Subject: Re: [dispatch] Reason In responses (draft-jesske-dispatch-reason-in-responses-02)

From: "WORLEY, Dale R (Dale)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 18:00:12 -0400

I think the situation can be clarified.  The various forms of REQ-1 aren't really requirements, as they are difficult to verify whether or not they have been fully satisfied.  But they form very good statement of the *intention* of the requirements.  I propose changing it to a "preamble" to the requirements.  REQ-2/REQ-3 aren't really distinct, but do need to be expanded with a warning regarding that "variants" may need to be tagged.  (The exact problems can be addressed by knowlegable people when formulating the solution.)  And we need to state that an extension mechanism must be provided.  (Although the Reason header already has such a mechanism, so it won't be difficult to solve that problem.)

So I get this text:

In SIP-to-PSTN gateway scenarios, it is desirable to provide the UAC
with the specific call release reason provided by the PSTN.  To
support this:

REQ:  Provide in SIP responses a way to carry PSTN call release codes,
along with indication of any context or variant identification needed
to interpret the code unambiguously.

REQ:  Provide an extensibility mechanism so that further information
about the call release can be specified.

Dale

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:26:43 +0200

Hi all,
For the next step I would lkie to know in which direction I should go.
Dales approach or something other like the earlier proposals? 

So I would like to try to provide a new draft the next days.

Thank you and Best Regards

Roland

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: WORLEY, Dale R (Dale) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Gesendet: Freitag, 25. Juni 2010 00:00
An: Jesske, Roland; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Betreff: RE: [dispatch] Reason In responses (draft-jesske-dispatch-reason-in-responses-02)

So I get this text:

Dale