Subject: Re: [SPIRITS] help

From: "Jane Humphrey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 12:24:24 +0100

Igor,

I am not sure that I follow your response, please clarify ...... see below,
my comments are marked 'JH'

Jane

Marconi Communications

Igor Faynberg <[email-masked]>@lists.bell-labs.com on 13/06/2002
04:03:58

Please respond to [email-masked]

Sent by:  [email-masked]

To:   [email-masked]
cc:   [email-masked]

Subject:  Re: [SPIRITS] help

[email-masked] wrote:
>
> hi,
>
> I wanted to know if there is any draft specifying
> how to invoke a spirit service.
>
> My question is, how does one know that, the subscriber
> is BUSY because he is connected to the Internet or he
> is BUSY because he is talking on the phone?
>
> Is the SSF going to decide or SCF  has to decide depending on
> the subscriber?

The SSF is not expected to perform any action based on its knowledge of
the connection type. It is the SCF that will know what is happening.

JH - but only in the context of the call that has triggered the busy
condition.  It will not know the details of the call which is causing the
busy condition i.e A calls B, B is busy on a call to C, the SCP will not
know the details of the B-C call so will not be able to identify the reason
for busy.  It is only the ICW server that can actually determine the reason
for busy.

>
> At SCF will there be  CALL WAITING and INTERNET CALL WAITING
> as two different services?

Precisely.

>
> If so how to distinguish?

By the telephone number in use, for example, or some other parameter.

JH - In my understanding, this would not be the SCP service logic as it
does not have access to the information.

Igor

>
> thanks
> UCB
>
> DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Hughes Software Systems
> Limited (HSS) and is intended solely for the use of the individual
> to whom it is addressed. It may contain  privileged or confidential
> information  and should not be circulated or used for any purpose other
> than for what it is intended. If you have received this message in error,
> please notify the originator immediately. If you are not the intended
> recipient, you are notified that you are strictly prohibited from using,
> copying, altering, or disclosing the contents of this message. HSS
accepts
> no responsibility for loss or damage arising from the use of the
information
> transmitted by this email including damage from virus.
>
> _______________________________________________
> SPIRITS mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits
_______________________________________________
SPIRITS mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/spirits

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

---

From: Igor Faynberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:16:41 -0400

Jane,

First, I am very happy to hear from YOU. Second, I completely agree with
your comments. I knew I ventured into the gray area, when I started to
put pressure on the SCF awareness.

Maybe I was hurrying too much to respond--and it was pretty late last
night. (But then I feel very guilty that I am not puting enough time
into SPIRITS.)

I think on the SSF side, we have no difference of opinion. 

The SCF side is where we might have one. One way to implement things
transparent to the SCF is to implement at the SSF.CCF a trigger
criterion on specific strings. Then the SCF would know that this
specific trigger comes because of the Internet call. So, we have at
least one implementation possibility which would not pressure the SCF
into knowing too much. 

But, I think that in the same way the SCF would know about the Internet
off-load or line/trunk monitoring information [you may remember this
infinite discussion in SG 11 13 years ago], it should be able to know
about a specific call in progress. I am pretty sure CS-2 had this
option, but I don't remember a particular subset of parameters that
could be worked to provide this information. So, the monitoring
information would then be stored in the SCF database. Granted, since the
SCF and SPIRITS client typically share the same machine, one could argue
that this information belongs in the SPIRITS client table, not the SCF
one. (In fact, maybe it should even be part of a SPIRITS MIB.)

Do I make sense?

Igor