[SIPForum-discussion] Remote Party ID and p-asserted-identity.

[Nick Ward]

we use PA ID.

Sent from my iPad

On 7 Oct 2013, at 19:45, "Keyur Amin" <fossil0681 at yahoo.com<mailto:fossil0681 at yahoo.com>> wrote:

Remote-Party-ID is deprecated (though never was an official RFC) and is replaced with P-Asserted-Identity. However, at the time, RFC for PA-ID wasn't available yet, and service providers implemented RP-ID. A lot of the service providers still support the use of both RP-ID and PA-ID. If you are designing a new system, stick with PA-ID.

Thanks,
Keyur Amin
________________________________



________________________________
From: Badri Ranganathan <badri at arcatech.com<mailto:badri at arcatech.com>>
To: "discussion at sipforum.org<mailto:discussion at sipforum.org>" <discussion at sipforum.org<mailto:discussion at sipforum.org>>
Cc: Vikas Singhal (vsinghal) <vsinghal at cisco.com<mailto:vsinghal at cisco.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 3:49 AM
Subject: [SIPForum-discussion] Remote Party ID and p-asserted-identity.

Hi all,

Is the Remote-party-ID in use still? I have read from the link below that this header should not be used and that there are still some trunk providers who are using this. Is the P-Asserted-Identity an alternative for Remote-Party-ID ? or is there any other alternative. I want to know if the same trunk providers will support alternative options for this outdated header?

http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/P-Asserted-Identity+and+Remote-Party-ID+header

If anyone has worked with SIP trunking providers and know anything in this regard, please help.

Thanks,
Badri.

From: discussion-bounces at sipforum.org<mailto:discussion-bounces at sipforum.org> [mailto:discussion-bounces at sipforum.org] On Behalf Of Vikas Singhal (vsinghal)
Sent: 15 January 2013 04:39
To: pankaj singh; discussion at sipforum.org<mailto:discussion at sipforum.org>
Subject: Re: [SIPForum-discussion] Diversion & Remote Party ID

Hi Pankaj,

Diversion Header and Remote Party id are different headers.


Remote Party id:  Identifies a party and is added by the trusted network entities.

   Different types of party information can be provided, e.g., calling,

   or called party, and for each type of party, different types of

   identity information, e.g. subscriber, or terminal, can be provided.

   Since a party may not wish to reveal some or all of this information

   to an untrusted entity, the party can request a specific level of

   privacy for each. The intermediary also has the ability to specify a

   required level of privacy.






Diversion header : The Diversion header allows implementation of feature logic

based on from whom the call was diverted.


Role of “reason” in diversion header to convey why message is diverted e.g. user-busy, no-answer etc.

It is recommended to include reason in diversion header. But it may work without “reason”. Check diversion header RFC :  http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-levy-sip-diversion-08.txt.

Regards,
Vikas

From: discussion-bounces at sipforum.org<mailto:discussion-bounces at sipforum.org> [mailto:discussion-bounces at sipforum.org] On Behalf Of pankaj singh
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2013 11:02 AM
To: discussion at sipforum.org<mailto:discussion at sipforum.org>
Subject: [SIPForum-discussion] Diversion & Remote Party ID

Hi,

I Am wondering, is Diversion and Remote Party ID are Same? In Diversion Header what is role of Branch "reason", Can Diversion Header works with-out "reason" branch? Need you suggestion here.

Thanks,


_______________________________________________
This is the SIP Forum discussion mailing list
TO UNSUBSCRIBE, or edit your delivery options, please visit http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Post to the list at discussion at sipforum.org<mailto:discussion at sipforum.org>


_______________________________________________
This is the SIP Forum discussion mailing list
TO UNSUBSCRIBE, or edit your delivery options, please visit http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Post to the list at discussion at sipforum.org<mailto:discussion at sipforum.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20131007/23a3ab10/attachment-0002.html>