20070108 VSWG Conference Call Minutes

From CDGWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Call Date/Time: 09 Jan 2007 0300 UTC (8 Jan 1900 PST)

Plus Code Dialing

[edit] Agenda

Changes have been made in v0.2 to accommodate comments received to date, specifically regarding Preferred Carrier handling (see 3.1.1-100) and Caller ID (see 3.2.1-010). We will review these changes as well as provide an opportunity for any other feedback on the document.
In response to an operator request, a minimum subset of the requirements has been identified in the document. This subset is approximately half the total requirements, and excludes support for some of the less common usage scenarios. We will discuss the benefits or otherwise of this approach, as well as review which requirements have been currently deemed to be essential.

[edit] Participants

Representatives of the following companies attended the call:

Alcatel Lucent New Zealand
Alltel
Digicel
QUALCOMM
Sprint Nextel
Tata
TELUS
VeriSign
Verizon Wireless

[edit] Discussion

We ran quickly through (most of) the requirements. Points are covered below where they prompted further discussion.

Minimum Requirements approach: The original goal was to cover everything so there is only one version. There are a few places where the requirements are deliberately more stringent than may be required to cover all scenarios so that if one side doesn’t do it exactly as required the other side still has a chance to get the functionality.; A key change from the last meeting is to create a smaller set of requirements which will be minimum requirements in order to reduce the cost.; What do the carriers want to see here? Do you prefer to see the full set or the minimum requirements set? Will using a minimum set take us back to a divergent set of requirements?; Verizon:hopes the document will incorporate the path they hope to take so will need to wait until we decide on a set of requirements before they make a decision on this. Do not want to mess with the billing system.; Daniel:Potential for the impact to spread - ff we exclude some scenarios we may find an implementation that only does half the job.; A-L NZ:If we have a min. set, then that is what will be implemented by those paying for it. Little chance anyone will do the "platinum" version...; Telus:Billing system impact is definitely worth avoiding, especially for SMS.
2.1.1-060 - MS shall support the use of the ORCM: When you dial a number if the origination message is too long to fit in the space available you put the rest of the digits in another message. Some major MSC vendors are known not to support this.; Bruce: the cost of adding this on the MSC side is rather large and would like to have this removed from the list of minimum requirements; Daniel: would love to be wrong, but some calculations show that without the ORCM the message limit might be reached for some real-world scenarios.; If any other carriers would like to take this and discuss it with their vendors please contact Daniel.
Section 2.2 - Voice terminations: Verizon:this section should be removed; Daniel:Don't know when a call comes in whether or not the target mobile supports PCD. In the Caller ID document we talk about prefixing a number with the IAC for the serving country as an alternative.; The question is if we start to have + code functionality should we not send + code on terminating side as well. But would send it to (currently the majority of) phones that don't support PCD. Obviously if we think it will break phones that is bad. Note that the Calling Party Number information record sent over the air is already in ASCII format, with a number type and a number plan. So don't have the same level of compatibility issue as with originations, but still don't know what phones would do with an "international" number type.; Comfortable moving these out of the min. requirement set and assuming we will deal with calling party numbers separately by sending the IAC as per the Caller ID document. Note that this is somewhat lesser functionality: if had received the call with + code, could return the call in any country but if received with IAC have to change edit if returning the call from a country with a different IAC to the one in which the call was received.; Bruce: Current implementations are not likely to be able to handle plus code CNIP. Recommend the IAC prefixing instead.
3.1.1-090a - Dialed digits as if International prefix explicitly dialed: Discussed what should happen in this option if the subscriber dials the serving country in PCD format. least impact to downstream systems if the MSC reverts the dialed digits to the national format, but this seems like a complicated requirement on the MSC.