If the goal is to make it an interoperable header to be used outside of a private network, rather than to just document a private header used by a particular vendor, then I would suggest this discussion be moved to DISPATCH rather than this supposedly-dead SIPPING mailing list. Further, it would probably require changing the header name (per RFC 5727), and getting consensus on the syntax and semantics. It would hopefully NOT require a new mini-WG, but could be an individual submission handled by the AD or an independent submission to the RFC Editor. Lastly, I should note that this draft in its current form contradicts some actual deployed usage of this header - in particular, I can't remember where Sonus encodes the noa/npi fields, but I believe Dialogic encodes them as header-params in a "P-Charge-Info" header, not userinfo-params. IF two vendors use the same header name but in different ways, then I think it argues even more strongly to use a brand-new header name for this draft. (and don't use "Charge", because that's already used by yet another vendor) -hadriel On Nov 29, 2011, at 2:01 PM, Richard Shockey wrote: > Well well isn't this fascinating. > > I was just having a conversation with Dan about this today. > > This draft now takes on increasing significance as it solves a nasty little > problem of billing in one way SIP traffic (Skype - Google Voice etal) that > is vexing the FCC and the carriers as they try to deal with what is > legalistically called "phantom traffic". It's the preference I'm told is > if no calling party number is available use a CIC or OCN code of sorts. In > two way it could state the preference for billing which is either The CPN or > 'Charging Number' > _______________________________________________ Sipping mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP Use sip-implementors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for questions on current sip Use sip@xxxxxxxx for new developments of core SIP
