Paul,

I support Ernst view. This is also my recollection of the issues in San Jose. A caller asking to retarget against my diversions or filtering is considered to be a spammer.

Roni

 

From: Horvath Ernst [mailto:ernst.horvath@SIEMENS.COM]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 4:19 PM
To: 'Paul E. Jones'; itu-sg16@external.cisco.com
Cc: 'Danilo Kempf'
Subject: RE: H.460.cdor

 

Paul,

 

I consider the concerns serious enough to discontinue work on this item unless the author will provide a significantly amended draft.

 

My recollection of the San Jose discussions is:

  • the scope of the service is not precise enough; currently it covers all forms of "retargeting", even such things as the "diversion" of a party to an MCU in order to join it to a conference; the scope should be narrowed to real diversion cases;
  • the service is quite complex and would need to be supported by a large number of entities, otherwise it would not work in the desired way;
  • due to the complexity and the vague scope interoperable implementations may be hard to achieve;
  • people were concerned about possible mis-use of the service for spamming.

So, in order to move forward, is the editor prepared to have another go on this service along the lines indicated above? Maybe what is needed is something like a simple "preference indication" for reaching the original destination only. I would also like to mention that in H.450.x there is already an operation defined for overriding diversion-on-busy; this is needed to enable services like call intrusion.

 

Regards,

Ernst

 

 

 -----Original Message-----
From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@PACKETIZER.COM]
Sent: Donnerstag, 13. Jänner 2005 08:47
To: itu-sg16@external.cisco.com
Cc: 'Danilo Kempf'
Subject: H.460.cdor

Dear Experts,

 

We need to bring closure to the open work item H.460.cdor.  The last discussion did not end up with any decision.

 

The concerns I noted were that people might abuse the functionality and that it might cause some confusion.  In my opinion, neither of those concerns are serious enough to delay the work further.

 

Can we get agreement to move this forward?

 

Paul