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

[Miguel Garcia <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mike:

Inline discussion.

Michael Hammer (mhammer) wrote:

> Miguel,
> 
> Continuing on my earlier comment:  By network are you taking routers?  

No. I am referring to SIP entities in general, including proxies, 
registrars, application servers, etc., as required.

> 
> If you mean voice host applications such as proxies, are you suggesting
> that a proxy in the middle of a network somewhere will do this
> prioritization?

Yes, exactly. I don't know yet if this will be a proxy or an application 
server, or what. But according to the requirement there should be a SIP 
entity that is able to do such prioritization.

> 
> If you mean some service of the callee, what is the chance that 2 calls
> will arrive simultaneously?

Very little, if not to say, impossible. But withing a period of time, it 
is possible (see below).

> 
> Or do you mean the callee (or his server) will know that there is a
> caller camped on and will intentionally delay incoming calls while a
> "subscriber free" indication is sent toward the caller and completed
> with some notification or timer before moving on to the regular call?

Something like that. By reading the spec, once the callee becomes free, 
it gives him a few seconds (max. 15 seconds) in case he wants to make 
another call (this is the so-called idle timer). If a call arrives 
during this time, it will have the same treatment as "busy".

I think the above also applies to the period of time when the caller is 
indicated that the callee is free, so that the caller can accept a CCBS 
recall.

> 
> I certainly hope you are not suggesting that we elevate CCBS calls to
> the status of emergency calling.  There are only so many useful levels
> of priority, and this could muddy the water.

No, no, I am not suggesting that.

/Miguel


> 
> Mike
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: [e-mail] 
>>[mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Miguel Garcia
>>Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 7:47 AM
>>To: Schmidt, Christian
>>Cc: Tessa Silvia; [e-mail]
>>Subject: Re: AW: [Sipping-tispan] Re: CCBS/CCNR in Version -02f
>>
>>
>>
>>Schmidt, Christian wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>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?
>>>
>>
>>I have a proposal for this requirement:
>>
>>
>>    REQ-CCBS/CCNR-12:
>>    It must be possible for the network to priotirize 
>>CCBS/CCNR recalls
>>    towards the callee, above regular calls. This implies that any
>>    communication performed as a result of the execution of a 
>>CCBS/CCNR
>>    request should be distinguishable from regular communications.
>>
>>
>>/Miguel
>>
>>
>>
>>>Regards
>>>Silvia
>>>
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>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
> 
> 

-- 
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