[Iptel] CPL as a standard for distinctive ringing
ssa@hss.hns.com Wed, 04 February 2004 13:38 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA05232 for <iptel-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 08:38:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoNEc-0005FW-Ai for iptel-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 08:38:30 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i14DcU0H020172 for iptel-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 08:38:30 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoNEc-0005FH-53 for iptel-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 08:38:30 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA05226 for <iptel-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 08:38:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoNEa-0004Na-00 for iptel-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 08:38:28 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoNDf-0004GV-00 for iptel-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 08:37:32 -0500
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoNDD-00048p-00 for iptel-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 08:37:03 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoNDC-0004px-5r; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 08:37:02 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoMfQ-0002UU-WC for iptel@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 08:02:09 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA04333 for <iptel@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 08:02:06 -0500 (EST)
From: ssa@hss.hns.com
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoMfO-0000wh-00 for iptel@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 08:02:06 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoMeR-0000rd-00 for iptel@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 08:01:08 -0500
Received: from 210-210-93-99.lan.sify.net ([210.210.93.99] helo=hss.hns.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoMdX-0000iW-00 for iptel@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 08:00:11 -0500
Received: from pragati.hss.hns.com (pragati.hss.hns.com [139.85.249.33]) by hss.hns.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id i14CwvD23942 for <iptel@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 18:28:57 +0530
To: iptel@ietf.org
Cc: ssa@hss.hns.com
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.1 February 07, 2003
Message-ID: <OF1F7ABBF6.2687CC3B-ON65256E30.0046432A-65256E30.00475E0F@hss.hns.com>
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Pragati/BLR/HSS(Release 6.5|September 18, 2003) at 02/04/2004 06:29:36 PM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Subject: [Iptel] CPL as a standard for distinctive ringing
Sender: iptel-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: iptel-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: iptel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel>, <mailto:iptel-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: IP Telephony <iptel.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:iptel@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iptel-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel>, <mailto:iptel-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/iptel/>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 18:29:33 +0530
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60
Hi, This is regarding the suggested hypothetical extension to CPL (draft-ietf-iptel-cpl-08: chapter 12.10) for distinctive ringing. This extension was originally proposed in the 03 version of the draft. Since then it has been kept as a "hypothetical" extension and _not_ as a "standard" action node in 5 more later versions including the latest 08 version. I would like to know the possibility/ acceptance of "ring" (draft-ietf-iptel-cpl-08: chapter 12.10) node coming in the standard CPL schema in future versions of the draft. Also response from SIP proxy developers, who are following the suggested extension for their distinctive ringing implementation, will be appreciated. Thanks in advance, Subrata Sa e-mail: ssa@hss.hns.com -------------------------------------- Next Generation Networks division Hughes Software Systems _______________________________________________ Iptel mailing list Iptel@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel