Re: [BLISS] WGLC for draft-ietf-bliss-call-completion-07

"Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming@digium.com> Sun, 21 November 2010 17:09 UTC

Return-Path: <kpfleming@digium.com>
X-Original-To: bliss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bliss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C88963A69F8 for <bliss@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 09:09:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9HtM4+322Sq2 for <bliss@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 09:09:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.digium.com (mail.digium.com [216.207.245.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE26E3A69E0 for <bliss@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 09:09:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zimbra.digium.internal ([10.24.55.203] helo=zimbra.hsv.digium.com) by mail.digium.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <kpfleming@digium.com>) id 1PKDQx-00053C-M3 for bliss@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:10:35 -0600
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.hsv.digium.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A82BED8193 for <bliss@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:10:35 -0600 (CST)
Received: from zimbra.hsv.digium.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.hsv.digium.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bLt9rWZ9YTqr for <bliss@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:10:35 -0600 (CST)
Received: from [192.168.0.106] (ip72-222-195-143.ph.ph.cox.net [72.222.195.143]) by zimbra.hsv.digium.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E6A94D8192 for <bliss@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 11:10:34 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <4CE95289.9090405@digium.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 10:10:33 -0700
From: "Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming@digium.com>
Organization: Digium, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bliss@ietf.org
References: <46705063-0A81-4DE5-927A-C74FC13AF6C9@agnada.com> <101C6067BEC68246B0C3F6843BCCC1E307DE1D0102@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <BABF50A5EDD33C42A96DA535F1C8AA8003BF7747@S4DE9JSAAIL.ost.t-com.de> <101C6067BEC68246B0C3F6843BCCC1E307E07C1013@MCHP058A.global-ad.net>
In-Reply-To: <101C6067BEC68246B0C3F6843BCCC1E307E07C1013@MCHP058A.global-ad.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [BLISS] WGLC for draft-ietf-bliss-call-completion-07
X-BeenThere: bliss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Basic Level of Interoperability for SIP Services \(BLISS\) BoF" <bliss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss>, <mailto:bliss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bliss>
List-Post: <mailto:bliss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bliss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss>, <mailto:bliss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:09:47 -0000

On 11/09/2010 08:13 PM, Hutton, Andrew wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> See below.
>
> Regards
> Andy
>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The following comments are based on feedback I obtained from
>>> some developers. Sorry that they are sent last minute.
>>>
>>> 1. Section 4.2 "Call-Completion procedures" (1st Para.). The
>>> text indicates that call completion procedures are not
>>> required if the callee's UAs return a success response. This
>>> is incorrect and in conflict with the definition of "Failed
>>> Call" in the definitions. The requirement for call completion
>>> is independent of the success/failure of the SIP INVITE request.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. Section 4.2. (2nd para.) Again it is implied that the call
>>> completion procedures seems tied to the state of the
>>> preceding INVITE initiated dialog with the statement
>>> "Eventually, the INVITE fails, or the resulting dialog(s) are
>>> terminated". However it is not the case that the call
>>> completion procedures are independent of the state any
>>> proceeding dialog. For example it should be possible to
>>> initiate call completion even before the original INVITE
>>> dialog is terminated.
>>
>> I've tried to combine the 2 paragrapgs:
>>
>> "The caller's UA sends an INVITE to a request URI. One or
>> more forks of this request reach one or more of the callee's
>> UAs. However there might be the situation that the calling
>> user considers the result of the call insufficient to satisfy
>> his needs, e.g. the INVITE fails and the resulting dialog(s)
>> are terminated, or the INVITE might succeed at some other UA."
>>
>
> [AndyHutton] - I think it needs to be made clear that the SUBSCRIBE for call completion can be initiated whatever the state of the original INVITE dialog. For example a 180 or 200OK response could be received to the original INVITE request and the user decides to invoke call completion before terminating the INVITE dialog. Maybe a statement to this effect could be made in section 4.2 and/or section 6.2.

I agree. When the UAS sends any response that includes the 
call-completion information, the UAC is free to SUBSCRIBE for call 
completion services.

-- 
Kevin P. Fleming
Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA
skype: kpfleming | jabber: kfleming@digium.com
Check us out at www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org