Completely agree that line seizure upon line-key-selection is complex, but the idea behind line seizure over SIP was to minimize complexity. We've heard that customers want the functionality for shout control. And issues like line key hogging can be addressed with a proper implementation.
My terminology wasn't quite right. I should have said "Line seizure post-line-key-selection" is not worthwhile. If the client is going to render a UI based on the line #, for purposes of shout-control, then "Line Key Hopping" will occur. When a user has selected a line key and is dialing, an Inbound call will force a change in line key usage, as will an outbound call placed from a different phone. I see this as unacceptable to most users. ________________________________ From: Francois Audet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 12:15 PM To: Bill Mitchell; DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS Cc: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [BLISS] MLA with Floor Control It's not POST call-setup. It's AT call setup. It's the difference between: Line seisure by pressing key * User press Line appearance. This is reported to Presence/Dialog server. PUBLISH or BFCP. * Presence/dialog for that line goes "busy" right away, for anybody that sees it * Nobody can use that line regardless of how long it takes the user to dial Line seisure at call setup * User press Line appearance. This is local: no reporting anywhere. * Nothing changes anywhere * Line is "seized" when the call is actually made * In the interim between pressing the key, somebody else could also press the key and make a call. If he's faster, he'll be able to seize the line before the first guy. Besides the mind-numbing complexity of doing the first approach, there are also advantages to the second approach. It avoids the problem of having somebody "hogging" the line by pressing on the key and not dialling anybody. And frankly, the SIP mechanism to "arbitrate" the line-seisure-by-pressing-an-appearance will by definition be very complicated and generate lots of traffic. I don't be believe it will be simpler than BFCP. Furthermore, there will be lots of potential for race condidtions (while the NOTIFYs and PUBLISH are flying all over the place). This will result in very poor user experience. Basically, pressing on the button will often "not work". (I have a vision of pissed-off users repeatedly pressing the key that doesn't want to turn on, and banging on their sets). The second option, with line seisure at call setup does not suffer from this problem. The expectation is that the line is "taken" when you actually make the call, not when you press the button. I will point out that PBXs (as opposed to key systems) often work the second way, not the first way. This is all very similar to arbitrating between making an outgoing call and receiving an incoming one while dialing. ________________________________ From: Bill Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 11:58 To: DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS Cc: [email protected]; Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [BLISS] MLA with Floor Control My answer is YES. Line seizing before call setup is worthwhile, because it enables shout control with a **reasonable end-user experience**. Line seizing post-call-setup is NOT worthwhile. It only adds confusion with potential mid or post-dial line key hopping. Pre-call-setup line seizure can be optional. BFCP has the right primitives, but I firmly agree with Venkatesh that it adds significant network complexity and would be a large barrier for implementation. I'll add my vote for a SIP-based mechanism to communicate line seize requests and responses. -Bill ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 9:09 AM To: Francois Audet; Venkatesh; Paul Kyzivat Cc: Rohan Mahy; [email protected] Subject: Re: [BLISS] MLA with Floor Control 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
