[dispatch] Against RFC 3891 :)
"Anton Tveretin" <fas_vm@surguttel.ru> Sun, 26 April 2015 19:59 UTC
Return-Path: <fas_vm@surguttel.ru>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D1861A03A1 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:59:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -97.732
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.732 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_EQ_RU=0.595, HOST_EQ_RU=0.875, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IJwFpkoihzzG for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:59:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from msk-mail-app01.ti.ru (msk-mail-app01.ti.ru [89.20.149.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 578031A0007 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:59:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [151.252.66.185] (account fas_vm@surguttel.ru HELO surguttel.ru) by msk-mail-app01.ti.ru (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.20) with ESMTPA id 10469659 for dispatch@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Apr 2015 22:58:59 +0300
From: Anton Tveretin <fas_vm@surguttel.ru>
To: dispatch@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 00:58:31 +0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <553D4367.14793.165CC40@fas_vm.surguttel.ru>
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.70)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-description: Mail message body
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 150426-0, 26.04.2015), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/fPS3y02VvTwdaNI7p3XxKoICgC8>
Subject: [dispatch] Against RFC 3891 :)
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 19:59:05 -0000
Hello All, Few more notes about my draft. The question is, should the Ctg request the caller (RFC 3891) or the callee to pick up a call? The former, in addition to charging issues, brings up the following: 1. Routing to the caller, which could be hindered by line hunting. I know there is a recently published RFC about this. 2. Call barring policy at either side. 3. Information for the callee only (if it could be). Clearly, this is not possible with RFC 3891. It is not specified in draft-worley-sipping-pickup-01, nor in draft-tveretin-dispatch-remote-00, but will be in -01 version (Subject: header). Of course, I do not want to restrict applicability of the RFC 3891. Regards, Anton.
- [dispatch] Against RFC 3891 :) Anton Tveretin
- Re: [dispatch] Against RFC 3891 :) Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [dispatch] Against RFC 3891 :) Dale R. Worley