I'm not promoting one way or the other. Ultimately people building
products will build the functionality they think they need to sell their
products. If people feel this is important then they will want a way to
do it. If it isn't standard then it will be nonstandard.
Paul
Francois Audet wrote:
>
>
>> There is a tradeoff...
>>
>> If multiple extensions can place outgoing calls from the same
>> line, then the line doesn't have "binary" status, so it can't
>> be indicated as active or not with a light. And you can't
>> "conference in" by picking up on the same line.
>>
>> While I am not into it myself, I can see how someone can
>> build a "business process" around the specific way in which
>> lines are managed by the phones, and then be very upset if
>> they can't get that same user experience.
>
> Yeah, sure, it's doable. I do not believe that adding the concept
> of a Line number to do this is required to do this, or even
> desireable.
>
>> Now you can come up with some very nice UIs that provide
>> better user experience, if you have a suitable display
>> instead of just a bunch of lights. (E.g. an entry for the
>> "number" (AOR that people call), and a variable length drop
>> down list of active calls, showing the callerid of the
>> caller, how long it has been active, and which extensions are
>> currently connected to it.) But that is *different*, and
>> requires a device with richer UI.
>
> Agreed.
>
> My point is that we shouldn't bastardize the protocol with all this
> complex extra protocol (Line numbers, BFCP, NOTIFY/PUBLISH-storms, etc.)
> just do do this.
>
> The basic "single-lamp" based approach is doable without any of this.
>
_______________________________________________
BLISS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss
