Interesting use case.  You could argue though that the same thing could happen 
for tel, since a proxy along the way can recurse without Alice's consent.

(this use case though triggers some memory cells in my brain of something like 
this being used for a scam in the PSTN, where they got the terminating or 
originating provider to have to pay a 1-900 for calls they couldn't bill to the 
human callers, so of course the owners/co-conspirators of the 1-900 called 
themselves this way and profited... or maybe I'm remembering it wrong)

-hadriel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean
> Willis
> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 2:47 PM
> To: Francois Audet
> Cc: SIP IETF; Paul Kyzivat; Dan WING
> Subject: [Sip] Restatement of redirect (or refer) to a phone number
> problem (was Re: E.164 - who owns it)
>
>
> On Apr 12, 2008, at 12:18 PM, Francois Audet wrote:
> > Every single endpoint that I've seen does NOT use a Tel URI per se,
> > but
> > rather, a Tel URI embedded in a sip URI as per RFC 3261/19.1.6.
> >
> > Insisting on Tel URI seems kind of out of touch with reality.
>
> So they're functionally limited.
>
> Explain to me what  you would send in a 302 response to redirect the
> UAS to call a certain phone number on it's own dime.
>
> I don't believe we have a way to do this, and I have always believed
> it to be a critical use case for real integration (and no, today's
> "telephony over IP" services are not really integrated, which is why
> Gizmo customers call Vonage customers through multiple PSTN gateways).
>
> Here's a use case:
>
> Let's say Gizmo and Vonage some day figure out how to peer at a SIP
> level.
>
> Assuming we maintain current billing models:
>
> Alice is a Gizmo customer. As such, she pays Gizmo per minute on calls
> going to the PSTN, but calls to IP destinations (which don't use
> Gizmo's bandwidth) are not charged to her. Calls coming from the PSTN
> are also not charged to her.
>
> Bob is a Vonage customer. As such, he pays Vonage per minute on calls
> going to the PSTN, but calls to IP destinations (which don't use
> Vonage's bandwidth) are not charged to him. Calls coming from the PSTN
> are also not charged to him.
>
> Alice calls Bob. Bob wishes to redirect Alice to call the premium
> telephone destination 1-900-HELP-DSK.  This is an expensive service to
> Bob, but perhaps he thinks Alice is willing to pay for it or already
> has a service contract allowing her to call the service for free.
>
> If Bob wanted to pay for this call, he would proxy Alice through a
> Vonage gateway, but provide credentials so that the call is charged
> back to him. Bob does not wish to pay from his account . But in this
> case, let us assume that Bob does NOT want to pay for Alice's call to
> the help desk.
>
> The obvious way to do this is for Bob to send a 300 class response,
> probably a 302. But remember that Bob's system has no knowledge of
> Alice's PSTN routing model, and outside of a domain name, no knowledge
> of Gizmo's service at all.
>
> So what should go into the 302 as a Contact: header field value?
>
> It can't be "sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]"  or even
> "sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];user=phone
> " because Alice presumably doesn't have permission to use Vonage's
> gateways.
>
> Perhaps Bob's system could guess that Gizmo might understand
> ""sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> " or maybe ""sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];user=phone" and use this to
> reach an appropriate gateway.
>
> But what if Alice gets better rates by using a local phone line on her
> FXO port to reach that phone number?
>
> What if, unknown to Bob, there's an ENUM entry for +19004357375 that
> would have allowed Alice to call that number directly over SIP instead
> of using a gateway at all?
>
> Similar (and perhaps less contrived) use cases can be constructed
> around REFER -- how doe we ask somebody in a different domain to call
> a PSTN destination?
>
> How do you think this should work?
>
> The only way I'm aware of that we have to express the desired semantic
> is to redirect the call to "tel:+19004357375" and let Alice's UA
> figure out how it wants to get there.
>
> --
> Dean
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
> Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
> Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip

Reply via email to