Liaison from SG11

Dear Responsible person,

We produce some surgical equipment, such as = surgical=20 operation lamps. But the reflectors that we use for our operation lamps = are, not=20 as good as we want to. If you have some reflectors that we can use for = our=20 operation lamps, please inform me, as soon as possible.If you wanna fax=20 me;

Fax:00(90) 212 635 12 10

Thanks for your interest,

Tuba ALAYLI

Product Manager

talayli@bicakcilar.com<= /DIV>

------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BE5426.D33C7E00-- --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Mon Feb 15 00:09:58 1999 Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by ietf.org (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id AAA08020 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 00:09:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 3B8C87FB8; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 00:01:26 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id 32AD67FC8; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 00:01:25 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com X-Sender: lwc@derek.roke.co.uk (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="============_-1293067750==_============" Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 04:59:06 +0000 To: pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com From: lwc@roke.co.uk (Lawrence Conroy) Subject: next version of draft Cc: HuiLan.Lu@lucent.com, scott.petrack@metatel.com, faynberg@lucent.com Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk --============_-1293067750==_============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi folks, pretty late for a valentine, but herewith version 3 of the PINT profile. Main changes are reworked section 3.4.2, section 3.5.3, adding ABNF, and various bits of tidying up throughout - see change list at end of doc. The outstanding bits, IMHO, are the security section. If you think otherwise, then no-one will know. If you email or post otherwise, we can fix it! --============_-1293067750==_============ Content-Type: text/plain; name="D3.TXT"; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="D3.TXT" Internet Engineering Task Force PINT WG INTERNET-DRAFT Scott Petrack draft-ietf-pint-profile-03.txt Lawrence Conroy 14th February 1999 Expires: 14th August 1999 The PINT Profile of SIP and SDP: a Protocol for IP Access to Telephone Call Services Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress". To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe), munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ftp.ietf.org (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast). Distribution of this document is unlimited. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved Abstract This document contains the specification of the PINT Profile 1.0, which defines a protocol for invoking certain telephone services from an IP network. These services include placing basic calls, sending and receiving faxes, and receiving content over the telephone. The protocol is specified as a set of enhancements and additions to the SIP 2.0 and SDP 2.0 protocols. This document is intended for the PSTN-Internet Interworking (PINT) working group of the Internet Engineering Task Force. Comments are solicited and should be addressed to the working group's mailing list at pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com and/or the authors. Contents 1. Introduction 1.1 Glossary 2. PINT Milestone Services 2.1 Request to Call 2.2 Request to Fax 2.3 Request to Hear Content 2.4 Relation between PINT milestone services and traditional telephone services 3. PINT Functional and Protocol Architecture 3.1. PINT Functional Architecture 3.2. PINT Protocol Architecture 3.2.1. SDP operation in PINT 3.2.2. SIP Operation in PINT 3.3. REQUIRED and OPTIONAL elements for PINT compliance 3.4. PINT profile of SDP 2.0 3.4.1. Network Type "TN" and Address Type "RFCxxxx" 3.4.2. Support for Data Objects within PINT 3.4.2.1. Use of fmtp attributes in PINT requests 3.4.2.2. Support for Remote Data Object References in PINT 3.4.2.3. Support for GSTN-based Data Objects in PINT 3.4.2.4. Session Description support for included Data Objects 3.4.3. Attribute Tags to pass information into the Telephone Network 3.4.3.1. The phone-context attribute 3.4.3.2. Presentation Restriction attribute 3.4.3.3. ITU-T CalledPartyAddress attributes parameters 3.4.4. The "strict" attribute 3.5. PINT profile of SIP 2.0 3.5.1. Multi-part MIME (sending data along with SIP request) 3.5.2. Warning header 3.5.3. Mechanism to register interest in the disposition of a PINT service, and to receive indications on that disposition 3.5.3.1. Opening a monitoring session with a SUBSCRIBE request 3.5.3.2. Sending Status Indications with a NOTIFY request 3.5.3.3. Closing a monitoring session with a BYE request 3.5.3.4. Timing of SUBSCRIBE requests 3.5.4. The "Require:" header for PINT 3.5.5. PINT URLS within PINT requests 3.5.5.1. PINT URLS within Request-URIs 3.5.6. Telephony Network Parameters within PINT URLs 3.5.7. REGISTER requests within PINT 3.5.8. BYE Requests in PINT 4. Examples of PINT Requests and Responses 4.1. A request to a call centre from an anonymous user to receive a phone call. 4.2. A request from a non anonymous customer (John Jones) to receive a phone call from a particular sales agent (Mary James) concerning the defective ironing board that was purchased 4.3. A request from the same user to get a fax back on how to assemble the Ironing Board 4.4. A request from same user to have that same information read out over the phone 4.5. A request to send an included text page to a friend's pager 4.6. A request to send an image as a fax to phone number +972-9-956-1867 4.7. A request to read out over the phone two pieces of content in sequence 4.8. Request for the prices for ISDN to be sent to my fax machine 4.9. Request for a callback 4.10.Sending a set of information in response to an enquiry 4.11.Sportsline "headlines" message sent to your phone/fax/pager 4.12.Automatically giving someone a fax copy of your phone bill 5. Security Considerations 6. Deployment considerations and the Relationship PINT to I.N. (Informative) 6.1. Web Front End to PINT Infrastructure 6.2. Redirects to Multiple Servers 6.3. Competing PINT gateways REGISTERing to offer the same service 6.4. Limitations on Available Information and Request Timing for SUBSCRIBE 6.5. Parameters needed for invoking traditional PSTN Services within PINT 6.5.1. Service Identifier 6.5.2. A and B parties 6.5.3. Other Service Parameters 6.5.4. Service Parameter Summary 6.6. Parameter Mapping to PINT Profile 7. Open Issues and Draft State 7.1. Open Issues 7.2. Draft State 8. References 9. Acknowledgements Appendix A: Collected ABNF Appendix B: Authors' Addresses 1. Introduction The desire to invoke certain telephone call services from the Internet has been identified by many different groups (users, public and private network operators, call center service providers, equipment vendors, etc.). The generic scenario is as follows (when the invocation is successful): 1. an IP host sends a request to a server on an IP network; 2. the server relays the request into a telephone network; 3. the telephone network performs the requested call service. As examples, consider a user who wishes to have a call placed to his/her telephone. It may be that a customer wishes to get a call from the support department of some business, or a user wishes to hear some remote automatic weather service via recorded or synthesised speech. Within a local environment such a request might result in the placement of a call between employees over the internal PBX. We use the term "PSTN/Internet Interworking (PINT) Service" to denote such a complete transaction, starting with the sending of a request from an IP client and including the telephone call itself. PINT services are distinguished by the fact that they always involve two separate networks: an IP network to request the placement of a call, and a telephone network to execute the actual call. It is understood that Intelligent Network systems, private PBXs, cellular phone networks, and the ISDN can all be used to deliver PINT services. Also, the request for service might come from within a private IP network that is disconnected from the whole Internet. *-*- The requirements for the PINT protocol were deliberately restricted to providing the ability to invoke a small number of fixed telephone call services. These "Milestone PINT services" are specified in section 2. Great care has been taken, however, to develop a protocol that is aligned with other Internet protocols where possible, so that future extensions to PINT could develop along with Internet conferencing. Within the Internet conference architecture, establishing media calls is done via a combination of protocols. SIP [2] is used to establish the association between the participants within the call (this association between participants within the call is called a "session"), and SDP [3] is used to describe the media to be exchanged within the session. The PINT protocol uses these two protocols together, providing some extensions and enhancements to enable SIP clients and servers to become PINT clients and servers. A PINT user who wishes to invoke a service within the telephone network uses SIP to invite a remote PINT server into a session. The invitation contains an SDP description of the media session that the user would like to take place. This might be a "sending a fax session" or a "telephone call session", for example. In a PINT service execution session the media is transported over the phone system, while in a SIP session the media is normally transported over an internet. When used to invoke a PINT service, SIP establishes an association between a requesting PINT client and the PINT server which is responsible for invoking the service within the telephone network. These two entities are not the same entities as the telephone network entities involved in the telephone network service. The SIP messages carry within their SDP payloads a description of the telephone network media session. Note that the fact that a PINT server accepts an invitation and a session is established is no guarantee that the media will be successfully transported. The particular requirements of PINT users lead to some new messages. When a PINT server agrees to send a fax to telephone B, it may be that the fax transmission fails after part of the fax is sent. Therefore, the PINT client may wish to receive information about the status of the actual telephone call session that was invoked as a result of the established PINT session. Two new requests, SUBSCRIBE and NOTIFY, are added here to vanilla SIP to allow this. The enhancements and additions specified here are not intended to alter the behaviour of baseline SIP or SDP in any way. The purpose of the PINT profile is to extend the usual SIP/SDP services to the telephone world. Apart from integrating well into existing protocols and architectures, and the advantages of reuse, this means that the protocol specified here can handle a rather wider class of call services than just the Milestone services. The rest of this document is organised as follows: Section 2 describes the original PINT Milestone services; section 3 specifies the PINT functional and protocol architecture; section 4 gives exmples of the PINT 1.0 profile of SIP and SDP; section 5 contains some security considerations for PINT. The final section contains descriptions of how the PINT profile may be used to provide service over the GSTN. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. In addition, the construct "MUST .... OR ...." implies that it is an absolute requirement of this specification to implement one of the two possibilities stated (represented by dots in the above phrase). An implementation MUST be able to interoperate with another implementation which chooses either of the two possibilities. 1.1 Glossary Requestor - An Internet host from which a request for service originates PINT Service - A services invoked within a phone system in response to a request received from an PINT client. PINT Client - An Internet host that sends requests for invocation of a PINT Service, in accordance with this profile. PINT Gateway - An Internet host that accepts requests for PINT Service and dispatches them onwards towards a telephone network. Executive System - A system which interfaces to a telephone network that executes a PINT service, and to a PINT Server. It is not directly associated with the Internet, and is represented by the PINT Server. Requesting User - The initiator of a request for service. This role may be distinct from that of the "party" to any telephone network call that results from the request. (Service Call) Party - A person who is involved in a telephone network call that results from the execution of a PINT service request, or a telephone network-based resource that is involved (such as an automatic Fax Sender or a Text-to-Speech Unit). 2. PINT Milestone Services The original motivation for defining this protocol was the desire to invoke the following three telephone network services from within an IP network: 2.1 Request to Call A request is sent from an IP host which causes a phone call to be made, connecting party A to some remote party B. 2.2 Request to Fax A request is sent from an IP host that causes a fax to be sent to fax machine B. The request MUST EITHER contain a pointer to the fax data (which could reside in the IP network or in the Telephone Network), OR the request itself contain fax data. The content of the fax MAY be text OR some other more general image data. The details of the fax transmission are not accessible to the IP network, but remain entirely within the telephone network. The PINT Request to Fax service does not involve "Fax over IP": the IP network is only used to send the request that a certain fax be sent. Of course, it is possible that the resulting telephone network fax call happens to use a real-time IP fax solution, but this is completely transparent to the PINT transaction. 2.3 Request to Hear Content A request is sent from an IP host which causes a phone call to be made to user A, and for some sort of content to be spoken out. The request MUST EITHER contain a URL pointing to the content, OR include the content itself. The content MAY be text OR some other more general application data. The details of the content transmission are not accessible to the IP network, but remain entirely within the telephone network. 2.4 Relation between PINT milestone services and traditional telephone services There are many different versions and variations of each telephone call service invoked by a PINT request. Consider as an example what happens when a user requests to call 1-800-2255-287 via the PINT Request-to-Call service. There may be thousands of agents in the call centre, and there may be any number of sophisticated algorithms and equipment which is used to decide exactly which agent will return the call. And once this choice is made, there may be many different ways to set up the call: the agent's phone might ring first, and only then the original user will be called; or perhaps the user might be called first, and hear some horrible music or pre-recorded message while the agent is located. Similarly, when a PINT request causes a fax to be sent, there are hundreds of fax protocol details to be negotiated, as well as transmission details within the telephone networks used. PINT requests do not specify too precisely the exact telephone-side service. Operational details of individual events within the telephone network that executes the request are outside the scope of PINT. This does not preclude certain high-level details of the telephone network session from being expressed within a PINT request. For example, it is possible to express a language preference for the Request-to-Hear-Content Service. If a particular PINT system wishes to allow requests to contain details of the telephone-network-side service, it uses the SDP attribute mechanism (see section 3.4.2). 3. PINT Functional and Protocol Architecture 3.1. PINT Functional Architecture Familiarity is assumed with SIP 2.0 [2] and with SDP 2.0 [3]. PINT clients and servers are SIP clients and servers. SIP is used to route the request over the IP network to the correct PINT server in a secure and reliable manner, and SDP is used to describe the telephone network session which is to be invoked or whose status is to be returned. A PINT system uses SIP proxy servers and redirect servers for their usual purpose, but at some point there must be a PINT server with the means to relay received requests into a telephone system and to receive acknowledgement of these relayed requests. A PINT server with this capability is called a "PINT gateway". A PINT gateway appears to a SIP system as a User Agent Server. Notice that a PINT gateway appears to the PINT infrastructure as if it represents a "user", while in fact it really represents an entire telephone network infrastructure which can provide a set of telephone network services. So the PINT system might appear to an individual PINT client as follows: /\/\/\/\/\/\/\ /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ ___________ \ __/___ ___\_ \ | PINT | PINT \ PINT | PINT | |Exec| Telephone / | client |<------------>| server |gatewy|===|Syst| Network \ |_________| protocol / cloud |______| |____| Cloud / \ \ / \ /\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Figure 1: PINT Functional Architecture The system of PINT servers is represented as a cloud to emphasise that a single PINT request might pass through a series of location servers, proxy servers, and redirect servers, before finally reaching the correct PINT gateway which can actually process the request by passing it to the Telephone Network Cloud. The PINT gateway might have a true telephone network interface, or it might be connected via some other protocol or API to an "Executive System" which is capable of invoking services within the telephone cloud. As an example, within an I.N. (Intelligent Network) system, the PINT gateway might appear to realise the Service Gateway Control Function. In an office environment, it might be a server adjunct to the office PBX, connected to both the office LAN and the office PBX. The Executive System which lies beyond the PINT gateway is outside the scope of PINT. 3.2. PINT Protocol Architecture This section explains how SIP and SDP work in combination to convey the information necessary to invoke telephone network sessions. *-*- The following list summarises the extension features used in PINT 1.0. Following on from this the features are considered separately for SDP and then for SIP: 1) Telephony URLs in SDP Contact Fields 2) Refinement of SIP/SDP Telephony URLs * Inclusion of private dialling plans 3) Specification of TSP and/or phone-context URL-parameters 4) Data Objects as session media 4a) Protocol Transport formats to indicate the treatment of the media within the PSTN 5) Implicit (Indirect) media streams and opaque arguments 6) In-line data objects using multipart/mime 7) Refinement/Clarification of Opaque arguments passed onwards to Executive Systems * Framework for Presentation Restriction Indication * Framework for Q.763 arguments 8) An extension mechanism for SIP and SDP to specify strictures and force failure when a recipient does NOT support the specified extensions, using "Strict" and "Require" headers. 9) Mandatory support for "Warning" headers to give more detailed information on request disposition. 10) Mechanism to register interest in the disposition of a requested service, and to receive indications on that disposition. *-*- 3.2.1. SDP operation in PINT The SDP payload contains a description of the particular telephone network session which the requestor wishes to occur in the PSTN. This information includes such things as the telephone network address (i.e. the "telephone number") of the terminal(s) involved in the call, an indication of the media type to be transported (e.g. audio, text, image or application data), and an indication if the information is to be transported over the telephone network via voice, fax, or pager transport. An indication of the content to be sent to the remote telephone terminal (if there is any) is also included. SDP is flexibile enough to convey these parameters independently. For example, a request to send some text via voice transport will be fulfilled by invoking some text-to-speech-over-the-phone service, and a request to send text via fax will be fulfilled by invoking some text-to-fax service. The following is a list of PINT 1.0 enhancements and additions to SDP. a. A new network type "TN" and address types "RFCxxxx" and "X-..." (section 3.4.1) b. New media types "text", "image", and "application", new protocol transport keywords "voice", "fax" and "pager" and the associated format types and attribute tags (section 3.4.2) c. New format specific attributes for included content data (section 3.4.2.4) d. New attribute tags, used to pass information to the telephone network (section 3.4.3) e. A new attribute tag "strict", used by a client to indicate that some attribute is required to be supported in the server (section 3.4.4) *-*- 3.2.2. SIP Operation in PINT SIP is used to route the request for telephone service from the PINT client to the PINT gateway, and may include a telephone number if needed for the particular service. The following is a complete list of PINT enhancements and additions to SIP: f. The multipart MIME payloads (section 3.5.1) g. Mandatory support for "Warning:" headers (section 3.5.2) h. The SUBSCRIBE and NOTIFY request (section 3.5.3) i. Require: headers (section 3.5.4) j. A format for PINT URLS within a PINT request (section 3.5.5) k. Telephone Network Parameters within PINT URLs (section 3.5.6) *-*- Section 3.5.8 contains remarks about how BYE requests are used within PINT. This does not add anything to baseline SIP; it is included here for clarification of the semantics when used with telephone network sessions. 3.3. REQUIRED and OPTIONAL elements for PINT compliance *-*- Of these, only the TN network type (with its associated RFCxxxx address type) and Strictures MUST be supported by PINT 1.0 clients and servers. In practice, most PINT service requests will use other changes, of which references to Data Objects in requests are most likely to appear in PINT requests. Each of other new PINT constructs enables a different function, and a client or server which wishes to enable that particular function MUST do so by the construct specified in this document. For example, building a PINT client and server that provide only the Request-to-Call telephone call service, without support for the other Milestone services, is allowed. The "Require:" headers and the "strict" attribute provide a mechanism which can be used by clients and servers to signal their need and/or ability to support specific "new" PINT protocol elements. It should be noted that many optional features of SIP and SDP make sense as specified in the PINT context. One example is the SDP a=lang: attribute, which can be used to describe the preferred language of the callee. Another example is the use of the "t=" parameter to indicate that the time at which the PINT service is to be invoked. This is the normal use of the "t=" field. A third example are the quality attributes. Any SIP or SDP option or facility is available to PINT clients and servers without change. *-*- Conversely, support for Data Objects within Internet Conference sessions may be useful, even if the aim is not to provide a PSTN service request. In this case, the extensions covering these items may be incorporated into an otherwise "plain" SIP/SDP invitation. Likewise, support for Strictures may be useful, as a framework for addition of features to a "traditional" SIP/SDP infrastructure. Again, these may be convenient to incorporate into SIP/SDP implementations that would not be used for PINT service requests. Such additions are beyond the scope of this document, however. 3.4. PINT profile of SDP 2.0 PINT 1.0 adds to SDP the possibility to describe audio, fax, and pager telephone sessions. It is deliberately designed to hide the underlying technical details and complexity of the telephone network. The only network type defined for PINT is the generic "TN" (Telephone Network). More precise tags such as "ISDN", "GSM", are not defined. Similarly, the transport protocols are designated simply as "fax", "voice", and "pager"; there are no more specific identifiers for the various telephone network voice, fax, or pager protocols. Similarly, the data to be transported is identified only as a MIME type, such as "text" data, "image" data, or some more general "application" data, etc. An important example of transporting "application" data is the milestone service "Voice Access to Web Content". In this case the data to be transported is pointed to by a URI, the data type is application/URI, and the transport protocol would be "voice". Some sort of speech-synthesis facility, speaking out to a Phone, will have to be invoked to perform this service. This section gives details of the new SDP keywords. 3.4.1. Network Type "TN" and Address Type "RFCxxxx" The TN ("Telephone Network") network type is used to indicate that the terminal is connected to a telephone network. The address types allowed for network type TN are "RFCxxxx" (the "xxxx" will be filled in by the SIP [2] RFC number) and private address types, which MUST begin with an "X-". Address type RFCxxxx is a string conforming to the "telephone-subscriber" BNF specified in RFCxxxx, (this is specified in figure 4 of the SIP [2] RFC). Note that this BNF is NOT identical to the BNF which defines the "phone-number" within the "p=" field of SDP. Examples: c= TN RFCxxxx +1-201-406-4090 c= TN RFCxxxx 12014064090 *-*- A telephone-subscriber string is of one of two types: global-phone-number or local-phone-number. These are distinguished by preceeding a global-phone-number with a "plus" sign ("+"). A global-phone-number is by default to be interpreted as an internationally significant E.164 Number Plan Address, as defined by [7], whilst a local-phone-number is a number specified in the default dialling plan within the context of the recipient PINT Gateway. An implementation MAY use private addressing types, which can be useful within a local domain. These address types MUST begin with an "X-", and SHOULD contain a domain name after the X-, e.g. "X-mytype.mydomain.com". An example of such a connection line is as follows: c= TN X-mytype.mydomain.com A*8-HELEN where "X-mytype.mydomain.com" identifies this private adress type, and "A*8-HELEN" is the number in this format. Note that most dialable telephone numbers are expressable as local-phone-numbers within address RFCxxxx; new address types should only be used for formats which cannot be so written. *-*- 3.4.2. Support for Data Objects within PINT One significant change over traditional SIP/SDP Internet Conference sessions with PINT is that a PINT service request may refer to a Data Object to be used as source information in that request. For example, a PINT service request may specify a document to be processed as part of a GSTN service by which a Fax is sent. Similarly, a GSTN service may be take a Web page and result in a vocoder processing that page and speaking the contents over a telephone. The "core" SIP and SDP specifications focus on media Streams, and do not have explicit support for reference to or carriage of Data Objects within requests, so these additions are needed here. There are two changes to the session description format that is used. These are the inclusion of a new variant on the Media field, together with additional description of the "fmtp" parameter when used with the Media Field values (within the context of the Contact Field Network type "TN"). An addition is also made to the SIP message format to allow the inclusion of data objects as sub-parts within the request message itself. The original SDP syntax (from [3]) for media-field is given as: media-field = "m=" media space port ["/" integer] space proto 1*(space fmt) CRLF When used within PINT requests, the definitions of the sub-fields is expanded slightly. The Media sub-field definition is relaxed to accept all of the discrete "top-level" media types defined in [5]. In the milestone services the discrete type "video" is not used, and the extra types "data" and "control" are likewise not needed. The use of these types is not precluded, but the behaviour of a PINT Gateway receiving a request including such a type is not defined here. The Port sub-field has no meaning in PINT requests as the destination terminals are specified using "TN" addressing, so the value of the port sub-field in PINT requests is set to "0". Likewise, the optional integer field is not used in PINT. As mentioned in [3], the Transport Protocol sub-field is specific to the associated Address Type. In the case that the Address Type in the preceeding Contact field is one of those defined for use with the Network Type "TN", the following values are defined for the Transport Protocol sub-field; "voice", "fax", and "pager". The interpretation of this sub-field within PINT requests is the treatment or disposition of the resulting GSTN service. Thus, for transport protocol "voice", the intent is that the service will result in a GSTN voice call, whilst for protocol "fax" the result will be a GSTN fax transmission, and protocol "pager" will result in a pager message being sent. Note that this sub-field does not necessarily dictate the media type and subtype of any source data; for example, one of the milestone services calls for a textual source to be vocoded and spoken in a resulting telephone service call. The transport protocol value in this case would be "voice", whilst the source data would be textual. The Fmt sub-field is described in [3] as being transport protocol-specific. When used within PINT requests having one of the above protocol values, this sub-field consists of a list of zero or more values, each of which is a defined MIME sub-type of the associated Media sub-field value. It retains (from [3]) its meaning that the list will contain a set of alternative sub-types, with the first being the preferred value. For experimental purposes and by mutual consent of the sender and recipient, a sub-type value may be specified as an , i.e. a character string starting with "X-". The use of such values is discouraged, and if such a value is expected to find common use then it SHOULD be registered with IANA using the standard content type registration process. Note that PINT uses a modification of the SDP Media field definition in that, for PINT, having an empty Fmt sub-field is valid. This condition is interpreted as meaning that a unspecified or default sub-type should be used for this service. Thus, the media field value "m=audio 0 voice" is taken to mean that a voice call is requested, using whatever audio sub type is deemed appropriate by the Executive System. PINT service is a special case, in that the request comes from the IP network but the service call is provided within the GSTN. Thus the service request will not normally be able to define the particular codec used for the resulting GSTN service call. If such an intent IS required, then the quality attribute may be used (see "Suggested Attributes" section of [3]). 3.4.2.1. Use of fmtp attributes in PINT requests For each element of the Fmt sub-field, there MUST be a following fmtp attribute. When used within PINT requests, the fmtp attribute has a general structure as defined here: "a=fmtp:" 1* where: := ( | | ) A fmtp attribute describes the sources used with a given Fmt entry in the Media field. The entries in a Fmt sub-field are alternatives (with the preferred one first in the list). Each entry will have a matching fmtp attribute. The list of resolutions in a fmtp attribute describes the set of sources that resolve the matching Fmt choice; all elements of this set will be used. It should be noted that, for use in PINT services, the elements in such a set will be sent as a sequence; it is unlikely that trying to send them in parallel would be successful. A fmtp attribute can contain a mixture of different kinds of element. Thus an attribute might contain a sub-part-ref to included data held in a sub-part of the current message, followed by an opaque-ref to some content on the GSTN, followed by a urref pointing to some data held externally on the IP network. To indicate which form each resolution element takes, each of them starts with its own literal tag. The detailed syntax of each form is described in the following sub-sections. 3.4.2.2. Support for Remote Data Object References in PINT Where data objects stored elsewhere on the IP Network are to be used as sources for processing within a PINT service, they may be referred to using the uri-ref form. This is simply a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI), as described in [10]. Note that the reference SHOULD be an absolute URI, as there may not be enough contextual information for the recipient server to resolve a relative reference; any use of relative references requires some private agreement between the sender and recipient of the message, and should be avoided unless the sender can be sure that the recipient is the one intended and the reference is unambiguous in context. This also holds for partial URIs (such as: "uri:http://aMachine/index.html") as these will need to be resolved in the context of the eventual recipient of the message. The general syntax of a reference to an Internet-based external data object in a fmtp line within a PINT session description is: := ("uri:" URI-reference) where URI-reference is as defined in appendix A of [10] For example: c= TN RFCxxxx +1-201-406-4090 m= text 0 fax plain a=fmtp:plain uri:ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2468.txt or: c= TN RFCxxxx +1-201-406-4090 m= text 0 fax plain a=fmtp:plain uri:http://www.ietf.org/meetings/glance_minneapolis.txt means get this data object from the Internet and use it as a source for the requested GSTN Fax service. 3.4.2.3. Support for GSTN-based Data Objects in PINT PINT services may refer to data that is held not on the IP Network but instead within the GSTN. The way in which these items are indicated need have no meaning within the context of the Requestor or the PINT Gateway; it is merely some data that may be used by the Executive System to indicate the content intended as part of the request. This data forms an opaque reference, in that it is sent "untouched" through the PINT infrastructure. A reference to some data object held on the GSTN has the general definition: := ("opr:" *uric) where uric is as defined in appendix A of [10]. For example: c= TN RFCxxxx +1-201-406-4090 m= text 0 fax plain a=fmtp:plain opr:APPL.123.456 means send me the data that is indexed ON THE GSTN by the reference value "APPL.123.456"; the Executive System may also take the Telephone URL held in the To: field of the enclosing SIP message into account when deciding the context to be used for the data object dereference. Of course, an opaque reference may also be used for other purposes; it could, for example, be needed to authorise access to a document held on the GSTN rather than being required merely to disambiguate the data object. The purpose to which an opaque reference is put, however, is out of scope for this document. It is merely an indicator carried within a PINT Request. An opaque reference may have no value in the case where the value to be used is implicit in the rest of the request. For example, the "Faxback variant of the Request to Fax" milestone service will include two party identifiers; one for the destination Fax machine that will receive the "faxed back" data, with the other indicating the Faxback service number for some company. If dialling that Faxback number would be expected to return a particular piece of information, then thre is no need for an opaque reference value. If there are several resolutions for a PINT Service Request, and one of these is an opaque reference with no value, then that opaque reference MUST be included in the attribute line, but with an empty value field. For example: c= TN RFCxxxx +1-201-406-4090 m= text 0 fax plain a=fmtp:plain spr: opr: might be used to precede some unambiguous "faxed back" data with a covering note (see next sub-section for details of the sub-part reference). In the special case where an opaque reference is the sole resolution of a PINT Service Request, AND that reference needs no value, there is no need for a Fmt list at all; the intent of the service is unambiguous without any further resolution. For example: c= TN RFCxxxx +1-201-406-4090 m= text 0 fax means that there is an implied content stored on the GSTN, and that this is uniquely identified by the combination of SIP To-URI and the Contact field of the session description. *-*- 3.4.2.4. Session Description support for included Data Objects As an alternative to pointing to the data via a URI or an opaque reference to a data item held on the GSTN, it is possible to include the content data within the SIP request itself. This is done by using multipart MIME for the SIP payload. The first MIME part contains the SDP description of the telephone network session to be executed. The other MIME parts contain the content data to be transported. Format specific attribute lines within the session description are used to indicate which other MIME part within the request contains the content data. Instead of a URI or opaque reference, the format-specific attribute indicates the Content-ID of the MIME part of the request that contains the actual data, and is defined as: := ("spr:" Content-ID) where Content-ID is as defined in Appendix A of [4] and in [11]). For example: c= TN RFCxxxx +1-201-406-4090 m= text 0 fax plain a=fmtp:plain spr: *-*- The parameter is the Content-ID of one of the MIME parts inside the message, and this fragment means that the requesting user would like the data object held in the sub-part of this message labelled to be faxed to the machine at phone number +1-201-406-4090. *-*- See also section 3.5.1 for a discussion on the support needed in the enclosing SIP request for included data objects. 3.4.3. Attribute Tags to pass information into the Telephone Network *-*- It may be desired to include within the PINT request service parameters which can be understood only by some entity in the "Telephone Network Cloud". SDP attribute parameters are used for this purpose. They MAY appear within a particular media description or outside of a media description. These attributes may also appear as parameters within PINT URLS (see section 3.5.6) as part of a SIP request. This is necessary so that telephone terminals that require the attributes to be defined can appear within the To: line of a PINT request as well as within PINT session descriptions. The purpose of these attributes is to allow the client to specify extra context within which a particular telephone number is to be interpreted. There are many reasons why extra context might be necessary to interpret a given telephone number: a. The telephone number might be reachable in many different ways (such as via competing telephone service providers), and the PINT client wishes to indicate its selection of service provider. b. The telephone number might be reachable only from a limited number of networks (such as an '800' freephone number). c. The telephone number might be reachable only within a single telephone network (such as the '152' customer service number of BT). Similarly, the number might be an internal corporate extension reachable only within the PBX. However, as noted above, it should not usually be necessary to use SDP attributes to specify the phone context. URLs such as 152@pint.bt.co.il within the To: and From: headers and/or Request-URI, normally offer sufficient context to resolve telephone numbers. If the client wishes the request to fail if the attributes are not supported, these attributes should be used in conjunction with the "strict" attribute (section 3.4.4) and the "Require:org.ietf.pint.strict" header (section 3.5.4). It is not possible to standardise every possible internal telephone network parameter. PINT 1.0 attributes have been chosen for specification because they are common enough that many different PINT systems will want to use them, and therefore interoperability will be increased by having a single specification. *-*- Proprietary attribute "a=" lines, which by definition are not interoperable, may be nonetheless useful when it is necessary to transport some proprietary internal telephone network variables over the IP network. We shall see an example of such usage in section 4. 3.4.3.1. The phone-context attribute An attribute is specified to enable "remote local dialling". This is the service that allows a PINT client to reach a number from far outside the area or network which can usually reach the number. It is useful when the sending or receiving address is only dialable within some local context, which may be remote to the origin of the PINT client. For example, if Alice wanted to report a problem with her telephone, she might then dial a "network wide" customer care number; within the British Telecom network in the U.K., this is "152". Note that in this case she doesn't dial any trunk prefix - this is the whole dialable number. If dialled from another operator's network, it will not connect to British Telecom's Engineering Enquiries service; and dialling "+44 152" will not normally succeed. Such numbers are called Network-Specific Service Numbers. Within the telephone network, the "local context" is provided by the physical connection between the subscriber's terminal and the central office. An analogous association between the PINT client and the PINT server which first receives the request may not exist, which is why it may be necessary to supply this missing "telephone network context". This attribute is defined as follows: a=phone-context: phone-context-ident = network-prefix | private-prefix network-prefix = intl-network-prefix | local-network-prefix intl-network-prefix = "+" 1*DIGIT local-network-prefix = 1*DIGIT excldigandplus = (0x21-0x2d,0x2f,0x40-0x7d)) private-prefix = 1*excldigandplus 0*uric An intl-network-prefix and local-network-prefix MUST be a bona fide network prefix, and a network-prefix which is an intl-network-prefix MUST begin with an E.164 service code ("country code"). It is possible to register new private-prefixes with IANA so as to avoid confrontation. Prefixes which are not so registered MUST begin with an "X-" to indicate their private, non-standard nature. Example 1: c= TN RFCxxxx 1-800-765-4321 a=phone-context:+972 This describes an terminal whose address in Israel (E.164 country code 972) is 1-800-765-4321. Example 2: c= TN RFCxxxx 1-800-765-4321 a=phone-context:+1 This describes an terminal whose address in North America (E.164 country code 1) is 1-800-765-4321. The two telephone terminals described by examples 1 and 2 are different; in fact they are located in different countries. Example 3: c=TN RFCxxxx *123 a=phone-context:+97252 This describes a terminal whose address when dialled from within the network identified by +97252 is the string "*123". It so happens that +97252 defines one of the Israeli cell phone providers, and *123 reaches customer service when dialled within that network. It may well be useful or necessary to use the SDP "strict" parameter in conjunction with the phone-context attribute. Example 4: c= TN RFCxxxx 321 a=phone-context:X-acme.com 23 This might describe the telephone terminal which is at extension 321 of PBX number 23 within the acme.com private PBX network. It is expected that such a description would be understandable by the acme.com PINT server which receives the request. Note that if the PINT server receiving the request is inside the acme.com network, the same terminal might be addressable as follows: c= TN RFCxxxx 7-23-321 (assuming that "7" is dialled in order to reach the private PBX network from within acme.com) *-*- *-*- 3.4.3.2. Presentation Restriction attribute Although it has no affect on the transport of the service request through the IP Network, there may be a requirement to allow originators of a PINT service request to indicate whether or not they wish the "other party" in the resulting service call to be presented with their calling telephone number. It is a legal requirement in some jurisdictions that a caller be able to select whether or not their correspondent can find out the calling telephone number (using Automatic Number Indication or Caller Display or Calling Line Identity Presentation equipment). Thus an attribute may be needed to indicate the originator's preference. Whether or not the default behaviour of the Executive System is to present or not present a party's telephone number to the correspondent GSTN terminal is not specified, and it is not mandatory in all territories for a PINT Gateway or Executive System to act on this attribute. It is, however, defined here for use where there are regulatoryrestrictions on GSTN operation, and in that case the Executive System can use it to honour the originator's request. The attribute is apecified as follows: a=clir:<"true" | "false"> This boolean value is needed within the attribute as it may be that the GSTN address is, by default, set to NOT present its identity to correspondents, and the originator wants to do so for this particular call. It is in keeping with the aim of this attribute to allow the originator to specify what treatment they want for the requested service call. The expected interpretation of this attribute is that, if it is present and the value is "false" then the Calling Line Identity CAN be presented to the correspondent terminal, whilst if it is "true" then it if possible the Executive System is requested to NOT present the Calling Line Identity. *-*- 3.4.3.3. ITU-T CalledPartyAddress attributes parameters These attributes correspond to fields that appear within the ITU-T Q.763 "CalledPartyAddress" field (see [9] ,section 3.9). PINT clients use these attributes in order to specify further parameters relating to Terminal Addresses, in the case when the address indicates a "local-phone-number." In the case that the PINT request contains a reference to PSTN terminal, the parameters may be required to correctly identify the remote terminal. *-*- The general form of this attribute is "a=Q763-((":" ) |"")". Three of the possible elements and their use in SDP attributes are described here. Where other Q763 elements are to be used, then these should be the subject of further specification to define the syntax of the attribute mapping. It is recommended that any such specification maintains the value sets shown in Q.763. The defined attributes are: a=Q763-nature: - indicates the "nature of address indicator". The value MAY be any number between 0 and 127. The following values are specified: "1" a subscriber number "2" unknown "3" a nationally significant number "4" an internationally significant number The values have been chosen to coincide with the values in Q.763. Note that other values are possible, according to national rules or future expansion of Q.763. a=Q763-plan: - indicates the numbering plan to which the address belongs. The value MAY be any number between 0 and 7. The following values are specified: "1" Telephone numbering plan (ITU-T E.164) "3" Data numbering plan (ITU-T X.121) "4" Telex numbering plan (ITU-T F.69) The values have been chosen to coincide with the values in Q.763. Other values are allowed, according to national rules or future expansion of Q.763. a=Q763-INN - indicates if routing to the Internal Network Number is allowed. The value MUST be ONE of: "0" routing to internal network number allowed "1" routing to internal network number not allowed The values have been chosen to coincide with the values in Q.763. Note that it is possible to use a local-phone-number and indicate via attributes that the number is in fact an internationally significant E.164 number. Normally this SHOULD NOT be done; an internationally significant E.164 number is indicated by using a "global-phone-number" for the address string. 3.4.4. The "strict" attribute According to the SIP specification, a PINT server is allowed simply to ignore attribute parameters that it does not understand. In order to force a server to fail a request if it does not understand one of the PINT attributes, a client should use the "strict" attribute, specified as follows: a=strict: where the attribute-list is a comma-separated list of attributes that appear elsewhere in the session description. In order to process the request successfully the PINT server must BOTH understand the attribute AND ALSO fulfil the request implied by the presence of the attribute, for each attribute appearing within the attribute-list of the strict attribute. If the server does not recognise the attribute listed, or cannot fulfil the request implied by the attribute, the PINT server MUST fail the request with (606 Not Acceptable), along with suitable Warning: lines explaining the problem. The "strict" attribute may appear anywhere in the session description, and any number of times, but it MUST appear before the use of the attribute marked as strict. Since the "strict" attribute is itself an attribute, the SIP specification allows a server which does not understand the strict attribute to ignore it. In order to ensure that the PINT server will comply with the "strict" attribute, a PINT client should include a Require: header with the tag "ietf.org.pint.strict" (section 3.5.4) *-*- Note that the majority of the PINT extensions are "tagged" and these tags can be included in Strict/Require strictures. The exception is the use of phone numbers in SDP parts. However, these are defined as a new network and address type, so that a receiving SIP/SDP server should be able to detect whether or not it supports these forms. The default behaviour for any SDP recipient is that it will fail a PINT request if it does not recognise or support the TN and RFCxxxx or X-token network and address types, as without the contents being recognised no media session could be created. Thus a separate stricture is not required in this case. 3.5. PINT profile of SIP 2.0 PINT requests are SIP requests; Many of the specifications within this profile merely explain how to use existing SIP facilities for the purposes of PINT. *-*- 3.5.1. Multi-part MIME (sending data along with SIP request) A PINT request can contain a payload which is multipart MIME. In this case the first part MUST contain an SDP session description, which includes at least one of the format specific attribute tags for "included content data" specified above in section 3.4.3. All subsequent parts contain content data which is to be transferred to the requested Telephone Call Service. As discussed earlier, within a single PINT request, some of the data MAY be pointed to by a URI within the request, and some of the data MAY be included within the request. *-*- Where included data is carried within a PINT service request, the Content Type entity header of the enclosing SIP message MUST indicate this. To do so, the media type value within this entity header MUST be set to a value of "multipart/mixed". The enclosed body parts SHOULD include ther part-specific Content Type headers as appropriate ("application/sdp" for the first body part holding the session description, with an appropriate content type for each of the subsequent, "included data object" parts). This matches the standard syntax of MIME multiplart messages as defined in [5]. For example, in a multipart message where the string "------next-------" is the boundary, the first two parts might be as follows: ------next------- Content-Type: application/sdp .... c= TN RFCxxxx +1-201-406-4090 m= text 0 pager plain a=fmtp:plain spr:17@mymessage.acme.com ----------next------- Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: 17@mymessage.acme.com This is the text that is to be paged to +1-201-406-4090 ----------next----------- The ability to indicate different alternatives for the content to be transported is useful, even when the alternatives are included within the request. For example, a request to send a short message to a pager might include the message in Unicode [6] and an alternative version of the same content in text/plain, should the PINT server or telephone network not be able to process the unicode. PINT clients should be extremely careful when sending included data within a PINT request. Such requests SHOULD be sent via TCP, to avoid fragmentation and to transmit the data reliably. It is possible that the PINT server is a proxy server that will replicate and fan out the request, which could be disastrous if the request contains a large amount of application data. PINT proxy servers should be careful not to create many copies of a request with large amounts of data in it. If the client does not know the actual location of the PINT gateway, and is using the SIP location services to find it, and the included data makes the PINT request likely to be transported in several IP datagrams, it is RECOMMENDED that the initial PINT request not include the data but instead hold a reference to it. 3.5.2. Warning header A PINT server MUST support the SIP "Warning:" header so that it can signal lack of support for individual PINT features. As an example, suppose the PINT request is to send a jpeg picture to a fax machine, but the server cannot retrieve and/or translate jpeg pictures from the Internet into fax transmissions. In such a case the server fails the request and includes a Warning such as the following: Warning: 4xx pint.acme.com Incompatible Format: jpeg SIP servers which do not understand the PINT extensions at all are strongly encouraged to implement Warning: headers to indicate that PINT extensions are not understood. Also, Warning: headers may be included within NOTIFY requests if it is necessary to notify the client about some condition concerning the invocation of the PINT service (see next). *-*- 3.5.3. Mechanism to register interest in the disposition of a PINT service, and to receive indications on that disposition It can be very useful to find out whether or not a requested service has completed, and if so whether or not it was successful. This is especially true for PINT service, where the person requesting the service is not (necessarily) a party to it, and so may not have an easy way of finding out the disposition of that service. Equally, it may be useful to indicate when the service has changed state, for example when the service call has started. Arranging a flexible system to provide extensive monitoring and control during a service is non-trivial (see section 6.4 for some issues); PINT 1.0 uses a simple scheme that should nevertheless provide useful information. It is possible to expand the scheme in a "backwards compatible" manner, so if required it can be enhanced at a later date. Such enhancement would be expected to be the subject of a separate document. The PINT 1.0 status registration and indication scheme uses two new methods; SUBSCRIBE and NOTIFY. These are used to allow a PINT Requesting entity to register and interest in (or subscribe to) the status of a service request, and for the gateway to return service indications. Both of these messages follow the same procedure as used for all the SIP requests other than INVITE; the recipient MUST acknowlege the request with a final response message, otherwise the request will be repeated. 3.5.3.1. Opening a monitoring session with a SUBSCRIBE request The SUBSCRIBE request indicates that the a user wishes to receive information about the status of a session. The request identifies the session of interest by including the original session description along with the request. Since the request may come from a user other than the original requesting user, the request may constitute a new call, so the Call-ID cannot be used; instead the origin-field of the session description enclosed within the original service request is used. The request MUST NOT include whatever content was present in the original request other than the session description, and a server MUST ignore whatever content is included within a SUBSCRIBE request with the sole exception of the enclosed session description. The request MUST contain a "Contact:" header, specifying the PINT User Agent Server to which such information should be sent. In addition, it SHOULD contain an Expires: header, which indicates for how long the PINT Requestor wishes to receive notification of the session status. A value of 0 within the Expires: header indicates a desire to receive one single immediate response (i.e. the request expires immediately). We refer to the period of time before the expiration of the SUBSCRIBE request as the "subscription period". A successful response to the SUBSCRIBE request includes the session description, according to the Gateway. Normally this will be identical to the last cached response that the Gateway returned to any request concerning the same SDP global session id (see [3], section 6, o= field). The t= line may be altered to indicate the actual start or stop time, however. The Gateway might add an i= line to the session description to indicate such information as how many fax pages were sent. The Gateway SHOULD include an Expires: header indicating how long it is willing to maintain the monitoring session. If this is unacceptable to the PINT Requestor, then it can close the session by sending an immediate BYE (see 3.5.3.3). In principle, a user might send a SUBSCRIBE request after the telephone network service has completed. This allows, for example, checking up "the morning after" to see if the fax was successfully transmitted. However, a PINT gateway is only required to keep state about a call for as long as it indicated previously in a Expires: header within the response to the original INVITE message that triggered the service session, within the response to the SUBSCRIBE message, or within its BYE message (but see section 3.5.8, point 3). If the Server no longer has a record of the session to which a Requestor has SUBSCRIBEd, it returns "606 Not Acceptable", along with the appropriate Warning: header indicating that the SDP session ID is no longer valid. This means that a requesting Client that knows that it will want information about the status of a session after the session terminates SHOULD send a SUBSCRIBE request before the session terminates. 3.5.3.2. Sending Status Indications with a NOTIFY request During the subscription period, the Gateway may, from time to time, send a spontaneous NOTIFY request to the entity indicated in the Contact: header of the "opening" SUBSCRIBE request. Normally this will happen as a result of any change in the status of the service session for which the Requestor has subscribed. The receiving user agent server MUST acknowlege this by returning a final response (normally a "200 OK"). In this version of the PINT profile, the Gateway is not required to support redirects (3xx codes), and so may treat them as a failure. Thus, if the response code class is above 2xx then this may be treated by the Gateway as a failure of the monitoring session, and in that situation it will immediately attempt to close the session (see next). The NOTIFY request contains the modified session description. For example, the Gateway may be able to indicate a more accurate start or stop time. The Gateway may include a Warning: header to describe some problem with the invocation of the service, and may indicate within an i= line some information about the telephone network session itself. Example: NOTIFY sip:petrack@pager.com SIP/2.0 To:sip:petrack@pager.com From:sip:R2F.pint.com@service.com Warning: xxx fax aborted, will try every 10 minutes for the next hour. Content-Type:application/sdp c=... i=3 pages of 5 sent t=... 3.5.3.3. Closing a monitoring session with a BYE request At some point, either the Client's representative User Agent Server or the gateway may decide to terminate the monitoring session. This is achieved by sending a BYE request to the correspondent server. Such a request indicates that the sender intends to close the monitoring session immediately, and, on receipt of the final response from the receiving server, the session is deemed over. If the Gateway initiates closure of the monitoring session by sending a BYE message, it MUST include an Expires: header showing for how much longer after this monitoring session is closed it is willing to store information on the service session. This acts as a minimum time within which the Client can send a new SUBSCRIBE message to open another monitoring session; after the time indicated in the Expires: header the Gateway is free to dispose of any record of the service session, so that subsequent SUBSCRIBE requests can be rejected with a "606" response. If the subscription period specified by the Client has expired, then the Gateway may send an immediate BYE request to the Client's representative User Agent Server. This ensures that the monitoring session always completes with a BYE/response exchange, and that the representative User Agent Server can avoid maintaining state in certain circumstances. 3.5.3.4. Timing of SUBSCRIBE requests As it relies on the Gateway having a copy of the INVITEd session description, the SUBSCRIBE message is limited in when it can be issued. The Gateway must have received the service request to which this monitoring session is to be associated, which from the Client's perspective happens as soon as the Gateway has sent a 1xx response back to it. However, once this has been done, there is no reason why the Client should not send a monitoring request. It does not have to wait for the final response from the Gateway, and it can certainly send the SUBSCRIBE request before sending the ACK for the Service request final response. Beyond this point, the Client is free to send a SUBSCRIBE request when it decides, unless the Gateway's final response to the initial service request indicated a short Expires: time. However, there are good reasons (see 6.4) why it may be appropriate to start a monitoring session immediately before the service is confirmed by the PINT Client sending an ACK. At this point the Gateway will have decided whether or not it can handle the service request, but will not have passed the request on to the Executive System. It is therefore in a good position to ask the Executive System to enable monitoring when it sends the service request onwards. In practical implementations, it is likely that more information on transient service status will be available if this is indicated as being important BEFORE or AS the service execution phase starts; once execution has begun the level of information that can be returned may be difficult to change. Thus, whilst it is free to send a SUBSCRIBE request at any point after receiving an Interim response from the Gateway to its service request, it is recommended that the Client should send such a monitoring request immediately prior to sending an ACK message confirming the service if it is interested in transient service status messages. 3.5.4. The "Require:" header for PINT PINT clients use the Require: header to signal to the PINT server that a certain PINT extension of SIP is required. PINT 1.0 defines two strings that can go into the Require header: org.ietf.sip.subscribe -- the server can fulfill SUBSCRIBE requests (section 3.5.3) org.ietf.sdp.strict -- the PINT server (or the SDP parser associated to it) understands the "strict" attribute defined in (section 3.4.4) Example: Require:org.ietf.sip.subscribe,org.ietf.sdp.strict A client should only include a Require: header where it truly requires the server to fail the request if the option is not supported. 3.5.5. PINT URLS within PINT requests Normally the hostnames and domain names that appear in the PINT URLs are the internal affair of each individual PINT system. A client uses the appropriate SDP payload to indicate the particular service it wishes to invoke; it is not necessary to use a particular URL to identify the service. A PINT URL is used in two different ways within PINT requests: within the Request-URI, and within the To: and From: headers. Use within the Request-URI requires clarification in order to ensure smooth interworking with the Telephone Network serviced by the PINT infrastructure: 3.5.5.1. PINT URLS within Request-URIs There are some occasions when it may be useful, however, to indicate service information within the URL in a standardized way: a. it may not be possible to use SDP information to route the request if it is encrypted; b. it allows implementation which make use of I.N. "service indicators"; c. It enables multiple competing PINT gateways to REGISTER with a single "broker" server (proxy or redirect) (see section 6.3) For these reasons, the following conventions for URLs are to be used in PINT requests: 1. The user portion of a sip URL indicate the service to be requested. At present the following services are defined: R2C (for Request-to-Call) R2F (for Request-to-Fax) R2HC (for Request-to-Hear-Content) The user portions "R2C", "R2F", and "R2HC" are reserved for the PINT milestone services. Other user portions MUST be used in case the requested service is not one of the Milestone services. See section 3.5.8 for some related considerations concerning registrations by competing PINT systems to a single PINT proxy server acting as a service broker. 2. The host portion of a sip URL contains the domain name of the PINT service provider. 3. A new url-parameter is defined to be "tsp" (for "telephone service provider"). This can be used to indicate the actual telephone network provider to be used to fulfil the PINT request. Thus, for example:- INVITE sip:R2C@pint.pintservice.com SIP/2.0 INVITE sip:R2F@pint.pintservice.com;tsp=telco.com SIP/2.0 INVITE sip:R2HC@pint.mycom.com;tsp=pbx23.mycom.com SIP/2.0 INVITE sip:13@pint.telco.com SIP/2.0 3.5.6. Telephony Network Parameters within PINT URLs Any legal SIP URL can appear as a PINT URL within the Request-URI or To: header of a PINT request. But if the address is a telephone address, we indicated in section 3.4.3 that it may be necessary to include more information in order correctly to identify the remote telephone terminal or service. PINT clients MAY include these attribute tags within PINT URLs if they are necessary or a useful complement to the telephone number within the SIP URL. These attribute tags MUST be included as URL parameters as defined in [2] (i.e. in the semi-colon separated manner). The following is an example of a PINT URL which contains extra attribute tags: sip:5228808@pint.br.com;user=phone;strict=phone-context;phone-context=+972 As we noted in section 3.4.3, these extra attribute parameters SHOULD NOT normally be needed within a URL, because there is a great deal of context available to the help the server interpret the phone number correctly. In particular, there is the SIP URL within the To: header, and there is also the Request-URI. In most cases this provides sufficient information for the telephone network. The SDP attributes defined in section 3 above SHOULD ONLY be used when they are needed to supply necessary context to identify a telephone terminal. In this example, the terminal with this SIP URL is the same as the one whose connection is defined by the following part of an SDP description: c= TN RFCxxxx +97252288088 3.5.7. REGISTER requests within PINT *-*- A PINT gateway is a SIP user agent server. User agent servers use the REGISTER request to tell a proxy or redirect server that it is available to "receive calls" -- i.e. to service requests. Thus a PINT gateway registers with a proxy or redirect server the service that is accessible via itself, while in SIP, a user registering his/her presence at a particular SIP Server. There may be competing PINT servers which can offer the same PINT service trying to register at a single PINT server. The PINT server might act as a "broker" among the various PINT gateways which can fulfil a request. A format for PINT URLs was specified in section 3.5.5 that enables independent PINT systems to REGISTER an offer to provide the same service. The registrar can apply its own mechanisms and policies to decide what to respond to INVITEs from clients seeking service. (See section 6.3 for some possible deployment options) There is no change between SIP and PINT REGISTER semantics or syntax. Of course, the information in the PINT URLs within the REGISTER request may not be sufficient to completely define the service that a gateway can offer. The use of SIP and SDP within PINT REGISTER requests to enable a gateway to specify general services it can offer is the subject of future study. 3.5.8. BYE Requests in PINT The semantics of BYE requests within PINT requires some extra precision. One issue concerns conferences which "cannot be left", and the other concerns keeping call state after the BYE. The BYE request [2] is normally used to indicate that the originating entity no longer wishes to be involved in the specified call. The request terminates the call and the media session. Applying this model to PINT, if a PINT client makes a request that results in invocation of a telephone call from A to B, a BYE request from the client, if accepted, should result in a termination of the phone call. A question arises when the telephone call might not have even started at the time when the BYE request is received. For example, if a request to fax is sent with a t= line indicating that the fax is to be sent tomorrow at 04:00AM, the requestor might wish to cancel the request before the specified time. Even if the call has started, it may not be possible to terminate the media session on the telephone system side. For example, the fax call may be in progress when the BYE arrives, and perhaps it is just not possible to cancel the fax in session. Another possibility is that the entire telephone-side service might be completed before the BYE is received. In the above Request-to-Fax example, the BYE might be sent the following morning, and the entire fax has been sent before the BYE was received. It is too late to send the BYE. In the case where the telephone network cannot terminate the call, the server MUST return a "606 Not Acceptable" response to the BYE, along with a session description which indicates the telephone network session which is causing the problem. Therefore, in PINT, a "Not Acceptable" response can be returned to INVITE or BYE requests. It indicates that some aspect of the session description makes the request unacceptable. By allowing a server to return a "Not Acceptable" response to BYE requests, we are not changing its semantics, just enlarging its use. A combination of Warning: headers and i= lines within the session description can be used to indicate the precise nature of the problem. Example: SIP/2.0 606 Not Acceptable From: ... To: ....... ..... Warning: 399 pint.mycom.com Fax in progress, service cannot be aborted Content-Type: application/sdp Content-Length: 50 v=0 i=3 of 5 pages sent OK c=TN RFCxxxx +12014064090 m=image 0 fax tif a=fmtp:tif uri:http://tifsRus.com/yyyyyy.tif Note that the server may return an updated session description within a successful response to a BYE as well. This can be used, for example, to indicate the actual start times and stop times of the telephone session, or how many pages were sent in the fax transmission. The second issue concerns how long must a server keep call state after receiving a BYE. A question arises because other clients might still wish to send queries about the telephone network session which was the subject of the PINT transaction. Ordinary SIP semantics have three important implications for this situation: 1. A BYE indicates that the requesting client will clear out all call state as soon as it receives a successful response. A client SHOULD NOT send a SUBSCRIBE request after it has sent a BYE. 2. A server may return an Expires: header within a successful response to a BYE request. This indicates for how long the server will retain session state about the telephone network session. At any point during this time, a client may send a SUBSCRIBE request to the server to learn about the session state. 3. When engaged in a SUBSCRIBE/NOTIFY monitoring session, PINT servers which send BYE to a URL listed in the Contact: header of a client request need to be especially careful not to clear session state until after the successful response to the BYE is received. For example, it may be that the requesting client host is turned off when the telephone service is executed (and is therefore not available at the location previously specified in the Contact: attribute) to receive the PINT server's BYE. 4. Examples of PINT Requests and Responses 4.1. A request to a call centre from an anonymous user to receive a phone call. C->S: INVITE sip:R2C@pint.mailorder.com SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 169.130.12.5 From: sip:anon-1827631872@chinet.net To: sip:+1-201-456-7890@iron.org;user=phone Call-ID: 19971205T234505.56.78@chinet.net Subject: Sale on Ironing Boards Content-type: application/sdp Content-Length: ... v=0 o=- 53655765 2353687637 IN IP4 128.3.4.5 i=Ironing Board Promotion c= TN RFCxxxx +1-201-406-4090 m=audio 0 voice In this example, the context which is required to interpret the To: address as a telephone number is not given explicitly; it is implicitly known to the R2C@pint.mailorder.com server. But the telephone of the person who wishes to receive the call is explicitly identified as an internationally significant E.164 number within the North American numbering plan (because of the "+1" within the c= line). 4.2. A request from a non anonymous customer (John Jones) to receive a phone call from a particular sales agent (Mary James) concerning the defective ironing board that was purchased C->S: INVITE sip:marketing@pint.mailorder.com SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 169.130.12.5 From: sip:john.jones.3@chinet.net To: sip:mary.james@mailorder.com Call-ID: 19971205T234505.56.79@chinet.net Subject: Defective Ironing Board - want refund Content-type: application/sdp Content-Length: ... v=0 o=- 53655765 2353687637 IN IP4 128.3.4.5 c= TN RFCxxxx +1-201-406-4090 m=audio 0 voice The To: line might include the Mary James's phone number instead of a email-like address. An implementation which cannot accept email-like URLs in the "To:" header must fail the request with a 606 Not Acceptable. Note that the sending PINT client "knows" that the PINT Gateway contacted with the "marketing@pint.mailorder.com" Request-URI is capable of processing the client request as expected. (see 3.5.5.1 for a discussion on this). Note also that such a telephone call service could be implemented on the phone side with different details. For example, it might be that first the agent's phone rings, and then the customer's phone rings, or it might be that first the customer's phone rings and he hears silly music until the agent comes on line. If necessary, such service parameter details might be indicated in "a=" attribute lines within the session description. The specification of such attribute lines for service consistency is beyond the scope of the PINT 1.0 specifications. 4.3. A request from the same user to get a fax back on how to assemble the Ironing Board C->S: INVITE sip:faxback@pint.mailorder.com SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 169.130.12.5 From: sip:john.jones.3@chinet.net To: sip:1-800-FAXBACK@steam.edu;user=phone;phone-context=+1 Call-ID: 19971205T234505.66.79@chinet.net Content-type: application/sdp Content-Length: ... v=0 o=- 53655768 2353687637 IN IP4 128.3.4.5 c= TN RFCxxxx 1-201-406-4091 m=application 0 fax URI a=fmtp:URI uri:http://localstore/Products/IroningBoards/2344.html In this example, the fax to be sent is stored on some local server (localstore), whose name may be only resolvable, or which may only be reachable, from within the IP network on which the PINT server sits. The phone number to be dialled is a "local phone number" as well. There is no "phone-context" attribute, so the context (in this case, for which nation the number is "nationally significant") must be supplied by the faxback@pint.mailorder.com PINT server. If the server which receives does not understand the number, it should fail the request with and include a "Network Address Not Understood" warning. Note that no "strict" attribute was used here, since it is very likely that the request can be serviced even by a server which does not support the "strict" attribute. 4.4. A request from same user to have that same information read out over the phone C->S: INVITE sip:faxback@pint.mailorder.com SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 169.130.12.5 From: john.jones.3@chinet.net To: sip:1-800-FAXBACK@steam.edu;user=phone;phone-context=+1 Call-ID: 19971205T234505.66.79@chinet.net Content-type: application/sdp Content-Length: ... v=0 o=- 53655768 2353687637 IN IP4 128.3.4.5 c= TN RFCxxxx +1-201-406-4090 m=application 0 voice URI a=fmtp:URI uri:http://localstore/Products/IroningBoards/2344.html 4.5. A request to send an included text page to a friend's pager. In this example, the text to be paged out is included in the request. C->S: INVITE sip:R2F@pint.pager.com SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 169.130.12.5 From: scott.petrack@chinet.net To: sip:R2F@pint.pager.com Call-ID: 19974505.66.79@chinet.net Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=--next ----next Content-Type: application/sdp Content-Length: ... v=0 o=- 53655768 2353687637 IN IP4 128.3.4.5 c= TN RFCxxxx +972-9-956-1867 m=text 0 pager plain a=fmtp:plain spr:2@53655768 ----next Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: 2@53655768 Content-Length:... Hi Joe! Please call me asap at 555-1234. ----next-- 4.6. A request to send an image as a fax to phone number +972-9-956-1867 C->S: INVITE sip:faxserver@pint.vocaltec.com SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 169.130.12.5 From: scott.petrack@chinet.net To: sip:faxserver@pint.vocaltec.com Call-ID: 19971205T234505.66.79@chinet.net Content-type: application/sdp Content-Length: ... v=0 o=- 53655768 2353687637 IN IP4 128.3.4.5 c= TN RFCxxxx +972-9-956-1867 m=image 0 fax tif gif a=fmtp:tif uri:http://petrack/images/tif/picture1.tif a=fmtp:gif uri:http://petrack/images/gif/picture1.gif The image is available as tif or as jpeg. The tif is the preferred format. Note that the http server where the pictures reside is local, and the PINT server is also local (because it can resolve machine name "petrack") 4.7. A request to read out over the phone two pieces of content in sequence. First some included text is read out by text-to-speech. Then some text which is stored at some URI on the internet is read out. C->S: INVITE sip:R2HC@pint.acme.com SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 169.130.12.5 From: scott.petrack@chinet.net To: sip:R2HC@pint.acme.com Call-ID: 19974505.66.79@chinet.net Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=next --next Content-Type: application/sdp Content-Length: ... v=0 o=- 53655768 2353687637 IN IP4 128.3.4.5 c= TN RFCxxxx +1-201-406-4091 m=text 0 voice plain a=fmtp:plain spr:2@53655768 m=text 0 voice plain a=fmtp:plain uri:http://www.mymachine.com/texts/mytext.doc --next Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: 2@53655768 Content-Length: ... Hello!! I am about to read out to you some text stored on my Web Site. Let me know how it sounds over acme.com's new speech synthesis server. --next-- *-*- 4.8. Request for the prices for ISDN to be sent to my fax machine INVITE sip:R2FB@pint.bt.co.uk SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 169.130.12.5 To:0345-12347-01;user=phone;phone-context=+44 From: sip:hank.wangford@newts.demon.co.uk Call-ID: 19981204T201505.56.78@demon.co.uk Subject: Price List Content-type: application/sdp Content-Length: 116 v=0 o=-53655765 2353687637 IN IP4 128.3.4.5 i=ISDN Price List c=TN RFCxxxx +44-1794-8331010 m=text 0 fax 4.9. Request for a callback INVITE sip:R2C@pint.bt.co.uk SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 169.130.12.5 To:0345-123456;user=phone;phone-context=+44 From: sip:hank.wangford@newts.demon.co.uk Call-ID: 19981204T234505.56.78@demon.co.uk Subject: It costs HOW much? Content-type: application/sdp Content-Length: 123 v=0 o=- 53655765 2353687637 IN IP4 128.3.4.5 i=ISDN pre-sales query c= TN RFCxxxx +44-1794-8331013 m=audio 0 voice 4.10.Sending a set of information in response to an enquiry INVITE sip:R2FB@pint.bt.co.uk SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 169.130.12.5 To:0345-12347-01;user=phone;phone-context=+44 From: sip:colin.masterton@sales.hh.bt.co.uk Call-ID: 19981205T234505.56.78@sales.hh.bt.co.uk Subject: Price Info, as requested Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=next --next Content-type: application/sdp Content-Length: 211 v=0 o=-53655765 2353687637 IN IP4 128.3.4.5 i=Your documents c=TN RFCxxxx +44-1794-8331010 m=application 0 fax octet-stream a=fmtp:octet-stream uri:http://www.bt.co.uk/imgs/pipr.gif opr: spr:2@53655768 --next Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: 2@53655768 Content-Length: 352 Dear Sir, Thank you for your enquiry. I have checked availability in your area, and we can provide service to your cottage. I enclose a quote for the costs of installation, together with the ongoing rental costs for the line. If you want to proceed with this, please quote job reference isdn/hh/123.45.9901. Yours Sincerely, Colin Masterton --next-- Note that the "implicit" faxback content is given by an EMPTY opaque reference in the middle of the fmtp line in this example. 4.11.Sportsline "headlines" message sent to your phone/pager/fax (i) phone INVITE sip:R2FB@pint.wwos.skynet.com SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 169.130.12.5 To:1-900-123-456-7;user=phone;phone-context=+1 From: sip:fred.football.fan@skynet.com Call-ID: 19971205T234505.56.78@chinet.net Subject: Wonderful World Of Sports NFL Final Scores Content-type: application/sdp Content-Length: 174 v=0 o=- 53655765 2353687637 IN IP4 128.3.4.5 i=NFL Final Scores c= TN RFCxxxx +44-1794-8331013 m=audio 0 voice x-pay a=fmtp:x-pay opr:mci.com/md5: (ii) fax INVITE sip:R2FB@pint.wwos.skynet.com SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 169.130.12.5 To:1-900-123-456-7;user=phone;phone-context=+1 From: sip:fred.football.fan@skynet.com Call-ID: 19971205T234505.56.78@chinet.net Subject: Wonderful World Of Sports NFL Final Scores Content-type: application/sdp Content-Length: 173 v=0 o=- 53655765 2353687637 IN IP4 128.3.4.5 i=NFL Final Scores c= TN RFCxxxx +44-1794-8331010 m=text 0 fax x-pay a=fmtp:x-pay opr:mci.com/md5: (iii) pager INVITE sip:R2FB@pint.wwos.skynet.com SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 169.130.12.5 To:1-900-123-456-7;user=phone;phone-context=+1 From: sip:fred.football.fan@skynet.com Call-ID: 19971205T234505.56.78@chinet.net Subject: Wonderful World Of Sports NFL Final Scores Content-type: application/sdp Content-Length: 173 v=0 o=- 53655765 2353687637 IN IP4 128.3.4.5 i=NFL Final Scores c= TN RFCxxxx +44-1794-8331015 m=text 0 pager x-pay a=fmtp:x-pay opr:mci.com/md5: Note that these are all VERY similar. 4.12.Automatically giving someone a fax copy of your phone bill INVITE sip:BillsRUs@pint.sprint.com SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 169.130.12.5 To:+1-555-888-1234;user=phone From: sip:agent.mulder@fbi.gov Call-ID: 19991231T234505.56.78@fbi.gov Subject: Itemised Bill for January 98 Content-type: application/sdp Content-Length: 117 v=0 o=-53655765 2353687637 IN IP4 128.3.4.5 i=Joe Pendleton's Phone Bill c=TN RFCxxxx +1-202-833-1010 m=text 0 fax x-files-id a=fmtp:x-files-id opr:fbi.gov/jdcn-123@45:3des;base64, Note: in this case the opaque reference is data used to convince the Executive System that the requester has the right to get this information, rather than selecting the particular content (the A party in the To: field of the SIP "wrapper" does that alone). 5. Security Considerations [??? There is some preliminary text, including some of the "responsibility" stuff of Steve. will get to it after the deadline I'm afraid] [??? It seems to me that SIP security mechanisms seem adequate to the task, except that decent text needs to be written on such topics as how to use those mechanisms to avoid fraud, trace malicious/ nuisance requests, etc. Some mention must be made as well of third party authorisation, such as when a corporate PBX allows person A to make long distance calls, but not person B] [??? The basic mechanisms are to be able to both digitally sign and encrypt payloads. Certificates will be used. The certificates contain the identity of the certificate authority, and this can be used as a back end service to authorise the execution of the PINT service.] [??? -- Security considerations for REGISTER: For example, what's to stop any provider from registering as "R2C@pint.brokers.com;tsp=att.com"? It should be possible to require authentication authentication of the request, and this is strongly recommended; it is indeed possible for someone to want to register themselves as "tsp=att.com" or even to override all other registrations for "R2C". (by attempting such a registration with a "zero time" Expiry header).] 6. Deployment considerations and the Relationship PINT to I.N. (Informative) 6.1. Web Front End to PINT Infrastructure It is possible that some other protocol may be used to communicate a Requesting User's requirements. Due to the high numbers of available Web Browsers and servers it seems likely that some PINT systems will use HTML/HTTP as a "front end". In this scenario, HTTP will be used over a connection from the Requesting User's Web Browser (WC) to an Intermediate Web Server (WS). This will be closely associated with a PINT Client (using some unspecified mechanism to transfer the data from the Web Server to the PINT Client). The PINT Client will represent the Requesting User to the PINT Server, and thus to the Executive System that carries out the required action. [WC]------[WS] [PC] \ \ [PS] [XS] 6.2. Redirects to Multiple Servers It is quite possible that a given PINT Server is associated with an Executive System (or systems) that can connect to the GSTN at different places. Equally, if there is a chain of PINT Servers, then each of these intermediate or proxy servers (PP) may be able to route PINT requests to Executive Systems that connect at specific points to the GSTN. The result of this is that there may be more than one PINT Server or Executive System that can deal with a given request. The mechanisms by which the choice on where to deliver a request are outside the scope of this document. [WC]------[WS] [WC]------[WS] [PC] [PC] \ \ \ \ [PS] [PP] .........[XS]......... / \ : : / \ [PS] [PS] [XS] [XS] However, there do seem to be two approaches. Either a Server that acts as a proxy or redirect will select the appropriate server itself and will cause the request to be sent on accordingly, or a list of possible Locations will be returned to the Requesting User from which they can select their choice. In SIP, the implication is that, if a proxy cannot resolve to a single unique match for a request destination, then a response containing a list of the choices should be returned to the Requesting User for selection. This is not too likely a scenario within the normal use of SIP. However, within PINT, such ambiguity may be quite common; it implies that there are a number of possible providers of a given service. 6.3. Competing PINT gateways REGISTERing to offer the same service With PINT, the registration is not for an individual but instead for a service that can be handled by a service provider. Thus, one can envisage a registration by the PINT Server of the domain telcoA.com of its ability to support the service R2C as "R2C@telcoA.com", sent to an intermediary server that acts as registrar for the "broker.telcos.com" domain from "R2C@pint.telcoA.com" as follows: REGISTER sip:registrar@broker.telcos.com SIP/2.0 To:sip:R2C@pint.telcoA.com From:R2C@pint.telcoA.com ... This is the standard SIP registration service. However, what happens if there are a number of different Service Providers, all of whom support the "R2C" service? Suppose there is a PINT system at domain "broker.com". PINT clients requesting a Request-to-Call service from broker.com might be very willing to be redirected or proxied to any one of the various service providers which had previously registered with the registrar. PINT servers might also be interested in providing service for requests that did not specify the service provider explicitly, as well as those requests that were directed "at them". To enable such service, PINT servers would REGISTER at the broker PINT server registrations of the form: REGISTER sip:registrar@broker.com SIP/2.0 To:sip:R2C@broker.com From:sip:R2C@pint.telcoA.com When several such REGISTER messages appear at the registrar, each differing only in the URL in the From: line, the registrar has many possibilities, e.g.: (i) it overwrites the prior registration for "R2C@broker.telcos.com" when the next comes in; (ii) it rejects the subsequent registration for "R2C@broker.telcos.com"; (iii) it maintains all such registrations. In this last case, on receiving an Invitation for the "general" service, either: (iii.1) it passes on the invitation to all registered service providers, returning a collated response with all acceptances, using multiple Location: headers, or (iii.2) it silently selects one of the registrations (using, for example, a "round robin" approach) and routes the Invitation and response onwards without further comment. As an alternative to all of the above approaches, it: (iv) may choose to not allow registrations for the "general" service, rejecting all such REGISTER requests. The algorithm by which such a choice is made will be implementation-dependent, and is outside the scope of PINT. Where a behaviour is to be defined by requesting users, then some sort of call processing language might be used to allow those clients, as a pre-service operation, to download the behaviour they expect to the server making such decisions. This, however, is a topic for other protocols, not for PINT. *-*- 6.4. Limitations on Available Information and Request Timing for SUBSCRIBE A reference configuration for PINT is that service requests are sent, via a PINT gateway, to an Executive System that fulfils the Service Control Function (SCF) of an Intelligent Network (see [12]). The success or failure of the resulting service call may be information available to the SCF and so may potentially be made available to the PINT gateway. In terms of historical record of whether or not a service succeeded, a large SCF may be dealing with a million call attempts per hour. Given that volume of service transactions, there are finite limits beyond which it cannot store service dispositon records; expecting to find out if a Fax was sent last month from a busy SCF is unrealistic. Other status changes, such as that on completion of a successful service call, require the SCF to arrange monitoring of the service call in a way that the service may not do normally, for performance reasons. In most implementations, it is difficult efficiently to interrupt a service to change it once it has begun execution, so it may be necessary to have two different services; one that sets GSTN resorces to monitor service call termination, and one that doesn't. It is unlikely to be possible to decide that monitoring is required once the service has started. These factors can have implications both on the information that is potentially available at the PINT Gateway, and when a request to register interest in the status of a PINT service can succeed. The alternative to using a general SCF is to provide a dedicated Service Node just for PINT services. As this node is involved in placing all service calls, it is in a position to collect the information needed. However, it may well still not be able to respond successfully to a registration of interest in call state changes once a service logic program instance is running. Thus, although a Requesting User may register an interest in the status of a service request, the PINT Gateway may not be in a position to comply with that request. Although this does not affect the protocol used between the Requestor and the PINT Gateway, it may influence the response returned. To avoid the problem of changing service logic once running, any registration of interest in status changes should be made at or before the time at which the service request is made. Conversely, if a historical request is made on the disposition of a service, this should be done within a short time after the service has completed; the Executive System is unlikely to store the results of service requests for long; these will have been processed as AMA records quickly, after which the Executive System has no reason to keep them, and so they may be discarded. Where the PINT Gateway and the Executive System are intimately linked, the Gateway can respond to status subscription requests that occur while a service is running. It may accept these requests and simply not even try to query the Executive System until it has information that a service has completed, merely returning the final status. Thus the PINT Requestor may be in what it believes is a monitoring state, whilst the PINT Gateway has not even informed the Executive System that a request has been made. This will increase the internal complexity of the PINT Gateway in that it will have a complex set of interlocking state machines, but does mean that status registration and indication CAN be provided in conjunction with an I.N. system. 6.5. Parameters needed for invoking traditional PSTN Services within PINT This section describes how parameters needed to specify certain traditional PSTN services can be carried within PINT requests. 6.5.1. Service Identifier When a Requesting User asks for a service to be performed, he or she will, of course, have to specify which service in some way. This can be done within the URLs within the To: header and the Request-URI (see ) 6.5.2. A and B parties With the Request-to-Talk service, they will also need to specify the A and B parties they want to be engaged in the resulting service call. The A party could identify, for example, the Call Centre from which they want a call back, whilst the B party is their telephone number (i.e. who the Call Centre agent is to call). The Request-to-Fax and Request-to-Hear-Content services require the B party to be specified (respectively the telephone number of the destination Fax machine or the telephone to which spoken content is to be delivered), but the A party is a Telephone Network based resource (either a Fax or speech transcoder/sender), and is implicit; the Requesting User does not (and cannot) specify it. With the "Fax-Back" variant of the Request-to-Fax service, (i.e. where the content to be delivered resides on the GSTN) they will also have specify two parties. As before, the B party is the telephone number of the fax machine to which they want a fax to be sent. However, within this variant the A party identifies the "document context" for the PSTN-based document store from which a particular document is to be retrieved; the analogy here is to a PSTN user dialling a particular telephone number and then entering the document number to be returned using "touch tone" digits. The telephone number they dial is that of the document store or A party, with the "touch tone" digits selecting the document within that store. 6.5.3. Other Service Parameters In terms of the extra parameters to the request, the services again differ. The Request-to-Talk service needs only the A and B parties. Also it is convenient to assert that the resulting service call will carry voice, as the Executive System within the destination GSTN may be able to check that assertion against the A and B party numbers specified and may treat the call differently. With the Request-to-Fax and Request-to-Hear-Content services, the source information to be transcoded is held on the Internet. That means either that this information is carried along with the request itself, or that a reference to the source of this information is given. In addition, it is convenient to assert that the service call will carry fax or voice, and, where possible, to specify the format for the source information. The PSTN-based content or "Fax-Back" variant of the Request-to-Fax service needs to specify the Document Store number and the Fax machine number to which the information is to be delivered. It is convenient to assert that the call will carry Fax data, as the destination Executive System may be able to check that assertion against the document store number and that of the destination Fax machine. In addition, the document number may also need to be sent. This parameter is an opaque reference that is carried through the Internet but has significance only within the GSTN. The document store number and document number together uniquely specify the actual content to be faxed. 6.5.4. Service Parameter Summary The following table summarises the information needed in order to specify fully the intent of a PSTN service request. Note that it excludes any other parameters (such as authentication or authorisation tokens, or Expires: or CallId: headers) that may be used in a request. Service ServiceID AParty BParty CallFmt Source SourceFmt ------- --------- ------ ------ ------- ------ ------- R2C x x x voice - - R2F x - x fax URI/IL ISF/ILSF R2FB x x x fax OR - R2HC x - x voice URI/IL ISF/ILSF In this table, "x" means that the parameter is required, whilst "-" means that the parameter is not required. The Services listed are Request to Talk (R2C), Request to Fax (R2F), the PSTN-based content or "Fax-back" Variant of Request-to-Fax (R2FB), and Request-to-Hear-Content (R2HC). The Call Format parameter values "voice" or "fax" indicate the kind of service call that results. The Source Indicator "URI/IL" implies either that the data is either an Internet source reference (a Universal Resource Identifier, or URI) or is carried "in-line" with the message. The Source indicator "OR" means that that the value passed is an Opaque Reference that should be carried along with the rest of the message but is to be interpreted only within the destination (GSTN) context. As an alternative, it could be given as a "local" reference with the "file" style, or even using a partial reference with the "http" style. However, the way in which such a reference is interpreted is a matter for the receiving PINT Server and Executive System; it remains, in effect, an opaque reference. The Source Format value "ISF/ILSF" means that the format of the source is specified either in terms of the URI or that it is carried "in-line". Note that, for some data, the format either can be detected by inspection or, if all else fails, can be assumed from the URI (for example, by assuming that the file extension part of a URL indicates the data type). For an opaque reference, the Source Format is not available on the Internet, and so is not given. 6.6. Parameter Mapping to PINT Profile This section describes the way in which the parameters needed to specify a PSTN service request fully might be carried within a PINT profile message. There are other choices, and these are not precluded. However, in order to ensure that the Requesting User receives the service that they expect, it is necessary to have some shared understanding of the parameters passed and the behaviour expected of the PINT Server and its attendant Executive System. The Service Identifier can be sent as the userinfo element of the Request-URI. Thus, the first line of a PINT Invitation would be of the form: INVITE @. SIP/2.0 The A Party for the Request-to-Talk and "Fax-back" variant of Request-to-Fax service can be held in the "To:" header field. In this case the "To:" header value will be different from the Request-URI. In the services where the A party is not specified, the "To:" field is free to repeat the value held in the Request-URI. This is the case for Request-to-Fax and Request-to-Hear-Content services. The B party is needed in all these milestone services, and can be held in the enclosed SDP sub-part, as the value of the "c=" field. The call format parameter can be held as part of the "m=" field value. It maps to the "transport protocol" element as described in section 3.4.2 of this document. The source format specifier is held in the "m=", as a type and optional sub-type. The latter is required for all services except Request-to-Talk. As shown earlier, the source format and source are not always required when generating requests for services. However, the inclusion in all requests of a source format specifier can make parsing the request simpler and allows for other services to be specified in the future, and so values are always given. The source format parameter is covered in section 3.4.2 as the "media type" element. The source itself is identified by an "a=fmtp:" field value, where needed. With the exception of the Request-to-Talk service, all invitations will include such a field. From the perspective of the SDP profile, it can be considered as qualifying the media sub-type, as if to say, for example, "when I say jpeg, what I mean is the following". In summary, the parameters needed by the different services are carried in fields as shown in the following table: Service Svc Param PINT/SIP or SDP field used Example value ------- --------- -------------------------- ------------- R2C ServiceID: R2C BParty: sip:123@p.com AParty: TN RFCxxxx 4567 CallFormat: voice SourceFmt: audio (--- No media sub-type sub-field value used) --- Source: (--- No source specified) --- R2F ServiceID: R2F BParty: (--- ) sip:R2F@pint.xxx.net AParty: TN RFCxxx +441213553 CallFormat: fax SourceFmt: image jpeg Source: a=fmtp:jpeg R2FB ServiceID: R2FB BParty: sip:1-730-1234@p.com AParty: TN RFCxxx +441213553 CallFormat: fax SourceFmt: image jpeg Source: a=fmtp:jpeg opr:1234 R2HC ServiceID: R2HC BParty: (--- SIP To: field not used) sip:R2HC@pint.ita.il AParty: TN RFCxxx +441213554 CallFormat: voice SourceFmt: text html Source: a=fmtp:html 7. Open Issues and Draft State 7.1. Open Issues [All open issues are marked in the text above within square brackets and three question marks ???] Current Open Issues appear to be focussed on the Security section. Any other comments are, of course, invited. 7.2. Draft State Changes from version 00: * Removed References to Q763 parameters. It is difficult to see how these prameters could be passed to an Intelligent Network System, and in many potential configurations this information would not be accepted, as it did not come from a "trusted" source. * Removed references to ITU and other standardisation efforts. A PINT standards-track RFC cannot really refer to standards that are in progress. The set of IETF references are to documents that are on the Standards Track. Standardisation efforts in other organisations are subject to change and so these references are not appropriate. Changes from version 01 to previous interim version: * Corrected a few typos, orphaned internal references, and some of the examples. * Made a few corrections and added some comments on changes to be expected in the next draft. These were highlighted by **** before the affected paragraphs. * Removed references to the Telephony URL draft that has expired. It seems likely that the SIP draft will reach RFC status first. Changes from interim version to version 03: * removed previous change marks * New changes are indicated by *-*- in the text above the change * Corrected a few more typos, and re-visited the examples (thanks to Francois for the MIME comments!) * removed refs to out of date Internet Conference Architecture draft from "Introduction" * Corrected a few more typos, and re-visited the examples * added initial summary list for new PINT features in "PINT Protocol Architecture" * added a comment on the MIME version implied by PINT 1.0 in "PINT Protocol Architecture" * added sub-section number for SDP description in "PINT Protocol Architecture" * added sub-section number for SIP description in "PINT Protocol Architecture" * removed reference to Security mechanisms in "SIP Operation in PINT" * added strictures as MUST and split into separate paras for clarity in "REQUIRED and OPTIONAL elements for PINT compliance" * added comment that PINT features may be useful for SIP/SDP in "REQUIRED and OPTIONAL elements for PINT compliance" * changed E.164 number -> N.P.A., and added local dialling plan number in " Network Type "TN" and Address Type "RFCxxxx"" * added an introductory section on data object support in PINT & rewrote section in "Support for Data Objects within PINT" * added section on opaque references in "Support for Data Objects within PINT" * changed section number and reworked text in "Session Description support for included Data Objects" * removed ref to former (non-tagged) method of checking resolution type in "Session Description support for included Data Objects" * moved last part of section to the SIP description, leaving a ref. in "Session Description support for included Data Objects" * highlighted that attributes may appear as PINT URL parameters in SIP in "Attribute Tags to pass information into the Telephone Network" * moved para from end of "phone-context attribute" to main body of "Attribute Tags to pass information into the Telephone Network" * added sub-section added (by request) on "Presentation Restriction attribute" * Re-introduced sub-section on "CalledPartyAddress attributes parameters" (Q763 parameters), also by request * added comment on the general form of Q763 attributes to the original content of this section * added a comment that all PINT extensions can be covered by Strictures to "The "strict" attribute" * moved some orphaned text from "Session Description support for included Data Objects" into "Multi-part MIME" * removed sub-section on " PINT URLS within To: headers" and comments on "1-800-FLOWERS" style telephony URLs * removed references to wildcards in REGISTER messages within " REGISTER requests within PINT" * replaced example 4.8 with new examples 4.8 - 4.12 * added section on "Limitations on Available Information and Request Timing for SUBSCRIBE" * added a few references that were missing * added "Collected ABNF" appendix. 8. References [2] M. Handley, E. Schooler, H. Schulzrinne, and J. Rosenberg, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", Internet Draft, Internet Engineering Task Force, Jan 1999. Work in progress. [3] M. Handley and V. Jacobsen, "SDP: Session Description Protocol", RFC2327, Internet Engineering Task Force, April 1998. [4] N. Freed & N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies", RFC2045, November 1996. [5] N. Freed & N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC2046, November 1996. [6] The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard -- Version 2.0", Addison-Wesley, 1996. [7] ITU-T Study Group 2, "E.164 - The International Public Network Numbering Plan", ITU-T, June 1997. [8] H. Lu et al, "Toward the PSTN/Internet Inter-Networking--Pre-PINT Implementations", Informational RFC2458, Internet Engineering Task Force, Nov 1998. [9] ITU-T Study Group XI, "Q.763 - Formats and Codes for the ISDN User Part of SS No7" ITU-T, August 1994. [10] T. Berners-Lee, R. Fielding, and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC2396, Internet Engineering Task Force, August 1998. [11] D. Crocker, "Standard for the format of ARPA Internet text messages",RFC822, Internet Engineering Task Force, August 1982. [12] ITU-T Study Group XI, "Q.1214 - Distributed Functional Plane for IN CS1", ITU-T, March 1994. 9. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the members of the PINT working group for comments that were helpful to the preparation of this specification. Ian Elz's comments were extremely useful to our understanding of internal PSTN operations. The SUBSCRIBE and NOTIFY requests were first suggested by Henning Schulzrinne and Jonathan Rosenberg. Appendix A: Collected ABNF phone-context-attribute = "phone-context:" phone-context-ident = network-prefix | private-prefix network-prefix = intl-network-prefix | local-network-prefix intl-network-prefix = "+" 1*DIGIT local-network-prefix = 1*DIGIT excldigandplus = (0x21-0x2d,0x2f,0x40-0x7d)) private-prefix = 1*excldigandplus 0*uric clir-attribute = "clir:" ("true" | "false") q763-nature-attribute = "Q763-nature:" ("1" | "2" | "3" | "4") q763plan-attribute = "Q763-plan:" ("1"|"2" |"3" |"4" |"5" |"6" |"7") ; -- of these, 1, 3, and 4 are defined in the text q763-INN-attribute = "Q763-INN:" ("0" | "1") strict-attribute = "strict:" attribute-list = 1*(PINT-attribute | attribute) ; -- attribute is as defined in SDP PINT-attribute = ( clir-attribute | q763-nature-attribute | q763plan-attribute | q763-INN-attribute | phone-context-attribute ) Require-header = "Require:" 1*(required-extensions) required-extensions = ("org.ietf.sip.subscribe" | "org.ietf.sdp.strict") connection-field = ["c=" nettype space addrtype space connection-address CRLF] ; -- this is the original definiton from SDP ; -- the following are PINT interpretations and modifications nettype = ("IN"|"TN") addrtype = (INAddrType | TNAddrType) INAddrType = ("IP4"|"IP6") TNAddrType = ("RFCxxxx"|) OtherAddrType = (X-Token) ; -- X-token is as defined in RFC2045 addr = (FQDN | unicast-address | TNAddr) ; -- FQDN and unicast address specified in SDP TNAddr = (RFCxxxxAddr|OtherAddr) ; -- TNAddr defined only in context of nettype == "TN" RFCxxxxAddr = (INPAddr|LDPAddr) INPAddr = "+" POS-DIGIT 0*(("-" DIGIT)|DIGIT) LDPAddr = DIGIT 0*(("-" DIGIT)|DIGIT) OtherAddr = 1*uric ; -- uric is as defined in RFC2396 media-field = "m=" media space port space proto 0*(space fmt) CRLF media = ("application"|"audio"|"image"|"text") ; -- is any MIME discrete type. Only those listed are used in PINT 1.0 port = "0" proto = (INProto|TNProto) INProto = 1* (alpha-numeric) ; -- this is the "classic" SDP protocol, defined if nettype == "IN" TNProto = ("phone"|"fax"|"pager") ; -- this is the PINT protocol, defined if nettype == "TN" fmt = ; -- subtype as defined in RFC2046. Must be a subtype of type held in ; -- associated media sub-field pint-fmtp = "a=fmtp:" 1* resolution = ( | | ) urref = "uri:" ; -- URI-Reference defined in RFC2396 opaque-ref = "opr:" 0*uric sub-part-ref = "spr:" Content-ID ; -- Content-ID is as defined in RFC2046 and RFC822 Appendix B: Author's Addresses Scott Petrack Metatel, Boston, MA scott.petrack@metatel.com Lawrence Conroy Roke Manor Research Roke Manor Old Salisbury Lane Romsey, Hampshire U.K. SO51 0ZN lwc@roke.co.uk --============_-1293067750==_============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" All the best, Lawrence ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | Lawrence Conroy, | "These Opinions must be mine, 'cos if they | | Roke Manor Research | were my Company's they'd charge you for them"| |- lwc@roke.co.uk ---+- Tel: +44 1794 833666 Fax: +44 1794 833434 --| --============_-1293067750==_============-- --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Thu Feb 18 06:35:27 1999 Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by ietf.org (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id GAA27556 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 06:35:27 -0500 (EST) Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 9F36C7FCC; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 05:19:27 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id 53B257FCE; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 05:19:26 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com X400-Received: by /PRMD=INTERNET/ADMD=ATLAS/C=FR/; Relayed; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:09:30 +0100 X400-Received: by mta xn1-gw.atlas.fr in /PRMD=INTERNET/ADMD=ATLAS/C=FR/; Relayed; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:09:30 +0100 X400-Received: by /ADMD=ATLAS/C=FR/; Relayed; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:08:37 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=art-telecom/ADMD=atlas/C=fr/; Relayed; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:11:32 +0100 Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:11:32 +0100 X400-Originator: Didier.CHAUVEAU@art-telecom.fr X400-Recipients: non-disclosure:; X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=art-telecom/ADMD=atlas/C=fr/;XGW-990218110221+0100-23318] Original-Encoded-Information-Types: undefined X400-Content-Type: P2-1988 (22) Content-Identifier: Voice over IP - From: Didier.CHAUVEAU@art-telecom.fr To: iptel@lists.research.bell-labs.com, pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com, ss7-internet@bayNetworks.com, e164-to-ip@lserv.vocaltec.com Subject: Voice over IP - public call for comments MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <19990218101907.1A5807FCD@lists.research.bell-labs.com> Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id GAA27556 Dear IETF members, Please note that ART, the telecommunications regulatory authority in France, launched a public call for comments this week concerning Voice over Ip. ART invites users and all market parties to contribute to this study. The public call for comments is available on the following web site: http://www.art-telecom.fr Responses should reach ART by noon on 13 March 1999 (see details on public call for comments). Do not hesitate to share this information with interested parties. Regards, didier chauveau ART didier.chauveau@art-telecom.fr --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Thu Feb 18 13:10:03 1999 Received: from dirty.research.bell-labs.com (dirty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.6]) by ietf.org (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with SMTP id NAA04599 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 13:10:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com ([135.180.161.172]) by dirty; Thu Feb 18 13:08:54 EST 1999 Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 0091D7FC8; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:47:31 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id EA9A27FCA; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:47:29 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Message-ID: From: "Buller, Jim" To: "'PINT'" Subject: New ID for PINT 2/PIN BOF Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 17:27:28 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_000_01BE5B63.F88305BE" Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk ------_=_NextPart_000_01BE5B63.F88305BE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Baldrick : I have a cunning plan m'lord. Blackdder : Oh let me guess Baldrick, does it involve a TurNIP? Baldrick : How did you guess? Herewith, an ID proposing an architecture for PSTN initiation of internet services. <> ------_=_NextPart_000_01BE5B63.F88305BE Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="draft-buller-saint-00.txt" Content-Location: ATT-0-B513DF0E38C7D2119CAE00A0C944D875-D RAFT-%7E3.TXT Content-Type: text/plain; name="draft-buller-saint-00.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable PINT Working Group J. = Buller Internet Draft Siemens Roke Manor Research = Ltd. Category: Informational =20 Expires: 18th August 1999 A proposal for the provisioning of PSTN=20 initiated services running on tht Internet Status of this Memo=20 This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are = working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its = areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also = distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. =20 =20 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six = months=20 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at = any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as = reference material or to cite them other than as ``work in progress.''=20 =20 To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check = the ``1id-abstracts.txt'' listing contained in the Internet-Drafts = Shadow=20 Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net = (Europe), munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ftp.ietf.org (US East Coast), = or ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast). =20 =20 This memo provides information for the Internet community. This = memo=20 does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution = of this memo is unlimited. =20 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) The Internet Society (1999). All rights reserved. Abstract=20 =20 This Internet Draft has arisen out of work concentrating on = the=20 interconnection of IP and the Public Switched Telephone = Network=20 (PSTN) undertaken within the PINT working group. Efforts within = this=20 group have, to date, concentrated on the initiation of PSTN = services=20 from the Internet. This Internet Draft aims to describe a possible architecture for = the implementation of services initiated from the PSTN such as, but = not limited to, Internet Call Waiting (ICW). It also identifies = the possibility of using this class of service, in conjunction with = the=20 PINT work already undertaken, in order to provide a third flavour = of=20 service. This Internet Draft deliberately does not to define the protocols = for=20 these kinds of services, although descriptions contained within it = do use Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) terminology.=20 Buller [Page = 1] =0C PSTN Initiated Services February, = 1999 The purpose of this Internet Draft is to ascertain the level = of=20 interest in pursuing this area of work. It is submitted with the = goal=20 of forming the basis of an Informational RFC and thereby further = work on the standardisation of the provision of these kinds of = services. Contents The contents of the rest of this document is as follows:=20 Section 2 =20 Acts as an introduction and defines the scope of this Internet = Draft=20 in relation to PINT. Section 3 Specifies the perceived requirements for any implementation of = the group of services identified in Section 2. =20 Section 4 Identifies an initial architecture to fulfill requirements of = the=20 class of service identified in this Internet Draft. Section 5 Describes an implementation of an example service (ICW) using = this=20 architecture. Section 6 Discusses initially identified security considerations which = relate =20 to the kind of service discussed in this Internet Draft. Section 7 Conclusions and identified further future study areas. Section 8 References and Glossary. Section 9 Acknowledges individuals providing assistance in the creation of = this document. =20 Section 10 Author's address. 2. Introduction In its charter, the description of the PINT working group states that= it aims to address connection arrangements through which = Internet=20 applications can request and enrich PSTN services. =20 Work to date has produced a proposal based on the use of the = Session=20 Initiation Protocol (SIP) [2] and Session Description Protocol = (SDP) [3] to achieve these objectives in respect of Internet initiation = of PSTN services (as shown in Figure 1). Buller [Page = 2] =0C PSTN Initiated Services February, = 1999 ............................ : PINT area of interest : : : : PINT : : +----------+ REQUEST :+----------+ : | Internet |------------>:| PSTN | : +----------+ :| Services | : :+----------+ :..........................: Figure 1. As a result of this work the group has identified a need, and = has=20 begun discussions on, the possibility of using SIP and SDP in = a=20 similar manner in order to perform the reverse of this function = i.e.=20 initiating Internet services from the PSTN using some yet to = be defined protocol (initially called TNIP, it being the reverse of = PINT [4]) as shown in Figure 2. =20 ............................ : : : +----------+ REQUEST :+----------+ : | Internet |<------------:| PSTN | : +----------+ TNIP :| Services | : :+----------+ :..........................: Figure 2. The service initially identified for this scenario is the = Internet=20 Call Waiting (ICW) Service, also known as Call Completion = Internet=20 Busy (CCIB). In this service, a PSTN user attempts to make a = Plain=20 Old Telephone Service (POTS) call in a traditional manner to = another=20 number. This second number is engaged, possibly because the person = is=20 presently connected to the Internet. The service should identify = if=20 this user is indeed connected, and if so, a message is sent over = the=20 Internet to inform this person about the call attempt. The user = may =20 then decide what action to take, dependent on what service = options=20 are provided by the service provider. This might be to drop = the=20 current Internet connection and take the call in the normal way, = take =20 the call as a Voice Over IP (VOIP) call, decline and give the = calling =20 party the option to leave a voice message or simply decline the = call. Of course this is not the only service which could be deployed, = other services, such as :=20 o Remote Activation Using a telephone a user could request actions to be = performed=20 at some remote location. o Remote Data Setting Using a telephone a user could create or modify information = held on a remote machine. =20 Buller [Page = 3] =0C PSTN Initiated Services February, = 1999 o Paging=20 A paging service could send a text message to the user logged = on=20 to the Internet using voice to text conversion software. o Voice Messaging A voice message service, whereby a voice message could be = taken=20 and converted to an audio format which could be played on = the=20 users machine. o Voice to Email. could also be deployed. =20 However, the real benefits of this class of service (PSTN = activation) will be in its use, in conjunction with the work already = undertaken within the PINT group, to provide a further completely new class = of Intelligent Network (IN) 'like' services. This scenario is = depicted=20 in Figure 3 : ............................ : : : +----------+ REQUEST :+----------+ : | |<------------:| | : | Internet | :| PSTN | : | services | :| Services | : | |------------>:| | : +----------+ PINT :+----------+ : REQUEST : :..........................: Figure 3. The scenario of these kinds of services would be that a user uses = the=20 PSTN to initiate an Internet service. This Internet service = could=20 then either : =20 Store information which could be used during an initation of = an=20 Internet Service at a some later time.=20 or Initiate a PSTN service directly.=20 =20 A simple example of a service using both of these facets might be = a=20 number portability service. A user could use a telephone to = specify the telephone number at their current location (perhaps using = Calling=20 Line Identity CLI) this is sent over the Internet (using the = protocol which would come out of any future work) to a repository. = Another=20 user could then attempt to telephone the first user. This call = is intercepted and the number called checked against the current = known location by a request (using the protocol or profile which would = come out of any future work) to ascertain the number registered by = the first user. If the number is different, a PINT request could = be=20 issued back to the PSTN to connect the call to the new number. Buller [Page = 4] =0C PSTN Initiated Services February, = 1999 For the purposes of this Internet Draft and identifying what kind = of services are being disussed this Internet Draft identifies = three=20 groups of service which could be provided : 1. PINT Internet initiation of PSTN servives. 2. TNIP The reverse of PINT i.e. PSTN Initiation of = Internet=20 services and the protocol or profile which could = provide these services. 3. SAINT Service Activation and the INTernet. An all = encompassing=20 classification which contains services provided by = the previous two groups, plus any combination of = these=20 services, used to provide further services. Figure 4. provides a schematic of the different kinds of service. SAINT Service Activation on the INTernet | +----------------+----------------+ | | PINT TNIP PSTN INTernet Telephony iNitiation Interworking of IP services Figure 4. So, in the number portability serice described above, the = service=20 components would break down as follows : o The ability to call and set current location (telephone = number)=20 would be a TNIP flavour of SAINT which could be used in = multiple services.=20 o Similarly, the ability to look up the present location would = also be a TNIP flavour of SAINT, as this would have been initiated = via the PSTN. This also could be used in multiple services.=20 o The ability to forward the call would be a PINT flavour of = SAINT because this would be initiated from the Internet. Again, = this functionality could be used in multiple services. o The whole combination of the above would be a SAINT service.=20 =20 Eventually, if further work in this area is undertaken, what = is=20 presently considered to be independent services within the PINT = and=20 TNIP class of service, might be seen more as functional = components=20 within a SAINT architecture of service provision. This Internet Draft will not consider the potential for PINT and = TNIP=20 combination kinds of SAINT services further. The mechanism = for =20 Buller [Page = 5] =0C PSTN Initiated Services February, = 1999 providing these should 'fall out' of any work undertaken in = the=20 standardisation of PSTN initiated or TNIP services.=20 3. General Requirements For PSTN Initiation Of Internet Services This section aims to specify an initial set of requirements for = any=20 future work in the specification of a protocol, or implementation = of, the group of PSTN initiated services identified in Section 2. o The profile should provide the service in a secure manner. o Any profile defined for PSTN initiation of services should = reuse where possible existing IETF protocols. In particular, a = profile for the PSTN initiation of services should be aligned with = the=20 PINT profile work undertaken to date. o The identification of any equipment (external to the = Internet) within the specification of the protocol, or, service = defined=20 using this protocol SHOULD NOT be required. This would be = in=20 accordance with the PINT approach to date which places = no =20 requirements and identifies no specific equipment beyond the = PINT gateway. o Provide the possibility for a service to be activated in a = manner=20 which is independent in both location of service and = user.=20 Section 5 describes one possible ICW implementation which = allows=20 a user to use the ICW service in a portable manner without = that=20 service being tied to a specific telephone number (and = thereby=20 service location). User (the caller) location can be = considered=20 to be location independent for this service. 4. Proposed Architecture The proposed architecture contains three main elements : 1) The user's machine. This contains a TNIP Server to receive INVITE and/ or = NOTIFY=20 messages. What action occurs next can be either = predetermined =20 by the service provider or dictated by the user themselves. =20 2) Information/ Service Repository. =20 This could contain the service provider's services, = service related information, subscriber related information or = indeed accounting information. In Figure 5 this element is indicated = as a single entity, where in fact, it may be comprised of = several servers working together to provide the overall service.=20 These functions receive INVITEs from the TNIP client, = check where to send the message and perform any other = service=20 functionality. Next, the INVITE is forwarded to the TNIP = server on the user's machine. These functions also receive = REGISTRATION messages sent from the TNIP Server on the user's machine = and=20 maintain/store any relevent information contained in = these=20 messages. =20 Buller [Page = 6] =0C PSTN Initiated Services February, = 1999 3) TNIP Gateway. This 'could' receive service requests from the PSTN = and=20 formulates TNIP messages to be forwarded to the = Information/ Service Repository or directly to the TNIP Server on the = users=20 machine. In so doing it acts as a TNIP client. A simplistic schematic of these elements is shown in Figure 5 = below. ..................................................... : Scope of interest : : : : +------------------+ : : | Users Machine | : : | | : : | +--------------+ | : : | | TNIP Client/ | | : : | | Server | | : : | +--------------+ | : : +--------:---------+ : : | +------------------+ : : : | Information/ | : : | | Service | : : : | Repository | : : | | +--------------+ | : : :-..-..-..-..-..-..-..| TNIP Server | | : : | | +--------------+ | : : : | | : : | +------------------+ : : : : : | : : +--------------+ : : | TNIP | -..-..- TNIP Protocol : :...| Gateway |................................: | | +--------------+ | o | +--------------+ | PSTN | +--------------+ =20 Figure 5. One thing to note about this architecture is that the = Information/=20 Service Repository is not necessarily required. A User machine = could=20 handle a service itself if the TNIP client were to issue INVITEs = and=20 NOTIFYs to it directly.=20 The function of the information/service repository itself could = exist outside of the scope of interest demarcation indicated, as = proposed=20 in [5].=20 Maintaining the information/ service repository within the = Internet=20 Buller [Page = 7] =0C PSTN Initiated Services February, = 1999 as indicated however, would permit interoperability with the = work =20 presently being undertaken within the IP Telephony (IPTEL) = working=20 group, specifically the proposed Call Processing Language [6]. Another point of note is that the TNIP boxes on the user machine = and connected to the Gateway Function are indicated as Client/ = Server. This is because the description of the implementation falls into = two=20 parts (see Section 5) and the behaviour of these TNIP boxes is = more=20 client or server like in each phase. 5. Implementation Scenarios=20 This section describes how services might be implemented within = the architecture described in the previous section. The order of flows = is=20 identified though the specific contents is not. As has been = stated previously, this draft aims to ascertain the level of interest = in this architecture and the services it could provide, prior to = work=20 on any actual specification of a protocol which will be required = to=20 support them.=20 To reduce complexity the description is in two parts. First the = user=20 registers for the service. Secondly, a call attempt is made.=20 5.1. Service Registration Phase User Machine +-------------+ | TNIP Client | +-------------+ | ^ | | | | 1 | 3 | | | +--------------+ | | | Information | v | | Service | 2 ......... | Repository | .../ \... | | ../ \.. 1 | +--------+ | / \---------->| TNIP | | | Internet | | | Server | | \.. ../<----------| | | \... .../ 3 | +--------+ | \........./ +--------------+ Figure 6. 1. User submits a Registration message containing IP Address and = any=20 other information, such as in the case of ICW (if CLI is = not=20 available), their telephone number. 2. User details provided are registered. Buller [Page = 8] =0C PSTN Initiated Services February, = 1999 3. Response message constructed and returned to registering = Client. =20 =20 5.1.1 Other issues As previously stated messages 1 and 3, and the function performed by = 2 do not need to be located in what is called in this description = the=20 Information/ Service repository. These flows and the registration = may be undertaken within the telephony network using IN [5]. The implemenation scenario described assumes that TNIP = functionality has at some previous time been downloaded to the user's machine. = This=20 need not be the case. If it were required that a user could = gain=20 access to the Internet using any machine and still have access = to=20 these services, an implementation similar to that identified in = Figure 7. and the following paragraph could be employed. User Machine +-------------+=20 |+-----------+| || Thin TNIP || || Server || |+-----------+| +---|-----^---+ | | 1 | 6 | | | v | ......... ...../ \..... ...../ \..... / \ | Internet | \..... ...../ | ^ \..... ...../ ^ | | \........./ | | | | ^ | | |=20 1 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 4 | v | | v v | +--------+ 5 +--------+ +--------+ | |<----| | | | | Web | | TNIP | | TNIP |=20 | Server | 1 | Client | | Server | | |---->| | | | +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ | 3 | | v +----------+ | Database | +----------+ Figure 7. Buller [Page = 9] =0C PSTN Initiated Services February, = 1999 1. The user goes to a service providers URL using a browser = and=20 specifies the information requested such as, in the case of = ICW, telephone number. 2. The service provider constructs and issues a SIP = registration=20 message on behalf of the user. 3. User details provided are registered. 4. A response message is constructed and returned to = registering=20 Client. 5. Response message returned to service provider's Web Server. 6. A 'thin' TNIP User Server Agent is sent to the user machine. = This=20 can then be used in the service activation phase. The term 'thin' means that a full implementation of a TNIP = server need not be required in order to handle specific requests. = This is because of two main reasons. Firstly, the exact format = of=20 messages which may be sent by the service provider to offer = this service is known. Secondly, only a subset of the full = protocol need be required to provide the service. 5.2. Service Activation Phase User Machine +-------------+ | TNIP Server | 5 +-------------+ 4a ^ 6 | +--------------+ | v | Information |=20 ......... | Service | 3 .../ \... | Repository | ../ \.. 2 | +--------+ | / \---------->| TNIP | | | Internet | | | Server | | \.. ../<----------| | | \... .../ 4a/4b | +--------+ | \........./ +--------------+ ^ | 2 | v 4b/ 6 +---------+ | TNIP | | Gateway | +---------+ ^ 1 | +---------+ | PSTN | |Equipment| +---------+ Figure 8. Buller [Page = 10] =0C PSTN Initiated Services February, = 1999 1. A service activation request. For example an ICW service = request =20 is made after a call has been attempted and the PSTN = has=20 recognised that the number is engaged. An announcement = could=20 be played and a request sent from the Gateway to establish = if=20 the user is currently registered as wanting to receive = INVITEs=20 for a particular service. This will not be discussed further = as=20 it is outside the scope of this Internet Draft. 2. A TNIP invitation message is constructed and sent to the = TNIP=20 Server on the information/ service handler. 3. The TNIP server in the information/ service repository looks = up=20 the registration details of the user. Two things may then = occur. If the user has registered details a TNIP invitation could = be=20 forwarded to the TNIP server on the user's machine (see 4a). = In=20 this case the information/ service repository performs as = a=20 redirection server or proxy. If the user has no = registration=20 information in the database (either because they have = not=20 registered or the registration has expired) a failure = response is sent to the requesting TNIP client (see 4b). 4a. A TNIP invitation message is sent by the TNIP Server on = the=20 information/ service repository. This invitation contains = a combination of information contained within the repository = and=20 information contained in the original request. 4b. A TNIP failure response is returned to the requesting = TNIP client as no current regration information could be found. 5. User or service action to dictate what should happen as = a=20 result of the receipt the TNIP request. In ICW this might be = to=20 provide the user with the following options : Take telephony call Take VOIP call Send to voice mail Refuse connection 6. The user sends a response to the INVITE, a final timeout = occurs or the client gives up. 5.2.1 Other issues As with the Service Registration Phase the flows to and from = the=20 information/ service repository and the actions it performs could = be=20 undertaken within the telephony network using IN [5]. The only = flows in this scenario would be the invite 4a and the response 6. =20 6. Security Considerations=20 =20 Security issues are still an open issue within the PINT = Internet=20 Draft itself. It is expected that much of the security = arrangements=20 finally proposed by the PINT Internet Draft will be replicated = within=20 Buller [Page = 11] =0C PSTN Initiated Services February, = 1999 any further work undertaken to provide the services identified = in=20 this Internet Draft. However, due to the nature of implementation of these services = there=20 are a number of security issues that need to be addressed. These = are: o De-registration. o Claiming another number (somebody else's) by accident or design. 6.1. De-registration The de-registration problem would arise if a user did not = de-register themselves before they finished using the Internet, likely to be = a=20 common occurrence e.g. users turning off their machines or = modems without de-registering. It is expected that any implementation = builds in a mechanism to handle this scenario. Authenticators could be = used and passed in responses to the REGISTER messages sent to the = TNIP=20 service on the users machine. Alternatively, these = authenticators=20 could be placed directly in the TNIP server when it is = initially =20 downloaded.=20 When the user logs off the Internet, without de-registering, = there=20 are three scenarios which could happen when an attempt is made = to=20 place a call to the number the user specified as their location : 1) The line is not busy, therefore place the call and remove = any previously held registrations. 2) The line is busy on a voice call. An attempt to send a = INVITE message from the Information/ Service Repository fails (as = there would be no receiving client). Any previously held = registration for this number is removed. 3) Another user (or the same user on a different Internet = session) has registered for receipt of calls on this number. There = are=20 two solution possibilities : =20 a) When the new registration is made the old is = replaced=20 immediately. or b) The new registration is kept until an Authenticator = fails on the TNIP server of the new registrand when a = call=20 attempt is made. When the Authenticator fails the = INVITE =20 fails and the original registration can be removed = and=20 replaced with the new. The INVITE is then resent to the = new=20 registrand. 6.2. Claiming another number by accident or design. In this scenario a user may attempt to use ICW to claim notification= =20 on a line they have no right to, and possibly handle that call = using=20 VoIP, if the actual line is engaged. Consider the potential = criminal=20 Buller [Page = 12] =0C PSTN Initiated Services February, = 1999 activities of claiming the telephone number of a Bank. This = security issue is much more complex. The following options are suggested = as=20 possible solutions : 1) Only allow this kind of access from the user's own phone. 2) Provide functionality at the ISP to get the CLI and implement = a=20 SIP based mechanism to request this from the ISP.=20 3) Good accounting to track down offenders. =20 4) Only provide the option to drop the Internet connection = and=20 establish a POTS call on untrusted (e.g. not home) = numbers.=20 Normal Bank authentication procedeures could then be used. 7. Conclusions There is a perceived requirement for the provision of services = which,=20 whilst running over the Internet, would be initiated from the = PSTN.=20 This Internet Draft has proposed an initial attempt at defining = an=20 architecture for the provision of such services. This Internet Draft has also identified that these services may = be=20 used in conjunction with PINT services in order to provide a new = kind of IN 'like' services with their logic operating within the = Internet=20 domain. It has also been identified that the architecture outlined in = this Internet Draft permits service users to specify data which can = then=20 be used by services during execution. An extension to this = approach,=20 and a possible area of further work would be to investigate how = the=20 ability of users to define their services as proposed in [6] could = be integrated with the initiation of a service from the PSTN. Much further work would be required in defining a TNIP style = protocol=20 or profile and identifying possible services for this protocol = or=20 profile. Identfying and specifying candidate services which use = both=20 the TNIP and PINT protocols, such as the portability = service=20 described earlier, would also require further work. Finally, neither PINT nor this proposal for a TNIP protocol = address the issue of generalised/spontaneous notifications between the = PSTN and IP domains. These notifications may be in the form service = data or status information. Further work is required to identify how = these notifications are sent, what handles these messages and how they = are=20 handled. It may be that PINT can be used to forward these messages = to a TNIP server and vice versa. =20 8. References=20 =20 [1] Postel, J., "Instruction to RFC Authors", RFC 1543, October = 1993.=20 [2] Handley, M., Schulzrinne, H., Schooler, E., Rosenberg, J., =20 "SIP Session Initiation Protocol", Internet Draft, January 1999. Buller [Page = 13] =0C PSTN Initiated Services February, = 1999 [3] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., "SDP Session Description Protocol" RFC 2327, April 1998. =20 [4] Petrack, S., Conroy, L., "The PINT profile of SIP and SDP: a Protocol for IP access to Telephone Call Services", Internet Draft, November 1998. =20 [5] Brusilowsky, A. et al, "A proposal for Internet Call Waiting Service using SIP. An implementation Report", Internet Draft, January 1999. [6] Lennox, J., Schulzrinne, H., "Call Processing Language Requirements", Internet Draft, July 1998. Glossary CCIB Call Completion Internet Busy ICW Internet Call Waiting IN Intelligent Network IP Intelligent Peripheral POTS Plain Old Telephone Service PSTN Public Switched Telephone Network SDP Session Description Protocol SIP Session Initiation Protocol VoIP Voice over IP (Internet Protocol) =20 9. Acknowledgments The author would like to acknowledge the following people. Lawrence Conroy for proof reading this document and pointing out = the 'thin ice' in relation to this topic. I hope I have distributed = my=20 weight accordingly. =20 Igor Faynberg for his encouragement to write this Internet Draft. =20 Guenther Murphys in Munich for the Dunkles.=20 10. Author's Address=20 Jim Buller =09 Siemens Roke Manor Research Ltd., Roke Manor, Old Salisbury Lane, Romsey, Hampshire. SO51 0ZN. United Kingdom. Telephone: +44 (0)1794833666 =09 Fax: +44 (0)1794833434 =20 E-mail: jim.buller@roke.co.uk Buller [Page = 14] ------_=_NextPart_000_01BE5B63.F88305BE-- --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Tue Feb 23 20:36:36 1999 Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA25141 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:36:35 -0500 (EST) Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 5AF527FDA; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:11:19 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id 967A47FDB; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:11:18 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com From: crk@research.att.com (Chuck Kalmanek) Message-Id: <9902232007.ZM3706253@corona.research.att.com> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:07:32 -0500 X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 10oct95) To: pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Subject: NOSSDAV99 Call-for-Papers Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk The 9th International Workshop on Network and Operating Systems Support for Digital Audio and Video (NOSSDAV 99) *** NOTE: CHANGE IN SUBMISSION DEADLINE AND PROCEDURES BELOW. *** http://weblab.research.att.com/edas/nossdav99.html 23-25 June, 1999 Hosted By: AT&T Labs Networking and Distributed Systems Research Laboratory CALL FOR PAPERS Objectives The 9th International Workshop on Network and Operating Systems Support for Digital Audio and Video (NOSSDAV 99) is the international workshop concerned with state of the art technology in networking and operating system support for multimedia systems. For eight years, NOSSDAV has proven to be an outstanding forum for researchers involved in building innovative multimedia systems, networks and applications in both industry and academia. A key aspect of the workshop is that it provides extensive discussion periods during which attendees can informally discuss their current work and future research directions. Traditionally, NOSSDAV has emphasized high quality experimental research based on prototype or real systems. NOSSDAV99 will continue this tradition. Submissions Submissions are sought in any area related to Network and Operating Systems Support for Digital Audio and Video. Two types of submissions are solicited: position statements or work in progress reports and full papers. These will be reviewed in entirely different ways and have different deadlines. Full papers will be subject to a normal review process and are restricted to fifteen pages. Accepted papers will be presented at the Workshop and will appear in the published proceedings. The best papers will be forwarded to selected journals for publication. Position statements and work in progress reports of no more than three pages, will be reviewed by the program committee only. Papers will be chosen on the basis of their potential to provoke discussion. Roughly half of the workshop presentations will be allocated to this category. To electronically register and submit a paper, please go to: http://weblab.research.att.com/edas/ Important Dates Please note that the submission deadline for full papers has been extended by two weeks. However, this is a hard deadline. Submission Deadline for Full Papers: 15 March 1999 Submission Deadline for Position Statements: 30 March 1999 Acceptance Notification: 8 May 1999 Final Full Papers Due: 5 June 1999 Workshop: 23-25 June 1999 Program Chair: Chuck Kalmanek AT&T Labs Shannon Laboratory Room A113 180 Park Avenue Florham Park NJ 07032 crk@research.att.com Other Correspondence: nossdav99@research.att.com Program Committee Ian Leslie, Cambridge University, UK Charles Kalmanek, AT&T Labs Research Jim Kurose, University of Masachusetts Tom Little, Boston University Derek McAuley, Microsoft Research, UK Henning Schulzrinne, Columbia University Hide Tokuda, Keio University Domenico Ferrari, Universita Cattolica, Italy Kevin Jeffay, University of North Carolina Mike Jones, Microsoft Doug Shepherd, Lancaster University, UK Richard Black, University of Glasgow, UK Jason Nieh, Columbia University Partho Mishra, AT&T Labs Research S. Keshav, Cornell University H. Zhang, Carnegie Mellon University Raj Yavatkar, Intel Duane Northcutt, Sun Microsystems LOCATION AT&T Learning Center, Basking Ridge NJ -- Chuck Kalmanek Email: crk@research.att.com AT&T Labs - Research Phone: 973-360-8720 Shannon Laboratory, Room A113 Fax: 973-360-8871 180 Park Avenue, Florham Park, N.J. 07932 --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Thu Feb 25 15:30:28 1999 Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA18374 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 15:30:27 -0500 (EST) Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id CD6347FD9; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 13:41:39 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id E671E7FD1; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 13:41:32 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com X400-Received: by /PRMD=INTERNET/ADMD=ATLAS/C=FR/; Relayed; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 18:25:22 +0100 X400-Received: by mta xn1-gw.atlas.fr in /PRMD=INTERNET/ADMD=ATLAS/C=FR/; Relayed; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 18:25:22 +0100 X400-Received: by /ADMD=ATLAS/C=FR/; Relayed; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 18:25:23 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=art-telecom/ADMD=atlas/C=fr/; Relayed; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 18:16:04 +0100 Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 18:16:04 +0100 X400-Originator: Didier.CHAUVEAU@art-telecom.fr X400-Recipients: non-disclosure:; X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=art-telecom/ADMD=atlas/C=fr/;XGW-990225180637+0100-28773] Original-Encoded-Information-Types: undefined X400-Content-Type: P2-1988 (22) Content-Identifier: Voice over IP: p From: Didier.CHAUVEAU@art-telecom.fr To: iptel@lists.research.bell-labs.com, pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com, ss7-internet@BayNetworks.com, e164-to-Ip@lserv.vocaltec.com Subject: Voice over IP: public call for comments MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-Id: <19990225184109.749CD7FD1@lists.research.bell-labs.com> Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id PAA18374 Dear IETF members, ART launched a public call for comments concerning voice over IP (see http://www.art-telecom.fr). Please note that the deadline to submit your contribution is postponed: Responses should reach ART by noon on 23 april 1999 (see details on public call for comments). Do not hesitate to share this information with interested parties. Regards, didier chauveau ART didier.chauveau@art-telecom.fr regards --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Thu Mar 4 03:01:20 1999 Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA24405 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 03:01:15 -0500 (EST) Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 447CF7FB8; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 02:56:27 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id 8921F7FD0; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 02:56:26 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Message-ID: <8C9B70BAC7C9D2119A0A0090273FADFB2AC3C9@itc-eml1> From: Dan Romascanu To: pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Cc: "'Murali Krishnaswamy'" Subject: PINT MIB Outline Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 09:54:43 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk Please look at the proposal below, concerning the outline of the PINT MIB. Murali Krishnaswamy and myself would like to receive your feedbacks before we develop this into a full Internet-Draft. A few notes: 1. We propose to build the configuration table as an extension of the Application MIB - RFC 2287 using the augments construct. The applications table in this MIB contains: sysApplInstallPkgTable OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF SysApplInstallPkgEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The table listing the software application packages installed on a host computer. In order to appear in this table, it may be necessary for the application to be installed using some type of software installation mechanism or Client registry so that its existence can be detected by the agent implementation." ::= { sysApplInstalled 1 } sysApplInstallPkgEntry OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SysApplInstallPkgEntry MAX-ACCESS not-accessible STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The logical row describing an installed application package." INDEX { sysApplInstallPkgIndex } ::= { sysApplInstallPkgTable 1 } SysApplInstallPkgEntry ::= SEQUENCE { sysApplInstallPkgIndex Unsigned32, sysApplInstallPkgManufacturer Utf8String, sysApplInstallPkgProductName Utf8String, sysApplInstallPkgVersion Utf8String, sysApplInstallPkgSerialNumber Utf8String, sysApplInstallPkgDate DateAndTime, sysApplInstallPkgLocation LongUtf8String } This needs to be AUGMENTed with pintApplInstallPkgDescription DisplayString Server location and contact might be retrieved from the standard MIB-II sysLocation and sysContact objects. There is no need to replicate this information in the PINT MIB. However, the PINT administrator may be a different person than the sysadmin with global responsibilities, thus a pintSysContact object is defined. 2. We chose to monitor the gateway connections from the PINT server. While the agent runs in the PINT servers, the connections to the gateways might need to be monitored in order to understand what goes on. We placed them in a separate MIB group, and by using MODULE-COMPLIANCE clauses, agents that cannot implement this stuff will not be mandated to do it. 3. There is no traps definition in this preliminary proposal. Note that thresholding on counters is always possible by using a standard mechanism defined by the Remote Monitoring MIB, that can be referenced here. Some events that may be defined by using this mechanisms: * continuous login/authentication failure or refusal from a particular client or user * nuisance call - repeated calls (within a specified period) to a number originating from the same user 4. The client performance and user performance tables may be rather resource demanding for an agent implementation. In some MIBs, like the Remote Monitoring (RMON) MIBs, control mechanisms were built in order to activate those statistics on demand. Also, a sorting ('topN') mechanism can de designed, so that a sorted view of clients or users is presented for the high level debugging. We did not include such mechanisms right now, we first want to hear whether you think they might be necessary. 5. We built a time-distribution trying to cover both short-lived, as well as longer sessions (1-10 secs, 10 secs - 1 min., 1-15 min., 15 mins-24 hours, longer). Please feel free to propose some more educated figures. 6. PintServerClientAddress is defined as a DisplayString. It may include an IpAddress and/or name, but we prefered to minimize the number of indices at this stage, and keep a human-readable format at the same time. 7. At this stage we defined pintServerUserIdName as the UserId. We might want to discuss later how this maps to SessionId, of whether we need to support the whole unique session identification (userId, clientId, timestamp). Here is the proposed MIB structure: PintServiceType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION SYNTAX INTEGER { r2c(1), r2f(2), r2fb(3), r2hc(4) } pintServerConfig OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { pintObjects 1 } pintServerMonitor OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {pintObjects 2 } pintReleaseNumber OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX DisplayString ::= { pintServerConfig 1 } pintSysContact OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX DisplayString ::= { pintServerConfig 2 } pintApplInstallPkgTable OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF PintApplInstallPkgEntry ::= { pintServerConfig 3 } pintApplInstallPkgEntry OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX PintApplInstallPkgEntry AUGMETS { sysApplInstallPkgIndex } ::= { pintApplInstallPkgTable 1 } PintApplInstallPkgEntry ::= SEQUENCE { pintApplInstallPkgDescription DisplayString } pintServerGlobalPerf OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {pintServerMonitor 1 } pintServerClientPerf OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {pintServerMonitor 2 } pintServerUserIdPerf OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {pintServerMonitor 3 } pintServerGlobalStatsTable OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF PintServerGlobalStatsEntry ::= { pintServerGlobalPerf 1 } pintServerGlobalStatsEntry OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX PintServerGlobalStatsEntry INDEX {pintServerGlobalStatsIndex} ::= { pintServerGlobalStatsTable 1 } PintServerGlobalStatsEntry ::= SEQUENCE { pintServerGlobalStatsIndex PintServiceType, pintServerGlobalCallsReceived Counter32, pintServerGlobalSuccessfulCalls Counter32, pintServerGlobalDisconnectedCalls Counter32, pintServerGlobalDisconnectedEgressFacilityRefuseCalls Counter32, pintServerGlobalDisconnectedRemoteEndProblemCalls Counter32, pintServerGlobalCallsInProgress Counter32, pintServerGlobalCallsLessThen10seconds Counter32, pintServerGlobalCalls10secondsToOneMinute Counter32, pintServerGlobalCallsOneTo15Minutes Counter32, pintServerGlobalCalls15MinutesTo24Hours Counter32, pintServerGlobalCallsLongerThen24Hours Counter32, pintServerGlobalRequestsReceived Counter32 } pintServerClientStatsTable OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF PintServerClientStatsEntry ::= { pintServerClientPerf 1 } pintServerClientStatsEntry OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX PintServerClientStatsEntry INDEX {pintServerClientStatsIndex, pintServerClientAddress} ::= { pintServerClientStatsTable 1 } PintServerClientStatsEntry ::= SEQUENCE { pintServerClientStatsIndex PintServiceType, pintServerClientAddress DisplayString, pintServerClientCallsReceived Counter32, pintServerClientSuccessfulCalls Counter32, pintServerClientDisconnectedCalls Counter32, pintServerClientDisconnectedEgressFacilityRefuseCalls Counter32, pintServerClientDisconnectedRemoteEndProblemCalls Counter32, pintServerClientCallsInProgress Counter32, pintServerClientCallsLessThen10seconds Counter32, pintServerClientCalls10secondsToOneMinute Counter32, pintServerClientCallsOneTo15Minutes Counter32, pintServerClientCalls15MinutesTo24Hours Counter32, pintServerClientCallsLongerThen24Hours Counter32, pintServerClientRequestsReceived Counter32 } pintServerUserIdStatsTable OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF PintServerUserIdStatsEntry ::= { pintServerUserIdPerf 1 } pintServerUserIdStatsEntry OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX PintServerUserIdStatsEntry INDEX {pintServerUserIdStatsIndex, pintServerUserIdName} ::= { pintServerUserIdStatsTable 1 } PintServerUserIdStatsEntry ::= SEQUENCE { pintServerUserIdStatsIndex PintServiceType, pintServerUserIdName UserIdName, pintServerUserIdCallsReceived Counter32, pintServerUserIdSuccessfulCalls Counter32, pintServerUserIdDisconnectedCalls Counter32, pintServerUserIdDisconnectedEgressFacilityRefuseCalls Counter32, pintServerUserIdDisconnectedRemoteEndProblemCalls Counter32, pintServerUserIdCallsInProgress Counter32, pintServerUserIdCallsLessThen10seconds Counter32, pintServerUserIdCalls10secondsToOneMinute Counter32, pintServerUserIdOneTo15Minutes Counter32, pintServerUserId15MinutesTo24Hours Counter32, pintServerUserIdLongerThen24Hours Counter32, pintServerUserIdRequestsReceived Counter32 } Waiting for your comments, Regards, Dan --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Sat Mar 6 06:55:07 1999 Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA06140 for ; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 06:55:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 733D97FD0; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 06:49:21 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id 548BD7FD1; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 06:49:20 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com X-Sender: lwc@derek.roke.co.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="============_-1291401690==_============" Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 11:46:46 +0000 To: pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com From: lwc@roke.co.uk (Lawrence Conroy) Subject: Draft v.4 Cc: faynberg@lucent.com, HuiLan.Lu@lucent.com, scott.petrack@metatel.com Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk --============_-1291401690==_============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Please find enclosed the latest version of the Draft. Changes (as trailed a couple of weeks ago) are some text on Security, a few more typos cleaned up, and the last? of the ABNF has been added. If you have any comments, please send them to me (as this bit's my fault), or to the list if you prefer. --============_-1291401690==_============ Content-Type: text/plain; name="D4.TXT"; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="D4.TXT" Internet Engineering Task Force PINT WG INTERNET-DRAFT Lawrence Conroy, draft-ietf-pint-profile-04.txt Siemens Roke Manor Research Issued: 1st March 1999 Scott Petrack, Expires: 1st September 1999 Metatel The PINT Profile of SIP and SDP: a Protocol for IP Access to Telephone Call Services Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress". To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe), munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ftp.ietf.org (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast). Distribution of this document is unlimited. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved Abstract This document contains the specification of the PINT Profile 1.0, which defines a protocol for invoking certain telephone services from an IP network. These services include placing basic calls, sending and receiving faxes, and receiving content over the telephone. The protocol is specified as a set of enhancements and additions to the SIP 2.0 and SDP 2.0 protocols. This document is intended for the PSTN-Internet Interworking (PINT) working group of the Internet Engineering Task Force. Comments are solicited and should be addressed to the working group's mailing list at pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com and/or the authors. Contents 1. Introduction 1.1 Glossary 2. PINT Milestone Services 2.1 Request to Call 2.2 Request to Fax 2.3 Request to Hear Content 2.4 Relation between PINT milestone services and traditional telephone services 3. PINT Functional and Protocol Architecture 3.1. PINT Functional Architecture 3.2. PINT Protocol Architecture 3.2.1. SDP operation in PINT 3.2.2. SIP Operation in PINT 3.3. REQUIRED and OPTIONAL elements for PINT compliance 3.4. PINT profile of SDP 2.0 3.4.1. Network Type "TN" and Address Type "RFCxxxx" 3.4.2. Support for Data Objects within PINT 3.4.2.1. Use of fmtp attributes in PINT requests 3.4.2.2. Support for Remote Data Object References in PINT 3.4.2.3. Support for GSTN-based Data Objects in PINT 3.4.2.4. Session Description support for included Data Objects 3.4.3. Attribute Tags to pass information into the Telephone Network 3.4.3.1. The phone-context attribute 3.4.3.2. Presentation Restriction attribute 3.4.3.3. ITU-T CalledPartyAddress attributes parameters 3.4.4. The "strict" attribute 3.5. PINT profile of SIP 2.0 3.5.1. Multi-part MIME (sending data along with SIP request) 3.5.2. Warning header 3.5.3. Mechanism to register interest in the disposition of a PINT service, and to receive indications on that disposition 3.5.3.1. Opening a monitoring session with a SUBSCRIBE request 3.5.3.2. Sending Status Indications with a NOTIFY request 3.5.3.3. Closing a monitoring session with a BYE request 3.5.3.4. Timing of SUBSCRIBE requests 3.5.4. The "Require:" header for PINT 3.5.5. PINT URLS within PINT requests 3.5.5.1. PINT URLS within Request-URIs 3.5.6. Telephony Network Parameters within PINT URLs 3.5.7. REGISTER requests within PINT 3.5.8. BYE Requests in PINT 4. Examples of PINT Requests and Responses 4.1. A request to a call centre from an anonymous user to receive a phone call. 4.2. A request from a non anonymous customer (John Jones) to receive a phone call from a particular sales agent (Mary James) concerning the defective ironing board that was purchased 4.3. A request from the same user to get a fax back on how to assemble the Ironing Board 4.4. A request from same user to have that same information read out over the phone 4.5. A request to send an included text page to a friend's pager 4.6. A request to send an image as a fax to phone number +972-9-956-1867 4.7. A request to read out over the phone two pieces of content in sequence 4.8. Request for the prices for ISDN to be sent to my fax machine 4.9. Request for a callback 4.10.Sending a set of information in response to an enquiry 4.11.Sportsline "headlines" message sent to your phone/fax/pager 4.12.Automatically giving someone a fax copy of your phone bill 5. Security Considerations 5.1. Basic Principles for PINT Use 5.1.1. Responsibility for service requests 5.1.2. Authority to make requests 5.1.3. Privacy 5.2. Security mechanisms and implications on PINT service 5.3. Registration Procedures 6. Deployment considerations and the Relationship PINT to I.N. (Informative) 6.1. Web Front End to PINT Infrastructure 6.2. Redirects to Multiple Servers 6.3. Competing PINT gateways REGISTERing to offer the same service 6.4. Limitations on Available Information and Request Timing for SUBSCRIBE 6.5. Parameters needed for invoking traditional PSTN Services within PINT 6.5.1. Service Identifier 6.5.2. A and B parties 6.5.3. Other Service Parameters 6.5.4. Service Parameter Summary 6.6. Parameter Mapping to PINT Profile 7. Open Issues and Draft State 7.1. Open Issues 7.2. Draft State 8. References 9. Acknowledgements Appendix A: Collected ABNF Appendix B: Authors' Addresses 1. Introduction The desire to invoke certain telephone call services from the Internet has been identified by many different groups (users, public and private network operators, call center service providers, equipment vendors, etc.). The generic scenario is as follows (when the invocation is successful): 1. an IP host sends a request to a server on an IP network; 2. the server relays the request into a telephone network; 3. the telephone network performs the requested call service. As examples, consider a user who wishes to have a call placed to his/her telephone. It may be that a customer wishes to get a call from the support department of some business, or a user wishes to hear some remote automatic weather service via recorded or synthesised speech. Within a local environment such a request might result in the placement of a call between employees over the internal PBX. We use the term "PSTN/Internet Interworking (PINT) Service" to denote such a complete transaction, starting with the sending of a request from an IP client and including the telephone call itself. PINT services are distinguished by the fact that they always involve two separate networks: an IP network to request the placement of a call, and a telephone network to execute the actual call. It is understood that Intelligent Network systems, private PBXs, cellular phone networks, and the ISDN can all be used to deliver PINT services. Also, the request for service might come from within a private IP network that is disconnected from the whole Internet. *-*- The requirements for the PINT protocol were deliberately restricted to providing the ability to invoke a small number of fixed telephone call services. These "Milestone PINT services" are specified in section 2. Great care has been taken, however, to develop a protocol that is aligned with other Internet protocols where possible, so that future extensions to PINT could develop along with Internet conferencing. Within the Internet conference architecture, establishing media calls is done via a combination of protocols. SIP [2] is used to establish the association between the participants within the call (this association between participants within the call is called a "session"), and SDP [3] is used to describe the media to be exchanged within the session. The PINT protocol uses these two protocols together, providing some extensions and enhancements to enable SIP clients and servers to become PINT clients and servers. A PINT user who wishes to invoke a service within the telephone network uses SIP to invite a remote PINT server into a session. The invitation contains an SDP description of the media session that the user would like to take place. This might be a "sending a fax session" or a "telephone call session", for example. In a PINT service execution session the media is transported over the phone system, while in a SIP session the media is normally transported over an internet. When used to invoke a PINT service, SIP establishes an association between a requesting PINT client and the PINT server which is responsible for invoking the service within the telephone network. These two entities are not the same entities as the telephone network entities involved in the telephone network service. The SIP messages carry within their SDP payloads a description of the telephone network media session. Note that the fact that a PINT server accepts an invitation and a session is established is no guarantee that the media will be successfully transported. The particular requirements of PINT users lead to some new messages. When a PINT server agrees to send a fax to telephone B, it may be that the fax transmission fails after part of the fax is sent. Therefore, the PINT client may wish to receive information about the status of the actual telephone call session that was invoked as a result of the established PINT session. Two new requests, SUBSCRIBE and NOTIFY, are added here to vanilla SIP to allow this. The enhancements and additions specified here are not intended to alter the behaviour of baseline SIP or SDP in any way. The purpose of the PINT profile is to extend the usual SIP/SDP services to the telephone world. Apart from integrating well into existing protocols and architectures, and the advantages of reuse, this means that the protocol specified here can handle a rather wider class of call services than just the Milestone services. The rest of this document is organised as follows: Section 2 describes the original PINT Milestone services; section 3 specifies the PINT functional and protocol architecture; section 4 gives examples of the PINT 1.0 profile of SIP and SDP; section 5 contains some security considerations for PINT. The final section contains descriptions of how the PINT profile may be used to provide service over the GSTN. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. In addition, the construct "MUST .... OR ...." implies that it is an absolute requirement of this specification to implement one of the two possibilities stated (represented by dots in the above phrase). An implementation MUST be able to interoperate with another implementation which chooses either of the two possibilities. 1.1 Glossary Requestor - An Internet host from which a request for service originates PINT Service - A services invoked within a phone system in response to a request received from an PINT client. PINT Client - An Internet host that sends requests for invocation of a PINT Service, in accordance with this profile. PINT Gateway - An Internet host that accepts requests for PINT Service and dispatches them onwards towards a telephone network. Executive System - A system which interfaces to a telephone network that executes a PINT service, and to a PINT Server. It is not directly associated with the Internet, and is represented by the PINT Server. Requesting User - The initiator of a request for service. This role may be distinct from that of the "party" to any telephone network call that results from the request. (Service Call) Party - A person who is involved in a telephone network call that results from the execution of a PINT service request, or a telephone network-based resource that is involved (such as an automatic Fax Sender or a Text-to-Speech Unit). 2. PINT Milestone Services The original motivation for defining this protocol was the desire to invoke the following three telephone network services from within an IP network: 2.1 Request to Call A request is sent from an IP host which causes a phone call to be made, connecting party A to some remote party B. 2.2 Request to Fax A request is sent from an IP host that causes a fax to be sent to fax machine B. The request MUST EITHER contain a pointer to the fax data (which could reside in the IP network or in the Telephone Network), OR the request itself contain fax data. The content of the fax MAY be text OR some other more general image data. The details of the fax transmission are not accessible to the IP network, but remain entirely within the telephone network. The PINT Request to Fax service does not involve "Fax over IP": the IP network is only used to send the request that a certain fax be sent. Of course, it is possible that the resulting telephone network fax call happens to use a real-time IP fax solution, but this is completely transparent to the PINT transaction. 2.3 Request to Hear Content A request is sent from an IP host which causes a phone call to be made to user A, and for some sort of content to be spoken out. The request MUST EITHER contain a URL pointing to the content, OR include the content itself. The content MAY be text OR some other more general application data. The details of the content transmission are not accessible to the IP network, but remain entirely within the telephone network. 2.4 Relation between PINT milestone services and traditional telephone services There are many different versions and variations of each telephone call service invoked by a PINT request. Consider as an example what happens when a user requests to call 1-800-2255-287 via the PINT Request-to-Call service. There may be thousands of agents in the call centre, and there may be any number of sophisticated algorithms and equipment which is used to decide exactly which agent will return the call. And once this choice is made, there may be many different ways to set up the call: the agent's phone might ring first, and only then the original user will be called; or perhaps the user might be called first, and hear some horrible music or pre-recorded message while the agent is located. Similarly, when a PINT request causes a fax to be sent, there are hundreds of fax protocol details to be negotiated, as well as transmission details within the telephone networks used. PINT requests do not specify too precisely the exact telephone-side service. Operational details of individual events within the telephone network that executes the request are outside the scope of PINT. This does not preclude certain high-level details of the telephone network session from being expressed within a PINT request. For example, it is possible to express a language preference for the Request-to-Hear-Content Service. If a particular PINT system wishes to allow requests to contain details of the telephone-network-side service, it uses the SDP attribute mechanism (see section 3.4.2). 3. PINT Functional and Protocol Architecture 3.1. PINT Functional Architecture Familiarity is assumed with SIP 2.0 [2] and with SDP 2.0 [3]. PINT clients and servers are SIP clients and servers. SIP is used to route the request over the IP network to the correct PINT server in a secure and reliable manner, and SDP is used to describe the telephone network session which is to be invoked or whose status is to be returned. A PINT system uses SIP proxy servers and redirect servers for their usual purpose, but at some point there must be a PINT server with the means to relay received requests into a telephone system and to receive acknowledgement of these relayed requests. A PINT server with this capability is called a "PINT gateway". A PINT gateway appears to a SIP system as a User Agent Server. Notice that a PINT gateway appears to the PINT infrastructure as if it represents a "user", while in fact it really represents an entire telephone network infrastructure which can provide a set of telephone network services. So the PINT system might appear to an individual PINT client as follows: /\/\/\/\/\/\/\ /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ ___________ \ __/___ ___\_ \ | PINT | PINT \ PINT | PINT | |Exec| Telephone / | client |<------------>| server |gatewy|===|Syst| Network \ |_________| protocol / cloud |______| |____| Cloud / \ \ / \ /\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Figure 1: PINT Functional Architecture The system of PINT servers is represented as a cloud to emphasise that a single PINT request might pass through a series of location servers, proxy servers, and redirect servers, before finally reaching the correct PINT gateway which can actually process the request by passing it to the Telephone Network Cloud. The PINT gateway might have a true telephone network interface, or it might be connected via some other protocol or API to an "Executive System" which is capable of invoking services within the telephone cloud. As an example, within an I.N. (Intelligent Network) system, the PINT gateway might appear to realise the Service Gateway Control Function. In an office environment, it might be a server adjunct to the office PBX, connected to both the office LAN and the office PBX. The Executive System which lies beyond the PINT gateway is outside the scope of PINT. 3.2. PINT Protocol Architecture This section explains how SIP and SDP work in combination to convey the information necessary to invoke telephone network sessions. *-*- The following list summarises the extension features used in PINT 1.0. Following on from this the features are considered separately for SDP and then for SIP: 1) Telephony URLs in SDP Contact Fields 2) Refinement of SIP/SDP Telephony URLs * Inclusion of private dialling plans 3) Specification of TSP and/or phone-context URL-parameters 4) Data Objects as session media 4a) Protocol Transport formats to indicate the treatment of the media within the PSTN 5) Implicit (Indirect) media streams and opaque arguments 6) In-line data objects using multipart/mime 7) Refinement/Clarification of Opaque arguments passed onwards to Executive Systems * Framework for Presentation Restriction Indication * Framework for Q.763 arguments 8) An extension mechanism for SIP and SDP to specify strictures and force failure when a recipient does NOT support the specified extensions, using "Strict" and "Require" headers. 9) Mandatory support for "Warning" headers to give more detailed information on request disposition. 10) Mechanism to register interest in the disposition of a requested service, and to receive indications on that disposition. -*-* Both PINT and SIP rely on features of MIME[5]. The use of SIP 2.0 is implied by PINT 1.0, and this also implies compliance with version 1.0 of MIME. *-*- 3.2.1. SDP operation in PINT The SDP payload contains a description of the particular telephone network session which the requestor wishes to occur in the PSTN. This information includes such things as the telephone network address (i.e. the "telephone number") of the terminal(s) involved in the call, an indication of the media type to be transported (e.g. audio, text, image or application data), and an indication if the information is to be transported over the telephone network via voice, fax, or pager transport. An indication of the content to be sent to the remote telephone terminal (if there is any) is also included. SDP is flexible enough to convey these parameters independently. For example, a request to send some text via voice transport will be fulfilled by invoking some text-to-speech-over-the-phone service, and a request to send text via fax will be fulfilled by invoking some text-to-fax service. The following is a list of PINT 1.0 enhancements and additions to SDP. a. A new network type "TN" and address types "RFCxxxx" and "X-..." (section 3.4.1) b. New media types "text", "image", and "application", new protocol transport keywords "voice", "fax" and "pager" and the associated format types and attribute tags (section 3.4.2) c. New format specific attributes for included content data (section 3.4.2.4) d. New attribute tags, used to pass information to the telephone network (section 3.4.3) e. A new attribute tag "strict", used by a client to indicate that some attribute is required to be supported in the server (section 3.4.4) *-*- 3.2.2. SIP Operation in PINT SIP is used to route the request for telephone service from the PINT client to the PINT gateway, and may include a telephone number if needed for the particular service. The following is a complete list of PINT enhancements and additions to SIP: f. The multipart MIME payloads (section 3.5.1) g. Mandatory support for "Warning:" headers (section 3.5.2) h. The SUBSCRIBE and NOTIFY request (section 3.5.3) i. Require: headers (section 3.5.4) j. A format for PINT URLS within a PINT request (section 3.5.5) k. Telephone Network Parameters within PINT URLs (section 3.5.6) *-*- Section 3.5.8 contains remarks about how BYE requests are used within PINT. This does not add anything to baseline SIP; it is included here for clarification of the semantics when used with telephone network sessions. 3.3. REQUIRED and OPTIONAL elements for PINT compliance *-*- Of these, only the TN network type (with its associated RFCxxxx address type) and Strictures MUST be supported by PINT 1.0 clients and servers. In practice, most PINT service requests will use other changes, of which references to Data Objects in requests are most likely to appear in PINT requests. Each of other new PINT constructs enables a different function, and a client or server which wishes to enable that particular function MUST do so by the construct specified in this document. For example, building a PINT client and server that provide only the Request-to-Call telephone call service, without support for the other Milestone services, is allowed. The "Require:" headers and the "strict" attribute provide a mechanism which can be used by clients and servers to signal their need and/or ability to support specific "new" PINT protocol elements. It should be noted that many optional features of SIP and SDP make sense as specified in the PINT context. One example is the SDP a=lang: attribute, which can be used to describe the preferred language of the callee. Another example is the use of the "t=" parameter to indicate that the time at which the PINT service is to be invoked. This is the normal use of the "t=" field. A third example are the quality attributes. Any SIP or SDP option or facility is available to PINT clients and servers without change. *-*- Conversely, support for Data Objects within Internet Conference sessions may be useful, even if the aim is not to provide a PSTN service request. In this case, the extensions covering these items may be incorporated into an otherwise "plain" SIP/SDP invitation. Likewise, support for Strictures may be useful, as a framework for addition of features to a "traditional" SIP/SDP infrastructure. Again, these may be convenient to incorporate into SIP/SDP implementations that would not be used for PINT service requests. Such additions are beyond the scope of this document, however. 3.4. PINT profile of SDP 2.0 PINT 1.0 adds to SDP the possibility to describe audio, fax, and pager telephone sessions. It is deliberately designed to hide the underlying technical details and complexity of the telephone network. The only network type defined for PINT is the generic "TN" (Telephone Network). More precise tags such as "ISDN", "GSM", are not defined. Similarly, the transport protocols are designated simply as "fax", "voice", and "pager"; there are no more specific identifiers for the various telephone network voice, fax, or pager protocols. Similarly, the data to be transported is identified only as a MIME type, such as "text" data, "image" data, or some more general "application" data, etc. An important example of transporting "application" data is the milestone service "Voice Access to Web Content". In this case the data to be transported is pointed to by a URI, the data type is application/URI, and the transport protocol would be "voice". Some sort of speech-synthesis facility, speaking out to a Phone, will have to be invoked to perform this service. This section gives details of the new SDP keywords. 3.4.1. Network Type "TN" and Address Type "RFCxxxx" The TN ("Telephone Network") network type is used to indicate that the terminal is connected to a telephone network. The address types allowed for network type TN are "RFCxxxx" (the "xxxx" will be filled in by the SIP [2] RFC number) and private address types, which MUST begin with an "X-". Address type RFCxxxx is a string conforming to the "telephone-subscriber" BNF specified in RFCxxxx, (this is specified in figure 4 of the SIP [2] RFC). Note that this BNF is NOT identical to the BNF which defines the "phone-number" within the "p=" field of SDP. Examples: c= TN RFCxxxx +1-201-406-4090 c= TN RFCxxxx 12014064090 *-*- A telephone-subscriber string is of one of two types: global-phone-number or local-phone-number. These are distinguished by preceeding a global-phone-number with a "plus" sign ("+"). A global-phone-number is by default to be interpreted as an internationally significant E.164 Number Plan Address, as defined by [7], whilst a local-phone-number is a number specified in the default dialling plan within the context of the recipient PINT Gateway. An implementation MAY use private addressing types, which can be useful within a local domain. These address types MUST begin with an "X-", and SHOULD contain a domain name after the X-, e.g. "X-mytype.mydomain.com". An example of such a connection line is as follows: c= TN X-mytype.mydomain.com A*8-HELEN where "X-mytype.mydomain.com" identifies this private address type, and "A*8-HELEN" is the number in this format. Note that most dialable telephone numbers are expressable as local-phone-numbers within address RFCxxxx; new address types should only be used for formats which cannot be so written. *-*- 3.4.2. Support for Data Objects within PINT One significant change over traditional SIP/SDP Internet Conference sessions with PINT is that a PINT service request may refer to a Data Object to be used as source information in that request. For example, a PINT service request may specify a document to be processed as part of a GSTN service by which a Fax is sent. Similarly, a GSTN service may be take a Web page and result in a vocoder processing that page and speaking the contents over a telephone. The "core" SIP and SDP specifications focus on media Streams, and do not have explicit support for reference to or carriage of Data Objects within requests, so these additions are needed here. There are two changes to the session description format that is used. These are the inclusion of a new variant on the Media field, together with additional description of the "fmtp" parameter when used with the Media Field values (within the context of the Contact Field Network type "TN"). An addition is also made to the SIP message format to allow the inclusion of data objects as sub-parts within the request message itself. The original SDP syntax (from [3]) for media-field is given as: media-field = "m=" media space port ["/" integer] space proto 1*(space fmt) CRLF When used within PINT requests, the definitions of the sub-fields is expanded slightly. The Media sub-field definition is relaxed to accept all of the discrete "top-level" media types defined in [5]. In the milestone services the discrete type "video" is not used, and the extra types "data" and "control" are likewise not needed. The use of these types is not precluded, but the behaviour of a PINT Gateway receiving a request including such a type is not defined here. The Port sub-field has no meaning in PINT requests as the destination terminals are specified using "TN" addressing, so the value of the port sub-field in PINT requests is set to "0". Likewise, the optional integer field is not used in PINT. As mentioned in [3], the Transport Protocol sub-field is specific to the associated Address Type. In the case that the Address Type in the preceeding Contact field is one of those defined for use with the Network Type "TN", the following values are defined for the Transport Protocol sub-field; "voice", "fax", and "pager". The interpretation of this sub-field within PINT requests is the treatment or disposition of the resulting GSTN service. Thus, for transport protocol "voice", the intent is that the service will result in a GSTN voice call, whilst for protocol "fax" the result will be a GSTN fax transmission, and protocol "pager" will result in a pager message being sent. Note that this sub-field does not necessarily dictate the media type and subtype of any source data; for example, one of the milestone services calls for a textual source to be vocoded and spoken in a resulting telephone service call. The transport protocol value in this case would be "voice", whilst the source data would be textual. The Fmt sub-field is described in [3] as being transport protocol-specific. When used within PINT requests having one of the above protocol values, this sub-field consists of a list of zero or more values, each of which is a defined MIME sub-type of the associated Media sub-field value. It retains (from [3]) its meaning that the list will contain a set of alternative sub-types, with the first being the preferred value. For experimental purposes and by mutual consent of the sender and recipient, a sub-type value may be specified as an , i.e. a character string starting with "X-". The use of such values is discouraged, and if such a value is expected to find common use then it SHOULD be registered with IANA using the standard content type registration process. Note that PINT uses a modification of the SDP Media field definition in that, for PINT, having an empty Fmt sub-field is valid. This condition is interpreted as meaning that a unspecified or default sub-type should be used for this service. Thus, the media field value "m=audio 0 voice" is taken to mean that a voice call is requested, using whatever audio sub type is deemed appropriate by the Executive System. PINT service is a special case, in that the request comes from the IP network but the service call is provided within the GSTN. Thus the service request will not normally be able to define the particular codec used for the resulting GSTN service call. If such an intent IS required, then the quality attribute may be used (see "Suggested Attributes" section of [3]). 3.4.2.1. Use of fmtp attributes in PINT requests For each element of the Fmt sub-field, there MUST be a following fmtp attribute. When used within PINT requests, the fmtp attribute has a general structure as defined here: "a=fmtp:" 1* where: := ( | | ) A fmtp attribute describes the sources used with a given Fmt entry in the Media field. The entries in a Fmt sub-field are alternatives (with the preferred one first in the list). Each entry will have a matching fmtp attribute. The list of resolutions in a fmtp attribute describes the set of sources that resolve the matching Fmt choice; all elements of this set will be used. It should be noted that, for use in PINT services, the elements in such a set will be sent as a sequence; it is unlikely that trying to send them in parallel would be successful. A fmtp attribute can contain a mixture of different kinds of element. Thus an attribute might contain a sub-part-ref to included data held in a sub-part of the current message, followed by an opaque-ref to some content on the GSTN, followed by a urref pointing to some data held externally on the IP network. To indicate which form each resolution element takes, each of them starts with its own literal tag. The detailed syntax of each form is described in the following sub-sections. 3.4.2.2. Support for Remote Data Object References in PINT Where data objects stored elsewhere on the IP Network are to be used as sources for processing within a PINT service, they may be referred to using the uri-ref form. This is simply a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI), as described in [10]. Note that the reference SHOULD be an absolute URI, as there may not be enough contextual information for the recipient server to resolve a relative reference; any use of relative references requires some private agreement between the sender and recipient of the message, and should be avoided unless the sender can be sure that the recipient is the one intended and the reference is unambiguous in context. This also holds for partial URIs (such as: "uri:http://aMachine/index.html") as these will need to be resolved in the context of the eventual recipient of the message. The general syntax of a reference to an Internet-based external data object in a fmtp line within a PINT session description is: := ("uri:" URI-reference) where URI-reference is as defined in appendix A of [10] For example: c= TN RFCxxxx +1-201-406-4090 m= text 0 fax plain a=fmtp:plain uri:ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2468.txt or: c= TN RFCxxxx +1-201-406-4090 m= text 0 fax plain a=fmtp:plain uri:http://www.ietf.org/meetings/glance_minneapolis.txt means get this data object from the Internet and use it as a source for the requested GSTN Fax service. 3.4.2.3. Support for GSTN-based Data Objects in PINT PINT services may refer to data that is held not on the IP Network but instead within the GSTN. The way in which these items are indicated need have no meaning within the context of the Requestor or the PINT Gateway; it is merely some data that may be used by the Executive System to indicate the content intended as part of the request. This data forms an opaque reference, in that it is sent "untouched" through the PINT infrastructure. A reference to some data object held on the GSTN has the general definition: := ("opr:" *uric) where uric is as defined in appendix A of [10]. For example: c= TN RFCxxxx +1-201-406-4090 m= text 0 fax plain a=fmtp:plain opr:APPL.123.456 means send me the data that is indexed ON THE GSTN by the reference value "APPL.123.456"; the Executive System may also take the Telephone URL held in the To: field of the enclosing SIP message into account when deciding the context to be used for the data object dereference. Of course, an opaque reference may also be used for other purposes; it could, for example, be needed to authorise access to a document held on the GSTN rather than being required merely to disambiguate the data object. The purpose to which an opaque reference is put, however, is out of scope for this document. It is merely an indicator carried within a PINT Request. An opaque reference may have no value in the case where the value to be used is implicit in the rest of the request. For example, the "Faxback variant of the Request to Fax" milestone service will include two party identifiers; one for the destination Fax machine that will receive the "faxed back" data, with the other indicating the Faxback service number for some company. If dialling that Faxback number would be expected to return a particular piece of information, then there is no need for an opaque reference value. If there are several resolutions for a PINT Service Request, and one of these is an opaque reference with no value, then that opaque reference MUST be included in the attribute line, but with an empty value field. For example: c= TN RFCxxxx +1-201-406-4090 m= text 0 fax plain a=fmtp:plain spr: opr: might be used to precede some unambiguous "faxed back" data with a covering note (see next sub-section for details of the sub-part reference). In the special case where an opaque reference is the sole resolution of a PINT Service Request, AND that reference needs no value, there is no need for a Fmt list at all; the intent of the service is unambiguous without any further resolution. For example: c= TN RFCxxxx +1-201-406-4090 m= text 0 fax means that there is an implied content stored on the GSTN, and that this is uniquely identified by the combination of SIP To-URI and the Contact field of the session description. *-*- 3.4.2.4. Session Description support for included Data Objects As an alternative to pointing to the data via a URI or an opaque reference to a data item held on the GSTN, it is possible to include the content data within the SIP request itself. This is done by using multipart MIME for the SIP payload. The first MIME part contains the SDP description of the telephone network session to be executed. The other MIME parts contain the content data to be transported. Format specific attribute lines within the session description are used to indicate which other MIME part within the request contains the content data. Instead of a URI or opaque reference, the format-specific attribute indicates the Content-ID of the MIME part of the request that contains the actual data, and is defined as: := ("spr:" Content-ID) where Content-ID is as defined in Appendix A of [4] and in [11]). For example: c= TN RFCxxxx +1-201-406-4090 m= text 0 fax plain a=fmtp:plain spr: *-*- The parameter is the Content-ID of one of the MIME parts inside the message, and this fragment means that the requesting user would like the data object held in the sub-part of this message labelled to be faxed to the machine at phone number +1-201-406-4090. *-*- See also section 3.5.1 for a discussion on the support needed in the enclosing SIP request for included data objects. 3.4.3. Attribute Tags to pass information into the Telephone Network *-*- It may be desired to include within the PINT request service parameters which can be understood only by some entity in the "Telephone Network Cloud". SDP attribute parameters are used for this purpose. They MAY appear within a particular media description or outside of a media description. These attributes may also appear as parameters within PINT URLS (see section 3.5.6) as part of a SIP request. This is necessary so that telephone terminals that require the attributes to be defined can appear within the To: line of a PINT request as well as within PINT session descriptions. The purpose of these attributes is to allow the client to specify extra context within which a particular telephone number is to be interpreted. There are many reasons why extra context might be necessary to interpret a given telephone number: a. The telephone number might be reachable in many different ways (such as via competing telephone service providers), and the PINT client wishes to indicate its selection of service provider. b. The telephone number might be reachable only from a limited number of networks (such as an '800' freephone number). c. The telephone number might be reachable only within a single telephone network (such as the '152' customer service number of BT). Similarly, the number might be an internal corporate extension reachable only within the PBX. However, as noted above, it is not usually necessary to use SDP attributes to specify the phone context. URLs such as 152@pint.bt.co.il within the To: and From: headers and/or Request-URI, normally offer sufficient context to resolve telephone numbers. If the client wishes the request to fail if the attributes are not supported, these attributes should be used in conjunction with the "strict" attribute (section 3.4.4) and the "Require:org.ietf.pint.strict" header (section 3.5.4). It is not possible to standardise every possible internal telephone network parameter. PINT 1.0 attributes have been chosen for specification because they are common enough that many different PINT systems will want to use them, and therefore interoperability will be increased by having a single specification. *-*- Proprietary attribute "a=" lines, which by definition are not interoperable, may be nonetheless useful when it is necessary to transport some proprietary internal telephone network variables over the IP network, for example to identify the order in which service call legs should be made. These private attributes SHOULD BE, however, subject to the same IANA registration procedures mentioned in the SDP specification[3]. 3.4.3.1. The phone-context attribute An attribute is specified to enable "remote local dialling". This is the service that allows a PINT client to reach a number from far outside the area or network which can usually reach the number. It is useful when the sending or receiving address is only dialable within some local context, which may be remote to the origin of the PINT client. For example, if Alice wanted to report a problem with her telephone, she might then dial a "network wide" customer care number; within the British Telecom network in the U.K., this is "152". Note that in this case she doesn't dial any trunk prefix - this is the whole dialable number. If dialled from another operator's network, it will not connect to British Telecom's Engineering Enquiries service; and dialling "+44 152" will not normally succeed. Such numbers are called Network-Specific Service Numbers. Within the telephone network, the "local context" is provided by the physical connection between the subscriber's terminal and the central office. An analogous association between the PINT client and the PINT server which first receives the request may not exist, which is why it may be necessary to supply this missing "telephone network context". This attribute is defined as follows: a=phone-context: phone-context-ident = network-prefix | private-prefix network-prefix = intl-network-prefix | local-network-prefix intl-network-prefix = "+" 1*DIGIT local-network-prefix = 1*DIGIT excldigandplus = (0x21-0x2d,0x2f,0x40-0x7d)) private-prefix = 1*excldigandplus 0*uric An intl-network-prefix and local-network-prefix MUST be a bona fide network prefix, and a network-prefix which is an intl-network-prefix MUST begin with an E.164 service code ("country code"). It is possible to register new private-prefixes with IANA so as to avoid confrontation. Prefixes which are not so registered MUST begin with an "X-" to indicate their private, non-standard nature. Example 1: c= TN RFCxxxx 1-800-765-4321 a=phone-context:+972 This describes an terminal whose address in Israel (E.164 country code 972) is 1-800-765-4321. Example 2: c= TN RFCxxxx 1-800-765-4321 a=phone-context:+1 This describes an terminal whose address in North America (E.164 country code 1) is 1-800-765-4321. The two telephone terminals described by examples 1 and 2 are different; in fact they are located in different countries. Example 3: c=TN RFCxxxx *123 a=phone-context:+97252 This describes a terminal whose address when dialled from within the network identified by +97252 is the string "*123". It so happens that +97252 defines one of the Israeli cell phone providers, and *123 reaches customer service when dialled within that network. It may well be useful or necessary to use the SDP "strict" parameter in conjunction with the phone-context attribute. Example 4: c= TN RFCxxxx 321 a=phone-context:X-acme.com 23 This might describe the telephone terminal which is at extension 321 of PBX number 23 within the acme.com private PBX network. It is expected that such a description would be understandable by the acme.com PINT server which receives the request. Note that if the PINT server receiving the request is inside the acme.com network, the same terminal might be addressable as follows: c= TN RFCxxxx 7-23-321 (assuming that "7" is dialled in order to reach the private PBX network from within acme.com) *-*- *-*- 3.4.3.2. Presentation Restriction attribute Although it has no affect on the transport of the service request through the IP Network, there may be a requirement to allow originators of a PINT service request to indicate whether or not they wish the "other party" in the resulting service call to be presented with their calling telephone number. It is a legal requirement in some jurisdictions that a caller be able to select whether or not their correspondent can find out the calling telephone number (using Automatic Number Indication or Caller Display or Calling Line Identity Presentation equipment). Thus an attribute may be needed to indicate the originator's preference. Whether or not the default behaviour of the Executive System is to present or not present a party's telephone number to the correspondent GSTN terminal is not specified, and it is not mandatory in all territories for a PINT Gateway or Executive System to act on this attribute. It is, however, defined here for use where there are regulatory restrictions on GSTN operation, and in that case the Executive System can use it to honour the originator's request. The attribute is specified as follows: a=clir:<"true" | "false"> This boolean value is needed within the attribute as it may be that the GSTN address is, by default, set to NOT present its identity to correspondents, and the originator wants to do so for this particular call. It is in keeping with the aim of this attribute to allow the originator to specify what treatment they want for the requested service call. The expected interpretation of this attribute is that, if it is present and the value is "false" then the Calling Line Identity CAN be presented to the correspondent terminal, whilst if it is "true" then it if possible the Executive System is requested to NOT present the Calling Line Identity. *-*- 3.4.3.3. ITU-T CalledPartyAddress attributes parameters These attributes correspond to fields that appear within the ITU-T Q.763 "CalledPartyAddress" field (see [9] ,section 3.9). PINT clients use these attributes in order to specify further parameters relating to Terminal Addresses, in the case when the address indicates a "local-phone-number." In the case that the PINT request contains a reference to PSTN terminal, the parameters may be required to correctly identify the remote terminal. *-*- The general form of this attribute is "a=Q763-((":" ) |"")". Three of the possible elements and their use in SDP attributes are described here. Where other Q763 elements are to be used, then these should be the subject of further specification to define the syntax of the attribute mapping. It is recommended that any such specification maintains the value sets shown in Q.763. The defined attributes are: a=Q763-nature: - indicates the "nature of address indicator". The value MAY be any number between 0 and 127. The following values are specified: "1" a subscriber number "2" unknown "3" a nationally significant number "4" an internationally significant number The values have been chosen to coincide with the values in Q.763. Note that other values are possible, according to national rules or future expansion of Q.763. a=Q763-plan: - indicates the numbering plan to which the address belongs. The value MAY be any number between 0 and 7. The following values are specified: "1" Telephone numbering plan (ITU-T E.164) "3" Data numbering plan (ITU-T X.121) "4" Telex numbering plan (ITU-T F.69) The values have been chosen to coincide with the values in Q.763. Other values are allowed, according to national rules or future expansion of Q.763. a=Q763-INN - indicates if routing to the Internal Network Number is allowed. The value MUST be ONE of: "0" routing to internal network number allowed "1" routing to internal network number not allowed The values have been chosen to coincide with the values in Q.763. Note that it is possible to use a local-phone-number and indicate via attributes that the number is in fact an internationally significant E.164 number. Normally this SHOULD NOT be done; an internationally significant E.164 number is indicated by using a "global-phone-number" for the address string. 3.4.4. The "strict" attribute According to the SIP specification, a PINT server is allowed simply to ignore attribute parameters that it does not understand. In order to force a server to fail a request if it does not understand one of the PINT attributes, a client should use the "strict" attribute, specified as follows: a=strict: where the attribute-list is a comma-separated list of attributes that appear elsewhere in the session description. In order to process the request successfully the PINT server must BOTH understand the attribute AND ALSO fulfil the request implied by the presence of the attribute, for each attribute appearing within the attribute-list of the strict attribute. If the server does not recognise the attribute listed, or cannot fulfil the request implied by the attribute, the PINT server MUST fail the request with (606 Not Acceptable), along with suitable Warning: lines explaining the problem. The "strict" attribute may appear anywhere in the session description, and any number of times, but it MUST appear before the use of the attribute marked as strict. Since the "strict" attribute is itself an attribute, the SIP specification allows a server which does not understand the strict attribute to ignore it. In order to ensure that the PINT server will comply with the "strict" attribute, a PINT client should include a Require: header with the tag "ietf.org.pint.strict" (section 3.5.4) *-*- Note that the majority of the PINT extensions are "tagged" and these tags can be included in Strict/Require strictures. The exception is the use of phone numbers in SDP parts. However, these are defined as a new network and address type, so that a receiving SIP/SDP server should be able to detect whether or not it supports these forms. The default behaviour for any SDP recipient is that it will fail a PINT request if it does not recognise or support the TN and RFCxxxx or X-token network and address types, as without the contents being recognised no media session could be created. Thus a separate stricture is not required in this case. 3.5. PINT profile of SIP 2.0 PINT requests are SIP requests; Many of the specifications within this profile merely explain how to use existing SIP facilities for the purposes of PINT. *-*- 3.5.1. Multi-part MIME (sending data along with SIP request) A PINT request can contain a payload which is multipart MIME. In this case the first part MUST contain an SDP session description, which includes at least one of the format specific attribute tags for "included content data" specified above in section 3.4.3. All subsequent parts contain content data which is to be transferred to the requested Telephone Call Service. As discussed earlier, within a single PINT request, some of the data MAY be pointed to by a URI within the request, and some of the data MAY be included within the request. *-*- Where included data is carried within a PINT service request, the Content Type entity header of the enclosing SIP message MUST indicate this. To do so, the media type value within this entity header MUST be set to a value of "multipart/mixed". The enclosed body parts SHOULD include the part-specific Content Type headers as appropriate ("application/sdp" for the first body part holding the session description, with an appropriate content type for each of the subsequent, "included data object" parts). This matches the standard syntax of MIME multipart messages as defined in [5]. For example, in a multipart message where the string "------next-------" is the boundary, the first two parts might be as follows: ------next------- Content-Type: application/sdp .... c= TN RFCxxxx +1-201-406-4090 m= text 0 pager plain a=fmtp:plain spr:17@mymessage.acme.com ----------next------- Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: 17@mymessage.acme.com This is the text that is to be paged to +1-201-406-4090 ----------next----------- The ability to indicate different alternatives for the content to be transported is useful, even when the alternatives are included within the request. For example, a request to send a short message to a pager might include the message in Unicode [6] and an alternative version of the same content in text/plain, should the PINT server or telephone network not be able to process the unicode. PINT clients should be extremely careful when sending included data within a PINT request. Such requests SHOULD be sent via TCP, to avoid fragmentation and to transmit the data reliably. It is possible that the PINT server is a proxy server that will replicate and fan out the request, which could be disastrous if the request contains a large amount of application data. PINT proxy servers should be careful not to create many copies of a request with large amounts of data in it. If the client does not know the actual location of the PINT gateway, and is using the SIP location services to find it, and the included data makes the PINT request likely to be transported in several IP datagrams, it is RECOMMENDED that the initial PINT request not include the data but instead hold a reference to it. 3.5.2. Warning header A PINT server MUST support the SIP "Warning:" header so that it can signal lack of support for individual PINT features. As an example, suppose the PINT request is to send a jpeg picture to a fax machine, but the server cannot retrieve and/or translate jpeg pictures from the Internet into fax transmissions. In such a case the server fails the request and includes a Warning such as the following: Warning: 4xx pint.acme.com Incompatible Format: jpeg SIP servers which do not understand the PINT extensions at all are strongly encouraged to implement Warning: headers to indicate that PINT extensions are not understood. Also, Warning: headers may be included within NOTIFY requests if it is necessary to notify the client about some condition concerning the invocation of the PINT service (see next). *-*- 3.5.3. Mechanism to register interest in the disposition of a PINT service, and to receive indications on that disposition It can be very useful to find out whether or not a requested service has completed, and if so whether or not it was successful. This is especially true for PINT service, where the person requesting the service is not (necessarily) a party to it, and so may not have an easy way of finding out the disposition of that service. Equally, it may be useful to indicate when the service has changed state, for example when the service call has started. Arranging a flexible system to provide extensive monitoring and control during a service is non-trivial (see section 6.4 for some issues); PINT 1.0 uses a simple scheme that should nevertheless provide useful information. It is possible to expand the scheme in a "backwards compatible" manner, so if required it can be enhanced at a later date. Such enhancement would be expected to be the subject of a separate document. The PINT 1.0 status registration and indication scheme uses two new methods; SUBSCRIBE and NOTIFY. These are used to allow a PINT Requesting entity to register and interest in (or subscribe to) the status of a service request, and for the gateway to return service indications. Both of these messages follow the same procedure as used for all the SIP requests other than INVITE; the recipient MUST acknowledge the request with a final response message, otherwise the request will be repeated. 3.5.3.1. Opening a monitoring session with a SUBSCRIBE request The SUBSCRIBE request indicates that the a user wishes to receive information about the status of a session. The request identifies the session of interest by including the original session description along with the request. Since the request may come from a user other than the original requesting user, the request may constitute a new call, so the Call-ID cannot be used; instead the origin-field of the session description enclosed within the original service request is used. The request MUST NOT include whatever content was present in the original request other than the session description, and a server MUST ignore whatever content is included within a SUBSCRIBE request with the sole exception of the enclosed session description. The request MUST contain a "Contact:" header, specifying the PINT User Agent Server to which such information should be sent. In addition, it SHOULD contain an Expires: header, which indicates for how long the PINT Requestor wishes to receive notification of the session status. A value of 0 within the Expires: header indicates a desire to receive one single immediate response (i.e. the request expires immediately). We refer to the period of time before the expiration of the SUBSCRIBE request as the "subscription period". A successful response to the SUBSCRIBE request includes the session description, according to the Gateway. Normally this will be identical to the last cached response that the Gateway returned to any request concerning the same SDP global session id (see [3], section 6, o= field). The t= line may be altered to indicate the actual start or stop time, however. The Gateway might add an i= line to the session description to indicate such information as how many fax pages were sent. The Gateway SHOULD include an Expires: header indicating how long it is willing to maintain the monitoring session. If this is unacceptable to the PINT Requestor, then it can close the session by sending an immediate BYE (see 3.5.3.3). In principle, a user might send a SUBSCRIBE request after the telephone network service has completed. This allows, for example, checking up "the morning after" to see if the fax was successfully transmitted. However, a PINT gateway is only required to keep state about a call for as long as it indicated previously in a Expires: header within the response to the original INVITE message that triggered the service session, within the response to the SUBSCRIBE message, or within its BYE message (but see section 3.5.8, point 3). If the Server no longer has a record of the session to which a Requestor has SUBSCRIBEd, it returns "606 Not Acceptable", along with the appropriate Warning: header indicating that the SDP session ID is no longer valid. This means that a requesting Client that knows that it will want information about the status of a session after the session terminates SHOULD send a SUBSCRIBE request before the session terminates. 3.5.3.2. Sending Status Indications with a NOTIFY request During the subscription period, the Gateway may, from time to time, send a spontaneous NOTIFY request to the entity indicated in the Contact: header of the "opening" SUBSCRIBE request. Normally this will happen as a result of any change in the status of the service session for which the Requestor has subscribed. The receiving user agent server MUST acknowledge this by returning a final response (normally a "200 OK"). In this version of the PINT profile, the Gateway is not required to support redirects (3xx codes), and so may treat them as a failure. Thus, if the response code class is above 2xx then this may be treated by the Gateway as a failure of the monitoring session, and in that situation it will immediately attempt to close the session (see next). The NOTIFY request contains the modified session description. For example, the Gateway may be able to indicate a more accurate start or stop time. The Gateway may include a Warning: header to describe some problem with the invocation of the service, and may indicate within an i= line some information about the telephone network session itself. Example: NOTIFY sip:petrack@pager.com SIP/2.0 To:sip:petrack@pager.com From:sip:R2F.pint.com@service.com Warning: xxx fax aborted, will try every 10 minutes for the next hour. Content-Type:application/sdp c=... i=3 pages of 5 sent t=... 3.5.3.3. Closing a monitoring session with a BYE request At some point, either the Client's representative User Agent Server or the gateway may decide to terminate the monitoring session. This is achieved by sending a BYE request to the correspondent server. Such a request indicates that the sender intends to close the monitoring session immediately, and, on receipt of the final response from the receiving server, the session is deemed over. If the Gateway initiates closure of the monitoring session by sending a BYE message, it MUST include an Expires: header showing for how much longer after this monitoring session is closed it is willing to store information on the service session. This acts as a minimum time within which the Client can send a new SUBSCRIBE message to open another monitoring session; after the time indicated in the Expires: header the Gateway is free to dispose of any record of the service session, so that subsequent SUBSCRIBE requests can be rejected with a "606" response. If the subscription period specified by the Client has expired, then the Gateway may send an immediate BYE request to the Client's representative User Agent Server. This ensures that the monitoring session always completes with a BYE/response exchange, and that the representative User Agent Server can avoid maintaining state in certain circumstances. 3.5.3.4. Timing of SUBSCRIBE requests As it relies on the Gateway having a copy of the INVITEd session description, the SUBSCRIBE message is limited in when it can be issued. The Gateway must have received the service request to which this monitoring session is to be associated, which from the Client's perspective happens as soon as the Gateway has sent a 1xx response back to it. However, once this has been done, there is no reason why the Client should not send a monitoring request. It does not have to wait for the final response from the Gateway, and it can certainly send the SUBSCRIBE request before sending the ACK for the Service request final response. Beyond this point, the Client is free to send a SUBSCRIBE request when it decides, unless the Gateway's final response to the initial service request indicated a short Expires: time. However, there are good reasons (see 6.4) why it may be appropriate to start a monitoring session immediately before the service is confirmed by the PINT Client sending an ACK. At this point the Gateway will have decided whether or not it can handle the service request, but will not have passed the request on to the Executive System. It is therefore in a good position to ask the Executive System to enable monitoring when it sends the service request onwards. In practical implementations, it is likely that more information on transient service status will be available if this is indicated as being important BEFORE or AS the service execution phase starts; once execution has begun the level of information that can be returned may be difficult to change. Thus, whilst it is free to send a SUBSCRIBE request at any point after receiving an Interim response from the Gateway to its service request, it is recommended that the Client should send such a monitoring request immediately prior to sending an ACK message confirming the service if it is interested in transient service status messages. 3.5.4. The "Require:" header for PINT PINT clients use the Require: header to signal to the PINT server that a certain PINT extension of SIP is required. PINT 1.0 defines two strings that can go into the Require header: org.ietf.sip.subscribe -- the server can fulfill SUBSCRIBE requests (section 3.5.3) org.ietf.sdp.strict -- the PINT server (or the SDP parser associated to it) understands the "strict" attribute defined in (section 3.4.4) Example: Require:org.ietf.sip.subscribe,org.ietf.sdp.strict A client should only include a Require: header where it truly requires the server to fail the request if the option is not supported. 3.5.5. PINT URLS within PINT requests Normally the hostnames and domain names that appear in the PINT URLs are the internal affair of each individual PINT system. A client uses the appropriate SDP payload to indicate the particular service it wishes to invoke; it is not necessary to use a particular URL to identify the service. A PINT URL is used in two different ways within PINT requests: within the Request-URI, and within the To: and From: headers. Use within the Request-URI requires clarification in order to ensure smooth interworking with the Telephone Network serviced by the PINT infrastructure: 3.5.5.1. PINT URLS within Request-URIs There are some occasions when it may be useful, however, to indicate service information within the URL in a standardized way: a. it may not be possible to use SDP information to route the request if it is encrypted; b. it allows implementation which make use of I.N. "service indicators"; c. It enables multiple competing PINT gateways to REGISTER with a single "broker" server (proxy or redirect) (see section 6.3) For these reasons, the following conventions for URLs are to be used in PINT requests: 1. The user portion of a sip URL indicates the service to be requested. At present the following services are defined: R2C (for Request-to-Call) R2F (for Request-to-Fax) R2HC (for Request-to-Hear-Content) The user portions "R2C", "R2F", and "R2HC" are reserved for the PINT milestone services. Other user portions MUST be used in case the requested service is not one of the Milestone services. See section 3.5.8 for some related considerations concerning registrations by competing PINT systems to a single PINT proxy server acting as a service broker. 2. The host portion of a sip URL contains the domain name of the PINT service provider. 3. A new url-parameter is defined to be "tsp" (for "telephone service provider"). This can be used to indicate the actual telephone network provider to be used to fulfil the PINT request. Thus, for example:- INVITE sip:R2C@pint.pintservice.com SIP/2.0 INVITE sip:R2F@pint.pintservice.com;tsp=telco.com SIP/2.0 INVITE sip:R2HC@pint.mycom.com;tsp=pbx23.mycom.com SIP/2.0 INVITE sip:13@pint.telco.com SIP/2.0 3.5.6. Telephony Network Parameters within PINT URLs Any legal SIP URL can appear as a PINT URL within the Request-URI or To: header of a PINT request. But if the address is a telephone address, we indicated in section 3.4.3 that it may be necessary to include more information in order correctly to identify the remote telephone terminal or service. PINT clients MAY include these attribute tags within PINT URLs if they are necessary or a useful complement to the telephone number within the SIP URL. These attribute tags MUST be included as URL parameters as defined in [2] (i.e. in the semi-colon separated manner). The following is an example of a PINT URL which contains extra attribute tags: sip:5228808@pint.br.com;user=phone;strict=phone-context;phone-context=+972 As we noted in section 3.4.3, these extra attribute parameters will not normally be needed within a URL, because there is a great deal of context available to the help the server interpret the phone number correctly. In particular, there is the SIP URL within the To: header, and there is also the Request-URI. In most cases this provides sufficient information for the telephone network. The SDP attributes defined in section 3 above will normally only be used when they are needed to supply necessary context to identify a telephone terminal. In this example, the terminal with this SIP URL is the same as the one whose connection is defined by the following part of an SDP description: c= TN RFCxxxx +97252288088 3..5.7. REGISTER requests within PINT *-*- A PINT gateway is a SIP user agent server. User agent servers use the REGISTER request to tell a proxy or redirect server that it is available to "receive calls" (i.e. to service requests). Thus a PINT gateway registers with a proxy or redirect server the service that is accessible via itself, while in SIP, a user registering his/her presence at a particular SIP Server. There may be competing PINT servers which can offer the same PINT service trying to register at a single PINT server. The PINT server might act as a "broker" among the various PINT gateways which can fulfil a request. A format for PINT URLs was specified in section 3.5.5 that enables independent PINT systems to REGISTER an offer to provide the same service. The registrar can apply its own mechanisms and policies to decide what to respond to INVITEs from clients seeking service. (See section 6.3 for some possible deployment options) There is no change between SIP and PINT REGISTER semantics or syntax. Of course, the information in the PINT URLs within the REGISTER request may not be sufficient to completely define the service that a gateway can offer. The use of SIP and SDP within PINT REGISTER requests to enable a gateway to specify in more detail the services it can offer is the subject of future study. 3.5.8. BYE Requests in PINT The semantics of BYE requests within PINT requires some extra precision. One issue concerns conferences which "cannot be left", and the other concerns keeping call state after the BYE. The BYE request [2] is normally used to indicate that the originating entity no longer wishes to be involved in the specified call. The request terminates the call and the media session. Applying this model to PINT, if a PINT client makes a request that results in invocation of a telephone call from A to B, a BYE request from the client, if accepted, should result in a termination of the phone call. A question arises when the telephone call might not have even started at the time when the BYE request is received. For example, if a request to fax is sent with a t= line indicating that the fax is to be sent tomorrow at 04:00AM, the requestor might wish to cancel the request before the specified time. Even if the call has started, it may not be possible to terminate the media session on the telephone system side. For example, the fax call may be in progress when the BYE arrives, and perhaps it is just not possible to cancel the fax in session. Another possibility is that the entire telephone-side service might be completed before the BYE is received. In the above Request-to-Fax example, the BYE might be sent the following morning, and the entire fax has been sent before the BYE was received. It is too late to send the BYE. In the case where the telephone network cannot terminate the call, the server MUST return a "606 Not Acceptable" response to the BYE, along with a session description which indicates the telephone network session which is causing the problem. Therefore, in PINT, a "Not Acceptable" response can be returned to INVITE or BYE requests. It indicates that some aspect of the session description makes the request unacceptable. By allowing a server to return a "Not Acceptable" response to BYE requests, we are not changing its semantics, just enlarging its use. A combination of Warning: headers and i= lines within the session description can be used to indicate the precise nature of the problem. Example: SIP/2.0 606 Not Acceptable From: ... To: ....... ..... Warning: 399 pint.mycom.com Fax in progress, service cannot be aborted Content-Type: application/sdp Content-Length: 50 v=0 i=3 of 5 pages sent OK c=TN RFCxxxx +12014064090 m=image 0 fax tif a=fmtp:tif uri:http://tifsRus.com/yyyyyy.tif Note that the server may return an updated session description within a successful response to a BYE as well. This can be used, for example, to indicate the actual start times and stop times of the telephone session, or how many pages were sent in the fax transmission. The second issue concerns how long must a server keep call state after receiving a BYE. A question arises because other clients might still wish to send queries about the telephone network session which was the subject of the PINT transaction. Ordinary SIP semantics have three important implications for this situation: 1. A BYE indicates that the requesting client will clear out all call state as soon as it receives a successful response. A client SHOULD NOT send a SUBSCRIBE request after it has sent a BYE. 2. A server may return an Expires: header within a successful response to a BYE request. This indicates for how long the server will retain session state about the telephone network session. At any point during this time, a client may send a SUBSCRIBE request to the server to learn about the session state. 3. When engaged in a SUBSCRIBE/NOTIFY monitoring session, PINT servers which send BYE to a URL listed in the Contact: header of a client request need to be especially careful not to clear session state until after the successful response to the BYE is received. For example, it may be that the requesting client host is turned off when the telephone service is executed (and is therefore not available at the location previously specified in the Contact: attribute) to receive the PINT server's BYE. 4. Examples of PINT Requests and Responses 4.1. A request to a call centre from an anonymous user to receive a phone call. C->S: INVITE sip:R2C@pint.mailorder.com SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 169.130.12.5 From: sip:anon-1827631872@chinet.net To: sip:+1-201-456-7890@iron.org;user=phone Call-ID: 19971205T234505.56.78@chinet.net Subject: Sale on Ironing Boards Content-type: application/sdp Content-Length: ... v=0 o=- 53655765 2353687637 IN IP4 128.3.4.5 i=Ironing Board Promotion c= TN RFCxxxx +1-201-406-4090 m=audio 0 voice In this example, the context which is required to interpret the To: address as a telephone number is not given explicitly; it is implicitly known to the R2C@pint.mailorder.com server. But the telephone of the person who wishes to receive the call is explicitly identified as an internationally significant E.164 number within the North American numbering plan (because of the "+1" within the c= line). 4.2. A request from a non anonymous customer (John Jones) to receive a phone call from a particular sales agent (Mary James) concerning the defective ironing board that was purchased C->S: INVITE sip:marketing@pint.mailorder.com SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 169.130.12.5 From: sip:john.jones.3@chinet.net To: sip:mary.james@mailorder.com Call-ID: 19971205T234505.56.79@chinet.net Subject: Defective Ironing Board - want refund Content-type: application/sdp Content-Length: ... v=0 o=- 53655765 2353687637 IN IP4 128.3.4.5 c= TN RFCxxxx +1-201-406-4090 m=audio 0 voice The To: line might include the Mary James's phone number instead of a email-like address. An implementation which cannot accept email-like URLs in the "To:" header must fail the request with a 606 Not Acceptable. Note that the sending PINT client "knows" that the PINT Gateway contacted with the "marketing@pint.mailorder.com" Request-URI is capable of processing the client request as expected. (see 3.5.5.1 for a discussion on this). Note also that such a telephone call service could be implemented on the phone side with different details. For example, it might be that first the agent's phone rings, and then the customer's phone rings, or it might be that first the customer's phone rings and he hears silly music until the agent comes on line. If necessary, such service parameter details might be indicated in "a=" attribute lines within the session description. The specification of such attribute lines for service consistency is beyond the scope of the PINT 1.0 specifications. 4.3. A request from the same user to get a fax back on how to assemble the Ironing Board C->S: INVITE sip:faxback@pint.mailorder.com SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 169.130.12.5 From: sip:john.jones.3@chinet.net To: sip:1-800-FAXBACK@steam.edu;user=phone;phone-context=+1 Call-ID: 19971205T234505.66.79@chinet.net Content-type: application/sdp Content-Length: ... v=0 o=- 53655768 2353687637 IN IP4 128.3.4.5 c= TN RFCxxxx 1-201-406-4091 m=application 0 fax URI a=fmtp:URI uri:http://localstore/Products/IroningBoards/2344.html In this example, the fax to be sent is stored on some local server (localstore), whose name may be only resolvable, or which may only be reachable, from within the IP network on which the PINT server sits. The phone number to be dialled is a "local phone number" as well. There is no "phone-context" attribute, so the context (in this case, for which nation the number is "nationally significant") must be supplied by the faxback@pint.mailorder.com PINT server. If the server which receives does not understand the number, it should fail the request with and include a "Network Address Not Understood" warning. Note that no "strict" attribute was used here, since it is very likely that the request can be serviced even by a server which does not support the "strict" attribute. 4.4. A request from same user to have that same information read out over the phone C->S: INVITE sip:faxback@pint.mailorder.com SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 169.130.12.5 From: john.jones.3@chinet.net To: sip:1-800-FAXBACK@steam.edu;user=phone;phone-context=+1 Call-ID: 19971205T234505.66.79@chinet.net Content-type: application/sdp Content-Length: ... v=0 o=- 53655768 2353687637 IN IP4 128.3.4.5 c= TN RFCxxxx +1-201-406-4090 m=application 0 voice URI a=fmtp:URI uri:http://localstore/Products/IroningBoards/2344.html 4.5. A request to send an included text page to a friend's pager. In this example, the text to be paged out is included in the request. C->S: INVITE sip:R2F@pint.pager.com SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 169.130.12.5 From: scott.petrack@chinet.net To: sip:R2F@pint.pager.com Call-ID: 19974505.66.79@chinet.net Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=--next ----next Content-Type: application/sdp Content-Length: ... v=0 o=- 53655768 2353687637 IN IP4 128.3.4.5 c= TN RFCxxxx +972-9-956-1867 m=text 0 pager plain a=fmtp:plain spr:2@53655768 ----next Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: 2@53655768 Content-Length:... Hi Joe! Please call me asap at 555-1234. ----next-- 4.6. A request to send an image as a fax to phone number +972-9-956-1867 C->S: INVITE sip:faxserver@pint.vocaltec.com SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 169.130.12.5 From: scott.petrack@chinet.net To: sip:faxserver@pint.vocaltec.com Call-ID: 19971205T234505.66.79@chinet.net Content-type: application/sdp Content-Length: ... v=0 o=- 53655768 2353687637 IN IP4 128.3.4.5 c= TN RFCxxxx +972-9-956-1867 m=image 0 fax tif gif a=fmtp:tif uri:http://petrack/images/tif/picture1.tif a=fmtp:gif uri:http://petrack/images/gif/picture1.gif The image is available as tif or as jpeg. The tif is the preferred format. Note that the http server where the pictures reside is local, and the PINT server is also local (because it can resolve machine name "petrack") 4.7. A request to read out over the phone two pieces of content in sequence. First some included text is read out by text-to-speech. Then some text which is stored at some URI on the internet is read out. C->S: INVITE sip:R2HC@pint.acme.com SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 169.130.12.5 From: scott.petrack@chinet.net To: sip:R2HC@pint.acme.com Call-ID: 19974505.66.79@chinet.net Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=next --next Content-Type: application/sdp Content-Length: ... v=0 o=- 53655768 2353687637 IN IP4 128.3.4.5 c= TN RFCxxxx +1-201-406-4091 m=text 0 voice plain a=fmtp:plain spr:2@53655768 m=text 0 voice plain a=fmtp:plain uri:http://www.mymachine.com/texts/mytext.doc --next Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: 2@53655768 Content-Length: ... Hello!! I am about to read out to you some text stored on my Web Site. Let me know how it sounds over acme.com's new speech synthesis server. --next-- *-*- 4.8. Request for the prices for ISDN to be sent to my fax machine INVITE sip:R2FB@pint.bt.co.uk SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 169.130.12.5 To:0345-12347-01;user=phone;phone-context=+44 From: sip:hank.wangford@newts.demon.co.uk Call-ID: 19981204T201505.56.78@demon.co.uk Subject: Price List Content-type: application/sdp Content-Length: 116 v=0 o=-53655765 2353687637 IN IP4 128.3.4.5 i=ISDN Price List c=TN RFCxxxx +44-1794-8331010 m=text 0 fax 4.9. Request for a callback INVITE sip:R2C@pint.bt.co.uk SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 169.130.12.5 To:0345-123456;user=phone;phone-context=+44 From: sip:hank.wangford@newts.demon.co.uk Call-ID: 19981204T234505.56.78@demon.co.uk Subject: It costs HOW much? Content-type: application/sdp Content-Length: 123 v=0 o=- 53655765 2353687637 IN IP4 128.3.4.5 i=ISDN pre-sales query c= TN RFCxxxx +44-1794-8331013 m=audio 0 voice 4.10.Sending a set of information in response to an enquiry INVITE sip:R2FB@pint.bt.co.uk SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 169.130.12.5 To:0345-12347-01;user=phone;phone-context=+44 From: sip:colin.masterton@sales.hh.bt.co.uk Call-ID: 19981205T234505.56.78@sales.hh.bt.co.uk Subject: Price Info, as requested Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=next --next Content-type: application/sdp Content-Length: 211 v=0 o=-53655765 2353687637 IN IP4 128.3.4.5 i=Your documents c=TN RFCxxxx +44-1794-8331010 m=application 0 fax octet-stream a=fmtp:octet-stream uri:http://www.bt.co.uk/imgs/pipr.gif opr: spr:2@53655768 --next Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: 2@53655768 Content-Length: 352 Dear Sir, Thank you for your enquiry. I have checked availability in your area, and we can provide service to your cottage. I enclose a quote for the costs of installation, together with the ongoing rental costs for the line. If you want to proceed with this, please quote job reference isdn/hh/123.45.9901. Yours Sincerely, Colin Masterton --next-- Note that the "implicit" faxback content is given by an EMPTY opaque reference in the middle of the fmtp line in this example. 4.11.Sportsline "headlines" message sent to your phone/pager/fax (i) phone INVITE sip:R2FB@pint.wwos.skynet.com SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 169.130.12.5 To:1-900-123-456-7;user=phone;phone-context=+1 From: sip:fred.football.fan@skynet.com Call-ID: 19971205T234505.56.78@chinet.net Subject: Wonderful World Of Sports NFL Final Scores Content-type: application/sdp Content-Length: 174 v=0 o=- 53655765 2353687637 IN IP4 128.3.4.5 i=NFL Final Scores c= TN RFCxxxx +44-1794-8331013 m=audio 0 voice x-pay a=fmtp:x-pay opr:mci.com/md5: (ii) fax INVITE sip:R2FB@pint.wwos.skynet.com SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 169.130.12.5 To:1-900-123-456-7;user=phone;phone-context=+1 From: sip:fred.football.fan@skynet.com Call-ID: 19971205T234505.56.78@chinet.net Subject: Wonderful World Of Sports NFL Final Scores Content-type: application/sdp Content-Length: 173 v=0 o=- 53655765 2353687637 IN IP4 128.3.4.5 i=NFL Final Scores c= TN RFCxxxx +44-1794-8331010 m=text 0 fax x-pay a=fmtp:x-pay opr:mci.com/md5: (iii) pager INVITE sip:R2FB@pint.wwos..skynet.com SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 169.130.12.5 To:1-900-123-456-7;user=phone;phone-context=+1 From: sip:fred.football.fan@skynet.com Call-ID: 19971205T234505.56.78@chinet.net Subject: Wonderful World Of Sports NFL Final Scores Content-type: application/sdp Content-Length: 173 v=0 o=- 53655765 2353687637 IN IP4 128.3.4.5 i=NFL Final Scores c= TN RFCxxxx +44-1794-8331015 m=text 0 pager x-pay a=fmtp:x-pay opr:mci.com/md5: Note that these are all VERY similar. 4.12.Automatically giving someone a fax copy of your phone bill INVITE sip:BillsRUs@pint.sprint.com SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 169.130.12.5 To:+1-555-888-1234;user=phone From: sip:agent.mulder@fbi.gov Call-ID: 19991231T234505.56.78@fbi.gov Subject: Itemised Bill for January 98 Content-type: application/sdp Content-Length: 117 v=0 o=-53655765 2353687637 IN IP4 128.3.4.5 i=Joe Pendleton's Phone Bill c=TN RFCxxxx +1-202-833-1010 m=text 0 fax x-files-id a=fmtp:x-files-id opr:fbi.gov/jdcn-123@45:3des;base64, Note: in this case the opaque reference is data used to convince the Executive System that the requester has the right to get this information, rather than selecting the particular content (the A party in the To: field of the SIP "wrapper" does that alone). -*-* 5. Security Considerations 5.1. Basic Principles for PINT Use A PINT Gateway, and the Executive System(s) with which that Gateway is associated, exist to provide service to PINT Requestors. The aim of the PINT protocol is to pass requests from those users on to a PINT Gateway so an associated Executive System can service those requests. 5.1.1. Responsibility for service requests The facility of making a PSTN-based call to numbers specified in the PINT request, however, comes with some risks. The request can specify an incorrect telephone of fax number. It is also possible that the Requestor has purposely entered the telephone number of an innocent third party. Finally, the request may have been intercepted on its way through any intervening PINT or SIP infrastructure, and the request may have been altered. In any of these cases, the result may be that a call is placed incorrectly. Where there is intent or negligence, this may be construed as harrasment of the person incorrectly receiving the call. Whilst the regulatory framework for misuse of Internet connections differs throughout the world and is not always mature, the rules under which PSTN calls are made are much more settled. Someone may be liable for mistaken or incorrect calls. Understandably, the PSTN Operators would prefer that this someone is not them, so they will need to ensure that any PINT Gateway and Executive System combination does not generate incorrect calls through some error in the Gateway or Executive system implementation or PSTN-internal communications fault. Equally, it is important that the Operator can show that they act only on requests that they have good reason to believe are correct. This means that the Gateway must not pass on requests unless it is sure that they have not been corrupted in transit from the Requestor. If a request can be shown to have come from a particular Requestor and to have been acted on in good faith by the PINT service provider, then responsibility for making requests may well fall to the Requestor rather than the Operator who executed these requests. Finally, it may be important for the PINT service provider to be able to show that they act only on requests for which they have some degree of assurance of origin. In many jurisdictions, it is a requirement on PSTN Operators that they place calls only when they can, if required, identify the parties to the call (such as when required to carry out a Malicious Call Trace). It is at least likely that the provider of PINT services will have a similar responsibility placed on them. It follows that the PINT service provider may require that the identity of the Requestor be confirmed. If such confirmation is not available, then they may be forced (or choose) not to provide service. This identification MAY be in the form of a confirmed Internet Address for the Requestor, but is more likely to require personal authentication of the Requesting User. 5.1.2. Authority to make requests Where PSTN resources are used to provide a PINT service, it is at least possible that someone will have to pay for it. This person may not be the Requestor, as, for example, in the case of existing PSTN split-charging services like free phone in which the recipient of a call rather than the originator is responsible for the call cost. This is not, of course, the only possibility; for example, PINT service may be provided on a subscription basis, and there are a number of other models. However, whichever model is chosen, there may be a requirement that the authority of a Requestor to make a PINT request is confirmed. If such confirmation is not available, then, again, the PINT Gateway and associated Executive System may choose not to provide service. 5.1.3. Privacy Even if the identity of the Requesting User and the Authority under which they make their request is known, there remains the possibility that the request is either corrupted, maliciously altered, or even replaced whilst in transit between the Requestor and the PINT Gateway. Similarly, information on the Authority under which a request is made may well be carried within that request. This can be sensitive information, as an eavesdropper might steal this and use it within their own requests. Such authority should be treated as if it were financial information (such as a credit card number or PIN). The data authorizing a Requesting User to make a PINT request should be known only to them and the service provider. However, this information may be in a form that does not match the schemes normally used within the Internet. For example, X.509 certificates[15] are commonly used for secured transactions on the Internet both in the IP Security Architecture[13] and in the TLS protocol[14], but the PSTN provider may only store an account code and PIN (i.e. a fixed string of numbers). A Requesting User has a reasonable expectation that their requests for service are confidential. For some PINT services, no content data is carried over the Internet; however, the telephone or fax numbers of the parties to a resulting service calls may be considered sensitive. As a result, it may be that the Requestor (and their PINT service provider) will require that any request that is sent across the Internet be protected against eavesdroppers; in short, the requests may need to be encrypted. 5.2. Security mechanisms and implications on PINT service PINT is a profile on SIP[2] and SDP[3], and will use the security procedures described in SIP. There are several implications of this, and these are covered here. For several of the PINT services, the To: header field of SIP is used to identify one of the parties to the resulting service call. The PINT Request-To-Call service is an example. As mentioned in the SIP specification, this field is used to route SIP messages through an infrastructure of Redirect and Proxy server between the corresponding User Agent Servers, and so cannot be encrypted. This means that, although the majority of personal or sensitive data can be protected whilst in transit, the telephone (or fax) number of one of the parties to a PINT service call cannot, and will be "visible" to any interception. Another aspect of this is that, even if the Requesting User does not consider the telephone or fax numbers of the parties to a PINT service to be private, those parties might. Where PINT servers have reason to believe this might be the case they SHOULD encrypt the request, even if the Requestor has not done so. This could happen, for example, if a Requesting User within a company placed a PINT request and this was carried via the company's Intranet to their Proxy/firewall and thence over the Internet to a PINT Gateway at another location. If a request carries data that can be reused by an eavesdropper either to "spoof" the Requestor or to obtain PINT service by inserting the Requestor's authorization token into an eavesdropper's request, then this data SHOULD be protected. This is particularly important if the authorization token consists of static text (such as an account code and/or PIN). One approach is to encrypt the whole of the request, using the methods described in the SIP specification. As an alternative, it may be acceptable for the authorization token to be held as an opaque reference (see section 3.4.2.3 and examples 4.11 and 4.12), using some proprietary scheme agreed between the Requestor and the PINT service provider, as long as this is resistant to interception and re-use. Also, it may be that the authorization token cannot be used outside of a request cryptographically signed by the Requestor; if so then this requirement can be relaxed, as in this case the token cannot be re-used by another. However, unless both the Requestor and the Gateway are assured that this is the case, any authorization token SHOULD be treated as sensitive, and so SHOULD be encrypted. A PINT request may contain data within the SDP message body that can be used more efficiently to route that request. For example, it may be that one Gateway and Executive System combination cannot handle a request that specifies one of the parties as a pager, whilst another can. Both gateways may have registered with a PINT/SIP Registrar, and this information may be available to intervening PINT/SIP Proxies. However, if the request message body is encrypted, then the request cannot be decoded at the Proxy server, and so Gateway selection based on contained information cannot be made there. The result is that the Proxy may deliver the request to a Gateway that cannot handle it; the implication is that a PINT/SIP Proxy SHOULD consider its choice for the appropriate Gateway subject to correction, and, on receiving a 501 or 415 rejection from the first gateway chosen, try another. In this way, the request will succeed if at all possible, even though it may be delayed (and tie up resources in the inappropriate Gateways). This opens up an interesting avenue for Denial Of Service; sending a valid request that appears to be suitable for a number of different Gateways, and simply occupying those Gateways in decrypting a message requesting a service they cannot provide. As mentioned in section 3.5.5.1, the choice of service name to be passed in the userinfo portion of the SIP Request-URI is flexible, and it is RECOMMENDED that names be chosen that allow a Proxy to select an appropriate Gateway without having to examine the SDP body part. Thus, in the example given here, the service might be called "Request-To-Page" or "R2P" rather than the more general use of "R2F", if there is a possibility of the SDP body part being protected during transit. A variation on this attack is to provide a request that is syntactically invalid but that, due to the encryption, cannot be detected without expending resources in decoding it. The effects of this form of attack can be minimised in the same way as for any SIP Invitation; the Proxy should detect the 400 rejection returned from the initial Gateway, and not pass the request onwards to another. Finally, note that the Requesting User may not have a prior relationship with a PINT Gateway, whilst still having a prior relationship with the Operator of the Executive System that fulfils their request. Thus there may be two levels of authentication and authorization; one carried out using the techniques described in the SIP specification (for use between the Requestor and the Gateway), with another being used between the Requesting User or the Requestor and the Executive System. For example, the Requesting User may have an account with the PINT service provider. That provider might require that requests include this identity before they will be convinced to provide service. In addition, to counter attacks on the request whilst it is in transit across the Internet, the Gateway may require a separate X.509-based certification of the request. These are two separate procedures, and data needed for the former would normally be expected to be held in opaque references inside the SDP body part of the request. The detailed operation of this mechanism is, by definition, outside the scope of an Internet Protocol, and so must be considered a private matter. However, one approach to indicating to the Requestor that such "second level" authentication or authorization is required by their Service Provider would be to ask for this inside the textual description carried with a 401 response returned from the PINT Gateway. 5.3. Registration Procedures Any number of PINT Gateways may register to provide the same service; this is indicated by the Gateways specifying the same "userinfo" part in the To: header field of the REGISTER request. Whilst such ambiguity would be unlikely to occur with the scenarios covered by "core" SIP, it is very likely for PINT; there could be any number of service providers all willing to support a "Request-To-Fax" service, for example. Unless a request specifies the Gateway name explicitly, an intervening Proxy that acts on a registration database to which several Gateways have all registered is in a position to select from the registrands using whatever algorithm it chooses; in principle, any Gateway that has registered as "R2F" would be appropriate. However, this opens up an avenue for attack, and this is one in which a "rogue" Gateway operator stands to make a significant gain. The standard SIP procedure for releasing a registration is to send a REGISTER request with a Contact field having a wildcard value and an expires parameter with a value of 0. It is important that a PINT Registrar uses authentication of the Registrand, as otherwise one PINT service provider would be able to "spoof" another and remove their registration. As this would stop the Proxy passing any requests to that provider, this would both increase requests being sent to the rogue and stop requests going to the victim. Another variant on this attack would be to register a Gateway using a name that has been registered by another provider; thus a rogue Operator might register its Gateway as "R2C@pint.att.com", thereby hijacking requests. The solution is the same; all registrations by PINT Gateways SHOULD be authenticated; this includes both new or apparent replacement registrations, and any cancellation of current registrations. This recommendation is also made in the SIP specification, but for the correct operation of PINT, it is very important indeed. 6. Deployment considerations and the Relationship PINT to I.N. (Informative) 6.1. Web Front End to PINT Infrastructure It is possible that some other protocol may be used to communicate a Requesting User's requirements. Due to the high numbers of available Web Browsers and servers it seems likely that some PINT systems will use HTML/HTTP as a "front end". In this scenario, HTTP will be used over a connection from the Requesting User's Web Browser (WC) to an Intermediate Web Server (WS). This will be closely associated with a PINT Client (using some unspecified mechanism to transfer the data from the Web Server to the PINT Client). The PINT Client will represent the Requesting User to the PINT Server, and thus to the Executive System that carries out the required action. [WC]------[WS] [PC] \ \ [PS] [XS] 6.2. Redirects to Multiple Servers It is quite possible that a given PINT Server is associated with an Executive System (or systems) that can connect to the GSTN at different places. Equally, if there is a chain of PINT Servers, then each of these intermediate or proxy servers (PP) may be able to route PINT requests to Executive Systems that connect at specific points to the GSTN. The result of this is that there may be more than one PINT Server or Executive System that can deal with a given request. The mechanisms by which the choice on where to deliver a request are outside the scope of this document. [WC]------[WS] [WC]------[WS] [PC] [PC] \ \ \ \ [PS] [PP] .........[XS]......... / \ : : / \ [PS] [PS] [XS] [XS] However, there do seem to be two approaches. Either a Server that acts as a proxy or redirect will select the appropriate server itself and will cause the request to be sent on accordingly, or a list of possible Locations will be returned to the Requesting User from which they can select their choice. In SIP, the implication is that, if a proxy cannot resolve to a single unique match for a request destination, then a response containing a list of the choices should be returned to the Requesting User for selection. This is not too likely a scenario within the normal use of SIP. However, within PINT, such ambiguity may be quite common; it implies that there are a number of possible providers of a given service. 6.3. Competing PINT gateways REGISTERing to offer the same service With PINT, the registration is not for an individual but instead for a service that can be handled by a service provider. Thus, one can envisage a registration by the PINT Server of the domain telcoA.com of its ability to support the service R2C as "R2C@telcoA.com", sent to an intermediary server that acts as registrar for the "broker.telcos.com" domain from "R2C@pint.telcoA.com" as follows: REGISTER sip:registrar@broker.telcos.com SIP/2.0 To:sip:R2C@pint.telcoA.com From:R2C@pint.telcoA.com ... This is the standard SIP registration service. However, what happens if there are a number of different Service Providers, all of whom support the "R2C" service? Suppose there is a PINT system at domain "broker.com". PINT clients requesting a Request-to-Call service from broker.com might be very willing to be redirected or proxied to any one of the various service providers which had previously registered with the registrar. PINT servers might also be interested in providing service for requests that did not specify the service provider explicitly, as well as those requests that were directed "at them". To enable such service, PINT servers would REGISTER at the broker PINT server registrations of the form: REGISTER sip:registrar@broker.com SIP/2.0 To:sip:R2C@broker.com From:sip:R2C@pint.telcoA.com When several such REGISTER messages appear at the registrar, each differing only in the URL in the From: line, the registrar has many possibilities, e.g.: (i) it overwrites the prior registration for "R2C@broker.telcos.com" when the next comes in; (ii) it rejects the subsequent registration for "R2C@broker.telcos.com"; (iii) it maintains all such registrations. In this last case, on receiving an Invitation for the "general" service, either: (iii.1) it passes on the invitation to all registered service providers, returning a collated response with all acceptances, using multiple Location: headers, or (iii.2) it silently selects one of the registrations (using, for example, a "round robin" approach) and routes the Invitation and response onwards without further comment. As an alternative to all of the above approaches, it: (iv) may choose to not allow registrations for the "general" service, rejecting all such REGISTER requests. The algorithm by which such a choice is made will be implementation-dependent, and is outside the scope of PINT. Where a behaviour is to be defined by requesting users, then some sort of call processing language might be used to allow those clients, as a pre-service operation, to download the behaviour they expect to the server making such decisions. This, however, is a topic for other protocols, not for PINT. *-*- 6.4. Limitations on Available Information and Request Timing for SUBSCRIBE A reference configuration for PINT is that service requests are sent, via a PINT gateway, to an Executive System that fulfils the Service Control Function (SCF) of an Intelligent Network (see [12]). The success or failure of the resulting service call may be information available to the SCF and so may potentially be made available to the PINT gateway. In terms of historical record of whether or not a service succeeded, a large SCF may be dealing with a million call attempts per hour. Given that volume of service transactions, there are finite limits beyond which it cannot store service disposition records; expecting to find out if a Fax was sent last month from a busy SCF is unrealistic. Other status changes, such as that on completion of a successful service call, require the SCF to arrange monitoring of the service call in a way that the service may not do normally, for performance reasons. In most implementations, it is difficult efficiently to interrupt a service to change it once it has begun execution, so it may be necessary to have two different services; one that sets GSTN resources to monitor service call termination, and one that doesn't. It is unlikely to be possible to decide that monitoring is required once the service has started. These factors can have implications both on the information that is potentially available at the PINT Gateway, and when a request to register interest in the status of a PINT service can succeed. The alternative to using a general SCF is to provide a dedicated Service Node just for PINT services. As this node is involved in placing all service calls, it is in a position to collect the information needed. However, it may well still not be able to respond successfully to a registration of interest in call state changes once a service logic program instance is running. Thus, although a Requesting User may register an interest in the status of a service request, the PINT Gateway may not be in a position to comply with that request. Although this does not affect the protocol used between the Requestor and the PINT Gateway, it may influence the response returned. To avoid the problem of changing service logic once running, any registration of interest in status changes should be made at or before the time at which the service request is made. Conversely, if a historical request is made on the disposition of a service, this should be done within a short time after the service has completed; the Executive System is unlikely to store the results of service requests for long; these will have been processed as AMA records quickly, after which the Executive System has no reason to keep them, and so they may be discarded. Where the PINT Gateway and the Executive System are intimately linked, the Gateway can respond to status subscription requests that occur while a service is running. It may accept these requests and simply not even try to query the Executive System until it has information that a service has completed, merely returning the final status. Thus the PINT Requestor may be in what it believes is a monitoring state, whilst the PINT Gateway has not even informed the Executive System that a request has been made. This will increase the internal complexity of the PINT Gateway in that it will have a complex set of interlocking state machines, but does mean that status registration and indication CAN be provided in conjunction with an I.N. system. 6.5. Parameters needed for invoking traditional PSTN Services within PINT This section describes how parameters needed to specify certain traditional PSTN services can be carried within PINT requests. 6.5.1. Service Identifier When a Requesting User asks for a service to be performed, he or she will, of course, have to specify which service in some way. This can be done in the URLs within the To: header and the Request-URI (see section 3.5.5.1). 6.5.2. A and B parties With the Request-to-Talk service, they will also need to specify the A and B parties they want to be engaged in the resulting service call. The A party could identify, for example, the Call Centre from which they want a call back, whilst the B party is their telephone number (i.e. who the Call Centre agent is to call). The Request-to-Fax and Request-to-Hear-Content services require the B party to be specified (respectively the telephone number of the destination Fax machine or the telephone to which spoken content is to be delivered), but the A party is a Telephone Network based resource (either a Fax or speech transcoder/sender), and is implicit; the Requesting User does not (and cannot) specify it. With the "Fax-Back" variant of the Request-to-Fax service, (i.e. where the content to be delivered resides on the GSTN) they will also have specify two parties. As before, the B party is the telephone number of the fax machine to which they want a fax to be sent. However, within this variant the A party identifies the "document context" for the PSTN-based document store from which a particular document is to be retrieved; the analogy here is to a PSTN user dialling a particular telephone number and then entering the document number to be returned using "touch tone" digits. The telephone number they dial is that of the document store or A party, with the "touch tone" digits selecting the document within that store. 6.5.3. Other Service Parameters In terms of the extra parameters to the request, the services again differ. The Request-to-Talk service needs only the A and B parties. Also it is convenient to assert that the resulting service call will carry voice, as the Executive System within the destination GSTN may be able to check that assertion against the A and B party numbers specified and may treat the call differently. With the Request-to-Fax and Request-to-Hear-Content services, the source information to be transcoded is held on the Internet. That means either that this information is carried along with the request itself, or that a reference to the source of this information is given. In addition, it is convenient to assert that the service call will carry fax or voice, and, where possible, to specify the format for the source information. The PSTN-based content or "Fax-Back" variant of the Request-to-Fax service needs to specify the Document Store number and the Fax machine number to which the information is to be delivered. It is convenient to assert that the call will carry Fax data, as the destination Executive System may be able to check that assertion against the document store number and that of the destination Fax machine. In addition, the document number may also need to be sent. This parameter is an opaque reference that is carried through the Internet but has significance only within the GSTN. The document store number and document number together uniquely specify the actual content to be faxed. 6.5.4. Service Parameter Summary The following table summarises the information needed in order to specify fully the intent of a PSTN service request. Note that it excludes any other parameters (such as authentication or authorisation tokens, or Expires: or CallId: headers) that may be used in a request. Service ServiceID AParty BParty CallFmt Source SourceFmt ------- --------- ------ ------ ------- ------ ------- R2C x x x voice - - R2F x - x fax URI/IL ISF/ILSF R2FB x x x fax OR - R2HC x - x voice URI/IL ISF/ILSF In this table, "x" means that the parameter is required, whilst "-" means that the parameter is not required. The Services listed are Request to Talk (R2C), Request to Fax (R2F), the PSTN-based content or "Fax-back" Variant of Request-to-Fax (R2FB), and Request-to-Hear-Content (R2HC). The Call Format parameter values "voice" or "fax" indicate the kind of service call that results. The Source Indicator "URI/IL" implies either that the data is either an Internet source reference (a Universal Resource Identifier, or URI) or is carried "in-line" with the message. The Source indicator "OR" means that the value passed is an Opaque Reference that should be carried along with the rest of the message but is to be interpreted only within the destination (GSTN) context. As an alternative, it could be given as a "local" reference with the "file" style, or even using a partial reference with the "http" style. However, the way in which such a reference is interpreted is a matter for the receiving PINT Server and Executive System; it remains, in effect, an opaque reference. The Source Format value "ISF/ILSF" means that the format of the source is specified either in terms of the URI or that it is carried "in-line". Note that, for some data, the format either can be detected by inspection or, if all else fails, can be assumed from the URI (for example, by assuming that the file extension part of a URL indicates the data type). For an opaque reference, the Source Format is not available on the Internet, and so is not given. 6.6. Parameter Mapping to PINT Profile This section describes the way in which the parameters needed to specify a PSTN service request fully might be carried within a PINT profile message. There are other choices, and these are not precluded. However, in order to ensure that the Requesting User receives the service that they expect, it is necessary to have some shared understanding of the parameters passed and the behaviour expected of the PINT Server and its attendant Executive System. The Service Identifier can be sent as the userinfo element of the Request-URI. Thus, the first line of a PINT Invitation would be of the form: INVITE @. SIP/2.0 The A Party for the Request-to-Talk and "Fax-back" variant of Request-to-Fax service can be held in the "To:" header field. In this case the "To:" header value will be different from the Request-URI. In the services where the A party is not specified, the "To:" field is free to repeat the value held in the Request-URI. This is the case for Request-to-Fax and Request-to-Hear-Content services. The B party is needed in all these milestone services, and can be held in the enclosed SDP sub-part, as the value of the "c=" field. The call format parameter can be held as part of the "m=" field value. It maps to the "transport protocol" element as described in section 3.4.2 of this document. The source format specifier is held in the "m=", as a type and optional sub-type. The latter is required for all services except Request-to-Talk. As shown earlier, the source format and source are not always required when generating requests for services. However, the inclusion in all requests of a source format specifier can make parsing the request simpler and allows for other services to be specified in the future, and so values are always given. The source format parameter is covered in section 3.4.2 as the "media type" element. The source itself is identified by an "a=fmtp:" field value, where needed. With the exception of the Request-to-Talk service, all invitations will include such a field. From the perspective of the SDP profile, it can be considered as qualifying the media sub-type, as if to say, for example, "when I say jpeg, what I mean is the following". In summary, the parameters needed by the different services are carried in fields as shown in the following table: Service Svc Param PINT/SIP or SDP field used Example value ------- --------- -------------------------- ------------- R2C ServiceID: R2C BParty: sip:123@p.com AParty: TN RFCxxxx 4567 CallFormat: voice SourceFmt: audio (--- No media sub-type sub-field value used) --- Source: (--- No source specified) --- R2F ServiceID: R2F BParty: (--- ) sip:R2F@pint.xxx.net AParty: TN RFCxxx +441213553 CallFormat: fax SourceFmt: image jpeg Source: a=fmtp:jpeg R2FB ServiceID: R2FB BParty: sip:1-730-1234@p.com AParty: TN RFCxxx +441213553 CallFormat: fax SourceFmt: image jpeg Source: a=fmtp:jpeg opr:1234 R2HC ServiceID: R2HC BParty: (--- SIP To: field not used) sip:R2HC@pint.ita.il AParty: TN RFCxxx +441213554 CallFormat: voice SourceFmt: text html Source: a=fmtp:html 7. Open Issues and Draft State 7.1. Open Issues Thre are no current technical open issues. However, this draft defines a profile on SIP and SDP, and so the current references to "RFCxxxx" and to the SIP draft await an RFC number for SIP. 7.2. Draft State Changes from version 00: * Removed References to Q763 parameters. It is difficult to see how these prameters could be passed to an Intelligent Network System, and in many potential configurations this information would not be accepted, as it did not come from a "trusted" source. * Removed references to ITU and other standardisation efforts. A PINT standards-track RFC cannot really refer to standards that are in progress. The set of IETF references are to documents that are on the Standards Track. Standardisation efforts in other organisations are subject to change and so these references are not appropriate. Changes from version 01 to previous interim version: * Corrected a few typos, orphaned internal references, and some of the examples. * Made a few corrections and added some comments on changes to be expected in the next draft. These were highlighted by **** before the affected paragraphs. * Removed references to the Telephony URL draft that has expired. It seems likely that the SIP draft will reach RFC status first. Changes from interim version to version 03: * removed previous change marks * New changes are indicated by *-*- in the text above the change * Corrected a few more typos, and re-visited the examples (thanks to Francois for the MIME comments!) * removed refs to out of date Internet Conference Architecture draft from "Introduction" * Corrected a few more typos, and re-visited the examples * added initial summary list for new PINT features in "PINT Protocol Architecture" * added a comment on the MIME version implied by PINT 1.0 in "PINT Protocol Architecture" * added sub-section number for SDP description in "PINT Protocol Architecture" * added sub-section number for SIP description in "PINT Protocol Architecture" * removed reference to Security mechanisms in "SIP Operation in PINT" * added strictures as MUST and split into separate paras for clarity in "REQUIRED and OPTIONAL elements for PINT compliance" * added comment that PINT features may be useful for SIP/SDP in "REQUIRED and OPTIONAL elements for PINT compliance" * changed E.164 number -> N.P.A., and added local dialling plan number in " Network Type "TN" and Address Type "RFCxxxx"" * added an introductory section on data object support in PINT & rewrote section in "Support for Data Objects within PINT" * added section on opaque references in "Support for Data Objects within PINT" * changed section number and reworked text in "Session Description support for included Data Objects" * removed ref to former (non-tagged) method of checking resolution type in "Session Description support for included Data Objects" * moved last part of section to the SIP description, leaving a ref. in "Session Description support for included Data Objects" * highlighted that attributes may appear as PINT URL parameters in SIP in "Attribute Tags to pass information into the Telephone Network" * moved para from end of "phone-context attribute" to main body of "Attribute Tags to pass information into the Telephone Network" * added sub-section added (by request) on "Presentation Restriction attribute" * Re-introduced sub-section on "CalledPartyAddress attributes parameters" (Q763 parameters), also by request * added comment on the general form of Q763 attributes to the original content of this section * added a comment that all PINT extensions can be covered by Strictures to "The "strict" attribute" * moved some orphaned text from "Session Description support for included Data Objects" into "Multi-part MIME" * removed sub-section on " PINT URLS within To: headers" and comments on "1-800-FLOWERS" style telephony URLs * removed references to wildcards in REGISTER messages within " REGISTER requests within PINT" * replaced example 4.8 with new examples 4.8 - 4.12 * added section on "Limitations on Available Information and Request Timing for SUBSCRIBE" * added a few references that were missing * added "Collected ABNF" appendix. Changes from version 3 to this verion: * New changes are indicated by a -*-* mark on the line before the change * added a Security Considerations Section * really added the comment on PINT/SIP implying MIME 1.0 this time! * added ABNF definition for the use of PINT attributes as URL parameters * added ABNF definition of tsp URL parameter * added a statement that there are no current technical open issues 8. References [2] M. Handley, E. Schooler, H. Schulzrinne, & J. Rosenberg, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", Internet Draft, Internet Engineering Task Force, Jan 1999. Work in progress. [3] M. Handley & V. Jacobsen, "SDP: Session Description Protocol", RFC2327, Internet Engineering Task Force, April 1998. [4] N. Freed & N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies", RFC2045, November 1996. [5] N. Freed & N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC2046, November 1996. [6] The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard -- Version 2.0", Addison-Wesley, 1996. [7] ITU-T Study Group 2, "E.164 - The International Public Network Numbering Plan", ITU-T, June 1997. [8] H. Lu et al, "Toward the PSTN/Internet Inter-Networking--Pre-PINT Implementations", Informational RFC2458, Internet Engineering Task Force, Nov 1998. [9] ITU-T Study Group XI, "Q.763 - Formats and Codes for the ISDN User Part of SS No7" ITU-T, August 1994. [10] T. Berners-Lee, R. Fielding, & L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC2396, Internet Engineering Task Force, August 1998. [11] D. Crocker, "Standard for the format of ARPA Internet text messages",RFC822, Internet Engineering Task Force, August 1982. [12] ITU-T Study Group XI, "Q.1204 - IN Distributed Functional Plane Architecture", ITU-T, February 1994. [13] T. Dierks & C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0", RFC2246, Internet Engineering Task Force, January 1999. [14] R. Thayer, N. Doraswamy & R. Glenn, "IP Security Document Roadmap", Informational RFC2411, Internet Engineering Task Force, November 1998. [15] R. Housley, W. Ford, W. Polk & D. Solo, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and CRL Profile", RFC2459, Internet Engineering Task Force, January 1999. 9. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the members of the PINT working group for comments that were helpful to the preparation of this specification. Ian Elz's comments were extremely useful to our understanding of internal PSTN operations. The SUBSCRIBE and NOTIFY requests were first suggested by Henning Schulzrinne and Jonathan Rosenberg. Appendix A: Collected ABNF phone-context-attribute = "phone-context:" phone-context-ident = network-prefix | private-prefix network-prefix = intl-network-prefix | local-network-prefix intl-network-prefix = "+" 1*DIGIT local-network-prefix = 1*DIGIT excldigandplus = (0x21-0x2d,0x2f,0x40-0x7d)) private-prefix = 1*excldigandplus 0*uric clir-attribute = "clir:" ("true" | "false") q763-nature-attribute = "Q763-nature:" ("1" | "2" | "3" | "4") q763plan-attribute = "Q763-plan:" ("1"|"2" |"3" |"4" |"5" |"6" |"7") ; -- of these, 1, 3, and 4 are defined in the text q763-INN-attribute = "Q763-INN:" ("0" | "1") strict-attribute = "strict:" attribute-list = 1*(PINT-attribute | attribute) ; -- attribute is as defined in SDP PINT-attribute = ( clir-attribute | q763-nature-attribute | q763plan-attribute | q763-INN-attribute | phone-context-attribute ) clir-parameter = "clir" "=" ("true" | "false") q763-nature-parameter = "Q763-nature" "=" ("1" | "2" | "3" | "4") q763plan-parameter = "Q763-plan" "=" ("1"|"2" |"3" |"4" |"5" |"6" |"7") q763-INN-parameter = "Q763-INN" "=" ("0" | "1") tsp-parameter = "tsp" "=" ; -- hostname is as defined in SIP phone-context-parameter = "phone-context" "=" SIP-param = ( transport-param | user-param | method-param | ttl-param | maddr-param | other-param ) ; -- the values in this list are all as defined in SIP PINT-param = ( clir-parameter | q763-nature-parameter | q763plan-parameter | q763-INN-parameter| tsp-parameter | phone-context-parameter ) URL-parameter = (SIP-param | PINT-param) ; -- redefinition of SIP's URL-parameter to include ones defined in PINT Require-header = "Require:" 1*(required-extensions) required-extensions = ("org.ietf.sip.subscribe" | "org.ietf.sdp.strict") connection-field = ["c=" nettype space addrtype space connection-address CRLF] ; -- this is the original definiton from SDP ; -- the following are PINT interpretations and modifications nettype = ("IN"|"TN") addrtype = (INAddrType | TNAddrType) INAddrType = ("IP4"|"IP6") TNAddrType = ("RFCxxxx"|) OtherAddrType = (X-Token) ; -- X-token is as defined in RFC2045 addr = (FQDN | unicast-address | TNAddr) ; -- FQDN and unicast address specified in SDP TNAddr = (RFCxxxxAddr|OtherAddr) ; -- TNAddr defined only in context of nettype == "TN" RFCxxxxAddr = (INPAddr|LDPAddr) INPAddr = "+" POS-DIGIT 0*(("-" DIGIT)|DIGIT) LDPAddr = DIGIT 0*(("-" DIGIT)|DIGIT) OtherAddr = 1*uric ; -- uric is as defined in RFC2396 media-field = "m=" media space port space proto 0*(space fmt) CRLF media = ("application"|"audio"|"image"|"text") ; -- is any MIME discrete type. Only those listed are used in PINT 1.0 port = "0" proto = (INProto|TNProto) INProto = 1* (alpha-numeric) ; -- this is the "classic" SDP protocol, defined if nettype == "IN" TNProto = ("phone"|"fax"|"pager") ; -- this is the PINT protocol, defined if nettype == "TN" fmt = ; -- subtype as defined in RFC2046. Must be a subtype of type held in ; -- associated media sub-field pint-fmtp = "a=fmtp:" 1* resolution = ( | | ) urref = "uri:" ; -- URI-Reference defined in RFC2396 opaque-ref = "opr:" 0*uric sub-part-ref = "spr:" Content-ID ; -- Content-ID is as defined in RFC2046 and RFC822 Appendix B: Author's Addresses Lawrence Conroy Siemens Roke Manor Research Roke Manor Old Salisbury Lane Romsey, Hampshire U.K. SO51 0ZN lwc@roke.co.uk +44 (1794) 833666 Scott Petrack MetaTel, Inc. 284 North Ave. Weston, MA 02493 scott.petrack@metatel.com +1 (781)-891-9000 --============_-1291401690==_============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" All the best, Lawrence ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | Lawrence Conroy, | "These Opinions must be mine, 'cos if they | | Roke Manor Research | were my Company's they'd charge you for them"| |- lwc@roke.co.uk ---+- Tel: +44 1794 833666 Fax: +44 1794 833434 --| --============_-1291401690==_============-- --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Mon Mar 8 04:05:53 1999 Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA25510 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 04:05:52 -0500 (EST) Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 6A67E7FD1; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 03:59:16 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id CEE1F7FD3; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 03:59:15 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com To: pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Message-ID: <36E38F67.5FA0351@rennes.enst-bretagne.fr> Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 09:50:47 +0100 From: Hossam Afifi X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: E.164 in IPv6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A draft for coding E.164 numbers in IPv6 addresses is available at: http://www.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr/~afifi/e164ipv6.asc It helps in mobile telephony to have only one identification. your comments are welcomed on that draft submitted to the IPng WG. Hossam Afifi Jim Bound Laurent Toutain --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Thu Mar 11 17:33:20 1999 Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13607 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 17:33:19 -0500 (EST) Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 7E513800C; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 11:06:38 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id 7B88F803C; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 11:01:50 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com To: "megaco@BayNetworks.COM" , "sigtran@BayNetworks.COM" , pint list Message-ID: <36E6B6E0.7512A377@lucent.com> Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 13:16:01 -0500 From: Alec Brusilovsky Reply-To: abrusilovsky@lucent.com Organization: Lucent Technologies, Bell Laboratories Innovation X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 Original-To: "megaco@BayNetworks.COM" , "sigtran@BayNetworks.COM" , pint list Subject: PIN BOF Announcement Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------2345DAF4BCC01175039B358D" Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------2345DAF4BCC01175039B358D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On the advice of the Transport Area Directorate I would like to publish this announcement regarding PIN BOF on March 15 from 3:30 through 5:30 p.m. PIN: PSTN - IP Notification With the proliferation and wide acceptance of the Internet, and more so with the convergence of the Internet and PSTN, there is an increasing desire for events occurring on the PSTN domain to be propagated to the Internet domain. The protocol of the PINT working group is used to pass requests for service from an IP host to a telephone network, and to receive responses back from the telephone network. But some Interworking services require that requests for services go in the opposite direction: from a telephone network to an IP host. The Internet Draft "Need for PSTN Internet Notification (PIN) Services" is available from the official IETF directory and explains the need and gives some requirements for such requests for service and for notification. The PIN BOF will examine the sorts of Telephone Services that present requirements for such requests from a telephone network to a set of IP hosts. It is important that we agree on the scope of requests for service and notification that such services might generate. There are various working groups and protocols (most notably IPTEL, PINT, and MEGACO) which might have relevance for the sort of services we want to enable. In addition to a discussion of the scope and requirements of an eventual PIN working group, the PIN BOF will need to understand if those requirements are being fulfilled by these or other working groups. At the BOF there will be a series of short presentations of various solutions in industry use. These will be examined only to help us understand the scope of the services we want to support. Our goal is to decide whether or not a new protocol or protocol family is needed, and, if so, what its scope and requirements should be. The PIN mailing list is located at ietf-pin@lists.research.bell-labs.com. To subscribe or unsubscribe yourself to the mailing list, send E-mail to ietf-pin-request@lists.research.bell-labs.com with the single word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" (without the quotes) in the body of the message. Please do not send subscription requests to ietf-pin@lists.research.bell-labs.com. Regards, Alec Brusilovsky --------------2345DAF4BCC01175039B358D Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="abrusilovsky.vcf" Content-Description: Card for Alec Brusilovsky Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="abrusilovsky.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit begin:vcard n:Brusilovsky;Alec x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:Lucent (jg7290000) version:2.1 email;internet:abrusilovsky@lucent.com title:MTS tel;fax:+1 630 713 5840 tel;work:+1 630 713 8401 adr;quoted-printable:;;IHP 1A-423=0D=0A263 Shuman Blvd,P O Box 3050;Naperville;IL;60566-7050;U S x-mozilla-cpt:;0 fn:Alec Brusilovsky end:vcard --------------2345DAF4BCC01175039B358D-- --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Wed Mar 17 18:34:12 1999 Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA06688 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 18:34:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id D78075336; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 12:24:56 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id 31E72533B; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 12:24:56 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 12:24:04 -0500 Message-Id: <199903151724.MAA11511@holta.ho.lucent.com> From: igorf@holta.ho.lucent.com (Igor Faynberg) To: Chip Sharp , lwc@roke.co.uk (Lawrence Conroy), pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Cc: igorf@holta.ho.lucent.com (Igor Faynberg), hlu@holta.ho.lucent.com (Hui-Lan Lu), scott.petrack@metatel.com Subject: Re: Draft v.4 Content-Type: text Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk Chip, Although I am not an author of these documents, I believe their status is exactly the same as that of your most recent message (or my present response). In other words, they are e-mail messages to the group. Lawrence's posting is the almost-final version of the PINT protocol document, on which he has been asking comments from the group. It seems to me it is much better to get the bugs out before publishing something as a draft (and then republishing, and repubblishing, and...). This saves time and money to the IETF secretariat and bandwith--to all. Same about Mr. Buller's posting. He has invited a discussion before submitting a draft. Since neither document has been submitted as a draft, naturally the boiler plate is not an issue. With this, I see no cause for concern, and I hope my response will alleviate yours. With best regards, Igor --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Wed Mar 17 21:15:49 1999 Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA08016 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 21:15:49 -0500 (EST) Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 66A3452BF; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 22:33:15 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id B9E9352C5; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 22:33:14 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Message-Id: <199903150325.TAA14620@mailman.cisco.com> X-Sender: chsharp@dogwood.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2 Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 21:42:09 -0500 To: lwc@roke.co.uk (Lawrence Conroy), pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com From: Chip Sharp Subject: Re: Draft v.4 Cc: faynberg@lucent.com, HuiLan.Lu@lucent.com, scott.petrack@metatel.com In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk I'm concerned that many of the drafts that are being submitted to this list have not been submitted as an I-D even though they seem to have I-D like file names in their header. I'm also concerned that many of them, including the draft mentioned here, do not have the required boilerplate text for an I-D, including the required reference to Section 10 of RFC2026. What is the status of the following documents? draft-ietf-pint-profile-04.txt draft-buller-saint-00.txt http://www.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr/~afifi/e164ipv6.asc At 11:46 AM 3/6/99 +0000, Lawrence Conroy wrote: >Please find enclosed the latest version of the Draft. > >Changes (as trailed a couple of weeks ago) are some text on Security, a few >more typos cleaned up, and the last? of the ABNF has been added. > >If you have any comments, please send them to me (as this bit's my fault), >or to the list if you prefer. > > > > > >All the best, Lawrence >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >| Lawrence Conroy, | "These Opinions must be mine, 'cos if they | >| Roke Manor Research | were my Company's they'd charge you for them"| >|- lwc@roke.co.uk ---+- Tel: +44 1794 833666 Fax: +44 1794 833434 --| > -------------------------------------------------- Chip Sharp voice: +1 (919) 851-2085 Cisco Systems Consulting Eng. - Telco Reality - Love it or Leave it. -------------------------------------------------- --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Wed Mar 17 22:44:18 1999 Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA10307 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 22:44:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id D5F41537D; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 18:11:26 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id 567475349; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 17:45:41 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 11:48:31 -0800 (PST) From: Dan Wing To: Hossam Afifi Cc: bound@zk3.dec.com, toutain@rennes.enst-bretagne.fr, pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Subject: Re: E.164 in IPv6 In-Reply-To: <36E38F67.5FA0351@rennes.enst-bretagne.fr> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk On Mon, 8 Mar 1999 09:50 +0100, Hossam Afifi wrote: > > A draft for coding E.164 numbers in IPv6 addresses is available at: > > http://www.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr/~afifi/e164ipv6.asc > > It helps in mobile telephony to have only one identification. > > your comments are welcomed on that draft submitted to the IPng WG. This seems like a layering violation to me. IP addresses are for routing, not for identifying or routing to E.164 endpoints. Other issues: Who "owns" and who will delegate the various country-codes necessary for this scheme to work? The answer appears to be related to the current problem the Internet is having with TLDs. How does this work with number portability? In the US, an E.164 number could move to a different CLEC which would then require a routing table exception be made for that E.164 number -- and after a few years the routing tables would lose a lot of their aggregation, no? And, as is obvious from the name of the I-D, this scheme doesn't work with IPv4, which is a concern as almost all networks are still running "legacy" IPv4. -Dan Wing --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Wed Mar 17 22:52:07 1999 Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA10374 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 22:52:05 -0500 (EST) Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id E6A87533D; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 12:41:16 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id 410B8533F; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 12:41:16 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com X-Sender: lwc@209.32.92.249 (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 11:38:09 -0600 To: Chip Sharp From: lwc@roke.co.uk (Lawrence Conroy) Subject: Re: Draft v.4 Cc: lwc@roke.co.uk (Lawrence Conroy), pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com, faynberg@lucent.com, HuiLan.Lu@lucent.com, scott.petrack@metatel.com Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk At 9:42 pm 14/3/99, Chip Sharp wrote: >I'm concerned that many of the drafts that are being submitted to this list >have not been submitted as an I-D even though they seem to have I-D like file >names in their header. > >I'm also concerned that many of them, including the draft mentioned here, do >not have the required boilerplate text for an I-D, including the required >reference to Section 10 of RFC2026. > >-------------------------------------------------- >Chip Sharp voice: +1 (919) 851-2085 >Cisco Systems Consulting Eng. - Telco >Reality - Love it or Leave it. >-------------------------------------------------- To which I reply: (i) Jim's SAINT draft seems to have fallen off the IETF list - Both Jim and I were somewhat surprised at this, as it was issued to the IETF (we thought) at the same time it was sent to the PINT list. (ii) the PINT draft not being on the IETF list - hmm...my fault - It JUST missed the IETF deadline. I will, of course, submit it as soon as the IETF is over and the block on Draft release is clear. (iii) Boilerplate (including the ref to RFC 2066). Again, my fault. I will include it before issue to the IETF (so it WAS no bad thing that it missed the deadline :). Thanks for reading the draft and making these comments. All the best, Lawrence ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | Lawrence Conroy, | "These Opinions must be mine, 'cos if they | | Roke Manor Research | were my Company's they'd charge you for them"| |- lwc@roke.co.uk ---+- Tel: +44 1794 833666 Fax: +44 1794 833434 --| --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Fri Mar 19 05:50:26 1999 Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA13293 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 05:50:26 -0500 (EST) Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id CFDC452D3; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 05:47:17 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id 1399E52D4; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 05:47:16 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Message-ID: <36F28DA6.13FEE9B0@rennes.enst-bretagne.fr> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 11:47:18 -0600 From: Laurent Toutain Organization: ENST Bretagne X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dan Wing Cc: "afifi@rennes.enst-bretagne.fr" , Jim Bound , pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Subject: Re: E.164 in IPv6 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dan Wing wrote: > On Mon, 8 Mar 1999 09:50 +0100, Hossam Afifi wrote: > > > > > A draft for coding E.164 numbers in IPv6 addresses is available at: > > > > http://www.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr/~afifi/e164ipv6.asc > > > > It helps in mobile telephony to have only one identification. > > > > your comments are welcomed on that draft submitted to the IPng WG. > > This seems like a layering violation to me. IP addresses are for routing, > not for identifying or routing to E.164 endpoints. > I aggree with you, but the goal is to use these addresses when the routing can be done at the layer two. For example when you use a mobile phone or a pager, it's the operator network that knows how to reach you. That's why we propose the IPv6/E.164 addresses. It ease the management of the adresses for those equipment, but you cannot use them if you don't have this kind of routing at layer 2. > > Other issues: > > Who "owns" and who will delegate the various country-codes necessary for > this scheme to work? The answer appears to be related to the current > problem the Internet is having with TLDs. it's the telco problem, I don't know if we can have a country code for Internet. This was a proposal of the ETSI's TIPHON working group which works on IP telephony, but if I have good information, this was refused by the ITU. > > > How does this work with number portability? In the US, an E.164 number > could move to a different CLEC which would then require a routing table > exception be made for that E.164 number -- and after a few years the > routing tables would lose a lot of their aggregation, no? the same answer, we don't change the telephone network, we just give simple identifier to mobile equipments > > > And, as is obvious from the name of the I-D, this scheme doesn't work with > IPv4, which is a concern as almost all networks are still running "legacy" > IPv4. when you use IPv4 addresses it is more complex, you have to manage a mapping between E.164 and IPv4 addresses. With IPv6 it's easier, we think it'a a good point to put IPv6-only stack in mobile equipment. During the transition period, the interconnection with IPv4 network can be done by header translation at the telco interconnection point. > > > -Dan Wing --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Fri Mar 19 10:30:56 1999 Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA15766 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 10:30:55 -0500 (EST) Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 123A052D4; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 08:03:18 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id 6454D52D6; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 08:03:17 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Message-ID: <01BE7211.1A545EE0.mwelser@highway.telekom.at> From: Michael Welser To: "pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com" Subject: RE: E.164 in IPv6 Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 14:02:18 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-Mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Other issues: > > Who "owns" and who will delegate the various country-codes necessary for > this scheme to work? The answer appears to be related to the current > problem the Internet is having with TLDs. it's the telco problem, I don't know if we can have a country code for Internet. This was a proposal of the ETSI's TIPHON working group which works on IP telephony, but if I have good information, this was refused by the ITU. True. That was rejected in the first round. Current proposal is now to have a UPT number assigned (878 00) for IP Telephony. This may be discussed in the upcoming ITU-T SG2 meeting in May. Michael Welser ---------------- Telekom Austria AG TKZ Abt 16 Arsenal Objekt 22 Postfach 111 A-1103 Wien +43 1 79711 1622 mwelser@highway.telekom.at http://www.telekom.at http://www.aon.at --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Fri Mar 19 11:32:08 1999 Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16368 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 11:32:08 -0500 (EST) Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 6676C52ED; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 11:01:16 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id BCA5152EF; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 11:01:15 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Message-ID: <007f01be7221$68451e40$4bbd74cc@ltd> From: "Marty Tennant" To: "Michael Welser" , Subject: Re: E.164 in IPv6 Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 10:58:58 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The telco's do not own country codes. They also do not own telephone numbers or other telephone number resources. These resources collectively belong to "the people". However, assignment "guidelines" sometimes make their use impossible. I agree that we have similarities between TLD's and Country Codes, along with other codes of interest. It will be interesting to see how the powers-that-be attempt to continue the monopoly mindset that currently controls these resources. In the U.S., they are continuing to treat these resources as if they owned them and that non-discriminatory access to them was not required by law. Marty Tennant Low Tech Designs, Inc. "Bringing Technology Down to Earth"sm -----Original Message----- From: Michael Welser To: pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Date: Friday, March 19, 1999 10:35 AM Subject: RE: E.164 in IPv6 >> Other issues: >> >> Who "owns" and who will delegate the various country-codes necessary for >> this scheme to work? The answer appears to be related to the current >> problem the Internet is having with TLDs. > >it's the telco problem, I don't know if we can have a country code for >Internet. This was a >proposal of the ETSI's TIPHON working group which works on IP telephony, >but >if I have good information, this was refused by the ITU. > >True. That was rejected in the first round. Current proposal is now to have >a UPT number assigned (878 00) for IP Telephony. This may be discussed in >the upcoming ITU-T SG2 meeting in May. > >Michael Welser > >---------------- >Telekom Austria AG >TKZ Abt 16 >Arsenal Objekt 22 >Postfach 111 >A-1103 Wien >+43 1 79711 1622 >mwelser@highway.telekom.at >http://www.telekom.at >http://www.aon.at > > > >--------- >This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. > --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Tue Mar 23 08:00:14 1999 Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA19860 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:00:07 -0500 (EST) Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 8289952D9; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 06:35:39 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id A7F6B52D8; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 06:19:15 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Message-Id: <199903231058.FAA08791@holta.ho.lucent.com> From: "Greg Ratta" To: pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 05:58:14 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/enriched; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable Subject: Correspondence from ITU-T SG 11 Reply-To: gratta@lucent.com Cc: sob@harvard.edu, vern@ee.lbl.gov X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-printable 0100,0100,0100Times New RomanThe following correspondence from ITU-T SG 11 to the participants of the PINT WG of the IETF: Question(s): SG11. Q.11, 12, 21 Source: ITU-T =96 SG 11 SoI Title: Potential impacts of anonymous Internet calls To: IETF Transport Directorate, PINT WG, Q.24/13 Approval level: ITU-T SG11 Meeting date: March 1999 For: Information Deadline: November 1999 Contact: Kaoru KENYOSHI (Q.21/11 Rapporteur) NEC corporation 1131, HINODE, ABIKO, CHIBA 270-11 JAPAN T: + 81 471 85 7125 F: + 81 471 85 7907 kenyoshi@fnw.abk.nec.co.jp0100,0100,0100 __________ During its March 1999 meeting, ITU-T SG11 participants reviewed= with keen interest the most recent results of the PINT working group of the IETF. In addition to those who are concerned mostly with functional architectures (Q5/11) and who have historically been the main source of interaction with PINT, this review involved experts in many other aspects of communications. In particular, those responsible for ISDN signaling would like to share an observation that may have impact on the utility of the PINT specification in certain public network environments. It is the understanding of these reviewers that it may be possi= ble for the =93calling user=94 to initiate a phone call anonymously from an IP phone service. From an ISDN perspective it would be preferable that a calling line number (E.164-based) is always passed to the network with a =93restricted=94 indicator to provide for a number of situations involving= an anonymous call. =93Calling Line Identification=94 (CLI) is not just used f= or the presentation type services that have been accommodated in the latest PINT draft specification. A few of the other service types that ta= ke advantage of CLI are listed below. outSupport of emergency services A caller may not always be in a position to give the emergency = operator the real location of the emergency. In this case the =93CLI=94 is used to determine the location and dispatch the Police, Fire Brigade or Ambulance. outMalicious Call ID Unfortunately, not all calls are made with the best of intentio= ns to either individuals, in the form of harassment, or to companies, e.g. a plumber sending a rival plumber to fictitious jobs. outNetwork management <= /flushboth> Telephone companies require this information so that the networ= k can be properly managed for maintenance, dimensioning, and billing purposes. It is hoped that this information is of use in the PINT studies= . If additional information is desired, then please do not hesitate to ask. Greg Ratta, Vice Chairman, ITU-T WP 1/11 Lucent Technologies Tel: +1 732 332 5174, Fax: +1 732 949 1196, gratta@lucent.com --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Tue Mar 23 17:15:44 1999 Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA27985 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 17:15:43 -0500 (EST) Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 29D8752C6; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 17:09:40 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id 46C2852CA; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 17:09:37 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Message-Id: <199903232207.RAA27741@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-To: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pint-saint-00.txt Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 17:07:44 -0500 Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the PSTN and Internet Internetworking Working Group of the IETF. Title : A proposal for the provisioning of PSTN initiated services running on the Internet Author(s) : J. Buller Filename : draft-ietf-pint-saint-00.txt Pages : 14 Date : 22-Mar-99 This Internet Draft has arisen out of work concentrating on the interconnection of IP and the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) undertaken within the PINT working group. Efforts within this group have, to date, concentrated on the initiation of PSTN services from the Internet. This Internet Draft aims to describe a possible architecture for the implementation of services initiated from the PSTN such as, but not limited to, Internet Call Waiting (ICW). It also identifies the possibility of using this class of service, in conjunction with the PINT work already undertaken, in order to provide a third flavour of service. This Internet Draft deliberately does not to define the protocols for these kinds of services, although descriptions contained within it do use Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) terminology. The purpose of this Internet Draft is to ascertain the level of interest in pursuing this area of work. It is submitted with the goal of forming the basis of an Informational RFC and thereby further work on the standardisation of the provision of these kinds of services. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pint-saint-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-pint-saint-00.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pint-saint-00.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <19990322155136.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pint-saint-00.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-pint-saint-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <19990322155136.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Wed Mar 24 07:56:56 1999 Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA20380 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 07:56:55 -0500 (EST) Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id D774C52C2; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 07:53:16 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id 393ED52CC; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 07:53:16 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com X-Sender: lwc@derek.roke.co.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 12:50:18 +0000 To: pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com From: lwc@roke.co.uk (Lawrence Conroy) Subject: SG11-Liaison - translations Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk Hi All, for those of you (me included !) who can't read text/enriched, here's my transliteration of the Liaison statement from SG11 in plain text, and a stab at HTML. As I have the honour?! of being one of the authors of the PINT draft, and I put in (then took out, then re-inserted) the text in question, I'll try to put together some notes in response. ----------------------------- The following correspondence from ITU-T SG 11 to the participants of the PINT WG of the IETF: Question(s): SG11. Q.11, 12, 21 Source: ITU-T / SG 11 SoI Title: Potential impacts of anonymous Internet calls To: IETF Transport Directorate, PINT WG, Q.24/13 Approval level:ITU-T SG11 Meeting date: March 1999 For: Information Deadline: November 1999 Contact: Kaoru KENYOSHI (Q.21/11 Rapporteur) NEC Corporation 1131, HINODE, ABIKO, CHIBA 270-11 JAPAN T: + 81 471 85 7125 F: + 81 471 85 7907 kenyoshi@fnw.abk.nec.co.jp __________ During its March 1999 meeting, ITU-T SG11 participants reviewed with keen interest the most recent results of the PINT working group of the IETF. In addition to those who are concerned mostly with functional architectures (Q5/11) and who have historically been the main source of interaction with PINT, this review involved experts in many other aspects of communications. In particular, those responsible for ISDN signaling would like to share an observation that may have impact on the utility of the PINT specification in certain public network environments. It is the understanding of these reviewers that it may be possible for the "calling user" to initiate a phone call anonymously from an IP phone service. From an ISDN perspective it would be preferable that a calling line number (E.164-based) is always passed to the network with a "restricted" indicator to provide for a number of situations involving an anonymous call. "Calling Line Identification" (CLI) is not just used for the presentation type services that have been accommodated in the latest PINT draft specification. A few of the other service types that take advantage of CLI are listed below. * Support of emergency services A caller may not always be in a position to give the emergency operator the real location of the emergency. In this case the "CLI" is used to determine the location and dispatch the Police, Fire Brigade or Ambulance. * Malicious Call ID Unfortunately, not all calls are made with the best of intentions to either individuals, in the form of harassment, or to companies, e.g. a plumber sending a rival plumber to fictitious jobs. * Network Management Telephone companies require this information so that the network can be properly managed for maintenance, dimensioning, and billing purposes. It is hoped that this information is of use in the PINT studies. If additional information is desired, then please do not hesitate to ask. Greg Ratta, Vice Chairman, ITU-T WP 1/11 Lucent Technologies Tel: +1 732 332 5174, Fax: +1 732 949 1196, gratta@lucent.com ----------------------- Liaison from SG11 The following correspondence from ITU-T SG 11 to the participants of the PINT WG of the IETF:

Question(s):	SG11. Q.11, 12, 21
Source:	ITU-T / SG 11 SoI
Title:	Potential impacts of anonymous Internet calls
To:	IETF Transport Directorate, PINT WG, Q.24/13
Approval level:	ITU-T SG11
Meeting date:	March 1999
For:	Information
Deadline:	November 1999

Contact: Kaoru KENYOSHI (Q.21/11 Rapporteur)
NEC Corporation
1131, HINODE, ABIKO,
CHIBA 270-11
JAPAN

T: + 81 471 85 7125
F: + 81 471 85 7907

kenyoshi@fnw.abk.nec.co.jp

__________

During its March 1999 meeting, ITU-T SG11 participants reviewed with keen interest the most recent results of the PINT working group of the IETF. In addition to those who are concerned mostly with functional architectures (Q5/11) and who have historically been the main source of interaction with PINT, this review involved experts in many other aspects of communications. In particular, those responsible for ISDN signaling would like to share an observation that may have impact on the utility of the PINT specification in certain public network environments.

It is the understanding of these reviewers that it may be possible for the "calling user" to initiate a phone call anonymously from an IP phone service. From an ISDN perspective it would be preferable that a calling line number (E.164-based) is always passed to the network with a "restricted" indicator to provide for a number of situations involving an anonymous call. "Calling Line Identification" (CLI) is not just used for the presentation type services that have been accommodated in the latest PINT draft specification. A few of the other service types that take advantage of CLI are listed below.

Support of emergency services

A caller may not always be in a position to give the emergency operator the real location of the emergency. In this case the "CLI" is used to determine the location and dispatch the Police, Fire Brigade or Ambulance.

Malicious Call ID

Unfortunately, not all calls are made with the best of intentions to either individuals, in the form of harassment, or to companies, e.g. a plumber sending a rival plumber to fictitious jobs.

Network Management

Telephone companies require this information so that the network can be properly managed for maintenance, dimensioning, and billing purposes.

It is hoped that this information is of use in the PINT studies. If additional information is desired, then please do not hesitate to ask.

Greg Ratta, Vice Chairman, ITU-T WP 1/11 Lucent Technologies
Tel: +1 732 332 5174, Fax: +1 732 949 1196, gratta@lucent.com

------------------------- ...and now we return you to your normal programme... All the best, Lawrence ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | Lawrence Conroy, | "These Opinions must be mine, 'cos if they | | Roke Manor Research | were my Company's they'd charge you for them"| |- lwc@roke.co.uk ---+- Tel: +44 1794 833666 Fax: +44 1794 833434 --| --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Wed Mar 24 10:09:03 1999 Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23240 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:09:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 2733752CD; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:05:45 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id 6608652CE; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:05:44 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:05:03 -0500 Message-Id: <199903241505.KAA22206@holta.ho.lucent.com> From: igorf@holta.ho.lucent.com (Igor Faynberg) To: gratta@holta.ho.lucent.com (Gregory A Ratta), pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Cc: sob@harvard.edu, vern@ee.lbl.gov, kenyoshi@fnw.abk.nec.co.jp Subject: Re: Correspondence from ITU-T SG 11 Content-Type: text Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk On March 22 Greg Ratta wrote: It is the understanding of these reviewers that it may be possible for the "calling user" to initiate a phone call anonymously from an IP phone service. From an ISDN perspective it would be preferable that a calling line number (E.164-based) is always passed to the network with a "restricted" indicator to provide for a number of situations involving an anonymous call. > Actually, none of the PINT building blocks (or possible services that can be built from them) allow to "initiate a phone call...from an IP phone service." PINT services start with the request from an Internet appliance (e.g., a PC) to create a strictly PSTN terminal call, which is to be set up by PSTN. With this correction, however, it should be noted that authentication is indeed a very real problem in PINT, and it has been addressed in several PINT drafts and presentations. Specifically, the issue of the use of E.164-based numbering, has been discussed at length (cf the PINT archive) as a critical one. Steve and I would ask the editors, Lawrence Conroy and Scott Petrack, to elaborate on the conclusions. But the chairs of PINT, as the enforcers of the PINT charter, still insist on keeping the IP telephony issues OUT of the discussion on this list, so whatever discussion is to follow must be kept in the framework of the charter. I would like to thank Greg and SOI experts for the reviewing of the latest PINT draft and invite them to join the discussion on the list. If there is an authentication issue specifically relevant to PINT, we need to resolve it as soon as possible, and we will greatly appreciate the help of our Q.21/11 colleagues! And while we are on the topic, I would also ask Hui-Lan, who was designated by WP 4/11 as the official representative from Q.5/11 (IN Architecture) to PINT WG (now she has become a shuttle!) to post the relevant proceedings of Q.5 (those include the IN information flows based on the China MII contribution, and they will be very useful). I think the best way to proceed with that is to put the materials on the PINT documents page and inform the list when that is done. Again, I wish to thank SG 11 experts for their interest in PINT and help, and I am looking forward to an interesting and productive discussion. Cooperation with SG 11 is indeed part of the PINT charter. Igor Faynberg --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Wed Mar 24 11:13:24 1999 Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24613 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 11:13:23 -0500 (EST) Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id CA21552D1; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 11:07:41 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id C1FA252CC; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 11:07:35 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 16:55:00 +0100 (MET) X-Sender: tm@mailhost.fokus.gmd.de Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tsg11q8@itu.int, tsg11jrg@itu.int, icintpc@eurescom.de, comswtc@GMU.EDU, tina99pc@kestrel.hpl.hp.com, telecom@omg.org, tina-in-wg@tinac.com, pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com, iptel@lists.research.bell-labs.com, agcore@bxl.dg13.cec.be, agclub@bxl.dg13.cec.be From: Thomas Magedanz Subject: Call for Papers - Intelligent Networks in the New Millenium Cc: igorf@holta.ho.lucent.com, horn@nortelnetworks.com, jvisser@nortelnetworks.com, venieris@theseas.softlab.ece.ntua.gr, Karmouch@site.uottawa.ca, gavras@eurescom.de, fogarty@eurescom.de, ralf.rieken@oen.siemens.de, Frank.Burghardt@sietec.de, max.sevcik@scn.de, straeteh@rc.bel.alcatel.be, zuidwegj@rc.bel.alcatel.be, joechester@compuserve.com, christian.chabernaud@vz.cit.alcatel.fr, jay.hilton@telops.gte.com, SCHOLTFJ@telkom.co.za, schulzk@tzd.telekom.de, EUSNILM@am1.ericsson.se, rm@broadcom.ie, trigila@fub.it, Kimmo.Raatikainen@cs.Helsinki.fi, lorenzo.faglia@italtel.it, Fabrizio.Zizza@italtel.it, jdrosen@dnrc.bell-labs.com, lwc@roke.co.uk, abrusilovsky@lucent.com, couturie@alcatel.fr, Didier.Guy@cnet.francetelecom.fr, carlo.licciardi@cselt.it, bruno.chatras@cnet.francetelecom.fr, huitema@research.bellcore.com, stadler@ctr.columbia.edu, raymond.forbes@marconicomms.com, bruno.chatras@cnet.francetelecom.fr, kennedy@eurescom.de, gavras@eurescom.de, kimmo.kakko@tkk.tele.fi Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk Ladies and Gentlemen! I think this CfP may be of interest for you, as it may be a target for dissemination of your results. Please distribute it also to colleagues who may be interested. Thank you. [Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this announcement.] ******************************************************************* Call for Papers IEEE Communications Magazine Feature Topic "Intelligent Networks in the New Millenium" scheduled for June 2000 Guest Editors: R. Glitho and T. Magedanz The Intelligent Network (IN) is an architectural framework developed in the 80s for the rapid and uniform creation, deployment, provision and management of advanced telecommunication services. The IN relies on the separation of call controll and service control to ease the deployment of new services. The international standard bodies, namely ITU-T, ETSI and ANSI, introduced the concept of IN capability sets (CSs) which allows for the stepwise extension of IN capabilities, and cost reduction in IN deployment. The last IEEE Communications Magazine feature topic on IN dates back to 1993, when the first CS was finalized. IN has evolved quite a lot since then; today work on CS-3 is nearly completed and work on CS-4 as been started. This evolution is driven on the one hand by the application of IN principles (for a unification of service creation and provision) to new bearer networks, such as mobile networks, brdband networks and most recently the internet. On the other hand new technologies from the IT world, such as CORBA, new object-oriented service architectures, such as TINA, and most recently agent technologies, have raised the question of interworking and migration/evolution. The goal of this feature topic is to present tutorial oriented articles and status papers of completed work, which describe the recent evolution and sketch the future of IN. Therefore we solicit papers related to the following subjects: - IN standards evolution (i.e., CS-3, and CS-4) - IN application to mobile networks (e.g., CAMEL, WIN, UMTS, IMT-2000) - IN application to internet telephony and internet services - IN and new technologies (e.g., CORBA, agents) - IN interworking with alternative emerging architectures (e.g., TINA) Authors should submit their papers following the style requirements of the IEEE Communicatons Magazine in electronic form (PDF preferred) to the following Guest Editors: Dr. Thomas Magedanz Roch Glitho IKV++ GmbH Ericsson Research Kurfuerstendamm 173-174 8400 Decarie blvd. D-10707 Berlin, Germany Town of Mount Royal H4P 2N2 Email: magedanz@ikv.de Email:lmcrocl@LMC.ericsson.se Important Dates: Deadline for submissions: September 1st 1999 Acceptance notification: December 1st 1999 Final manuscript due date: February 1st 2000 Publication date: June 2000 ******************************************************************* Best regards, Dr. Thomas Magedanz IKV++ GmbH, Kurfuerstendamm 173-174, D-10707 Berlin, Germany Fon: + 49 171 172 70 70 Email: magedanz@ikv.de Fax: + 49 30-881-90-21 --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Fri Mar 26 17:12:10 1999 Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03045 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 17:12:10 -0500 (EST) Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 8C49C52BF; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 17:09:14 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id D8C2552C5; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 17:09:13 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Date: Fri, 26 Mar 99 16:00:41 -0600 Message-Id: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) To: Cc: From: "Jay Hilton" Reply-To: Subject: ITU-T Study Group 11, Question 5 Liaisons to PINT X-Incognito-Sn: 559 X-Incognito-Version: 4.11.23 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk Hui-Lan Lu's appointment as SG 11 (Q5/11) liaison to the IETF PINT Working Group was approved on 12 March at the Working Party 4/11 plenary meeting and on 15 March at the SG 11 intermediate plenary. The final, revised version of the SG 11 Plenary Report (TD PL/11-104R1) has not yet been posted. (TD PL/11-104 currently has no mention of the WP 4/11 details beyond statistics regarding approvals of Recommendations.) The SoI Meeting Report is TD PL/11-84R1. Liaisons attached to the SOI Meeting Report include only one addressed to directly to PINT (and to Q24/13) regarding "Potential impacts of anonymous Internet calls". The contact for this liaison is listed as Mr. Kenyoshi (Q21/11 Rapporteur), presumably because the liaison addresses ISDN services such as Calling Line ID, Malicious Call ID, and Support of Emergency Services. The following documentation is available: Q5/11 Meeting Report (TD 4/11-67): from Section 3.2 "... Mrs. Lu is proposed to WP 4/11 to be appointed as the official liaison contact person to the IETF PINT Working Group." This was approved at the 12 March WP 4/11 plenary. Working Party 4/11 Report (TD PL/11-71): from Section 8.4 "... WP 4/11 proposes that Mrs. Hui-Lan Lu (Lucent, USA) be approved by SG 11 as the liaison contact person for SG 11, Q5/11 to IETF PINT working group. Specifically, WP 4/11 requests that Mrs. Lu share the work in TD GEN/11-123 (plus addendum) with the IETF for their information." This was approved at the 15 March SG11 intermediate plenary. I trust that this clarifies Working Party 4's liaison relationship with the PINT activity in the IETF. Regards, Jay R. Hilton Chair - SG11, WP4/11 --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Sat Mar 27 09:02:06 1999 Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA24384 for ; Sat, 27 Mar 1999 09:02:05 -0500 (EST) Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 2E4D752CB; Sat, 27 Mar 1999 08:59:16 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id 8A3DA52CD; Sat, 27 Mar 1999 08:59:15 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com X-Sender: lwc@derek.roke.co.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 13:57:37 +0100 To: pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com From: lwc@roke.co.uk (Lawrence Conroy) Subject: Correspondence from ITU-T SG 11 Cc: HuiLan.Lu@lucent.com, kenyoshi@fnw.abk.nec.co.jp, jay.hilton@telops.gte.com Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk First, many thanks to the SoI experts for reviewing the latest PINT draft, and to Jay Hilton for clarifying the relationship with the ITU. There were a number of points that were relevent to PINT in the note posted to the list for Mr. Kenyoshi. I'll attempt to address those here. Initially, however, I would like to clear up an apparent misunderstanding. PINT is NOT concerned with VoIP; instead, it exists to deliver service requests from the Internet to the PSTN/IN, and potentially to receive responses from the I.N. on the disposition of the service requested. Re. Validation of User-supplied PSTN addresses: Where the "PINT services" specify numbers that will be delivered to the PSTN, the situation with current PSTN services that specify phone numbers by user input would seem to apply. My understanding is that the receiving PSTN/IN entity will validate these user supplied PSTN addresses. There are special circumstances in which the user-supplied number is accepted, but outside of these one would expect the numbers to be validated in the normal way (cf. Q.763, sub-clause 3.1.1.4, (f) screening indicator). Whilst it is not strictly applicable to PINT as it forms part of a SETUP (i.e. call control rather than SERVICE control) message, the Q.931 information element coding shown in Q.931 sub-clause 3.1.1.4 and sub-clause 4.5.10 for an ISDT to deliver a user specified number along with its setup request gives an example of the delivery of user-specified numbers within the ISDN. As is usual, the recipient PSTN entity is perfectly free to re-validate the received PSTN addresses, and may ignore any parameters passed in a request. I understand that this is the case for call setup requests delivered over Q.931 signalling systems; we do not specify any variation as we assume that similar procedures would apply. Presentation Restriction: If a PINT service request indicates presentation restriction is requested, then the Executive System (SCF) would be expected by the requesting user to honour that request. Again, this is no different from current PSTN and I.N. procedures, and reflects our understanding of default PSTN entity behaviour. We use the term "presentation restriction" within the PINT document to mean just that; the parties to any resulting service call are requested to not have their correspondent's line identiy presented. It does NOT mean that the identity of the parties cannot be used whilst processing a service request; how would the Executive System be able to fulfil a request if it didn't know the party addresses to be used in a service call? I (for one) don't understand how "presentation restriction" could be taken to mean anything other than restriction of the presentation of corresponding party addresses; that's what is described in the PINT documents, and that is what I understand to be standard meaning within the PSTN. Re. authentication and authorization: the PINT documents have discussed these; the standard mechanisms for authentication and encryption/signing of requests are taken from the SIP document (RFC2543). In addition, the "opaque reference" mechanism described in the PINT document may be used to carry data within a request that can be used to convince the recipient system to carry out the service requested. As this is a private matter between the requesting user and the recipient Operator of the Executive System that processes the request, specification of the data and its treatment is outside of the scope of an Internet Protocol. We merely provide a mechanism for rejecting unauthenticated or unauthorized requests, and for carrying identifying and authorizing data. Both these are mentioned within RFC2543 and the PINT document. I hope this is helpful, and will be interested to see other postings on this list; these topics reflect an interest in the way that PINT service processing will be used in the "Real World" and as such complement the development of the PINT profile of SIP and SDP (i.e. the Internet Protocol work). All the best, Lawrence ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | Lawrence Conroy, | "These Opinions must be mine, 'cos if they | | Roke Manor Research | were my Company's they'd charge you for them"| |- lwc@roke.co.uk ---+- Tel: +44 1794 833666 Fax: +44 1794 833434 --| --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Mon Mar 29 11:07:01 1999 Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA19689 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 11:07:00 -0500 (EST) Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 4FCA752C6; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 10:27:17 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id A749152CA; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 10:27:16 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Message-ID: From: "Buller, Jim" To: "'PINT'" Subject: SAINT Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 16:25:49 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk Dear All, Please note due to an oversight, entirely on my part, my draft paper on SAINT which I presented to this group in February has been delayed. I was unfortunately on holiday in NZ prior to the IETF which delayed re-submission of this paper. It has now been accepted and can be found at : http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pint-saint-00.txt There are some minor changes, namely : 1) Addition of statement relating to Section 10 RFC2026. 2) Minor format changes to encompass additional lines from 1) 3) Typo correction in title. 4) Reference to SIP Draft changed to RFC2543, hurrah! 5) The document title has also changed to be more reflective of an ID. Apologies. Kind regards, Jim Buller | "There's no right way to do a wrong thing." | | Jim Buller | Roke Manor Research Ltd., | Roke Manor, | Old Salisbury Lane, | Romsey, | Southampton. | SO51 0ZN | UK | | Tel. : +44 (0)1794 833666 | E-Mail : jim.buller@roke.co.uk --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Mon Mar 29 14:17:47 1999 Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA21824 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 14:17:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 1C1A652C6; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 14:14:08 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id 6FD8B52CA; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 14:14:07 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Message-ID: <36FFC66D.1E171207@lucent.com> Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 13:29:01 -0500 From: Hui-Lan Lu Organization: Lucent Technologies X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en]C-EMS-1.3.1 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Subject: Information from ITU-T Q5/11 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The information that ITU-T Q5/11 wishes to share with the PINT WG is now available on the PINT Homepage. The IN functional architecture in support of PINT and IP telephony services is at http://www.bell-labs.com/mailing-lists/pint/INIP_arch.doc and the message flows for click-to-dial, click-to-fax, and Internet call waiting services is at http://www.bell-labs.com/mailing-lists/pint/INIP-flows.doc. Hui-Lan Lu Bell Labs, Lucent Tachnologies --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Mon Mar 29 20:40:07 1999 Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA02133 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 20:40:07 -0500 (EST) Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 58BB352C6; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 20:37:09 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id A5FE152CB; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 20:37:08 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 20:36:52 -0500 Message-Id: <199903300136.UAA18034@holta.ho.lucent.com> From: igorf@holta.ho.lucent.com (Igor Faynberg) To: pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Subject: PINT Implementations Content-Type: text Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk Ladies and Gentlemen: As the PINT protocol has reached stability, we should start reporting implementations. At the last meeting, we had--if I remember correctly--five hands risen in response to the "Who is working on the implementations?" question. May I ask those who are doing this work to let me know whether 1) you wish to share the results of your work with the IETF. 2) you would like to participate in a trial. Please also include the set of services your particular implementation supports, the type of the executive system used (SCP, SN, or PBX controller), and any other information you would consider worthy passing on. Please respond to me directly (faynberg@bell-labs.com), with a copy to Steve Bellovin (smb@research.att.com). Steve and I will review the responses and summarize them to the group. Igor Faynberg --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Tue Mar 30 02:05:44 1999 Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA15135 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 02:05:44 -0500 (EST) Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id DB39252C8; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 01:10:50 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id 38AB652CE; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 01:10:49 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Message-ID: <8C9B70BAC7C9D2119A0A0090273FADFB2AC4B3@itc-eml1> From: Dan Romascanu To: "'igorf@holta.ho.lucent.com'" , pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Subject: RE: PINT Implementations Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 08:08:34 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-8" Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id CAA15135 May I suggest that we add a third specific question to Igor's list? 'Does your implementation include any SNMP (or other) management components?' As our proposal for a PINT MIB was welcome with a total silence, we - the authors - are naturaly wondering whether we are on the right track. Any feedback from people doing implementations would be welcome. Of course, the answer to this third question is optional. Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: igorf@holta.ho.lucent.com [SMTP:igorf@holta.ho.lucent.com] > Sent: � �� 30 1999 4:37 > To: pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com > Subject: PINT Implementations > > > Ladies and Gentlemen: > > As the PINT protocol has reached stability, we should start reporting > implementations. At the last meeting, we had--if I remember > correctly--five > hands risen in response to the "Who is working on the implementations?" > question. > > May I ask those who are doing this work to let me know whether > > 1) you wish to share the results of your work with the IETF. > > 2) you would like to participate in a trial. > > Please also include the set of services your particular implementation > supports, the type of the executive system used (SCP, SN, or PBX > controller), > and any other information you would consider worthy passing on. > > Please respond to me directly (faynberg@bell-labs.com), with a copy to > Steve Bellovin (smb@research.att.com). Steve and I will review the > responses > and summarize them to the group. > > Igor Faynberg > > > --------- > This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Tue Mar 30 11:59:57 1999 Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA21099 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 11:59:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 27FF852CE; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 11:55:07 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id 7C22B52C8; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 11:55:06 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 11:54:37 -0500 Message-Id: <199903301654.LAA04552@holta.ho.lucent.com> From: igorf@holta.ho.lucent.com (Igor Faynberg) To: alecb@ans.ih.lucent.com (Alec Brusilovsky), pint list Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg , "Buller, Jim" , "'ietf-pin@lists.research.bell-labs.com'" Subject: Re: PIN BOF Content-Type: text Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk I am back with the PITs! A notification--I am proposing a definition--is what is sent because it was requested. These things have been dealt with in PINT. What is happening in PIN is triggers, that is events that were not specifically requested to be reported by the means of the protocol. Thus, the PIN services are invoked by the triggers that came from the PSTN. To illustrate the difference, I offer the following example. When I order a salmon stake in a restaurant, what will come on a plate will be notification. When I fish in New Jersey bay, see the float triggered (and feel what the Internet feels when it sees the PSTN trigger for ICW), and then pull out the line, the fish at its end is the sort of a PIN service. Could we, maybe, agree on terminology? Respectfully, Igor --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Tue Mar 30 12:59:05 1999 Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA22212 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 12:59:05 -0500 (EST) Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 80B6852CB; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 11:37:41 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id 1AB3B52C8; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 11:37:36 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg , "Buller, Jim" , "'ietf-pin@lists.research.bell-labs.com'" Message-ID: <3700F042.575E2CA3@lucent.com> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 10:39:47 -0500 From: Alec Brusilovsky Reply-To: abrusilovsky@lucent.com Organization: Lucent Technologies, Bell Laboratories Innovation X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pint list Original-CC: Jonathan Rosenberg , "Buller, Jim" , "'ietf-pin@lists.research.bell-labs.com'" Subject: Re: PIN BOF References: <3700430C.6C30CF19@dnrc.bell-labs.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------B21BEF3FA079B71248367CEF" Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------B21BEF3FA079B71248367CEF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Let me add to what Jonathan wrote: Our # 1 goal now is to come up with a comprehensive list of PIN services. In order to achieve that we have to start discussion on the topic of Services Classification (taxonomy, if you wish). Our # 2 goal in to define requirements for PIN services. Please note, in order to do that we have to know exactly what are PIN services. My question for # 1: Do we see subscription for the PIN service as part of that service? Subscription for the PSTN/IP Hybrid service, like PIN, can be accomplished by pure PSTN means, pure IP means, or any combination of two (i.e., subscription request is taken by an operator [PSTN], which then is using WEB based tools to finalize subscription for the PIN service). The definition of PIN service might become quite cluttered if we include subscription as part of the service. Many proposed PIN services require only one-time subscription per many firings of the service (i.e., Call Forwarding) I would like to propose separate of subscription for PIN service from the actual core PIN service (Notification of the PSTN events, delivered to IP network) and focus on the direction of CORE service delivery: IP-PSTN is PINT, PSTN-IP is PIN. Thank you, Alec Jonathan Rosenberg wrote: > Buller, Jim wrote: > > > > Dear All, > > > > I don't know what the general opinion of discussions undertaken during the > > recent > > PIN BOF is, but I shall endeavour to to express my own POV. > > > > IMHO, I believe the discussions were confused and a little undirected, the > > crux of > > the problem being semantic disagreements on, and about, PSTN to Internet > > Notifications. I think most of the problems arose from the name of the BOF > > which, > > again IMHO, was a bad choice as it implies only Notifications from the PSTN > > to > > Internet Services will be considered. It is my understanding, and think > > Lawrence > > Conroy and perhaps Scott Petrack would back me up here, that such > > notifications > > are already handled in the realm of PINT using the SUBSCRIBE/NOTIFY > > functionality > > i.e a PINT service may request notifications it requires from the PSTN. > > There is in this > > arrangement, correctly I think, NO possibility of unrequested Notifications > > coming > > from the PSTN i.e. the PSTN spamming problem/possibility raised during the > > BOF. > > Before saying whether the pint extensions do or do not solve the "pin > problem", it is neccesary to define what the problems are. I think the > goal of the BoF was to try and understand the services people wanted, > and classify them in some way to determine what was needed to make them > happen. Towards that end, I believe we identified several classes of > services - notification from the PSTN to IP network being just one. > There was also some kind of database update type (I forget what it was > called), and discussion about services where there was also data > returned to the PSTN as a result of the notification. > > -Jonathan R. > -- > Jonathan D. Rosenberg Lucent Technologies > Member of Technical Staff 101 Crawfords Corner Rd. > High Speed Networks Research Holmdel, NJ 07733 > FAX: (732) 834-5379 Rm. 4C-526 > EMAIL: jdrosen@bell-labs.com > URL: http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~jdrosen --------------B21BEF3FA079B71248367CEF Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="abrusilovsky.vcf" Content-Description: Card for Alec Brusilovsky Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="abrusilovsky.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit begin:vcard n:Brusilovsky;Alec x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:Lucent (jg7290000) version:2.1 email;internet:abrusilovsky@lucent.com title:MTS tel;fax:+1 630 713 5840 tel;work:+1 630 713 8401 adr;quoted-printable:;;IHP 1A-423=0D=0A263 Shuman Blvd,P O Box 3050;Naperville;IL;60566-7050;U S x-mozilla-cpt:;0 fn:Alec Brusilovsky end:vcard --------------B21BEF3FA079B71248367CEF-- --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Tue Mar 30 16:06:57 1999 Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA27133 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 16:06:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id BE63B52C6; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 15:35:35 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id 7302652C8; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 15:35:34 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com X-Sender: lwc@derek.roke.co.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 21:34:02 +0100 To: ietf-pin@lists.research.bell-labs.com From: lwc@roke.co.uk (Lawrence Conroy) Subject: PINT is another story... Cc: pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk In answer to Igor's story, a little story of my own, (unfortunately a sore point): I'm at an Airport, and have been told by the ticket clerk that the flight I want to take is full. I ask to be put on the "waitlist". The implication is that I've subscribed to the status "not full" on the flight. If susequently I receive a message that a seat is now available, I will react to this, going onto the flight. It's true to say that my action is in response to a notification I received, but that isn't the whole story. I believe that it would be imprecise to suggest that the "get onto flight" action on my part is invoked by that notification; it's part of a longer transaction that I initiated. Now consider WHY I'm suffering at the Airport. My Boss asked me to get to wherever, NOW, so I've turned up hoping to change my flight. In this case, a request (ha!) from my Boss has initiated my airport transaction. This is not just a notification from my Boss, he's started the whole sorry process. Both this and the message that a seat is available trigger some activity on my part; one, however, is a notification that I have requested, whilst the other is a service request that I most certainly haven't. If, as happens, my Boss has asked me to tell him whather or not I'm on the flight, then I have to send this information back to him; in effect, he's subscribed to the "Lawrence is on the way" status. As far as I'm concerned, the trigger for this grief is receiving an email from my Secretary; the details of what triggered her to send the email are unclear to me, other than saying "the Boss sez..." (authorization, if you like). In our terms: imagine that the ticket clerk and P.A. system at the airport are considered part of the PSTN, and I'm on the Internet. In this case the subscription and their subsequent notification are part of PINT; it's in the draft and may even be of wider interest in the MMUSIC world. The message from my Boss may NOT be part of PINT, as I received an email that my Secretary sent me in reaction to a phone call from my Boss asking her to pass on to me that I should be elsewhere. It's a "reverse PINT" or TniP service ->request<-. IMHO, it isn't a notification. When I call him to say I'm on the flight, the message that I'm on my way is also not currently within PINT, as it's a notification send back to him via a phone call. Even if it triggers some actions on his part, IMHO it's not a service request; he asked to be informed and I'm complying with this request. In this scenario, using the word "Notification" in place of the word "Message" is, IMHO, imprecise, when we're talking about two separate (albeit nested) monitoring or control relationships. Igor proposes a much tighter definition of the word "Notification"; looks good to me. The current PINT draft talks about subscribing to notifications of events in the PSTN. I'm a little uncomfortable about the reverse of this situation (i.e. a PSTN/I.N. entity subscribing to notification of events that occur in the Internet) being included within PINT; it makes the "bite" somewhat large. Igor's story also describes the word "trigger". This is specific to requests that come from the PSTN world (where this is almost a reserved word) thus I take this to mean that we should be careful of using the word "Trigger" for different meanings in any work we take forward in PIN, or PITS as Igor would have it, or the equally appropriate description Jim gave in his last mailing. In the PINT drafts, for example, we have been careful to use the word service request for a similar initiating message. Thus I wholeheartedly agree with Igor that the PIN services are those that are triggered from the PSTN up into the Internet. Now we only have to agree on whether or not we have complete symmetry with PINT by incorporating notifications and responses back from the Internet into the PSTN within PIN (in the same way that notifications and responses back from the PSTN are included within PINT). I hope so. All the best, Lawrence ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | Lawrence Conroy, | "These Opinions must be mine, 'cos if they | | Roke Manor Research | were my Company's they'd charge you for them"| |- lwc@roke.co.uk ---+- Tel: +44 1794 833666 Fax: +44 1794 833434 --| --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Tue Mar 30 18:06:52 1999 Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29144 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 18:06:52 -0500 (EST) Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 55FDF52CB; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 16:39:43 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id 9984152C8; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 16:39:42 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Cc: ietf-pin@lists.research.bell-labs.com, pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Message-ID: <370136E6.67849E7A@lucent.com> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 15:41:10 -0500 From: Alec Brusilovsky Reply-To: abrusilovsky@lucent.com Organization: Lucent Technologies, Bell Laboratories Innovation X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lawrence Conroy Original-CC: ietf-pin@lists.research.bell-labs.com, pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Subject: Re: PINT is another story... References: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------DD91A64735D5DA315859B602" Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------DD91A64735D5DA315859B602 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lawrence, I hope you will agree that we do not have enough time to study long chain of events leading to us suffering at the Airports. My hint would be to start with "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth..." Meanwhile, we have to select classic PIN services and focus on the PIN services requirements. In order to do that we have to agree on what will constitute PIN service. By focusing on the core PIN service and leaving subscription alone we can do that much easier. -Alec Lawrence Conroy wrote: > In answer to Igor's story, a little story of my own, (unfortunately a sore > point): > > I'm at an Airport, and have been told by the ticket clerk that the flight I > want to take is full. I ask to be put on the "waitlist". The implication is > that I've subscribed to the status "not full" on the flight. If susequently > I receive a message that a seat is now available, I will react to this, > going onto the flight. > > It's true to say that my action is in response to a notification I > received, but that isn't the whole story. I believe that it would be > imprecise to suggest that the "get onto flight" action on my part is > invoked by that notification; it's part of a longer transaction that I > initiated. > > Now consider WHY I'm suffering at the Airport. My Boss asked me to get to > wherever, NOW, so I've turned up hoping to change my flight. In this case, > a request (ha!) from my Boss has initiated my airport transaction. This is > not just a notification from my Boss, he's started the whole sorry process. > > Both this and the message that a seat is available trigger some activity on > my part; one, however, is a notification that I have requested, whilst the > other is a service request that I most certainly haven't. > > If, as happens, my Boss has asked me to tell him whather or not I'm on the > flight, then I have to send this information back to him; in effect, he's > subscribed to the "Lawrence is on the way" status. > > As far as I'm concerned, the trigger for this grief is receiving an email > from my Secretary; the details of what triggered her to send the email are > unclear to me, other than saying "the Boss sez..." (authorization, if you > like). > > In our terms: imagine that the ticket clerk and P.A. system at the airport > are considered part of the PSTN, and I'm on the Internet. > > In this case the subscription and their subsequent notification are part of > PINT; it's in the draft and may even be of wider interest in the MMUSIC > world. > > The message from my Boss may NOT be part of PINT, as I received an email > that my Secretary sent me in reaction to a phone call from my Boss asking > her to pass on to me that I should be elsewhere. It's a "reverse PINT" or > TniP service ->request<-. IMHO, it isn't a notification. > > When I call him to say I'm on the flight, the message that I'm on my way is > also not currently within PINT, as it's a notification send back to him via > a phone call. Even if it triggers some actions on his part, IMHO it's not a > service request; he asked to be informed and I'm complying with this > request. > > In this scenario, using the word "Notification" in place of the word > "Message" is, IMHO, imprecise, when we're talking about two separate > (albeit nested) monitoring or control relationships. Igor proposes a much > tighter definition of the word "Notification"; looks good to me. > > The current PINT draft talks about subscribing to notifications of events > in the PSTN. I'm a little uncomfortable about the reverse of this situation > (i.e. a PSTN/I.N. entity subscribing to notification of events that occur > in the Internet) being included within PINT; it makes the "bite" somewhat > large. > > Igor's story also describes the word "trigger". This is specific to > requests that come from the PSTN world (where this is almost a reserved > word) thus I take this to mean that we should be careful of using the word > "Trigger" for different meanings in any work we take forward in PIN, or > PITS as Igor would have it, or the equally appropriate description Jim gave > in his last mailing. > > In the PINT drafts, for example, we have been careful to use the word > service request for a similar initiating message. Thus I wholeheartedly > agree with Igor that the PIN services are those that are triggered from the > PSTN up into the Internet. > > Now we only have to agree on whether or not we have complete symmetry with > PINT by incorporating notifications and responses back from the Internet > into the PSTN within PIN (in the same way that notifications and responses > back from the PSTN are included within PINT). I hope so. > > All the best, Lawrence > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > | Lawrence Conroy, | "These Opinions must be mine, 'cos if they | > | Roke Manor Research | were my Company's they'd charge you for them"| > |- lwc@roke.co.uk ---+- Tel: +44 1794 833666 Fax: +44 1794 833434 --| --------------DD91A64735D5DA315859B602 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="abrusilovsky.vcf" Content-Description: Card for Alec Brusilovsky Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="abrusilovsky.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit begin:vcard n:Brusilovsky;Alec x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:Lucent (jg7290000) version:2.1 email;internet:abrusilovsky@lucent.com title:MTS tel;fax:+1 630 713 5840 tel;work:+1 630 713 8401 adr;quoted-printable:;;IHP 1A-423=0D=0A263 Shuman Blvd,P O Box 3050;Naperville;IL;60566-7050;U S x-mozilla-cpt:;0 fn:Alec Brusilovsky end:vcard --------------DD91A64735D5DA315859B602-- --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Tue Mar 30 18:43:25 1999 Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA00159 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 18:43:24 -0500 (EST) Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 601A652C8; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 18:39:18 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id BD2AF52CF; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 18:39:17 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Message-Id: <199903302336.SAA29844@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-To: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pint-profile-04.txt Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 18:36:55 -0500 Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the PSTN and Internet Internetworking Working Group of the IETF. Title : The PINT Profile of SIP and SDP: a Protocol for IP Access to Telephone Call Services Author(s) : L. Conroy, S. Petrack Filename : draft-ietf-pint-profile-04.txt Pages : 54 Date : 29-Mar-99 This document contains the specification of the PINT Profile 1.0, which defines a protocol for invoking certain telephone services from an IP network. These services include placing basic calls, sending and receiving faxes, and receiving content over the telephone. The protocol is specified as a set of enhancements and additions to the SIP 2.0 and SDP 2.0 protocols. This document is intended for the PSTN-Internet Interworking (PINT) working group of the Internet Engineering Task Force. Comments are solicited and should be addressed to the working group's mailing list at pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com and/or the authors. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pint-profile-04.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-pint-profile-04.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pint-profile-04.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <19990329110838.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pint-profile-04.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-pint-profile-04.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <19990329110838.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Tue Mar 30 18:54:42 1999 Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA00350 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 18:54:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 21EDC52B7; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 18:51:21 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id 78DC752D2; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 18:51:20 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com X-Sender: lwc@derek.roke.co.uk Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 00:48:53 +0100 To: abrusilovsky@lucent.com From: lwc@roke.co.uk (Lawrence Conroy) Subject: Re: PINT is another story... Cc: Lawrence Conroy , ietf-pin@lists.research.bell-labs.com, pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk At 3:41 pm 30/3/99, Alec Brusilovsky wrote: >Lawrence, > >I hope you will agree that we do not have enough time to study long chain of >events leading to us suffering at the Airports. My hint would be to start with >"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth..." > >Meanwhile, we have to select classic PIN services and focus on the PIN services >requirements. >In order to do that we have to agree on what will constitute PIN service. >By focusing on the core PIN service and leaving subscription alone we can do >that much easier. > >-Alec > To which I reply... Absolutely. Both you and Igor have given a good list (we call ICW Call Completion Internet Busy (CCIB), but what the heck :). I'd also include the "data setting" ones like the Universal Personal Telecommunications (UPT) "Register for Incoming" personal mobility service. A PINT service would be to tell the I.N. via a web page (or from the Internet, anyway) that from now on the subscriber will be "here", where "here" is either attached to a VoIP User Agent Server, or even on a particular phone number. In either case, the service would be to set this data into some PSTN/I.N. database. At present we have to do this either with voice prompts or wierd and wonderful strings of digits dialled into a phone (or both). Using a Web browser with a snazzy front end will be a useful service. However, from the PINT perspective, all we're doing is passing "down" a phone number or a VoIP identifier (e.g. a SIP URL), plus some subscriber identity. A PIN service would be to set the phone number by which a person could be reached into a SIP Registrar/Proxy (or an H.323 GK, if you prefer). This could be initiated by an I.N. service that runs when I log in to do the normal PSTN-based "Register for Incoming" procedure. The advantage is that, having updated an Internet database, VoIP callers can "find" me when I'm using a "steam" phone. Both of these are data setting services; we shouldn't forget them. More later... All the best, Lawrence ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | Lawrence Conroy, | "These Opinions must be mine, 'cos if they | | Roke Manor Research | were my Company's they'd charge you for them"| |- lwc@roke.co.uk ---+- Tel: +44 1794 833666 Fax: +44 1794 833434 --| --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Tue Mar 30 19:06:58 1999 Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA00725 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 19:06:58 -0500 (EST) Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 7ED5852CE; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:36:19 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id D8C4652C8; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:36:18 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:35:48 -0500 Message-Id: <199903302235.RAA10485@holta.ho.lucent.com> From: igorf@holta.ho.lucent.com (Igor Faynberg) To: alecb@ans.ih.lucent.com (Alec Brusilovsky), Lawrence Conroy Cc: ietf-pin@lists.research.bell-labs.com, pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Subject: Re: PINT is another story... Content-Type: text Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk Well, Alec is right about concentrating on services. Following his call, I am abandoning metaphors. I should also say that Lawrence's eloquent (no way I could compete with Brits in eloquence) metaphor is far closer to the PIN/PINT situation than my poor fishes, and it illustrates the difference between the service request and notification. I think we can easily agree on this, and this is not a small feat! A bunch of newly-emerged services that are initiated on the PSTN requests include ICW, call forwarding, and Internet Call Redirection. The latter was not mentioned at the meeting, but I saw a very convincing report at a conference last week and started to think that it is applicable. Igor --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Wed Mar 31 10:05:40 1999 Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA25119 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 10:05:39 -0500 (EST) Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 01CF652D1; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 09:15:49 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id 5175E52D0; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 09:15:48 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Cc: ietf-pin@lists.research.bell-labs.com, pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Message-ID: <37022085.9E50A8EB@lucent.com> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 08:17:57 -0500 From: Alec Brusilovsky Reply-To: abrusilovsky@lucent.com Organization: Lucent Technologies, Bell Laboratories Innovation X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lawrence Conroy Original-CC: ietf-pin@lists.research.bell-labs.com, pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Subject: PIN Services [PINT is another story...] References: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------79386E4BE094CEE7EDA4C372" Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------79386E4BE094CEE7EDA4C372 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lawrence Conroy wrote: > [...] A PIN service would be to set the phone number by which a person could be > reached into a SIP Registrar/Proxy (or an H.323 GK, if you prefer). This > could be initiated by an I.N. service that runs when I log in to do the > normal PSTN-based "Register for Incoming" procedure. The advantage is that, > having updated an Internet database, VoIP callers can "find" me when I'm > using a "steam" phone. > > Both of these are data setting services; we shouldn't forget them. > I really like that we are getting somewhere now. Thank you, Lawrence! This data setting service is an actual subscription for the UPT service that Lawrence mentioned earlier. As we can see, everything becomes easier and more agreeable when we separate service subscription (data setting service) from an actual core service, UPT in the example above ("VoIP callers can "find" me when I'm using a "steam" phone"). Regards, -Alec --------------79386E4BE094CEE7EDA4C372 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="abrusilovsky.vcf" Content-Description: Card for Alec Brusilovsky Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="abrusilovsky.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit begin:vcard n:Brusilovsky;Alec x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:Lucent (jg7290000) version:2.1 email;internet:abrusilovsky@lucent.com title:MTS tel;fax:+1 630 713 5840 tel;work:+1 630 713 8401 adr;quoted-printable:;;IHP 1A-423=0D=0A263 Shuman Blvd,P O Box 3050;Naperville;IL;60566-7050;U S x-mozilla-cpt:;0 fn:Alec Brusilovsky end:vcard --------------79386E4BE094CEE7EDA4C372-- --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Wed Mar 31 10:39:14 1999 Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA25446 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 10:39:13 -0500 (EST) Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id E435752D6; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 10:35:40 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id 1147652D2; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 10:35:36 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com X-Authentication-Warning: petrack.metatel.com: scott.petrack owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 10:24:05 -0500 (EST) From: Scott Petrack To: Igor Faynberg Cc: Alec Brusilovsky , pint list , Jonathan Rosenberg , "Buller, Jim" , "'ietf-pin@lists.research.bell-labs.com'" Subject: Re: PIN BOF In-Reply-To: <199903301654.LAA04552@holta.ho.lucent.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk The distinction seems to be between: a server which is listening on some port in case a client wishes to send it a request, a specific request from one host to receive notifications about some events. As far as I know, IN triggers are truly requests for notification -- they must be "armed" in order to be active. So the process of triggering begins when an SCP sends a request to arm a trigger. It would be far too slow to have an SCP listening in on a port for every single call attempt and then decide what to do. An example of the other type would be a mailbox or post office box that you have in order to receive notice of specials at the fish store, should there be any. Of course, you are correct that in the PIN BOF there was also discussed the service where the PSTN sends one of these "unsolicited invitations". Scott On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Igor Faynberg wrote: > I am back with the PITs! > > A notification--I am proposing a definition--is what is sent because it > was requested. These things have been dealt with in PINT. > > What is happening in PIN is triggers, that is events that were not > specifically requested to be reported by the means of the protocol. > Thus, the PIN services are invoked by the triggers that came from the > PSTN. > > To illustrate the difference, I offer the following example. When I > order a salmon stake in a restaurant, what will come on a plate will > be notification. When I fish in New Jersey bay, see the float triggered > (and feel what the Internet feels when it sees the PSTN trigger for > ICW), and then pull out the line, the fish at its end is the sort of > a PIN service. > > Could we, maybe, agree on terminology? > > Respectfully, > > Igor > > > > --------- > This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. > --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List. From owner-pint-outgoing@lists.research.bell-labs.com Wed Mar 31 23:07:03 1999 Received: from lists.research.bell-labs.com (paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.161.172]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA10153 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 23:07:03 -0500 (EST) Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix) id 44E5952CC; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 22:14:31 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-outgoing-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com Received: by lists.research.bell-labs.com (Postfix, from userid 20006) id 3510052CB; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 22:14:25 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: pint-local@paperless.dnrc.bell-labs.com From: faynberg@lucent.com (Igor Faynberg) Cc: Alec Brusilovsky , pint list , Jonathan Rosenberg , "Buller, Jim" , "'ietf-pin@lists.research.bell-labs.com'" Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 22:13:54 -0500 Message-Id: <199904010313.WAA11005@holta.ho.lucent.com> Original-From: igorf@holta.ho.lucent.com (Igor Faynberg) To: Scott Petrack Original-Cc: Alec Brusilovsky , pint list , Jonathan Rosenberg , "Buller, Jim" , "'ietf-pin@lists.research.bell-labs.com'" Subject: Re: PIN BOF Content-Type: text Sender: owner-pint@lists.research.bell-labs.com Precedence: bulk Scott Petrack wrote: > >As far as I know, IN triggers are truly requests for notification -- they >must be "armed" in order to be active. So the process of triggering begins >when an SCP sends a request to arm a trigger. It would be far too slow to >have an SCP listening in on a port for every single call attempt and then >decide what to do. > I apologize for contributing to confusion; I should really have said more. The IN triggers are actually in the switches. Triggers per se are static (they are set by the service management system). But the same detection points in the call model (again, within the switches!) that can be set "off-line" as triggers can also be set "on line"--for the duration of a call and only for that call--by the SCP by using the procedure that Scott described absolutely correctly. To summarize: triggers are set statically for all calls WITHOUT any SCP action; Notifications are requested by the SCP for the duration of a call by the SCP sending message to the switch. Note that in the case of a trigger, it is the switch that initiates the transaction by sending a query (request) to the SCP, which is to respond. Now, neither PIN nor PINT has anything to do with the switches--those are shielded from the IP servers by the SCP (stictly speaking, SCF, but this is not essential for the discussion, so I will stick to the "SCP" term.) But the taxonomy of messages is parallel to what is happening between a switch and an SCP, and I wanted to exploit this parallelism as I believe it will clearly outline the difference between the two sets of services: In PINT, the services start by the PINT Client issuing the request (INVITE) to the SCP. (Well, maybe, I should really speak about PINT client doing that to PINT Server, which then does same to the SCP, but for the sake of the discussion I consider them co-located. So, here is the picture (and its parallel in the IN. Faint-hearted and the haters of PSTN, please DO NOT look at the right-hand side! It is for illustration only, anyway.): PINT Client --- INVITE---> PINT Server/SCP SCP -- [Magic] -> Switch Notifications work here as the mirror image of the PSTN (as they should!): PINT Client PINT Server/SCP SCP Switch ---- Request for Not. --> --- Temporarily arm DP -> <---Notification-------- <----- Notification ---- Note that in the PINT services, no IN triggers are involved. Everything is clear and square. In PIN (I am talking about the ICW, which has been described in Alec's draft and the call notification, as presented by Lev at the PIN BOF, but this also applies to most services Lawrence and I proposed yesterday), things work like that: (I am placing the PSTN at the left-hand side now) Switch -- Query --> SCP SCP/PIN Client -- INVITE --> PIN Server The query on the left-hand side, is TRIGGERED by a trigger, which was set by service management. For example, in the case of ICW, the trigger would be the "called party busy" DP in the call model. And in the case, of the Internet side, the client and server (even though sharing the same SIP-based architecture with PINT) have exchanged their roles. Should the PIN Client sit and listen for everything? No. The process for the client should be created by the SCP in this case. But, as Scott asked, shoult the SCP listen for everything. Well, yes, this is the SCP job. (Technically, the switch's INAP query is carried by the TC-BEGIN, which starts the transaction and results in runnic a specific service logic program, but this is a strictly parenthetical remark.) I believe this clarification makes all parts of the existing input into the PIN activity (Alec's ICW draft, Lev's presentation, and Mr. Buller's PIN-related SAINT draft) consistent with each other. I also hope that it responded to Scott's question. If not, nothing could warrant my sending such a long message... Igor --------- This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List.