1 / 2

SIP-T

SIP-T. SIP-T Framework is complete What to translate from ISUP to SIP Provide mappings for parameters used in routing requests Privacy? Redirection? Emergency services? Endless status code to cause code mapping debates Is anything not an interworking error? Dependencies on tel URL work

maya
Download Presentation

SIP-T

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SIP-T • SIP-T Framework is complete • What to translate from ISUP to SIP • Provide mappings for parameters used in routing requests • Privacy? Redirection? Emergency services? • Endless status code to cause code mapping debates • Is anything not an interworking error? • Dependencies on tel URL work • Number portability, carrier identification code • Overwriting encapsulated parameters • Is this actually ambiguous? • FCI/BCI • What constitutes interworking? • Overlap • Why bother proposing anything?

  2. QSIG • Encapsulation / Translation of QSIG for SIP • Encapsulation already defined in rfc3204 – but without recommending QSIG-SIP mapping • Are there differences between QSIG-SIP mapping and Q.931-SIP mapping • To date we’ve stayed away from Q.931-SIP • Should Q.850 mapping be in a separate draft? • Relied on both by the ISUP mapping and QSIG mapping • Would we ever want different codes for ISUP & QSIG mapping • Is QSIG mapping interesting/valuable? • Does this draft represent the right approach?

More Related