The real question is "should we do line seizing before call setup" as a
worthwile feature.
I think "No".
If the group feels "Yes", then we could look at BFCP. I really think we should
not be stupid enough to make this mandatory.
________________________________
From: Venkatesh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 21:49
To: Paul Kyzivat
Cc: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); Rohan Mahy; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [BLISS] MLA with Floor Control
I don't disagree with your argument. However, I also think, should a
particular approach unduly complicate implementation of a feature (especially
require support from multiple network elements for a feature to work), vendors
are going to resort to non standard ways to implement the feature as well......
Venkatesh
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 9:15 PM, Paul Kyzivat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
BLISS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss
