Subject: [SPIRITS] More on SPIRITS requirements

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 09:48:42 +0200

Hi SPIRITS colleagues,

I have been thinking into Igor's questions, and  Lawrence's I-D and I have
some ideas to
share with you. Please, feel free to send your comments and suggestions .

1) TDPs setting (Igor's question).

According to the ITU-T standards, the SMS could be used to set the desired
TDPs in the
SSPs.  However, the SMSs from some suppliers are not able to do so. In some
cases an access
to the SSP is done via a different nodes (e.g. used for operation and
maintenance of the switch).

I think we should let this as an implementation option.

The requirement is that there exists a way to set the desired TDP in the
correct SSF(s). This should
be preferrably started from the SPIRITS Server (e.g. when the subscriber
activates ICW
subscription).

2) CAMEL DPs in SPIRITS (Igor's suggestion).

I am not sure if we should add CAMEL DPs in the SPIRITS requirements.

In CAMEL phase 3, several types of "calls" are covered:

  a) Voice Calls. In this case no new DP is needed since CAMEL DPs are
included in CS2. The only
  special case is the "Not Reachable" case which is mapped as a special
cause in the Busy DP.
  Since we would receive the Busy DP parameters (if a SPIRITS service has
subscribed to Busy),
  we would be able to distinguish a busy from a not reachable situation .

  b) USSD. This is not a PSTN call so it does not apply to SPIRITS.

  c) GPRS. Same comment.

  d) SMS. Same comment.

  e) Mobility Management.

  This could allow a SPIRITS server to be notified in changed of location
of a mobile user. However,
  triggering of these type of services is not based on DPs, but in a
subscription mark in the HLR.

  Adding this to SPIRITS, means:

    i) Adding a requirement to allow setting subscription marks in the
subscriber's HLR. This is
    equivalent to setting TDPs in the SSP (but in this case M-CSI is set in
the HLR).
    ii) Mapping the CAMEL specific operations into events notification to
the SPIRITS client. Since
    the SCP receives the information about the mobility state, this
involves the C interface (is just
    an extension of the DP notification).

  I think this is useful for mobile networks and should be added to the
requirements. What do you
  think ?.

  The events (not DPs!) which could be notified are:

  - Location Update in the same VLR service area.
  - Location Update in another VLR service area.
  - IMSI attach.
  - MS initiated IMSI detach.
  - Network initiated IMSI detach.

  f) Supplementary Services Notification.

  This mechanism could allow a SPIRITS server to be aware of a subscriber
having invoked one
  of the following supplementary services: Explicit Call Transfer, Call
Deflection, Call Completion
  on Busy Subscriber or Multi-Party.

  It is also based on subscriptions marks in the HLR, but in this case I do
not think this information
  can be used for SPIRITS services.

3) Lawrence Conroy's I-D.

I think he has done a good job describing possible actions performed by a
SPIRITS server. He
has gone beyond what is needed for the SPIRITS benchmark services, but this
can make SPIRITS
be usable for more complicated services.

Specifically, in what I have called "Disposition", he has added much more
(like leg handling for VoIP
calls).

The most complicated requirements are the ones related to VoIP calls (the
rest are either included in
our ideas or are easily mapped into CS2 operations). I am not a VoIP
expert, but in the protocol in
interface C, probably just indicating that the call is to be connected
using VoIP would be enough.
This would leave complexity in the implementations side.

Using multi-leg handling will require a mechanism to identify the calls
legs. This will require a new
parameter (leg id) for the SUBSCRIBE message.

In the next attachment, I have reviewed the SPIRITS actions proposed by
Lawrence and tried to
match them into requirements for SPIRITS protocol (following Igor's I-D
notation).

(See attached file: comments_to_draft-conroy-spirits-act-00.txt)

Kind Regards and sorry for the long email.

Jorge Gató
Airtel Móvil

Igor Faynberg <[email-masked]> con fecha 29/07/2000 02:09:20
Asunto:   Re: [SPIRITS] IN- and PINT-related Requirements for SPIRITS
          Protocol

Jorge,

First of all, I forgot to answer your question:

[email-masked] wrote:
>
>
> I understand that the option of accepting the call with VoIP is outside
> SPIRITS
> and should not be included here, but still we might want to add an option
> to the
> Accept Call case to indicate VoIP. What do you think ?

Yes, we should definitely include that in the requirements. Let us see if
the
chairmen allow us. I will ask that question at the meeting.

Second, I just put together the viewgraphs on the new issues (with a full
acknowledgement to you), which I am attaching.

Between you and me, I still don't understand how you think we could set
TDPs if
that is to be done by SMS, but we will need to talk about that.
I also wonder if you are interested in adding Wireless DPs (from UMTS or
Camel),
so please let me know. Other than that, I think wea re in full agreement,
and
your material is very valuable for the Requirements RFC. (Let us do
protocol
too?)

Igor

---

From: Alec Brusilovsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 22:29:11 -0500

Jorge, Igor,

Good ideas! please see my comments inline.

-Alec

> I think we should let this as an implementation option.

Agree, this would be the most advisable, unless there is a clear need to have this standardized.

> ...
> of a mobile user.

This is VERY important and can be a building block for a whole slew of SPIRITS services.

> However,

I would like to start a discussion on this. Can we look at the Subscription Mark in the HLR (IN network
element) as "sort of DP"?

> requirements. What do you

I am for this assuming that it can pass the "Charter Test".

>   - Network initiated IMSI detach.

Love this list!

>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                                                      Name: comments to draft-conroy-spirits-act-00.txt
>    comments to draft-conroy-spirits-act-00.txt       Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
>                                                  Encoding: base64
>                                               Description: Text - character set unknown

---

From: Alec Brusilovsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 22:56:59 -0500

Jorge, Igor,

There is something else:

[email-masked] wrote:

> ...
>
> Specifically, in what I have called "Disposition", he [Lawrence Conroy] has added much more

Please, let us not go again into that area of VOIP. This is NOT what SPIRITS is about!
Lawrence is aware of that more than anyone else on this list and stated precisely that in his talk last
meeting in Pittsburgh..

Regards,
Alec