On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Dale Worley<[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Now that we are using POST ( after Jason's clarification), we should be able to better accommodate this. A URL can be returned for each call instance. Ranga > > Dale > > > -- M. Ranganathan _______________________________________________ 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/
