RE: [Sipping-tispan] Re: CCBS/CCNR in Version -02f

["Michael Hammer \(mhammer\)" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for pointing that out.  So, the requirement is there.

Mike
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jesske, R [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 12:19 AM
> To: [e-mail]; Michael Hammer (mhammer)
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: AW: [Sipping-tispan] Re: CCBS/CCNR in Version -02f
> 
> Dear Miguel and Mike,
> The ETSI specification is based on Q.733.3. Within this 
> specification it is described how a CCBS call can be rejected 
> by the user B. 
> 
> ...For example if the destination local exchange knows that 
> the CCBS is forbidden on the destination B user, then the 
> diagnostic field shall be set to "CCBS not possible". 
> Otherwise the diagnostic field shall be set to "CCBS possible"....
> 
> So this describes if user be does not allows a CCBS call. 
> This is a little hidden within the spec. But it is stated. So 
> we can write  such a requirement. So either we need such an 
> indication  "CCBS possible" or the CCBS request shall be 
> rejected by the AS of the callee.
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Roland
> 
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: [e-mail]
> > [mailto:[e-mail]] Im Auftrag von 
> Miguel Garcia
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. September 2005 13:37
> > An: [e-mail]
> > Cc: Tessa Silvia; [e-mail]
> > Betreff: Re: [Sipping-tispan] Re: CCBS/CCNR in Version -02f
> > 
> > 
> > Mike, see inline comments.
> > 
> > [e-mail] wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > The behavior of the terminating caller should be based on
> > the operation and policy of the terminating user, who 
> should have the 
> > option to reject such a request.  The current wording seems 
> vague on 
> > this point.  How about:
> > 
> > I am afraid that TISPAN does not have a requirement to give the 
> > possibility of the callee to reject a CCBS request. By reading ETSI 
> > ETS 300 357 I didn't find such requirement.
> > 
> > Since this document covers the Input requirements from TISPAN, I am 
> > afraid we cannot write that requirement on the document.
> > 
> > > 
> > > REQ-CCBS/CCNR-yy: If the callee accepts invocation of a
> > CCBS service, other
> > > terminating calls to this callee should be treated as
> > though the callee was already busy.
> > 
> > More or less... the text is fine if it is worded with respect the 
> > caller:
> > 
> > "If the caller accepts a CCBS recall, other terminating 
> calls towards 
> > the callee should be treated as if the callee were already busy".
> > 
> > Note that this requires to add a definition of the "CCBS recall", 
> > which dependes on "CCBS call":
> > 
> > CCBS call: a communnication generated by the network connecting the 
> > caller to the callee resulting from the callers' acceptance 
> of a CCBS 
> > recall.
> > 
> > CCBS recall: an indication informing the caller that the network is 
> > ready to initiate a CCBS call to the callee and that the network is 
> > awaiting a response to this indication.
> > 
> > How about that?
> > 
> > > 
> > > Note, there are a number of depedencies (feature
> > interactions) here.  Callee could be capable of receiving multiple 
> > calls, may have forwarding on busy set, etc.
> > 
> > True... for all services. We don't discuss service 
> interaction in the 
> > draft, unless we see a need for protocol development.
> > 
> > /Miguel
> > 
> > > 
> > > Mike
> > > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Miguel A. Garcia           tel:[phone]
> > sip:[e-mail]
> > Nokia Research Center      Helsinki, Finland
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sipping-tispan mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping-tispan
> > 
> 

_______________________________________________
Sipping-tispan mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping-tispan