Re: [BLISS] Configuring the proxy

A SIP configuration framework approach should also be considered.

Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: bliss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:bliss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Hans Erik van Elburg
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 12:05 PM
To: Elwell, John; bliss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [BLISS] Configuring the proxy

Without having followed the ACH discussion at all. My first reaction to
your question below is, did you consider XCAP?

/Hans Erik

-----Original Message-----
From: bliss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:bliss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Elwell, John
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 9:53 AM
To: bliss@ietf.org
Subject: [BLISS] Configuring the proxy

One of the proposed measures for Automatic Call Handling (ACH) is to
standardise the way in which a user can examine and modify ACH settings
at its domain proxy.

One obvious mechanism, and one that is implemented fairly widely I
believe, is simply a web page. The web page would need to authenticate
the user somehow and restrict the user to changing proxy settings
relating to herself (her own ACH settings and possibly other settings).
The user would need to know where to find this web page. A means of
configuring the URL in the UA (e.g., using the configuration framework)
would be useful, but otherwise there does not seem to be a need for
standardisation.

One possible limitation of such a web page is that it is suitable for
use by the user, but not normally very suitable for use by the UA on the
user's behalf. There may be use cases where this is important.

As an example, consider a device with a dedicated button for turning
on/off the immediate redirection of calls to voicemail and a
corresponding lamp to show the current setting. (It does not need to be
a button and lamp - other UI realisations are possible.) When ACH is
performed at the proxy, the UA needs to know the current setting (in
order to control the lamp) and needs to be able to toggle the setting.
Similarly, many other examples could be identified where the UA needs to
monitor and/or control proxy ACH settings in order to provide a
sophisticated UI. Furthermore, the UA might have the intelligence to
monitor/control proxy ACH proxy settings when ACH is provided by the
proxy, but provide its own local ACH on other occasions.

So the first question for the BLISS WG is whether there is indeed a need
to standardise a method (i.e., specify a MUST implement method) by which
a UA can monitor and control proxy ACH settings.

John
_______________________________________________
BLISS mailing list
BLISS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss
_______________________________________________
BLISS mailing list
BLISS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss
_______________________________________________
BLISS mailing list
BLISS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss