[cisco-voip] Please remove me from this list

[Gregory Wenzel]

Please remove me from this list
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] Understanding a Defect's Affected Versions

[Brian Meade]

I do agree it's annoying that they're not listed anymore in the release
notes.  The bright side is at least this forces the BU to make sure all of
the resolved/open bugs for that version actually have the correct versions
documented in the bug search tool.

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Ryan Huff  wrote:

> #truth
>
> Area that could really be improved
>
> --
> Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 07:05:43 -0400
> From: jsteinb...@gmail.com
> To: erick...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Understanding a Defect's Affected Versions
> CC: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>
>
> I agree with that.  It's too hard to know how to search the bug toolkit
> for fixes in a certain version.
> On Oct 5, 2015 11:54 PM, "Erick Bergquist"  wrote:
>
> I'm also not a fan of the newer release notes not including a list of
> the Resolved Bugs, but a link to bug search tool...
>
> That leaves it up to us to find what bugs were fixed or hoping bug
> search tool returns them all, plus not a nice list/summary to glance
> through.
>
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Brian Meade  wrote:
> > 10.5.2.12028-1 is an Engineering Special which uses a different numbering
> > scheme.  I thought the ReadMe used to show what ES the SU was built off
> of
> > but having trouble finding it.
> >
> > SU2/SU2a were most likely built off of older engineering specials than
> > 10.5.2.12028-1.
> >
> > The higher release thing really only works in the case of published
> versions
> > on cisco.com.
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:34 PM, Erick Bergquist 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Some bugs, like CSCuu58142 effecting single number reach doesn't seem
> >> to follow higher versions contain the fix methodology.
> >>
> >> Bug toolkit says this is fixed in 10.5.2.12028-1 but 10.5.2 SU2, SU2a
> >> (10.5.2.12900 and 10.5.2.12901) don't contain the bug fix per TAC and
> >> going over the release notes for SU2, SU2a.
> >>
> >> I need to use the 10.5.2.12028-1 ES or latest ES 10.5.2.13039-1.
> >> Currently debating which route I'm going to go or wait out for SU3 or
> >> until we upgrade to 11.x.  This SNR bug is effecting some users about
> >> every 1-2 months.  Workaround is to disable SNR on their remote
> >> destination profile and re-enable it.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Ryan Ratliff (rratliff)
> >>  wrote:
> >> > it's up to the discretion of the bug author.  <--
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > This means it’s accuracy varies greatly by product and even bug
> author.
> >> > For
> >> > UCM you should always assume you are vulnerable if the fixed-in
> version
> >> > is
> >> > higher than what you are currently running unless the bug description
> >> > clearly states otherwise or the feature impacted by the bug doesn’t
> >> > exist in
> >> > your version.
> >> >
> >> > -Ryan
> >> >
> >> > On Sep 29, 2015, at 2:25 PM, Anthony Holloway
> >> >  wrote:
> >> >
> >> > In reference to this defect:
> >> >
> >> > https://tools.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCuv45722
> >> >
> >> > Can you help me understand what this means as far as all affected
> >> > versions?
> >> >
> >> > On the surface, it would appear that it's only affecting 9.1(2).
> >> > However,
> >> > with a fixed in version being way out in 11.5, that would also
> indicate
> >> > to
> >> > me that an upgrade to 10.5(2)SU2a, as an example, would not fix this
> >> > issue.
> >> >
> >> > Does Cisco imply all versions affected between the listed affected
> >> > versions
> >> > and the fixed in version?  Or, should this defect list all affected
> >> > versions?
> >> >
> >> > I cannot recall what I've heard about this in the past.  I'm almost
> >> > guessing
> >> > there's no exact science to it, and it's up to the discretion of the
> bug
> >> > author.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for your help.
> >> > ___
> >> > cisco-voip mailing list
> >> > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> >> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ___
> >> > cisco-voip mailing list
> >> > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> >> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> >> >
> >> ___
> >> cisco-voip mailing list
> >> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> >
> >
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
> ___ cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>

Re: [cisco-voip] Understanding a Defect's Affected Versions

[Anthony Holloway]

Hit send too soon...one last thing for Erick.

You can also export up to 10,000 defects as a spreadsheet:

"You can export all the bug details from your search to a Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet so you can view them later at your convenience. Presently, up
to 10,000 bugs can be exported at a time to an Excel spreadsheet."
Source: http://www.cisco.com/web/applicat/cbsshelp/help.html#sort

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Anthony Holloway <
avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am going to submit feedback right now as well.  However, I will say that
> you can apply the same arguments against defects listed in the release
> notes as you did with having to use the BST.
>
> I.e., Who knows if the Release Notes Author(s) is/are including all of the
> bugs or leaving some out.
>
> Also, on the topic of auto-loading content upon scroll...that's a terrible
> idea for this web tool.  It's great for browsing Pinterest...I heard...from
> a friend.
>
> Thankfully, Cisco is already working on removing that feature and allowing
> us to use page numbers instead:
>
> "Pagination of search results is not supported currently. This
> functionality will be available in a future release."
> Source: http://www.cisco.com/web/applicat/cbsshelp/help.html#sort
>
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Erick Bergquist 
> wrote:
>
>> For example, on the latest UCCX 10.6.1 SU1 release notes they don't
>> list the caveats fixed and provide a link to the bug search tool.   I
>> sent an email to the feedback link provided in the release notes
>> document and got an email back this morning from cisco thanking me for
>> my feedback and explaining their direction and that they will take my
>> comments into consideration and possibly add a poll.  I would advise
>> others to send feedback using the methods in the documents to share
>> your opinion with the right people.
>>
>> I'm not opposed to using bug search tool for viewing the caveats, it
>> just doesn't provide a nice list format to view all the resolved/open
>> caveats with one line summary like in the document.If you scroll down
>> it keeps updating the display with more bugs so you can't really print
>> them easily either.  And who knows if the search is returning all the
>> bugs or leaving some out. I also liked seeing the list in the release
>> notes to compare against bug toolkit results or searching a release
>> note document for a bug ID to make sure that release indeed included
>> the fix before applying it on a client/etc.
>>
>>
>> Erick
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Justin Steinberg 
>> wrote:
>> > The problem is we don't know for sure that the BU is doing that and if
>> we
>> > review bugtoolkit on monday it could be changed on tuesday.   Reviewing
>> > defects in a release notes file is more assuring.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Brian Meade  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I do agree it's annoying that they're not listed anymore in the release
>> >> notes.  The bright side is at least this forces the BU to make sure
>> all of
>> >> the resolved/open bugs for that version actually have the correct
>> versions
>> >> documented in the bug search tool.
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Ryan Huff 
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> #truth
>> >>>
>> >>> Area that could really be improved
>> >>>
>> >>> 
>> >>> Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 07:05:43 -0400
>> >>> From: jsteinb...@gmail.com
>> >>> To: erick...@gmail.com
>> >>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Understanding a Defect's Affected Versions
>> >>> CC: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I agree with that.  It's too hard to know how to search the bug
>> toolkit
>> >>> for fixes in a certain version.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Oct 5, 2015 11:54 PM, "Erick Bergquist" 
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm also not a fan of the newer release notes not including a list of
>> >>> the Resolved Bugs, but a link to bug search tool...
>> >>>
>> >>> That leaves it up to us to find what bugs were fixed or hoping bug
>> >>> search tool returns them all, plus not a nice list/summary to glance
>> >>> through.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Brian Meade  wrote:
>> >>> > 10.5.2.12028-1 is an Engineering Special which uses a different
>> >>> > numbering
>> >>> > scheme.  I thought the ReadMe used to show what ES the SU was built
>> off
>> >>> > of
>> >>> > but having trouble finding it.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > SU2/SU2a were most likely built off of older engineering specials
>> than
>> >>> > 10.5.2.12028-1.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > The higher release thing really only works in the case of published
>> >>> > versions
>> >>> > on cisco.com.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:34 PM, Erick Bergquist <
>> erick...@gmail.com>
>> >>> > wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Some bugs, like CSCuu58142 effecting single number reach doesn't
>> seem
>> >>> >> to follow higher versions contain the fix methodology.
>> 

Re: [cisco-voip] Understanding a Defect's Affected Versions

[Ryan Ratliff (rratliff)]

The bug info was pulled from Release Notes last year for two reasons.

First, the bugs affecting a version is out of date pretty much before the tech 
writer has finished writing up the list.  
Second, the people that write the release notes spent a ton of time coming up 
with the list that was then out of date immediately.

The Bug Search Tool was supposed to be the answer, and for various and sundry 
reasons there are some gaps that make it work well for some products and 
horribly for others.

I worked with the phone teams quite a bit on this because it caused a LOT of 
complaints and we finally settled on publishing the fixed defects in the 
release notes and pointing to the Bug Search Tool for open bugs. 

-Ryan

On Oct 6, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Erick Bergquist  wrote:

For example, on the latest UCCX 10.6.1 SU1 release notes they don't
list the caveats fixed and provide a link to the bug search tool.   I
sent an email to the feedback link provided in the release notes
document and got an email back this morning from cisco thanking me for
my feedback and explaining their direction and that they will take my
comments into consideration and possibly add a poll.  I would advise
others to send feedback using the methods in the documents to share
your opinion with the right people.

I'm not opposed to using bug search tool for viewing the caveats, it
just doesn't provide a nice list format to view all the resolved/open
caveats with one line summary like in the document.If you scroll down
it keeps updating the display with more bugs so you can't really print
them easily either.  And who knows if the search is returning all the
bugs or leaving some out. I also liked seeing the list in the release
notes to compare against bug toolkit results or searching a release
note document for a bug ID to make sure that release indeed included
the fix before applying it on a client/etc.


Erick


On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Justin Steinberg  wrote:
> The problem is we don't know for sure that the BU is doing that and if we
> review bugtoolkit on monday it could be changed on tuesday.   Reviewing
> defects in a release notes file is more assuring.
> 
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Brian Meade  wrote:
>> 
>> I do agree it's annoying that they're not listed anymore in the release
>> notes.  The bright side is at least this forces the BU to make sure all of
>> the resolved/open bugs for that version actually have the correct versions
>> documented in the bug search tool.
>> 
>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Ryan Huff  wrote:
>>> 
>>> #truth
>>> 
>>> Area that could really be improved
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 07:05:43 -0400
>>> From: jsteinb...@gmail.com
>>> To: erick...@gmail.com
>>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Understanding a Defect's Affected Versions
>>> CC: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I agree with that.  It's too hard to know how to search the bug toolkit
>>> for fixes in a certain version.
>>> 
>>> On Oct 5, 2015 11:54 PM, "Erick Bergquist"  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I'm also not a fan of the newer release notes not including a list of
>>> the Resolved Bugs, but a link to bug search tool...
>>> 
>>> That leaves it up to us to find what bugs were fixed or hoping bug
>>> search tool returns them all, plus not a nice list/summary to glance
>>> through.
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Brian Meade  wrote:
 10.5.2.12028-1 is an Engineering Special which uses a different
 numbering
 scheme.  I thought the ReadMe used to show what ES the SU was built off
 of
 but having trouble finding it.
 
 SU2/SU2a were most likely built off of older engineering specials than
 10.5.2.12028-1.
 
 The higher release thing really only works in the case of published
 versions
 on cisco.com.
 
 On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:34 PM, Erick Bergquist 
 wrote:
> 
> Some bugs, like CSCuu58142 effecting single number reach doesn't seem
> to follow higher versions contain the fix methodology.
> 
> Bug toolkit says this is fixed in 10.5.2.12028-1 but 10.5.2 SU2, SU2a
> (10.5.2.12900 and 10.5.2.12901) don't contain the bug fix per TAC and
> going over the release notes for SU2, SU2a.
> 
> I need to use the 10.5.2.12028-1 ES or latest ES 10.5.2.13039-1.
> Currently debating which route I'm going to go or wait out for SU3 or
> until we upgrade to 11.x.  This SNR bug is effecting some users about
> every 1-2 months.  Workaround is to disable SNR on their remote
> destination profile and re-enable it.
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Ryan Ratliff (rratliff)
>  wrote:
>> it's up to the discretion of the bug author.  <--
>> 
>> 
>> This means it’s accuracy varies greatly by product 

Re: [cisco-voip] Understanding a Defect's Affected Versions

[Anthony Holloway]

I am going to submit feedback right now as well.  However, I will say that
you can apply the same arguments against defects listed in the release
notes as you did with having to use the BST.

I.e., Who knows if the Release Notes Author(s) is/are including all of the
bugs or leaving some out.

Also, on the topic of auto-loading content upon scroll...that's a terrible
idea for this web tool.  It's great for browsing Pinterest...I heard...from
a friend.

Thankfully, Cisco is already working on removing that feature and allowing
us to use page numbers instead:

"Pagination of search results is not supported currently. This
functionality will be available in a future release."
Source: http://www.cisco.com/web/applicat/cbsshelp/help.html#sort

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Erick Bergquist  wrote:

> For example, on the latest UCCX 10.6.1 SU1 release notes they don't
> list the caveats fixed and provide a link to the bug search tool.   I
> sent an email to the feedback link provided in the release notes
> document and got an email back this morning from cisco thanking me for
> my feedback and explaining their direction and that they will take my
> comments into consideration and possibly add a poll.  I would advise
> others to send feedback using the methods in the documents to share
> your opinion with the right people.
>
> I'm not opposed to using bug search tool for viewing the caveats, it
> just doesn't provide a nice list format to view all the resolved/open
> caveats with one line summary like in the document.If you scroll down
> it keeps updating the display with more bugs so you can't really print
> them easily either.  And who knows if the search is returning all the
> bugs or leaving some out. I also liked seeing the list in the release
> notes to compare against bug toolkit results or searching a release
> note document for a bug ID to make sure that release indeed included
> the fix before applying it on a client/etc.
>
>
> Erick
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Justin Steinberg 
> wrote:
> > The problem is we don't know for sure that the BU is doing that and if we
> > review bugtoolkit on monday it could be changed on tuesday.   Reviewing
> > defects in a release notes file is more assuring.
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Brian Meade  wrote:
> >>
> >> I do agree it's annoying that they're not listed anymore in the release
> >> notes.  The bright side is at least this forces the BU to make sure all
> of
> >> the resolved/open bugs for that version actually have the correct
> versions
> >> documented in the bug search tool.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Ryan Huff  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> #truth
> >>>
> >>> Area that could really be improved
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>> Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 07:05:43 -0400
> >>> From: jsteinb...@gmail.com
> >>> To: erick...@gmail.com
> >>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Understanding a Defect's Affected Versions
> >>> CC: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I agree with that.  It's too hard to know how to search the bug toolkit
> >>> for fixes in a certain version.
> >>>
> >>> On Oct 5, 2015 11:54 PM, "Erick Bergquist"  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I'm also not a fan of the newer release notes not including a list of
> >>> the Resolved Bugs, but a link to bug search tool...
> >>>
> >>> That leaves it up to us to find what bugs were fixed or hoping bug
> >>> search tool returns them all, plus not a nice list/summary to glance
> >>> through.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Brian Meade  wrote:
> >>> > 10.5.2.12028-1 is an Engineering Special which uses a different
> >>> > numbering
> >>> > scheme.  I thought the ReadMe used to show what ES the SU was built
> off
> >>> > of
> >>> > but having trouble finding it.
> >>> >
> >>> > SU2/SU2a were most likely built off of older engineering specials
> than
> >>> > 10.5.2.12028-1.
> >>> >
> >>> > The higher release thing really only works in the case of published
> >>> > versions
> >>> > on cisco.com.
> >>> >
> >>> > On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:34 PM, Erick Bergquist  >
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Some bugs, like CSCuu58142 effecting single number reach doesn't
> seem
> >>> >> to follow higher versions contain the fix methodology.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Bug toolkit says this is fixed in 10.5.2.12028-1 but 10.5.2 SU2,
> SU2a
> >>> >> (10.5.2.12900 and 10.5.2.12901) don't contain the bug fix per TAC
> and
> >>> >> going over the release notes for SU2, SU2a.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I need to use the 10.5.2.12028-1 ES or latest ES 10.5.2.13039-1.
> >>> >> Currently debating which route I'm going to go or wait out for SU3
> or
> >>> >> until we upgrade to 11.x.  This SNR bug is effecting some users
> about
> >>> >> every 1-2 months.  Workaround is to disable SNR on their remote
> >>> >> destination profile and re-enable it.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> 

Re: [cisco-voip] registering C60 to CUCM v9 - easy? license?

[Brian Meade]

I believe you need a Telepresence Room license in CUCM for those.

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:

>
> i've got a C60 in a box that i'd like to use. on cucm v9, it looks like i
> can configure and register it natively. just wondering how difficult it
> might be to get going. also... what license is used? I've got some CUWL
> standard licenses - will that suffice?
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.
> Senior Analyst, Network Infrastructure
> Computing and Communications Services (CCS)
> University of Guelph
>
> 519‐824‐4120 Ext 56354
> le...@uoguelph.ca
> www.uoguelph.ca/ccs
> Room 037, Animal Science and Nutrition Building
> Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1
>
>
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] registering C60 to CUCM v9 - easy? license?

[Lelio Fulgenzi]

yup. i just did a quick test loading it in and it gave me a license usage 
error. i'll have to see how much those are and hope that i can buy one at a 
time. ;) 

--- 
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A. 
Senior Analyst, Network Infrastructure 
Computing and Communications Services (CCS) 
University of Guelph 

519‐824‐4120 Ext 56354 
le...@uoguelph.ca 
www.uoguelph.ca/ccs 
Room 037, Animal Science and Nutrition Building 
Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1 

- Original Message -

From: "Brian Meade"  
To: "Lelio Fulgenzi"  
Cc: "voip puck"  
Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2015 3:18:01 PM 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] registering C60 to CUCM v9 - easy? license? 

I believe you need a Telepresence Room license in CUCM for those. 

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi < le...@uoguelph.ca > wrote: 




i've got a C60 in a box that i'd like to use. on cucm v9, it looks like i can 
configure and register it natively. just wondering how difficult it might be to 
get going. also... what license is used? I've got some CUWL standard licenses - 
will that suffice? 





--- 
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A. 
Senior Analyst, Network Infrastructure 
Computing and Communications Services (CCS) 
University of Guelph 

519‐824‐4120 Ext 56354 
le...@uoguelph.ca 
www.uoguelph.ca/ccs 
Room 037, Animal Science and Nutrition Building 
Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1 


___ 
cisco-voip mailing list 
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net 
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip 






___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] registering C60 to CUCM v9 - easy? license?

[Lelio Fulgenzi]

definitely. i just wanted to see if i needed something different. when we're 
ready to test, i'll configure it up again. 

i'm hoping it's an easy thing to set up. there are a lot of parts! ;) 

--- 
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A. 
Senior Analyst, Network Infrastructure 
Computing and Communications Services (CCS) 
University of Guelph 

519‐824‐4120 Ext 56354 
le...@uoguelph.ca 
www.uoguelph.ca/ccs 
Room 037, Animal Science and Nutrition Building 
Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1 

- Original Message -

From: "Kevin Przybylowski"  
To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" , "Brian Meade"  
Cc: "voip puck"  
Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2015 3:27:37 PM 
Subject: RE: registering C60 to CUCM v9 - easy? license? 



You can and you also get some time in that grace period to play. 




From: cisco-voip [mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Lelio 
Fulgenzi 
Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2015 3:25 PM 
To: Brian Meade  
Cc: voip puck  
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] registering C60 to CUCM v9 - easy? license? 








yup. i just did a quick test loading it in and it gave me a license usage 
error. i'll have to see how much those are and hope that i can buy one at a 
time. ;) 





--- 
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A. 
Senior Analyst, Network Infrastructure 
Computing and Communications Services (CCS) 
University of Guelph 





519 ‐ 824 ‐ 4120 Ext 56354 
le...@uoguelph.ca 
www.uoguelph.ca/ccs 
Room 037, Animal Science and Nutrition Building 
Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1 



- Original Message -



From: "Brian Meade" < bmead...@vt.edu > 
To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" < le...@uoguelph.ca > 
Cc: "voip puck" < cisco-voip@puck.nether.net > 
Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2015 3:18:01 PM 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] registering C60 to CUCM v9 - easy? license? 





I believe you need a Telepresence Room license in CUCM for those. 





On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi < le...@uoguelph.ca > wrote: 









i've got a C60 in a box that i'd like to use. on cucm v9, it looks like i can 
configure and register it natively. just wondering how difficult it might be to 
get going. also... what license is used? I've got some CUWL standard licenses - 
will that suffice? 

















--- 
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A. 
Senior Analyst, Network Infrastructure 
Computing and Communications Services (CCS) 
University of Guelph 





519 ‐ 824 ‐ 4120 Ext 56354 
le...@uoguelph.ca 
www.uoguelph.ca/ccs 
Room 037, Animal Science and Nutrition Building 
Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1 






___ 
cisco-voip mailing list 
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net 
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip 









___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

[cisco-voip] registering C60 to CUCM v9 - easy? license?

[Lelio Fulgenzi]

i've got a C60 in a box that i'd like to use. on cucm v9, it looks like i can 
configure and register it natively. just wondering how difficult it might be to 
get going. also... what license is used? I've got some CUWL standard licenses - 
will that suffice? 





--- 
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A. 
Senior Analyst, Network Infrastructure 
Computing and Communications Services (CCS) 
University of Guelph 

519‐824‐4120 Ext 56354 
le...@uoguelph.ca 
www.uoguelph.ca/ccs 
Room 037, Animal Science and Nutrition Building 
Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1 

___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

[cisco-voip] switch version from CUCM 9.1(1) to 10.5(2)

[Abebe Amare]

Hi,

I upgraded CUCM over the weekend from version 9.1 to 10.5(2) and applied
the upgrade license on the PLM for version 10.x .
I noticed some EM profiles, end users, phones and BLF speed dials
disappeared after the version switch over. Fortunately those missing items
were not much so I added them manually. what might have caused the
configuration missing ?

thanks in advance

Abebe
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] Background url

[Justin Steinberg]

i believe you just put the file name in that field, so like below.

Background.png

I will say that I did this for the first time on 9.12 via the common phone
profile and applied the config.   It dropped every call in progress.   This
was an early 9.1 and the phones were 8945s.   I never investigated in
further but it was the first time that I had an 'apply config' action drop
calls in progress.

Justin

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Louis Koekemoer (ZA) <
louis.koekem...@dimensiondata.com> wrote:

>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I’m busy with a deployment of 8841 phones. I created a background image as
> per the documentation and it works fine if you go to the physical phone and
> select settings>Wallpaper and set the new Background. I do however want to
> set this “globally” for all the phones. So on the 8841’s there is a
> Background Image option towards the bottom of the phone’s config. It is
> also in the Common Phone Profile. I tried setting it as I did in the
> List.xml file and a few other ways, without luck. Any Ideas what it should
> look like?
>
>
>
>
>
> In the list.xml file it looks like this:
>
>  URL="TFTP:Desktops/800x480x24/Background.png"/>
>
>
>
> I tried the following. It does not accept the “ like above.
>
> /Desktops/800x480x24/Background.png
>
> TFTP:Desktops/800x480x24/Background.png
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
>
>
> *Louis Koekemoer*
>
> Principle Systems Engineer – Converged Communications
>
> Dimension Data Middle East & Africa
>
> Tel: +27 (11) 575 4317
>
> Fax: +27 (11) 576 4317
>
> Mobile: +27 (71) 680 8790
>
> *louis.koekem...@dimensiondata.com *
>
> Planned Leave – 24/09/2015 – 27/09/2015
>
> Planned Travel –
>
> [image: Description: Description: 21875_DD_NI_CC_Signature_v-1]
> 
>
>
>
>
> This email and all contents are subject to the following disclaimer:
> "http://www.dimensiondata.com/emaildisclaimer;
> 
>
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] Background url

[Ryan Huff]

I believe you need to specify the fully qualified tftp path; at least you did when I last played with it.Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device Original message From: "Louis Koekemoer (ZA)"  Date:10/06/2015  5:02 PM  (GMT-05:00) To: Justin Steinberg  Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Background url 

So in my case I should only put
Background.png ? As I say it is a new installation and at the moment it is only 2 phones that I’m busy testing with. We will be rolling out phones in about a week’s time.
 

 
Kind regards
 
Louis Koekemoer
Principle Systems Engineer – Converged Communications
Dimension Data Middle East & Africa
Tel: +27 (11) 575 4317
Fax: +27 (11) 576 4317
Mobile: +27 (71) 680 8790
louis.koekem...@dimensiondata.com
Planned Leave –

Planned Travel –



 


From: Justin Steinberg [mailto:jsteinb...@gmail.com]

Sent: 06 October 2015 10:06 PM
To: Louis Koekemoer (ZA)
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Background url


 
 

i believe you just put the file name in that field, so like below.

 


Background.png


 


I will say that I did this for the first time on 9.12 via the common phone profile and applied the config.   It dropped every call in progress.   This was an early 9.1 and
 the phones were 8945s.   I never investigated in further but it was the first time that I had an 'apply config' action drop calls in progress.


 


Justin



 

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Louis Koekemoer (ZA)  wrote:


 

Hi all,
 
I’m busy with a deployment of 8841 phones. I created a background image as per the documentation and it works fine if you go to the physical phone and select settings>Wallpaper
 and set the new Background. I do however want to set this “globally” for all the phones. So on the 8841’s there is a Background Image option towards the bottom of the phone’s config. It is also in the Common Phone Profile. I tried setting it as I did in the
 List.xml file and a few other ways, without luck. Any Ideas what it should look like?
 
 
In the list.xml file it looks like this:

 
I tried the following. It does not accept the “ like above.
/Desktops/800x480x24/Background.png
TFTP:Desktops/800x480x24/Background.png
 
 
 

Kind regards
 
Louis Koekemoer
Principle Systems Engineer – Converged Communications
Dimension Data Middle East & Africa
Tel:
+27 (11) 575 4317
Fax:
+27 (11) 576 4317
Mobile:
+27 (71) 680 8790
louis.koekem...@dimensiondata.com
Planned Leave – 24/09/2015 – 27/09/2015
Planned Travel –


 



This email and all contents are subject to the following disclaimer:
"http://www.dimensiondata.com/emaildisclaimer"



___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip


 



itevomcid 



___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] switch version from CUCM 9.1(1) to 10.5(2)

[Ryan Huff]

My suspicion (and this is just a guess really, without more detail); is that 
after the 10.5 update was applied, but before the switch version was completed, 
changes where made to the data in the 9.1 version.

When staging an upgrade in the inactive partition, changes made to the database 
in the active partition are not replicated to the database in the inactive 
partition. When you complete the switch version, the database from the inactive 
partition (created when you initially installed the upgrade) becomes active and 
any data differences between the databases are lost.

The same thing would happen if you had to revert the upgrade and switch-version 
back to 9.1. Any changes made in 10.5 would not replicate into 9.1.

Thanks,

Ryan

Sent from my iPad

> On Oct 6, 2015, at 3:20 AM, Abebe Amare  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I upgraded CUCM over the weekend from version 9.1 to 10.5(2) and applied the 
> upgrade license on the PLM for version 10.x .
> I noticed some EM profiles, end users, phones and BLF speed dials disappeared 
> after the version switch over. Fortunately those missing items were not much 
> so I added them manually. what might have caused the configuration missing ?
> 
> thanks in advance
> 
> Abebe
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] Understanding a Defect's Affected Versions

[Justin Steinberg]

I agree with that.  It's too hard to know how to search the bug toolkit for
fixes in a certain version.
On Oct 5, 2015 11:54 PM, "Erick Bergquist"  wrote:

> I'm also not a fan of the newer release notes not including a list of
> the Resolved Bugs, but a link to bug search tool...
>
> That leaves it up to us to find what bugs were fixed or hoping bug
> search tool returns them all, plus not a nice list/summary to glance
> through.
>
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Brian Meade  wrote:
> > 10.5.2.12028-1 is an Engineering Special which uses a different numbering
> > scheme.  I thought the ReadMe used to show what ES the SU was built off
> of
> > but having trouble finding it.
> >
> > SU2/SU2a were most likely built off of older engineering specials than
> > 10.5.2.12028-1.
> >
> > The higher release thing really only works in the case of published
> versions
> > on cisco.com.
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:34 PM, Erick Bergquist 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Some bugs, like CSCuu58142 effecting single number reach doesn't seem
> >> to follow higher versions contain the fix methodology.
> >>
> >> Bug toolkit says this is fixed in 10.5.2.12028-1 but 10.5.2 SU2, SU2a
> >> (10.5.2.12900 and 10.5.2.12901) don't contain the bug fix per TAC and
> >> going over the release notes for SU2, SU2a.
> >>
> >> I need to use the 10.5.2.12028-1 ES or latest ES 10.5.2.13039-1.
> >> Currently debating which route I'm going to go or wait out for SU3 or
> >> until we upgrade to 11.x.  This SNR bug is effecting some users about
> >> every 1-2 months.  Workaround is to disable SNR on their remote
> >> destination profile and re-enable it.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Ryan Ratliff (rratliff)
> >>  wrote:
> >> > it's up to the discretion of the bug author.  <--
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > This means it’s accuracy varies greatly by product and even bug
> author.
> >> > For
> >> > UCM you should always assume you are vulnerable if the fixed-in
> version
> >> > is
> >> > higher than what you are currently running unless the bug description
> >> > clearly states otherwise or the feature impacted by the bug doesn’t
> >> > exist in
> >> > your version.
> >> >
> >> > -Ryan
> >> >
> >> > On Sep 29, 2015, at 2:25 PM, Anthony Holloway
> >> >  wrote:
> >> >
> >> > In reference to this defect:
> >> >
> >> > https://tools.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCuv45722
> >> >
> >> > Can you help me understand what this means as far as all affected
> >> > versions?
> >> >
> >> > On the surface, it would appear that it's only affecting 9.1(2).
> >> > However,
> >> > with a fixed in version being way out in 11.5, that would also
> indicate
> >> > to
> >> > me that an upgrade to 10.5(2)SU2a, as an example, would not fix this
> >> > issue.
> >> >
> >> > Does Cisco imply all versions affected between the listed affected
> >> > versions
> >> > and the fixed in version?  Or, should this defect list all affected
> >> > versions?
> >> >
> >> > I cannot recall what I've heard about this in the past.  I'm almost
> >> > guessing
> >> > there's no exact science to it, and it's up to the discretion of the
> bug
> >> > author.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for your help.
> >> > ___
> >> > cisco-voip mailing list
> >> > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> >> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ___
> >> > cisco-voip mailing list
> >> > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> >> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> >> >
> >> ___
> >> cisco-voip mailing list
> >> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> >
> >
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] switch version from CUCM 9.1(1) to 10.5(2)

[Abebe Amare]

That is exactly what happened,

thanks Ryan, for the in-depth explanation.

Abebe,



On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Ryan Huff  wrote:

> My suspicion (and this is just a guess really, without more detail); is
> that after the 10.5 update was applied, but before the switch version was
> completed, changes where made to the data in the 9.1 version.
>
> When staging an upgrade in the inactive partition, changes made to the
> database in the active partition are not replicated to the database in the
> inactive partition. When you complete the switch version, the database from
> the inactive partition (created when you initially installed the upgrade)
> becomes active and any data differences between the databases are lost.
>
> The same thing would happen if you had to revert the upgrade and
> switch-version back to 9.1. Any changes made in 10.5 would not replicate
> into 9.1.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ryan
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On Oct 6, 2015, at 3:20 AM, Abebe Amare  wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I upgraded CUCM over the weekend from version 9.1 to 10.5(2) and applied
> the upgrade license on the PLM for version 10.x .
> > I noticed some EM profiles, end users, phones and BLF speed dials
> disappeared after the version switch over. Fortunately those missing items
> were not much so I added them manually. what might have caused the
> configuration missing ?
> >
> > thanks in advance
> >
> > Abebe
> > ___
> > cisco-voip mailing list
> > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip