This seems to be the other solution.

Could you give an example how this would look like?

What specification work would have to be done for this?


BR, Martin


 

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Gesendet: Freitag, 18. April 2008 14:35
> An: Hülsemann, Martin
> Cc: [email protected]
> Betreff: Re: [BLISS] Call Waiting Indication
> 
> Martin,
> 
> While I haven't thought about this much, I think Alert-Info 
> is the most 
> appropriate solution.
> 
> If the Alert-Info contained audio information it might interfere with 
> normal ringback, which you may not desire. But if it contains 
> non-audio 
> information (in fact, non-media information) then it 
> shouldn't interfere.
> 
> I have recommended before that we establish a family of URNs for use 
> with Alert-Info. I think the same approach can be taken here. 
> For each 
> such URN there needs to be a standard definition of the semantics 
> associated with it. I would expect those semantics to include:
> - a description of the *concept* to be conveyed
> - *optionally* one or more media representations that may be
>    used to indicate this concept to the user. These could be
>    any media type (audio, video, text, etc.) or a combination.
> 
> One of these with a concept but no representation would 
> simply mean that 
> the implementor just decide on its own representation. And in 
> any case 
> the implementor could choose pick its own representation of 
> the concept.
> 
>       Paul
> 
> Huelsemann, Martin wrote:
> > Dear colleagues,
> > 
> > we've discussed about Call Waiting some time ago, but I 
> think we didn't really came to a conclusion at that time. So 
> I'm still looking for a solution how to inform a calling user 
> that the called user is already involved in a call.
> > 
> > The background was and is, 
> > as the behaviour of the called user in the case of call 
> waiting is different from the situation the phone rings and 
> the user just answers the call (the time until the call is 
> answered will be longer in average, because the user realises 
> that a call is waiting, then he brings the call he is 
> involved in on hold or ends it, probably saying some words to 
> the other user, and only then he answers the waiting call), 
> in the PSTN there is an indication in the backward 'Ringing' 
> message, saying "call is a waiting call", defined in the 
> Generic Notification Indicator element in ITU-T recommendation Q.763. 
> > 
> > In some networks this leeds to a call waiting announcement 
> to the calling user.
> >  
> > Anyway the calling user is informed that the time until the 
> call is answered might be a littlebit longer, and he will 
> wait a littlebit longer until he hangs up. 
> > On the other hand the called user knows the the calling 
> user has information about the call waiting situation, and 
> that gives him some more time to answer the waiting call.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > When we discussed this issue, I think the proposed 
> solutions were the following
> > 
> > - usage of a 182 Queued response
> > 
> >   Con: it not sure the the 182 will cause a ringing tone at 
> the calling user
> > 
> > 
> > - usage of an Alert-Info header
> > 
> >   Con: Alert-Info shoulf be used to provide Ringing tones, 
> possible conflict between providing a ringing tone and 
> rendering the information to the user
> > 
> > 
> > - Usage of presence information  <activities> 
> <on-the-phone/> </activities>
> > 
> >   Con: Presence is a subscription based service and it may 
> not be possible to interwork this information to other 
> Networks, esp. PSTN
> > 
> > 
> > - I proposed (as usual) to use a P-header for this purpose, 
> as a possibility to interwork the Generic Notifiaction 
> Indicator element in general
> > 
> >   Con: another new P-header; possible interactions with the 
> event notification framework; 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > So in my opinion the best solution would be an indication 
> in the 180 Ringing response. Something like the Alert-Info 
> header without the mentioned difficulties.
> > 
> > 
> > In other discussions it was proposed to use the Call-Info 
> header for a similar purpose. This could perhaps be done by 
> using a special URI and defining a new CW specific purpose value.
> > 
> > Another solution could be to re-use the presence XML schema 
> as defined in RFC 4480 with <activities> set to 
> <on-the-phone/> and include it in a MIME body in the 180.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Regards, Martin
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > BLISS mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss
> > 
> 
_______________________________________________
BLISS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss

Reply via email to