You are referring to a generic model of application server that collects and distributes asynchronous events as per RFC 3265. "Presence Server" is a specialization of this type of application server that only bothers about "presence" base event package and its template packages.
You are asking for a standard to interface with a non standard for which there can never be a standard. Please be more specific on what type of third-party VM Server you are trying to inter-operate with and its capabilities. On 9/3/07, Sai P. Varanasi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I believe in most of the cases, presence server is responsible for > message-summary events to all the users. In my framework, it is the > responsibility of the VM server to tell presence to notify the user. > > Hope, it is clear now. > > Thanks & Regards, > Sai Prabhakar Varanasi > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Vikram Chhibber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 3:30 PM > To: Sai P. Varanasi > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Voicemail to presence server interface > > The usual way is that the address of the Voice Mail Server has to be > configured in the user's phone. The user phone needs to send SUBSCRIBE > for message-summary event and the Voice Mail Server will NOTIFY the > user if there is a change in his mailbox. > > The presence engine is responsible for collecting and distributing > "presence" information: event "presence". I don't understand why you > want to use presence engine to collect and distribute MWI. Unless, you > have some framework like Presence Engine that work for message-summary > event too. > > On 9/3/07, Sai P. Varanasi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > Is there a standard for a third party voicemail subsystem to notify the > > presence server that a user has a new message? How does the presence > server > > notify a particular user about MWI on a voicemail engine? > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > Sai Prabhakar Varanasi > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Vikram > > Chhibber > > Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 12:54 PM > > To: Goyal, Amit > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Route Header in INVITE. > > > > I guess the second option as the PCSCF has the capability to Route the > > invite to ICSCF of the calling party domain or directly to the SCSCF > > if it has the registration cache. > > > > On 9/3/07, Goyal, Amit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > In IMS environment if we get 200 OK for REGISTER without Service-Route, > > > Then what should be the Route set for out going INVITE ? > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. No Route > > > > > > OR > > > > > > 2 Route with only P-CSCF Address > > > > > > > > > > > > Or something else. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Amit > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Sip-implementors mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sip-implementors mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sip-implementors mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > > > > > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
