Re: [reSIProcate] Remote-Party-Id Header - Should it be a part of theStack

["Justin Matthews" <jmatthewsr@xxxxxxxxx>]

Mehul, 

The following should work.  Others can comment on if this is correct usage
of the stack.

//http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/02mar/I-D/draft-ietf-sip-privacy-04.txt
//Extensions for this expired draft:
static const resip::ExtensionHeader h_RemotePartyId("Remote-Party-ID");
static const resip::ExtensionParameter p_rpi_screen("screen");
static const resip::ExtensionParameter p_rpi_pty_type("party");
static const resip::ExtensionParameter p_rpi_id_type("id-type");
static const resip::ExtensionParameter p_rpi_privacy("privacy");

-------

if( true == msg.exists(h_RemotePartyId) )
{
        resip::StringCategories rpid = msg.header(h_RemotePartyId);
        if( false == rpid.empty() )
        {
                resip::NameAddr resipNameAddr(rpid.front().value());
                                                
                resip::Data params;
                if( resipNameAddr.exists(p_rpi_screen) )
                {
                        params+=p_rpi_screen.getName();
                        params+="=";
                        params+=resipNameAddr.param(p_rpi_screen);      
                        params+=';';
                }

                if( resipNameAddr.exists(p_rpi_pty_type) )
                {
                        params+=p_rpi_pty_type.getName();
                        params+="=";
                        params+=resipNameAddr.param(p_rpi_pty_type);    
                        params+=';';
                }

                if( resipNameAddr.exists(p_rpi_id_type) )
                {
                        params+=p_rpi_id_type.getName();
                        params+="=";
                        params+=resipNameAddr.param(p_rpi_id_type);     
                        params+=';';
                }

                if( resipNameAddr.exists(p_rpi_privacy) )
                {
                        params+=p_rpi_privacy.getName();
                        params+="=";
                        params+=resipNameAddr.param(p_rpi_privacy);     
                        params+=';';
                }
        }
} ________________________________________
From: resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mehul
Jain
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 2:22 PM
To: resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [reSIProcate] Remote-Party-Id Header - Should it be a part of
theStack

The reSIProcate stack does provide support for "Ability to add new header
fields and parameters without rebuilding the stack" using ExtensionHeaders
but with the limitation that the new header will be of type StringCategory. 
Im currently dealing with the "Remote-Party-Id" header that provides a
guarantee that even "Anonymous" SIP callers are identified in the PSTN
network based on provider-stored credentials. Carriers like Global Crossing
use this header to convey the ANI for calls where the SS7 and ISUP to SIP
mapping rules prohibit providing the ANI in the From header. 
 
Remote-Party-ID is not described in any RFC. It is an old header (The draft
- draft-ietf-sip-privacy-04.txt supports Remote party ID). The
standards-based version of it is RFC3325, which defines P-Asserted-ID. 
Softswitches that do ISUP-to-SIP mapping of calling line identity (CLI) use
the SIP Remote Party ID header or the P-Asserted ID header.
 
I wanted to add this header as a NameAddr  (want to use the URI features
etc.) for which I will need to modify the stack. 
I think this header should be a part of the reSIP stack since carriers use
it in regular messaging and pretty soon many folks using the reSIP stack
will need to use it too.
 
Mehul.