Subject: [Sipping-tispan] TIP/TIR requirements

From: "Schmidt, Christian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 15:55:48 +0200

Some comments / questions concerning the TIP/TIR requirements:

- What happens, when the caller is in PSTN and the callee provides a SIP
URI as identity? Will it be translated at the gateway to a E.164 number?
- TIP-1: type error: calle > callee
- How to handle identity restriction from PSTN/ISDN side? Sould the
gateway delete both identity information and restriction information in
this case?
EQ-TIP-4: If identity information and restriction indication is included
in a message, the gateway may not transfer the identity information.

Regards,
Christian

_______________________________________________
Sipping-tispan mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping-tispan

---

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 11:02:35 +0300

Inline discussion.

> URI as identity? Will it be translated at the gateway to a E.164 number?

I don't know what people want to do in this scenario, but in my opinion 
the responsibility lies in the calee, so if the callee offers only a SIP 
URI, and not both a SIP URI and TEL URL, then the network shouldn't be 
doing this type of translations. Remember that this is not an asserted 
identity, so this should be end-to-end information

> - TIP-1: type error: calle > callee

Fixed.

> gateway delete both identity information and restriction information in

If we build on the trust model, and if we consider that the PSTN Gateway 
trusts the IMS network, then I would say no, delete at the 
trusted/not-trusted boundary.

> in a message, the gateway may not transfer the identity information.

Is this a proposal for a new requirement? What is the actual requirement 
here? This looks like a clarification.

/Miguel

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