Hans Erik, Yes, XCAP is one of the candidates. The survey results showed that respondents used the following: - web page - uploading CPL script - web services - CSTA - XCAP
John > -----Original Message----- > From: Hans Erik van Elburg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 09 May 2008 18:05 > To: Elwell, John; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [BLISS] Configuring the proxy > > Without having followed the ACH discussion at all. My first > reaction to > your question below is, did you consider XCAP? > > /Hans Erik > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Elwell, John > Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 9:53 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [BLISS] Configuring the proxy > > One of the proposed measures for Automatic Call Handling (ACH) is to > standardise the way in which a user can examine and modify > ACH settings > at its domain proxy. > > One obvious mechanism, and one that is implemented fairly widely I > believe, is simply a web page. The web page would need to authenticate > the user somehow and restrict the user to changing proxy settings > relating to herself (her own ACH settings and possibly other > settings). > The user would need to know where to find this web page. A means of > configuring the URL in the UA (e.g., using the configuration > framework) > would be useful, but otherwise there does not seem to be a need for > standardisation. > > One possible limitation of such a web page is that it is suitable for > use by the user, but not normally very suitable for use by > the UA on the > user's behalf. There may be use cases where this is important. > > As an example, consider a device with a dedicated button for turning > on/off the immediate redirection of calls to voicemail and a > corresponding lamp to show the current setting. (It does not > need to be > a button and lamp - other UI realisations are possible.) When ACH is > performed at the proxy, the UA needs to know the current setting (in > order to control the lamp) and needs to be able to toggle the setting. > Similarly, many other examples could be identified where the > UA needs to > monitor and/or control proxy ACH settings in order to provide a > sophisticated UI. Furthermore, the UA might have the intelligence to > monitor/control proxy ACH proxy settings when ACH is provided by the > proxy, but provide its own local ACH on other occasions. > > So the first question for the BLISS WG is whether there is > indeed a need > to standardise a method (i.e., specify a MUST implement > method) by which > a UA can monitor and control proxy ACH settings. > > John > _______________________________________________ > BLISS mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss > _______________________________________________ BLISS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss
