Subject: Re: [BLISS] Shared Appearances Open Issue: Calls without Appearance Numbers

From: Alan Johnston <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:36:57 -0600

[email-masked] wrote:
>    From: Alan Johnston <[email-masked]>
>
>    We have come up with an alternative mechanism for this where a 
>    consultation call would be considered "logically" joined to another 
>    appearance.
>
> Does that place any restrictions on the state of the "another
> appearance"?  

I do not believe it does.    Each other appearance could be in any state .

> Presumably not, or the mechanism could not be used in
> all cases.  But if there is no such restriction on the another
> appearance, perhaps we should devise a fixed, dummy appearance
> number/name to use in this construction.
>   

Well, if we need to assign an appearance number, then we might as well 
use a real one.  The hope is that we can avoid having to assign a new 
appearance number by making it "logically joined" with another appearance.

Thanks,
Alan

> Dale
> _______________________________________________
> BLISS mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss
>
>
>   

_______________________________________________
BLISS mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss