Subject: Re: [SIP] Single Line Extension work

From: Sean Olson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 10:44:59 +0100

I would leave this call up to Billy since he was one of the most active
participants and the team leader. From my perspective, I would
prefer to focus on getting SIP finalized before working on this.

Cheers!
sean

Dean Willis wrote:

> A while back we had a vigorous discussion going on how to implement the
> PBX/Centrex "single line extension" service or get behavior similar to US
> residentil "party lines".
>
> I don't believe I've seen any discussion on this topic for a long time.
> Anybody still working on it, or can we declare the effort dead for now?
>
> --
> Dean
>
> _______________________________________________
> SIP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/sip

_______________________________________________
SIP mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/sip

---

From: Billy Biggs <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 12:37:18 -0600

> A while back we had a vigorous discussion going on how to implement
> the PBX/Centrex "single line extension" service or get behavior
> similar to US residentil "party lines".
>
> I don't believe I've seen any discussion on this topic for a long
> time.  Anybody still working on it, or can we declare the effort dead
> for now?

  Jonathan and Henning's draft on multi-party conferencing models is an
important step forward in discussing conferencing services such as
single line extension.  The continuing work on presence extensions and
event subscriptions also helps.

  But until the puzzle fits together a little more, the single line
extension work is quite fluffy.  Hopefully this will change in the next
few months.

-- 
Billy Biggs, 3Com               Email: [email-masked]
http://www.div8.net/billy/      Phone: [email-masked]

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 17:35:19 -0500

The behavior that motivated this was the ability to call
[email-masked] and get connected to everyone. Effectively, this
can be solved by a back-to-back UA/conferencing server with a conference
called 'brady' that makes outgoing calls to the members of the family.
(This server would have to CANCEL the other calls as soon as the first
one answers. Family members could dial into [email-masked] to
get connected to the on-going call.) Thus, is this more than just an
implementation issue? Would it be sufficient to document this case in
the conferencing draft?