Subject: Re: New ID on Internet Call Waiting

From: "Marty Tennant" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 09:39:13 -0500

Internet Call Waiting (ICW) is a service already being offered by
InfoInteractive, a Canadian firm with a current U.S. and pending
international patents covering the concept and implementation.  They
call it Internet Call Manager.

I don't know enough about their implementation details to make
comparisons, but simply advise the group you are treading on ground
with potential intellectual property issues involved.  See
http://www.interactive.ca/ for more info.  Cincinatti Bell has already
implemented this service in the U.S.  I do understand that it is not
AIN based.

From an IN perspective, I question the use of the AIN 0.1 terminating
attempt trigger in the proposed implementation.  Will this not produce
queries for all call attempts to the line equipped with this trigger?
If so, I find this objectionable, particularly for third party
implementations.

I am also aware of newer AIN 0.2 triggers currently being used in
services such as BellSouth's "Busy Connect"sm.  In this case, I
understand it is the originate_called_party_busy trigger.  Would the
AIN 0.2 terminate_busy trigger be a better choice if a 0.2 trigger
were able to be specified?

Marty Tennant

marty tennant - president - low tech designs, inc.(tm)
"Bringing Technology Down to Earth"(sm)
1204 Saville St., Georgetown, SC 29440
843 527-4485 voice / 843 527-7783 fax

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
<[email-masked]>
Date: Monday, November 16, 1998 8:05 PM
Subject: New ID on Internet Call Waiting

>Having just read the recent draft on Internet Call Waiting (which I
found
>quite interesting), I find myself asking what the intent of the I-D
is. The
>Internet protocol side using SIP is actually quite useful and if I
make a
>simple extension to the service assumptions, I have a nice
generalized
>third-party call control mechanism. There is actually no reason that
the
>service be limited only to when the called party is using that same
line to
>connect to an ISP. The architecture defined works for a general
internet
>user to handle calls delivered to any PSTN interface regardless of
the
>current state or owner of the line.
>
>What are the thoughts of the rest of the group? Now that the PINT
spec is
>nearing completion (congratulations Scott and Lawrence) are we
considering
>going on to a next phase to include 3rd party control.
>
>David Shrader
>Bellcore - IN Design and Engineering

---------
This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List.

---

From: "A.R. Blackburn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 14:40:47 -0500 (EST)

>If so, I find this objectionable, particularly for third party

Triggers can be activated and deactivated via update request.
These are sent from the SCP to the SSP. 
AIN/TCAP implementations have some clear advantages over 
adjunct based solutions, and is more consistent with some
longer term architectural directions for hybrid services.
This does not preclude a 3rd party from offering the 
service in different ways.

>were able to be specified?

Potentially.
As you probably know, 0.2 functionality has been slow in coming.

Al Blackburn
Principle Member Technical Staff
AIN Architecture Evolution
BellSouth Science and Technology
[email-masked]

---------