"Auto Answer" feature with dynamic "answer after" for Nortel 1200 IP Phones is now available in the load SIP12x0.01.01.03. Please see issues: http://track.sipfoundry.org/browse/XTRN-874 http://track.sipfoundry.org/browse/XX-6544
Thanks, Tarru Naval Vashistha ipDialog Support ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Mossman" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Cc: "Dara Geary" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 7:36 PM Subject: [sipX-dev] "Auto Answer" with dynamic "answer after" timeout insipXecs > Hi all, > > Dara (cc'd) is investigating using sipXecs with a Contact Centre. > > There is a feature which he feels is critical, which we don't seem to > have. The contact center must be able to INVITE an agent such that the > call is automatically picked up at the agent's phone if it isn't > manually picked up before a specified "answer after" timeout. > > Sounds perfect for the sipXecs Intercom feature, except for one thing. > The "answer after" timeout must be dynamic, and specified in the INVITE > message. > > Our Intercom feature has a single system-wide "Ring time", which > requires rebooting the phones in order to change. It's implemented > using the (RFC 3261 standard) Alert-Info header, in which a number of > phones accept a pre-defined secret value as a trigger for the > non-standard behaviour. (Polycom and Nortel IP 12x0 phones support > this.) > > Dara had suggested using the (RFC 3261 standard) Call-Info header, but > with the Broadsoft Talk and Hold non-standard "Answer-After" > Info-parameter (http://tinyurl.com/ye58rtc, Section 2.3.) This approach > is less secure, because there is no pre-defined secret value. But the > timeout value can be dynamic. (Polycoms do not support this, but Nortel > IP 12x0 phones may in the near future.) > > > So, how should we handle delivering this functionality in sipXecs? > Should we advise that phones implement the Call-Info "Answer-After" > Info-parameter? > > On a practical note, I'm not sure if that would work for Polycom. Their > Alert-Info functionality is already quite extensive, and could easily be > used to deliver the functionality. (Multiple pre-defined secrets can be > configured, each with a different "Ring time." The INVITE can then just > dynamically send the Alert-Info secret corresponding to the desired > timeout.) I doubt Polycom would be keen on developing a second > mechanism for delivery functionality they already support. > > > How else could we deliver the functionality? > > Maybe we could enhance the Intercom feature, so that it accepts the > Call-Info "Answer-After" Info-parameter, but uses the Polycom mechanism > in the resulting transformed INVITE? This would keep the security > problem out of the phones, and the Intercom feature can be left off in > deployments that do not require it. I think Intercom calls are also > authenticated, which means there could be authorization over who can > force an endpoint to auto-answer. > > > Thoughts? > > > -Paul > [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.114/2401 - Release Date: 09/28/09 17:53:00 _______________________________________________ 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/
