Re: [BLISS] Comments on draft-procter-bliss-call-park-extension-04(AutoRetrieve proposal)

["Hutton, Andrew" <[e-mail]>]

I agree with Francois it would I assume be the Referred-by header that
contains the URI of the park server and as long as the UA can match this
against it's local configuration then this will be ok.

I do think we should have a short description of the auto-retrieve
procedure including an example message flow in the draft.

Andy


 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Francois Audet [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>Sent: 27 April 2009 18:37
>To: Michael Procter; Hutton, Andrew
>Cc: [e-mail]; Scott Orton
>Subject: RE: [BLISS] Comments on 
>draft-procter-bliss-call-park-extension-04(AutoRetrieve proposal)
>
>Actually, I don't think it would be History-Info: I think it would
>be Referred-by header (RFC 3892). It would just say it's the
>Park Server. 
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Procter [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 10:11
>> To: Hutton, Andrew
>> Cc: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); [e-mail]; Orton, 
>> Scott (RICH1:B620)
>> Subject: Re: [BLISS] Comments on 
>> draft-procter-bliss-call-park-extension-04(AutoRetrieve proposal)
>> 
>> 2009/4/27 Hutton, Andrew <[e-mail]>:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I think the auto-retrieve timer is really something that would be 
>> > implemented in the park server and the phone does not need to know 
>> > anything about it.
>> 
>> Yes, that was my thought.
>> 
>> > What might be useful from the parking UA's perspective is 
>that when 
>> > the call is auto-retrieved (i.e. the park server refer's 
>> the call back 
>> > to the parking UA or possibly a different UA) that the resulting 
>> > INVITE contains an indication that the INVITE is a result of the 
>> > auto-retrieve initiated by the park server. Could we say something 
>> > about this in the draft?
>> 
>> Surely this is something that could be addressed with History-Info?
>> 
>> Michael
>> 
>