[Rest] intiial rough draft

[Jari.Mutikainen at nokia.com]

Hello,

I think having separate elements for no-answer and unconditional makes it possible to maintain different target URIs for these services. Quite often the targets are different, I would say.  

BR,
Jari  

________________________________________
Lähettäjä: rest-bounces at bliss-ietf.org [rest-bounces at bliss-ietf.org] käyttäjän ext Theo Zourzouvillys [theo at voip.co.uk] puolesta
Lähetetty: 3. maaliskuuta 2009 21:03
Vastaanottaja: Dale Worley
Kopio: rest at bliss-ietf.org
Aihe: Re: [Rest] intiial rough draft

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Dale Worley <dworley at nortel.com> wrote:
> People think of them as different features, although that does not
> determine how we should think of it.
>
> The critical difference seems to me to be that "call forwarding all"
> does not cause an INVITE to the original destination.  Very strictly,
> "call forwarding after timeout 0" will send an INVITE, followed
> immediately by a CANCEL, followed by an INVITE to the alternative
> destination.  So we would have to define "call forwarding after timeout"
> to have exceptional behavior if the timeout = 0, namely that the INVITE
> to the original destination will not be generated.

other options:

how about a value for timeout of "immediate" instead of '0' to solve
that? (think NaN and INF :-))

or status could have 3 values:

 'disabled'
 'unconditional'
 'delayed'

> At this point, defining "call forwarding after timeout 0" seems
> complicated enough that I think we should just define two
> (non-parameterized) alternatives, "call forwarding on no answer" and
> "call forwarding unconditional".

With the unconditional taking preference over the "no answer"?

Other peoples thoughts?

 ~ Theo

_______________________________________________
Rest mailing list
Rest at bliss-ietf.org
http://bliss-ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rest_bliss-ietf.org