Re: [splices] Answering a Call Using Two Separate Devices proposal

[Peter Musgrave <[e-mail]>]

On 2011-04-22, at 8:07 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:

>>> 
>>> When the accept on the PC results in the:
>>>     | REFER Refer-To: urn:sip-action:call:answer
>>>                   |
>>> message from the PC to the phone does it make sense for the PC to subscribe to
>>> the dialog-state of the call at this point? (In fact would it hurt to have the
>>> coupled devices always subscribed to each other's dialog state?)
>>> 
>> I just wanted to optimize the use of these subscriptions and avoid any unnecessary ones until it is really needed.
>> But in general, it seems like a reasonable approach to me.
>> Anybody else has some thoughts on this?
> 
> I think this can vary.
> Some might not want their PC doing stuff like this all the time.
> But if you permit it, you can get a nicer user experience.

In the absence of this subscription ISTM the phone cannot know the PC is present (or that the call application is running). In this case would it send the INVITE to the PC and then use the lack of a TRYING to conclude that video should be rejected ?


I agree with your point that putting SUB/NOT in the session establishment path when adding video is not a good idea.

Peter