Huelsemann, Martin wrote:
> The proposal to sort of publish to caller's supension and resumption state
> was also resulting from previous comments, that just unsubscribe to the
> call-completion information won't (or better: has not to) change the CC
> state. So when the monitor calculates who's next for CC, a unsubscribed
> caller ('s agent) would still be considered to be the next candidate for the
> CC call somehow if he is on top of the queue, which then of course would
> reduce the performance of the service.
> To avoid this publishing sus/res information seems to be a valid and explicit
> solution.
IMO the unsubscribe was fine for this. It doesn't change the state of
the callee, or of the queue of call attempts. But it removes the former
subscriber from the list of those that are candidates for being
notified. So a failed call attempt that is in the queue may remain at
the head of the queue, but a call lower on the queue may be notified if
there are no current subscribers for the higher entries.
I don't see how that impacts performance, aside from the hopefully
negligible need to keep the entries with no subscribers in the queue.
Paul
> BR, Martin
>
>
>
>>
>>> OTOH, its far from clear to me that this is preferable to
>> the existing
>>> proposal for the candidate caller to unsubscribe when it
>> doesn't want to
>>> be called back.
>> Why? Could you describe the issue?
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Denis Alexeitsev
>>
>
_______________________________________________
BLISS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss
