On Wed, 2009-08-19 at 17:32 -0400, M. Ranganathan wrote: > I agree we need this level of distinction if we want to do INVITE > style of third part call control a-la RFC3275. > > In this case, perhaps it would suffice to return error for the second > call attempt if there are two concurrent call attempts ( after all the > agent can try again and besides we have no long term state information > about the state of any call in progress -- all we have is the state of > the ongoing call setup attempt).
I would recommend we not build a "single call" restriction into the architecture. The users already understand what it means if two processes request a call from A to B at the same time, and some day soon someone will come up with a use-case for doing so. Dale _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/
