[Sip] RE: Callerprefs: Mobility tag

["Mary Barnes" <[e-mail]>]

Per my response to Keith's posting, I agree with this proposal (retracting
my suggestion to add other definitions). 

Mary.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Rosenberg [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 1:59 AM
To: Henning Schulzrinne
Cc: Paul Kyzivat; Barnes, Mary [NGC:B602:EXCH]; '[e-mail]'
Subject: Re: Callerprefs: Mobility tag


Well, practically speaking, people tell me all the time to "call me on 
my mobile". Caller preferences would allow me to do that without needing 
to have two numbers for that person.

Now, addressing Mary's main point, about adding other definitions for 
mobility. I don't want this to be a technology definition - i.e., 3g 
being different than 2g being different that WiFi. I think the essential 
aspect of it is whether there is a fixed poitn of attachment to the 
network or not As such, it is my preference to just remove the "in 
between" bit. Here is the new text:

\item[Summary of the media feature indicated by this tag:] The
mobility feature tag indicates whether the device is fixed (meaning
that it is associated with a fixed point of contact with the network),
or mobile (meaning that it is not associated with a fixed point of
contact). Note that cordless phones are fixed, not mobile, based on
this definition.


-Jonathan R.

Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> I think this is useful. Yes, having something like "don't call if it 
> costs extra" or "don't call if the person is in a car or meeting" would 
> be better, but until everybody uses RPIDS, 'no mobile phone' is a pretty 
> good approximation and actually implementable. (In European countries, 
> the *caller* pays more for mobile calls, so this is a real concern. And 
> mobile is indeed the distinction that matters, not something else.)
> 
> Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> 
>> I've always had trouble with the semantics of this feature. All the 
>> examples I can think of for using it really depend of coincidental 
>> association between mobility and other features.
>>
>> For instance, *why* would I prefer to call someone on their fixed 
>> phone rather than their mobile phone?
>>
>> - because use of the mobile phone is expensive?
>>
>> - because I know the fixed phone is in a particular location
>>   and I only want to reach them if they are there.
>>
>> Neither of these are really directly related to the fixed nature of 
>> the phone.
>>
>> I think I asked Jonathan about this and he felt it should be kept 
>> because it had been around for a long time and we didn't have 
>> justification for removing it. Personally I think it could just go away.
>>
>>     Paul
>>
>> Mary Barnes wrote:
>>
>>> In section 9.9, the mobility tag is described as "indicates whether the
>>> device is fixed, wireless or somewhere in-between", however, there is no
>>> definition for the somewhere in-between. So, my initial reaction 
>>> would be to reword this as "indicates whether the
>>> device is fixed or wireless", but then I got to thinking about what 
>>> could
>>> have been meant by some in-between and I think there might be some 
>>> value in
>>> defining some of those now. One term I had considered was "nomadic" 
>>> as the "in-between".  But, then I
>>> also got to thinking that perhaps "WiFi" is a good example of the
>>> "in-between".  The usefulness of these really depends upon how they
>>> would/could be used.  The one example I saw in the usecases draft was 
>>> around
>>> wanting to contact someone only on their mobile phone.  The inverse 
>>> of this
>>> could be that you absolutely don't want to contact them on their mobile
>>> phone, but would want to contact them on anything else or perhaps 
>>> only if
>>> they're "fixed" or "WiFi". "Nomadic" might be useful for scenarios 
>>> whereby
>>> one's network connectivity is via tunneling, thus it's indicative not 
>>> being
>>> reachable at the "fixed" device (eg. the hard SIP client), but you are
>>> available on your soft SIP client working from home.   I haven't thought
>>> this all the way through, but I do think additional terms could be 
>>> extremely
>>> useful.
>>>
>>> Mary H. Barnes
>>> [e-mail]
>>>
>>>
> 

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                600 Lanidex Plaza
Chief Scientist                             Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
dynamicsoft
[e-mail]                     FAX:   [phone]
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: [phone]
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [e-mail] for questions on current sip
Use [e-mail] for new developments on the application of sip