I agree, NO ________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Francois Audet Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 11:45 AM To: Venkatesh; Paul Kyzivat Cc: Rohan Mahy; [email protected] Subject: Re: [BLISS] MLA with Floor Control 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
