Subject: [Iptel] The 'npdi' parameter

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:57:25 +0200

Hi:

I was reading the Number Portability parameters for the Tel URI, 
draft-ietf-iptel-tel-np-08.txt, and I have no problem with the draft 
itself. But I was wondering if the 'npdi' parameter should be also 
defined for SIP URIs that carry telephone numbers.

Let's assume I have a SIP UA that encodes E.164 numbers as SIP URIs, 
perhaps with the "user=dialstring" defined in 
draft-rosen-iptel-dialstring-02.txt. If a node does an NP translation, 
we don't have the means to indicate that the query to the NPDB has taken 
place. But if the E.164 number is encoded as a tel URI there is.

In my opinion this claims for the npdi parameter to be applicable to SIP 
URIs as well. Any thoughts?

/Miguel

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia           tel:+358-50-4804586
sip:[email-masked]
Nokia Research Center      Helsinki, Finland

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

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:27:45 -0500

Miguel,

Doesn't all the syntax that applies to tel URIs also apply to sip/sips 
URIs with user=phone? Does that have to be restated for each new 
extension to tel?

	Paul

---

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:56:47 +0200

Right... I found the text in Section 19.1.6 of RFC 3261. Thanks for the 
hint. There's no need to restated in every extension to tel URI.

/Miguel

Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>> we don't have the means to indicate that the query to the NPDB has 
>> taken place. But if the E.164 number is encoded as a tel URI there is.
>>
>> In my opinion this claims for the npdi parameter to be applicable to 
>> SIP URIs as well. Any thoughts?
>>
>> /Miguel
>>