Re: [Sipping-tispan] Requirements -02g

[Miguel Garcia <[e-mail]>]

Hi Justin:

Thanks for your comments, inline discussion.

ZhouQing(Justin) wrote:
> Hi Migule,
> 
> In case CDIV, I think it's better to change REQ-CDIV-1 as followed to make it consistent with REQ-CDIV-3 and REQ-CDIV-4,
> From:
> It must be possible that the caller is informed that a communication is being diverted. 
> To: 
> It must be possible for the caller, the callee, and network intermediaries to be informed that a communication is being diverted. 
> How do you think?
> 

I think we don't have such requirements. REQ-CDIV-3 and -4 indicate that 
the network intermediaries (e.g., the voice mail server where my calls 
are diverted) need to receive the reason for the redirection and the 
identity of the caller. I think requirements are ok if you want to 
provide personalized services, like a different welcome message in the 
voice mail server, depending on the reason why the call ended up in the 
voice mail server. For example, the callee is busy will have a different 
welcome message than when a telemarketer is my black list.

But, in case of REQ-CDIV-1, I wonder whether we have a requirement to 
inform the callee that the call is being diverted. And I don't see 
either for network intermediaries.

> A short tiping error in REQ-CDIV-4, callee instead of caleee.

Fixed.

Regards,

       Miguel
> 
> Regards,
> Justin
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Miguel Garcia" <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "Alexeitsev, D" <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 7:25 PM
> Subject: [Sipping-tispan] Requirements -02g
> 
> 
> 
>>Hi:
>>
>>I have this working copy of the requirements, version -02g:
>>
>>http://people.nokia.net/~miguel/drafts/pre/draft-jesske-sipping-tispan-requirements-02g.txt
>>http://people.nokia.net/~miguel/drafts/pre/draft-jesske-sipping-tispan-requirements-02g.html
>>
>>And a diff version with respect -02f:
>>
>>http://people.nokia.net/~miguel/drafts/pre/draft-jesske-sipping-tispan-requirements-02f-to-g.html
>>
>>The changes in this version are:
>>- Grouping of the CCBS/CCNR requirements for better understing
>>- A few clarifications to the CDIV requirements
>>- Addition of the Calling Party Category requirements.
>>
>>Now, I have a few questions.
>>
>>- The Calling Party Category requirements do not constitute a service by 
>>  itself. In my opinion, they should be General requirements listed a 
>>REQ-GEN-4 and REQ-GEN-5. Does anyone oppose to move them to the General 
>>section?
>>
>>- We had a pending action point to revisit the ACR requirements once we 
>>have drafted the Calling Party Category requirements. Now we have 
>>achieved this state, and my opinion is that we don't need to add any 
>>extra wording to ACR, since the Calling Party Category requirements 
>>cover the use case we have been discussing (police anonymously call a 
>>user with ACR activated).
>>
>>Last, but not least, WE ARE ALMOST DONE with the requirements. So please 
>>take a look at this draft and comment on any pending issue. I would like 
>>to solve issues as soon as possible and submit the draft for publication.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>         Miguel
>>
>>-- 
>>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