I agree with Russel that vendor specific things should be the exception. The RFC was not written for features like call pickup, and the way snom interpreted it years ago (even my snom 100 already supported dialog state!) was just because we wanted to avoid additional provisioning. If there should be something in the snom phones that needs to be done, then we can take a look into this. Looking at the ticket, it seems to be simple. CS [from snom]
________________________________ Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Rob Hillis Gesendet: Sonntag, 23. März 2008 11:01 An: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion Betreff: Re: [asterisk-users] BLF and Snom phones Bill Hackensack wrote: On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 7:17 AM, Philipp Kempgen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=5014 The response on that issue from Russell is the kind of response that really ticks me off. No, no, no, we don't want any real features that users want, we want basic, boring features. Asterisk is a call center system, not for regular, everyday business users. It could be so much more, though... Works great as an advanced IVR as a front end to a real phone system, though. While his basic point makes sense (we want to get away from channel specific implementation stuff) what he seems to be ignoring is that this patch actually provides no benefit at all to non-SIP channels, since the Snom phones don't support any technology other than SIP. I still think Asterisk is more than just a front-end to a "rea"l phone system. What you can achieve with Asterisk is vastly beyond anything you can achieve with most other PABX systems without spending an utter fortune.
_______________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
