From: "Elwell, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> We don't have a HERFP solution and we don't have 130. At present we only have (or we shortly will have) 199. However, I am doubtful about the usefulness of 199 in this context. [...] Therefore 199 will be useful only in a minority of cases. We can specify its use as an optional enhancement, but we should not rely on it for mainstream feature operation.
I think we're all in agreement -- If an HERFP solution becomes available, we encourage caller's agents to monitor the HERFP information as a source of additional monitors to subscribe to. But the CC mechanism should work as well as possible without the use of HERFP. Second, let's consider the no reply case (CCNR). The caller will often make the decision to use CCNR after a number of ring cycles, without necessarily waiting for 487 or 199. Although if the caller waits until the call fails-over to voicemail, a 199 would be generated. Dale _______________________________________________ BLISS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss
