Yes, I agree with the points Paul makes. John
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat > Sent: 06 March 2008 23:05 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [BLISS] Call-completion design question: > End-to-end parameters > > Dale, > > Some problems with this: > > - it only works for B2BUAs that work this way. Currently > there are none. > And of course there can be several, including ones that have no > particular desire to make this feature work. > > - removing the callid is considered by some to be required to > hide node > names (which are often part of the callid). If that it thought to be > important then copying the callid to another field will > defeat the intent. > > Paul > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In the current scheme, the natural approach to this situation would > > be: > > > > > > Agent B2BUA Monitor > > INVITE call-ID 1 INVITE call-ID 2 > > id="call-ID 1" > > ----------------> ----------------> > > 186 186 > > <---------------- <---------------- > > > > SUBSCRIBE call-ID 3 SUBSCRIBE call-ID 4 > > Event:...target-call-ID 1 Event:...target-call-ID 1 > > ----------------> ----------------> > > > > > > At the monitor, the original call would be indexed by the 'id' > > parameter, which is "call-ID 1". This allows matching with the > > subsequent SUBSCRIBE. > > > > Dale > > _______________________________________________ > > BLISS mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss > > > _______________________________________________ > BLISS mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss > _______________________________________________ BLISS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss
