Re: AW: [Sipping] comments on draft-roach-sipping-callcomp-bfcp-00

Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@cisco.com> Tue, 07 November 2006 02:46 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GhGyS-0002bP-Q4; Mon, 06 Nov 2006 21:46:04 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GhGyR-0002bA-2m for sipping@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Nov 2006 21:46:03 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com ([171.71.176.117]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GhGyP-0003ME-OJ for sipping@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Nov 2006 21:46:03 -0500
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Nov 2006 18:46:01 -0800
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.09,393,1157353200"; d="scan'208"; a="86441071:sNHT48679326"
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kA72k122020055; Mon, 6 Nov 2006 18:46:01 -0800
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id kA72j6B0016837; Mon, 6 Nov 2006 18:46:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.187]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 6 Nov 2006 18:45:29 -0800
Received: from [130.129.71.49] ([10.21.82.238]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 6 Nov 2006 18:45:29 -0800
Message-ID: <454FB9C8.8000800@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 17:40:08 -0500
From: Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Huelsemann, Martin" <Martin.Huelsemann@t-com.net>
Subject: Re: AW: [Sipping] comments on draft-roach-sipping-callcomp-bfcp-00
References: <CCA850DCD3FBE2479D5076C5C18732220168A6DA@S4DE9JSAAHW.ost.t-com.de>
In-Reply-To: <CCA850DCD3FBE2479D5076C5C18732220168A6DA@S4DE9JSAAHW.ost.t-com.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Nov 2006 02:45:29.0285 (UTC) FILETIME=[C9486750:01C70216]
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=1466; t=1162867561; x=1163731561; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jdrosen@cisco.com; z=From:Jonathan=20Rosenberg=20<jdrosen@cisco.com> |Subject:Re=3A=20AW=3A=20[Sipping]=20comments=20on=20draft-roach-sipping-callcomp -bfcp-00; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3DM3ODl/OfYagA97HxHhrOOkPCtGQ=3D; b=udJgLKrSt3kwV778YG05Pj12qamINN5eaWt7CJ1GySzpo/QumUPa/DbMrUT1INDG2+mF1RoH g01tmr9MN/3KPh4mdeqY6i+GANIbvrNIJ8skvS1HcNVqS1QuORa24MS4;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4.cisco.com; header.From=jdrosen@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034
Cc: sipping@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: sipping@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "SIPPING Working Group \(applications of SIP\)" <sipping.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:sipping@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: sipping-bounces@ietf.org


Huelsemann, Martin wrote:

> Hi Jonathan, all,
> 
> I don't think that there really is a relationship between presence
> and call completion. Presence is about the general availibility of a
> certain user, call completion provides the possibility to complete a
> call to a certain destination you've got a busy error response from.

I completely disagree.

When you invoke the CCBS service, the ringback you get when they are 
"available" is exactly presence. However, in the PSTN, it is limited to 
the only concept of presence they have - whether you are on a call or not.

In an IP world, I can be unavailable for voice service even though I'm 
not in a call strictly speaking. For example, if I've got five parallel 
IM sessions, and as a consequence, I set my voice service to "closed" 
through presence, what is the desired behavior of the SIP-based CCBS 
system? I would assert that I *dont* want the callback to come now. If 
it does, I won't answer it anyway since I'm busy with other things. So, 
the call goes to voicemail or goes unanswered. That does not seem like 
the desired behavior.

-Jonathan R.
-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
Cisco Fellow                                   Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
jdrosen@cisco.com                              FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.cisco.com

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sip@ietf.org for new developments of core SIP