Even, Roni roni.even at polycom.co.il
Thu Jan 13 12:39:23 EST 2005


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.



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


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

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.



 -----Original Message-----
From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej at PACKETIZER.COM]
Sent: Donnerstag, 13. Jänner 2005 08:47
To: itu-sg16 at 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?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.packetizer.com/pipermail/sg16-avd/attachments/20050113/b36141cd/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the sg16-avd mailing list