Subject: [Iptel] Comments on draft-iptel-trunk-group

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 18:56:44 EST

Comments as follows:

1 In order to read correctly, the words "trunk-groups" in the first sentence 
should read "trunk group identifiers".

2.1 Definitions - Suggest to delete the final sentence about a trunk group 
having "both its terminations in the same switching system". This just leads 
to confusion and has no significance to the rest of the discussion.

The reference to it being "common to refer to bundles of DS0s as a trunk" 
should be deleted, since this just confuses the issue. I don't believe it is 
"common".

3.1 It is incorrect to list carrying the trunk group information in the 
tel:uri as a "requirement".

I believe that the functional requirements for carrying a telephone number 
(in the tel:uri) and for carrying a trunk group identifier are very much 
different, so it would be best not to put it there. However, if the realities 
of current/future SIP limit the choices to putting it in the tel:uri or the 
sip:uri, then it is probably correct that the tel:uri is the better of the 
options, but it is not a "requirement".

4. ABNF

There seems to be some confusion in the permissable trunk group names.

Using the "=" to separate the namespace and label seems a little strange. The 
draft-polk-sipping-resource, which also has a "namespace/labe;" contruct uses 
a "." as a separator.

Although the trunk-group-label follows an "=", it is shown that the label 
itself can contain (and begin with) the "=" character. If the intention is to 
allow any characters in the label in order to support any exsiting naming 
scheme (a worthy goal), then isn't this a case in which it is enclosed in 
quotes and any characters can be inside the quotes?

Mike Pierce
Artel