Correct. The 608 response includes redress information and can be translated to a voice reject for unsupported clients. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8688 Regards, *Calvin Ellison* Systems Architect calvin.ellison at voxox.com +1 (213) 285-0555 ----------------------------------------------- *voxox.com <http://www.voxox.com/> * 5825 Oberlin Drive, Suite 5 San Diego, CA 92121 [image: Voxox] On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 9:35 AM Glen Gerhard <glen at cognexus.net> wrote:
Hopefully Stir/Shaken will make this a moot point. Calvin, are you saying that a 608 is the recommended response for a call that is being rejected due to S/S attestation or CVT reasons?
~Glen
On 2/16/2021 8:19 AM, Calvin Ellison wrote:
Today we received a notice from one of our underlying carriers that included the following statement:
* If a customer spoofs an ANI that they do not own, the clec's can forward
to call to a voiceless Voicemail which appears to be FAS.
Is there any legal device that actually supports this practice? I'm looking for a specific statute, FCC rule, precedent in a judicial ruling, or the like.
The FCC has ruled that the SIP 608 response code is to be used for signaling when a call is rejected. I doubt the FCC or FTC has ruled that terminating carriers are permitted to cause loss of trust and revenue between upstream intermediate and originating carriers.
Regards,
*Calvin Ellison* Systems Architect calvin.ellison at voxox.com +1 (213) 285-0555
----------------------------------------------- *voxox.com <http://www.voxox.com/> * 5825 Oberlin Drive, Suite 5 San Diego, CA 92121 [image: Voxox]
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing listVoiceOps at voiceops.orghttps://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-- Glen Gerhardglen at cognexus.net 858.324.4536
Cognexus, LLC 7891 Avenida Kirjah San Diego, CA 92037
_______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list VoiceOps at voiceops.org https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops