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

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com> Tue, 07 November 2006 03:07 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GhHJ8-0000VD-2X; Mon, 06 Nov 2006 22:07:26 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GhHJ5-0000V1-Ry for sipping@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Nov 2006 22:07:23 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GhHJ4-0006ow-Gu for sipping@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Nov 2006 22:07:23 -0500
Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Nov 2006 19:07:22 -0800
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8CAH2GT0WrR7O6W2dsb2JhbACMPxUOKw
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.09,393,1157353200"; d="scan'208"; a="350440261:sNHT25470656"
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kA737Lqu027219; Mon, 6 Nov 2006 19:07:21 -0800
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id kA737LAo028260; Mon, 6 Nov 2006 19:07:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 6 Nov 2006 19:07:21 -0800
Received: from [10.21.114.247] ([10.21.114.247]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 6 Nov 2006 19:07:21 -0800
Message-ID: <454FF866.4000109@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 22:07:18 -0500
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: AW: [Sipping] comments on draft-roach-sipping-callcomp-bfcp-00
References: <CCA850DCD3FBE2479D5076C5C18732220168A6DA@S4DE9JSAAHW.ost.t-com.de> <454FB9C8.8000800@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <454FB9C8.8000800@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Nov 2006 03:07:21.0349 (UTC) FILETIME=[D7557B50:01C70219]
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=2139; t=1162868841; x=1163732841; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=pkyzivat@cisco.com; z=From:Paul=20Kyzivat=20<pkyzivat@cisco.com> |Subject:Re=3A=20AW=3A=20[Sipping]=20comments=20on=20draft-roach-sipping-callcomp -bfcp-00; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3Dxy3LgWPLQytXDkxFKfA2wgxlNJ8=3D; b=bZnuYYAgv24tG2XlVrrMRYxHFmoM9OtRjugyezSTR8dWJT3REOAHprpDUJSD1Zk02wBhztS1 y7YSFUsvI8bCjKIbefUcbH5x3giYIBolRbOH70RSM1Zuw72gECwcE4Fy;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2.cisco.com; header.From=pkyzivat@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: 50a516d93fd399dc60588708fd9a3002
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

amen.

Going further, being in a call (even a voice call) doesn't mean that I'm 
*not* available to take another call. This is a place that they never 
got the feature interactions right - namely with caller id. It may be 
that you are the person I most want to talk to, but when you tried to 
call me before I was already involved in two calls and just didn't have 
a way to manage another. Later I am only involved in one call and would 
be thrilled to have you call me back.

Presence provides ways to say all of this, and so it could be a great 
way to provide a "better" version of this feature than is available in 
the PSTN.

What it doesn't easily do is provide a faithful emulation of what the 
PSTN does. Providing a faithful emulation seems to be incompatible with 
providing a more interesting and potentially more useful implementation 
in the new world of more capable devices.

	Paul

Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.

_______________________________________________
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