Basically, I think a CallPark without an autoretrieve is effectively an "unsafe" feature, since it will result in users (typically customers) to wait forever in the parking space.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Procter [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 02:00 > To: Hutton, Andrew > Cc: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); [email protected]; Orton, > Scott (RICH1:B620) > Subject: Re: [BLISS] Comments on > draft-procter-bliss-call-park-extension-04(AutoRetrieve proposal) > > 2009/4/28 Hutton, Andrew <[email protected]>: > > > > I agree with Francois it would I assume be the Referred-by > header that > > contains the URI of the park server and as long as the UA can match > > this against it's local configuration then this will be ok. > > That would probably be more straightforward. But it assumes > a particular way of achieving the feature. > > > I do think we should have a short description of the auto-retrieve > > procedure including an example message flow in the draft. > > I'm still not entirely convinced that it belongs in this > draft, although I agree it is an important aspect to consider > in an implementation. I'm also not sure that it is within > scope for BLISS, given that it does seem to be trying to > standardise a feature over and above the level needed for > 'basic interoperability'. > > However, I am open to persuasion! To that end, I'd > appreciate contributions of text / message flows. > > Michael > _______________________________________________ BLISS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss
