On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Scott Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 12:23 -0400, M. Ranganathan wrote: >> Hello >> >> The p-asserted Identity patch is confusing freeswitch it seems and >> this is having a negative impact on interop testing. Moreover, it does >> not support the header in the way ITSPs want. >> >> What ITSPs want is - if the From header is [EMAIL PROTECTED], the >> p-asserted-identity header should contain the specific caller-id that >> they want to see (normally placed in the from header and present in >> the Dial plan). Otherwise, the signaling should not contain such a >> header. This is not what the p-asserted-id change currently does. May >> I suggest a revision of this feature to work as above. > > Can you please try that requirements statement again with no pronouns?
>From the sipxbridge perspective, all I really want is the following: The routing element that sends the request to sipxbridge via a gateway must place any specified caller ID in a P-Asserted-Identity header before sending it to sipxbridge. ( I withdraw "Otherwise it should not contain..." Please ask again if my usage of the language is confusing to you. ) Currently the implementation does not do that. It places the sipx user in the P-Asserted-Identity field. I am asking for a change in this behavior. > > The purpose of P-Asserted-Identity is to provide a (weakly secured) way > to provide the "true" identity of the caller when that would not be the > same as the From header. Correct. It can be used, for example, to verify that the request originated from the proxy. The behavior of freeswitch should be rectified. That is the correct solution. Failing that, we cannot use PAI header as we currently want. > > Can you give an actual example of two calls? 1. Gateway specifies a caller ID and an outbound call is routed through the gateway. In this case, I expect that the proxy will place a P-Asserted-Identity with the caller-Id as the address for the PAI as well as a From header with the same information in it. That is, I expect to see From: caller-id P-Asserted-Identity: caller-id It would also be acceptable to just leave out the PAI header in this case. 2. Gateway specifies anonymous calling and user makes a call routed through the gateway. In this when the user places a trunk call through the gateway, I want to see the following headers in the INVITE received by sipxbridge From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] P-Asserted-Identity: caller-Id > > Our motivations for adding PAI were not just related to the SIP trunk Correct > usage (and, given what you say, it may not help there). Not correct. If this support is done as I suggest above, it would help for support of ITSP requirements in the following manner : I currently replicate the caller id in sipxbridge.xml and read it from there to fix a PAI header when the outbound call is anonymous. It should not be necessary to do things this way. Rather, the proxy should use the caller-Id in the PAI header when sending sipxbridge the call ( or in general when routing a call via an ITSP gateway). The main > motivation is to provide a robust way to use the caller as an input to > some routing decisions. > > This is a strong motivation. > > -- M. Ranganathan _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
