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

[[e-mail]]

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of 
> Schmidt, Christian
> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 8:17 AM
> To: Tessa Silvia; Miguel Garcia
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: AW: [Sipping-tispan] Re: CCBS/CCNR in Version -02f
> 
> Hi
> comments inline
> Regards, Christian
> 
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Tessa Silvia [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Gesendet: Montag, 26. September 2005 13:20
> An: Miguel Garcia; Schmidt, Christian
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Betreff: R: [Sipping-tispan] Re: CCBS/CCNR in Version -02f
> 
> 
> Hi,
> Comments inline.
> 
> > > REQ-CCBS/CCNR-xx: The caller must be able to invoke CCBS / CCNR
> service.
> > 
> > Yes, sure... I think this is an obvious requirement for 
> each service,
> > isn't it. Do you think we need to state it explicitly?
>  
> I agree, we probably don't need to state it esplicitely.
>  
> Christian: The requirement document should list all 
> requirements, especially
> the requirements with potential influence to SIP. Because, 
> this is valid
> for REQ-CCBS/CCNR-xx, I would include it in the spec.
> 
> 
> > 
> > >
> > > REQ-CCBS/CCNR-yy: If a CCBS service is invoked for a callee, other
> > > terminating calls should not be offered to this callee.
> > 
> > Is this a true behaviour of the service? If someone invokes CCBS on
> me,
> > he will block automatically all my other calls to me? This 
> sounds like
> a
> >   policy that certain network might have, but sounds a bit weird to
> > write this as a requirement. Can anyone else comment?
> 
> We have already have REQ 12 stating that
> 	 Any communication performed as a result of the execution of a
> CCBS/CCNR request should be distinguishable from regular 
> communications.
> 
> So,  all terminating call are "distinguishable" and any 
> policy a network
> might have could be easily based on this, without further 
> requirements.
> Other views ?
> 
> Christian: I see, perhaps you can add a short explanation for 
> this purpose:
> 	 Any communication performed as a result of the execution of a
> CCBS/CCNR request should be distinguishable from regular 
> communications.
> This can be used to priorize CCBS/CCNR calls towards the callee.
> What do you think?

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:

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.

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.

Mike

> 
> Regards
> Silvia
> 
> 
> Gruppo Telecom Italia - Direzione e coordinamento di Telecom 
> Italia S.p.A.
> 
> ====================================================================
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons
> above and may contain confidential information. If you have received
> the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof
> is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete
> the message. Should you have any questions, please send an e_mail to 
> [e-mail]. Thank you
> ====================================================================
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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