<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl'
             href='http://xml.resource.org/authoring/rfc2629.xslt' ?>
             
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/authoring/rfc2629.dtd" [
<!ENTITY RFC2119 PUBLIC "" "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC2234 PUBLIC "" "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2234.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC2629 PUBLIC "" "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2629.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC3261 PUBLIC "" "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3261.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC3325 PUBLIC "" "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3325.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC3455 PUBLIC "" "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3455.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC3603 PUBLIC "" "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3603.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC5727 PUBLIC "" "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5727.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8217 PUBLIC "" "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8217.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8224 PUBLIC "" "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8224.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC8225 PUBLIC "" "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8225.xml">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="no" ?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<rfc category="info" docName="draft-york-p-charge-info-03" ipr="trust200902">

  <!-- ***** FRONT MATTER ***** -->

  <front>
      <title abbrev="P-Charge-Info, a SIP Private Header">P-Charge-Info - A Private Header Field (P-Header) Extension to the Session Initiation
      Protocol (SIP)</title>

    <author fullname="Dan York" initials="D." surname="York">
        <organization abbrev="Individual">Individual</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street></street>
          <city>Keene</city>
          <region>NH</region>
          <code></code>
          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>

        <email>dyork@lodestar2.com</email>

      </address>
    </author>
    <author fullname="Tolga Asveren" initials="T." surname="Asveren">
                <organization abbrev="Ribbon Communications">Ribbon Communications</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street></street>
          <city></city>
          <region>NJ</region>
          <code></code>
          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>
        <email>tasveren@rbbn.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    
    <date year="2018" />

    <!-- Meta-data Declarations -->

    <area>Applications and Real-Time</area>

    <workgroup>Internet Engineering Task Force</workgroup>

	 <keyword>p-header</keyword>

    <abstract>
       <t>This text documents the current usage of 'P-Charge-Info', 
       an existing private Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) header field (P-header) 
       used to convey billing information about the party to be charged.  
       This P-Header is currently used in production by several equipment 
       vendors and carriers. This document is submitted to request the 
       registration of this header field with IANA. </t>
       
       <t>NOTE: This document is a slimmed-down version of the document
       previously known as 'draft-york-dispatch-p-charge-info'.</t>

    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section title="Overview">
        <t>In certain network configurations, several entities have found
        it useful to decouple
	the identity of the caller (what is normally thought of as "Caller
	ID") from the identity/number used for billing purposes.  This
	document records the current usage of 'P-Charge-Info', a private
	SIP header field, to provide simple billing information and requests the
	registration of this header field with IANA as required by Section 4.2 of
	 <xref target="RFC5727"/>.</t>
	
	<t>In a typical configuration, the identity of the caller, commonly
	referred to as "Caller ID" by end users, is derived from one of the
	following SIP header fields:<list style="symbols">
	   <t>P-Asserted-Identity</t>
	   <t>From (in the absence of P-Asserted-Identity)</t>
	</list>(NOTE: Some service providers today also use the
	"Remote-Party-ID" header field but this was replaced by
	P-Asserted-Identity in <xref target="RFC3325"/>.)</t>
	<t>This identity/number is typically presented to the receiving user
	agent (UA) where
	it is usually displayed for the end user.  It is also typically
	used for billing purposes by the network entities involved in
	carrying the session.  </t>
	<t>However, in some network configurations the "Caller ID" presented
	to the receiving UA may be different from the number to be
	used for billing purposes.</t>
	

	<t>In this case, there exists a need for a way to pass 
	an additional billing
	identifier that can be used between network entities in order to
	correctly bill for services.  </t>
	<t>Several carriers and equipment providers have been using the
	"P-Charge-Info" header field since at least 2007 as a simple 
	mechanism to exchange this billing identifier.</t>


    </section>

      <section title="Requirements Language">
        <t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
        "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
        document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.</t>
      </section>

    <section anchor="Purpose" title="Purpose of this Document">
    <t>This document has been prepared to document the existing deployed
    usage of the P-Charge-Info header field and to comply with Section 4 of  
    <xref target="RFC5727"/> to register this header field with IANA.
    This document was originally prepared to comply with sections 4.1 and 4.2
    of the now obsolete RFC 3427.  It is noted that RFC 5727 specifically 
    deprecates new usage of "P-" header fields, but P-Charge-Info has been in 
    deployment since prior to 2007 and pre-dates RFC 5727. Given this, 
    the authors request that
    P-Charge-Info be admitted as a "grandfathered case" per Section 4 of 
    RFC 5727.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="UseCases" title="Use Cases">
    
    <t>The simplest use case for P-Charge-Info is an enterprise
    environment where each SIP endpoint has a direct number that is passed
    by the enterprise SIP proxy across to a SIP proxy at a SIP service
    provider who provides PSTN connectivity.  Rather than cause the SIP
    service provider to have to track each individual direct number for
    billing purposes, the enterprise SIP proxy sends in the
    P-Charge-Info header field a single billing identifier that the SIP service
    provider uses for billing purposes.</t>
   

      <t>As another example, a hosted 
      telephony provider or hosted voice application provider may have a 
      large SIP network with customers distributed over a very large
      geographic area using local market PSTN numbers but with only a very
      few actual PSTN interconnection points.</t>

      <t>The customer may have all local
      phone numbers yet outgoing calls are actually being routed across a
      SIP network and out specific PSTN gateways or across specific SIP
      connections to SIP service providers. The hosted provider may want to
      pass a billing identifier to its SIP service providers either
      for the purpose of simplicity in billing or to obtain better rates
      from the SIP service providers.</t>

    </section>

    <section anchor="Alternatives" title="Alternatives">

      <section anchor="P-Charging-Vector" title="P-Charging-Vector">

        <t>P-Charging-Vector is defined in Section 4.6 of <xref target="RFC3455"/>
    and used by the 3GPP to carry information related to
	the charging of a session. There are, however, some differences 
	in the semantics associated with P-Charging-Vector and
	P-Charge-Info.  P-Charging-Vector is mainly used to carry information for 
	correlation of multiple charging records generated for a single session. 
	On the other hand, P-Charge-Info is used to convey information about 
	the party to be billed for a call. Furthermore, P-Charging-Vector has 
	a mandatory icid-value parameter which is a globally unique value to 
	identify the session for which the charging information is generated. 
	Such a globally-unique identifier is not necessary when carrying 
	information about the user to be billed when it is attached to the 
	corresponding session-related signaling.</t>

      </section>

      <section anchor="P-DCS-Billing-Info" title="P-DCS-Billing-Info">
      <t>P-DCS-Billing-Info is defined in Section 7 of <xref target="RFC3603"/>
      and used for passing billing information between trusted 
      entities in the PacketCable Distributed Call Signaling Architecture.
      For many billing situations, particularly the very large-scale
      residential telephone networks for which this header field is designed,
      P-DCS-Billing-Info is an excellent solution. However, this ability to
      address a range of situations adds complexity. According to RFC 3603,
      each use of the P-DCS-Billing-Info header field MUST include in the header
      field the following:
      <list style="symbols">
         <t>Billing-Correlation-ID, a globally unique identifier</t>
	 <t>Financial-Entity-ID</t>
	 <t>RKS-Group-ID (record keeping server)</t>
      </list>
      and may include a variety of additional parameters.</t>

      <t>While this may work well in many billing scenarios, there are
      other billing scenarios that do not need this level of
      complexity. In those simpler scenarios all that is needed is simply a
      number to use for billing. P-Charge-Info provides this simple
      solution for simple billing scenarios.</t>

      <t>Additionally, Section 7.3 of RFC 3603 mandates that a UA MUST create a
      Billing-Correlation-ID and insert this into the P-DCS-Billing-Info
      header field (along with the other required information) sent in the initial 
      SIP INVITE. This again makes sense for the residential telephone
      service environment for which this header field is designed. In contrast,
      P-Charge-Info is designed to be used among proxies and not to be used
      at all by normal user agents. (P-Charge-Info may, though, by used by user agents
      associated with PSTN gateways.)</t>

      </section>

      <section anchor="P-Asserted-Identity" title="P-Asserted-Identity">
      <t>Early reviewers of this document asked why the "P-Asserted-Identity"
      header field documented in <xref target="RFC3325"/> could not
      be used. As mentioned in the use case example above,
      P-Asserted-Identity is used to indicate the identity of the calling
      party. However, in this instance, the requirement is to provide an
      additional identity of the SIP-to-PSTN interconnect point. </t>
      <t>It would be typical to find both P-Asserted-Identity and
      P-Charge-Info used in a SIP exchange. P-Asserted-Identity would be
      used to provide the caller identity which would be displayed to the
      end user as "Caller ID" while P-Charge-Info would provide the billing
      identifier used for the billing associated with the call.</t>

      </section>

    </section>

    <section anchor="P-Charge-Info" title="The P-Charge-Info Header">

       <section anchor="applicability" title="Applicability Statement for the P-Charge-Info header field">
          <t>The P-Charge-Info header field is applicable within a single private
	  administrative domain or between different administrative domains
	  where there is a trust relationship between the domains.</t>
       </section>

       <section anchor="usage" title="Usage of the P-Charge-Info header field">
         <t>The P-Charge-Info header field is used to convey information about
	 the identity of the party to be charged.  The P-Charge-Info header field
	 is typically inserted by one of the following:<list
	 style="symbols">
	    <t>the SIP proxy on the originating network;</t>
	    <t>a PSTN gateway acting as a SIP UA; or</t>
	    <t>an application server generating billing information.</t>
	 </list></t>

              <t>P-Charge-Info is to be used by the SIP entity that
	      provides billing services for a session. This could be an
	      entity generating billing records or an entity interacting
	      with another enitity generating billing records. Upon receipt
	      of an INVITE request with the P-Charge-Info header field, such an
	      entity SHOULD use the value present in P-Charge-Info as
	      indicating the party responsible for the charges associated
	      with the session.</t>
	      
            <section anchor="usage-ua" title="Procedures at the UA">
	      <t>The P-Charge-Info header field may be inserted by PSTN gateways
	      or application servers
	      acting as a SIP UA.</t>
	      <t>The P-Charge-Info header field is ignored by an end-user
	       UA and should not normally be seen
	      by such a UA. It MUST not be sent to such a UA and the UA SHOULD 
	      ignore it if it receives the header field.  Similarly, a regular UA originating 
	      a SIP message SHOULD NOT insert this header field.</t>

              <t>A PSTN gateway or application server acting as a UA MAY use 
	      the content of the P-Charge-Info header field
	      present in an INVITE request it received for billing related 
	      procedures, e.g. in a billing record or during interaction with 
	      another entity generating billing records, as the identity of 
	      the party to be charged for the session. A PSTN gateway or
	      application server acting as a UA MAY use 
	      the content of the P-Charge-Info header field to populate information 
	      about the identity of the party to charge in another type of 
	      signaling, e.g. ISUP.</t>
	    </section>
	    <section anchor="usage-proxies" title="Procedures at the Proxy">
	    <t>A SIP proxy that supports this extension and receives a
	    request, typically a SIP INVITE, without the P-Charge-Info
	    header field MAY insert a P-Charge-Info header field. The contents of the
	    inserted header field may be decided based on local policy or by
	    querying an external entity to determine the identity of the
	    party to be charged.</t>
            <t>A proxy MAY use the content of the P-Charge-Info header field
	    present in an INVITE request it received for billing related
	    procedures, e.g. in a billing record or during interaction with
	    another entity generating billing records.</t>
	    <t>A SIP proxy that does not support this extension will pass
	    any received P-Charge-Info header field unmodified in compliance with
	    RFC 3261.</t>
	    <t>A proxy supporting this extension SHOULD remove the
	    P-Charge-Info header field before sending a request to a UA that is
	    not acting as a PSTN gateway or appropriate application server.</t>
	    </section>
       </section>

       <section anchor="example" title="Example of Usage">
       <t>The content of the P-Charge-Info header field is typically simply a SIP URI used
       as a billing indicator.  As such, an example would be as simple as one of:</t>
       <t>P-Charge-Info: &lt;sip:+14075551234@example.net; user=phone&gt;</t>
       <t>P-Charge-Info: &lt;sip:+12349874567@example.com&gt;</t>
       <t>P-Charge-Info: &lt;sips:1234@example.com&gt;</t>
       <t>P-Charge-Info: &lt;tel:+14075551234&gt;</t>
       <t>Any other applicable SIP URI could be used.</t>
       </section>

    </section>
    <section anchor="formalsyntax" title="Formal Syntax">
    
       <t>This RFC contains the definition of one or more SIP header fields
      that allow choosing between addr-spec and name-addr when
      constructing header field values. As specified in <xref target="RFC8217"/>,
      the "addr-spec" form MUST NOT be used if its value would contain
      a comma, semicolon, or question mark.</t>
      
       <t>The Private Header Field specified in this document is described in
   both prose and an augmented Backus-Naur Form (BNF) defined in RFC
   2234.  Further, several BNF definitions are inherited from SIP
   and are not repeated here.  Implementors need to be familiar with the
   notation and contents of <xref target="RFC3261"/> and 
   <xref target="RFC2234"/> to understand this
   document.</t>
       <t>The syntax of the P-Charge-Info header field is described as follows:</t>
       <figure><artwork><![CDATA[
      P-Charge-Info = "P-Charge-Info" HCOLON (name-addr / addr-spec)
              ; name-addr and addr-spec are specified in RFC 3261
       ]]></artwork></figure>

    <t>The SIP URI contained in the name-addr/addr-spec is the billing indicator 
    that is passed between the parties.</t>
    
    </section>

    <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>This document defines a private SIP extension header field.</t>
      <t>The extension is registered as a private extension field:</t>
      <t>RFC Number:	RFCXXXX [Note to IANA: Please fill in with the RFC number
      of this specification.</t>
      <t>Header Field Name:  P-Charge-Info</t>
      <t>Compact Form:  none</t>

    </section>

    <section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">
       <section anchor="TrustRelationship" title="Trust Relationship">
       <t>Given that the information contained in the P-Charge-Info header field
       will be used for billing purposes, the proxies and other SIP entities
       that share this information MUST have a trust relationship.</t>
       <t>If an untrusted entity were inserted between the trusted
       entities, it could potentially interfere with the billing records
       for the call.  If the SIP connections are not made over a private
       network, a mechanism for securing the confidentiality and integrity of
       the SIP connection SHOULD be used to protect the information. One
       such mechanism could be TLS-encryption of the SIP signaling stream.</t>
       </section>
       <section anchor="SecurityUntrustedPeers" title="Untrusted Peers">
       <section anchor="UntrustedPeersIngress" title="Ingress from
       Untrusted Peers">
       <t>If the P-Charge-Info header field was accepted by a SIP entity from an
       untrusted peer, there is the potential for fraud if the untrusted
       entity sent incorrect information, either inadvertently or
       maliciously.</t>
       <t>Therefore a SIP entity MUST remove and ignore the P-Charge-Info
       header field when it is received from an untrusted entity.</t>
       </section>
       <section anchor="UntrustedPeersEgress" title="Egress to
       Untrusted Peers">
       <t>If the P-Charge-Info header field was sent by a SIP entity to an
       untrusted peer, there is the potential exposure of network
       information that is internal to a trust domain.  For instance, the
       untrusted entity may learn the identities of public SIP proxies used
       within the trust domain which could then potentially be directly
       attacked.</t>
         <t>If an implementation does not strip P-Charge-Info from the message 
         where specified in this document, it introduces serious privacy risks. 
         Examples include revealing third-party billing relationships that might 
         be sensitive, as well as unmasking the identity of callers who wish to 
         remain anonymous. Depending on circumstances, the latter case may 
         result in unwanted harassment and even physical harm to the calling party.</t>
       <t>Therefore a SIP entity MUST remove the P-Charge-Info
       header field when it is sent to an untrusted entity.</t>
       
       <t>An entity inserting P-Charge-Info header field SHOULD add a new PASSporT 
       <xref target="RFC8225"/> for signing purposes so that P-Charge-Info value 
       can be asserted later. An entity stripping off P-Charge-Info MUST remove 
       the corresponding PASSporT and Identity header fields <xref target="RFC8224"/>.</t>
     
       </section>
       </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="acknowledgements" title="Acknowledgements">
      <t>The authors thank the following people for their comments: 
      Keith Drage, Miguel Garcia, 
      Sumit Garg, John Haluska, Juha Heinanen, Christer Holmberg, 
      Paul Kyzivat, Adam Roach, Jonathan Rosenberg, Henning Schulzrinne, 
      Tom Taylor and Glen Wang.</t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Changes" title="Changes">
      <t>NOTE TO RFC EDITOR - Please remove this "Changes" section prior to
      publication. Thank you.</t>
      <t>Revision -03 incorporates feedback from the expert review by Adam 
      Roach, including:
        <list style="symbols">
        <t>changing all references to "header" to be "header field";</t>
        <t> the addition of references to RFCs 8224 and 8225 related
      to STIR;</t>
        <t>a reference to RFC 8217 in the formal syntax; and </t>
        <t>multiple editorial and proofreading updates.</t>
      </list></t>
      <t>Revision -02 incorporates a range of feedback provided by Henning Schulzrinne.</t>
      <t>Revision -01 is a refresh as -00 expired. The affiliation of Tolga 
      Asveren was changed to Ribbon Communications.</t>
      <t>Revision -00 strips out the NPI and NOA parameters to focus only on the
      usage in a pure SIP-to-SIP environment. Multiple editing changes were made
      for readability.</t>
      <t>NAME CHANGE - The document is now "draft-york-p-charge-info" to
      reflect the fact that the publishing route for the draft is being determined.</t>
      <t>Revision -06 updates the text for 2017 and changes Dan York's affiliation
      to "Individual".</t>
      <t>Revision -05 is a refresh as -04 expired. Several small tweaks were
      also made to narrative text.</t>
      <t>Revision -04 is purely a refresh as -03 expired.</t>
      <t>Revision -03 is purely a refresh as -02 expired.</t>
      <t>Revision -02 is purely a refresh as -01 expired. My hope is to move
      this document forward soon to put closure on it.</t>
      <t>Revision -01 is purely a refresh as -00 expired. Only a few minor
      tweaks to this "Changes" section of the document.</t>
      <t>Revision -00 is the initial release of "draft-york-dispatch-p-charge-info"
      and is identical to "draft-york-sipping-p-charge-info-15" except for changes
      to wording to reflect the change to the DISPATCH working group.  The 
      "organization" name for Dan York was also changed from blank to "DisTel
      Research" to remove the confusion that it looked like he was also employed
      by Sonus Networks.</t>
      <t>NAME CHANGE - The document is now "draft-york-dispatch-p-charge-info" to
      reflect the fact that the SIPPING Working Group no longer exists.</t>
      <t>Revision -15 simply fixes a wording error in the abstract in 
      the previous revision.  This will also be the last version of 
      'draft-york-sipping-p-charge-info'. The next version will be
      'draft-york-dispatch-p-charge-info'.</t>
      <t>Revision -14 incorporates the following changes:
      <list style="symbols">
         <t>Two examples were updated to include a "+1" at the beginning
         of the SIP URI.</t>
         <t>An example was changed to use "example.net" to be compliant
         with RFC 2606.</t>
	     <t>Dan York's organization was updated to "Individual" (from empty)
	     to indicate that his involvement with this draft is purely as an
	     individual with no connection to his employer.</t>
         <t>The length of time the header has been used in the Introduction
         was changed to 7 years, to reflect the first usage around 2005.</t>
	     <t>A note was added to the abstract indicating that this is 
	     expected to be the last version using the name 
	     'draft-york-sipping-p-charge-info'.</t>
	     <t>Informative references were added to RFC 3261 and RFC 2234
	     to address missing references in the text.</t>
	     <t>Numerous other tweaks to the text for readability.</t>
      </list></t>
      <t>Revision -13 has no changes to content and was issued as -12 expired.
      Discussions are under way coming out of IETF 83 on a plan to move 
      this draft forward. As the SIPPING working group no longer exists, the
      draft name needs to change and there are a couple of other required
      changes.</t>
      <t>Revision -12 included the following modifications based on feedback
      from John Haluska and Glen Wang:
      <list style="symbols">
       <t>Modification of Appendix B to reflect ANSI T1.113 values.</t>
      </list></t>
      <t>Revision -11 represents a fairly significant revision responding
        to a solid review by Paul Kyzivat and providing additional explanation.
	A major shift was the move to using decimal values for the npi-value
	parameter versus the text values of previous drafts. Changes include:
      <list style="symbols">
         <t>ABNF definition updated to indicate that npi is now a number vs text.</t>
	 <t>The "npi" and "noa" acronyms were expanded and stated near the formal syntax definition.</t>
         <t>New section created explicitly mentioning the optional parameters.</t>
	 <t>Example of optional parameters updated to have npi use a number vs text.</t>
	 <t>Appendix B added to give examples of NOA parameter.</t>
	 <t>Overview text updated to indicate that P-Charge-Info was been in use
	 now for over 5 years (given that the draft has been in development for
	 3 years).</t>
	 <t>Several small fixes for readability.</t>
      </list></t>
      <t>Revision -10 included the following modifications:
      <list style="symbols">
         <t>Formal ABNF definition updated.</t>
         <t>In formal syntax, semicolons added to npi-param and noa-param
         definitions.</t>
	 <t>npi-param changed to a 'gen-value' to use digits vs text. Values
	 npi-param are shown in Appendix A.</t>
         <t>Corrected example to show proper use of parameters.</t>
	 <t>Updated references to RFC 3427 and RFC 3968 to reference RFC 5727.</t>
      </list></t>
      <t>Revision -09 included the following modifications:
      <list style="symbols">
         <t>Re-submitted with only a date change. Discussions are ongoing to finalize
	 this draft and submit it for expert review.</t>
      </list></t>
      <t>Revision -08 included the following modifications:
      <list style="symbols">
         <t>The ABNF for the "npi-value" was modified to conform to the 
	 sequence of possible values stated in ANSI T1.113.</t>
	 <t>An Appendix A was created listing the values from ANSI T1.113.</t>
      </list></t>
      <t>Revision -07 was updated to the "trust200902" IPR statement and added
      references to RFC 3968.  At this point all comments have been incorporated
      and publication will be requested.</t>
      <t>Revision -06 had only a minor correction to the second usage
      example. The IPR statement was also updated to comply with RFC 5378.</t>
      <t>Revision -05 included the following modifications:<list
      style="symbols">
         <t>The usage of P-Charge-Info for carrying the ISUP Charge Number
	 parameter was formally incorporated into the draft. Previous
	 revisions had mentioned it as a possible use case but had not
	 really explicitly included it.</t>
	 <t>The examples/use cases section was expanded to include further
	 examples of where P-Charge-Info may be used.</t>
	 <t>The original use case which discussed inter/intra-state billing
	 practices was changed as the geographical references were clouding
	 the more fundamental issue.</t>
	 <t>The "UNKNOWN" value was added to the ABNF for the "npi-value"
	 parameter as that was identified as missing but required for ISUP
	 interworking.</t>
	 <t>The optional "Nature of Address" parameter was added to support
	 interworking with the ISUP Charge Number.</t>
      </list></t>
      <t>Revision -04 corrected a major error in the example where the
      parameter was placed inside the angle brackets.  The
      P-DCS-Billing-Info header was also added as an alternative and a few
      minor edits were made.</t>
    </section>

 
  </middle>
  

  <!--  *****BACK MATTER ***** -->

  <back>

    <references title="Normative References">

    &RFC5727;

    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">

    &RFC3261;
    &RFC3455;
    &RFC3325;
    &RFC3603;
    &RFC2234;
    &RFC8217;
    &RFC8224;
    &RFC8225;
    
    </references>

  </back>
</rfc>

