Subject: RE: [Megaco] Handling of terminations for call forwarding scenarios

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:58:39 +0200

Collin,

sorry for late response.

I'm not really familiar with tele- and supplementary services, but when you
look for a NGN scenario, when perhaps following TISPAN docs may help:

Pre-mark: "call forwarding" may be realized in NGN as simulation service,
and is then called as "communication forwarding" in my understanding. And
"communciation forwarding" belongs to the category of "communication
diversion" (CDIV) services.

1) Requirements (concerning SIP), see (latest draft):

http://www.potaroo.net/ietf/idref/draft-jesske-sipping-tispan-requirements/

2) Protocol, latest draft:

WI03115 ETSI TS 183 004
PSTN/ISDN simulation services:
Communication Diversion (CDIV);
Protocol specification
see: TISPAN temporary document 13bTD498

-Albrecht

                      "Colin Smith"                                                                                                  
                      <colin.smith@21c         To:      <[email-masked]>                                         
                      om.co.uk>                cc:      [email-masked]                                                              
                                               Subject: RE: [Megaco] Handling of terminations for call forwarding scenarios          
                      30.04.2007 10:22                                                                                               

Albrecht,

Thanks for the quick response. Prior to my e-mailing the Megaco group I had
searched the TISPAN and 3GPP standards for an answer to the forwarding
conditions at the MGCF. Unfortunately TS 29.163 and others do not yet
extend
to cover the forwarding cases - possibly because CDIV remains fluid in the
standards?

A further reasonable assumption I have to make is that the trigger for the
subtraction of the forwarding termination is the receipt of the 181
response
code at the MGCF - does this make sense to you also?

Having gone so far to fill what appears to be a gap in the definition,
would
it also make sense to document our discussion publicly and submit to the
appropriate body for consideration?

Cheers,

Colin Smith

21COM Systems

Tel: +44 7782 333 314

**************************************************
The contents of this email are intended for the use of the individual(s) or
entity named above and may contain information that is privileged and/or
confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are not
authorised
to make any use of it.   In such case, please notify the sender and
immediately delete the message from your system.  The message content may
contain personal views which are not the views of the company unless
specifically stated.   All liability for loss or damage caused by viruses
is
excluded.

21COM Systems Limited | Registered Office: 10-12 Dunraven Place Bridgend
CF31 1JD | Registered in England 3238787
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 4:42 PM
To: Colin Smith
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Megaco] Handling of terminations for call forwarding
scenarios

Colin,

see my responses inline.

Albrecht

                      "Colin Smith"

                      <colin.smith@21c         To:      <[email-masked]>

                      om.co.uk>                cc:

                                               Subject: [Megaco] Handling
of
terminations for call forwarding scenarios
                      26.04.2007 17:06

Hi,

I would appreciate your insight into the correct procedures to be followed
in managing terminations for PSTN-originated calls that have been forwarded
from the IMS domain to the PSTN.

My thinking is that, since the SIP session remains the same, the existing
context should be maintained.

[ABS] Yes. Also because the half call from PSTN-originated side may remain
in the context ("no need to move that TDM Termination to a 2nd context").

The termination representing the forwarding leg should be subtracted and on
receipt of the re-targeted INVITE a new term added to reserve the PCM
resources out to the PSTN for the forwarded leg.

[ABS] Yes. The ephemeral Termination is subtracted and a new TDM
Termination is added.

Does this align with the procedure you envisage or do you have an
alternative proposal? Is there documentation any where that references the
correct procedures in this instance?

[ABS] Don't know. You may have a look at TISPAN IMS or 3GPP IMS specs,
perhaps 29.163 could be a starting point ...

Cheers,

Colin Smith

21COM Systems

Tel: +44 7782 333 314

**************************************************
The contents of this email are intended for the use of the individual(s) or
entity named above and may contain information that is privileged and/or
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorised
to make any use of it.   In such case, please notify the sender and
immediately delete the message from your system.  The message content may
contain personal views which are not the views of the company unless
specifically stated.   All liability for loss or damage caused by viruses
is excluded.

21COM Systems Limited | Registered Office: 10-12 Dunraven Place Bridgend
CF31 1JD | Registered in England 3238787
 _______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco

_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco

_______________________________________________
Megaco mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/megaco