origination TG is "foo".

RFC3398 (and 3261) hinted that "sip:anonymous <anonymous@...>" SIP URI has
privacy implications. To quote RFC3398:

"If the
   presentation indicators are set to 'presentation restricted', then a
   special URI is created by the gateway which communicates to the far
   end that the caller's identity has been omitted.  This URI SHOULD be
   a SIP URI with a display-name and username of 'Anonymous', e.g.:

   From: Anonymous <sip:[email-masked]>"

There are existing implementations where "anonymous" display-name/userinfo
can trigger special processing on both From and Contact headers.

OTOH, what we want is to convey to the recipient of Contact header the
following: the SIP URI userinfo in Contact is a "quasi-" tel URI in that any
subsequent fields following the first semi-colon must be treated as tel URI
parameters, including ";tgrp=". 

I believe a keyword different than "anonymous" serves this purpose better.
For example, we don't have to consider the subtle difference between
"presentation restricted" and "address unavailable". My suggestion is
"telurifmt", i.e.:

Contact: <sip:telurifmt;tgrp=[email-masked]>.

Note since this is not tel URI, there should not be requirement on mandatory
"phone-context" parameter.

Comments?

Regards,

Shan Lu

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>On Behalf Of Vijay K. Gurbani
>Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 11:20 AM
>To: IETF IPTEL WG
>Cc: [email-masked]; Shan Lu
>Subject: [Iptel] Finalizing trunk-group I-D
>
>
>Folks:
>