> > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:sipx-dev->[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lawrence, Scott (BL60:9D30) >Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 12:06 PM >To: Mossman, Paul (CAR:9D30) >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [sipX-dev] Polycoms send Emergency INVITE directly to Gateway, >avoiding sipXproxy Alarm notification > >On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 10:28 -0400, Paul Mossman wrote: >> >> My assumption for XCF-3581 was that if we added the new Alarm >> notification behaviour, then we expect it to be usable. But, it would >> seem that there's more to it than that. >> >> Hopefully we agree that: >> - It should be possible to configure the (capable) phones to send >> Emergency calls directly to the gateway, for reliability. >> - It should be also possible to configure the phones to send >> Emergency >> calls via sipXproxy, so that an Alarm email can be sent. >> >> If so, then we have two issues to resolve: >> >> 1. Which of the above two should be the default? >> >> 2. You cannot currently use sipXconfig to configure Polycoms to send >> Emergency calls via sipXproxy. At least not while the Emergency Dial >> Rule is enabled, which is a prerequisite for an Alarm email. > >I think that the real-world utility of an alarm delivered via email is >too small to justify making any change to how we configure phones at >this late date. Email is not a synchronous system - it may take hours >to be delivered. > >I think that post-4.0 we should be looking at real-time alarm mechanisms >(like XMPP or SIP MESSAGE based alarm notice mechanisms), and then we'd >have something that justifies a switch that changes how phones are >configured. >
I long underestimated the importance of E911 notification, but let me assure you it is critical. I'd still like to get both email and SMS notification whenever an emergency number is dialed. The reality is that we do not yet have a survivable branch solution that allows proper handling of E911. Therefore, we need to solve the most frequent case first and provide E911 notification for that case. Therefore, I vote for routing through the proxy. --martin _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
