Subject: Re: Comments on draft-camarillo-mmusic-sip-isup-bcp-00.txt

From: "Adam B. Roach" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 13:37:24 -0600 (CST)

>Thinking about it, my feeling is that as Jonathan originally described his
>scheme it is a bit over proactive about sending new dialled digit
>information.  Perhaps it should only send a new INVITE once it has received
>a response to a previous INVITE.  If it receives additional dialled digits
>in this time, then it just accumulates them.

The far end gateway isn't guaranteed to have enough information to
send back an INVITE response. The PSTN has no analogue to the
"Address Incomplete" message; you keep sending SAMs until the
other end says "stop."

If you get an "Address Incomplete" from the ISUP network, it's
too late -- the call has already fallen down in setup. And the
timer involved is *way* too long for a reasonable PDD anyway.

--
Adam Roach, Ericsson Inc. |  Ph: +1 972 583 7594 | 1010 E. Arapaho, MS L-04
[email-masked]   | Fax: +1 972 669 0154 | Richardson, TX 75081 USA

---

From: "Adam B. Roach" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 13:41:12 -0600 (CST)

>3. wait for some longer timeout to get all the digits, effectively
>converting overlap to en-block at the ingress gateway
>4. wait for a # key

By the way, to make it crystal: I'm not proposing that 4 be used in
lieu of 3. I suggested it as an optimization. In short, I beleive that,
if anyone does 3, they should *add* 4 (THE USE OF WHICH WOULD BE PURELY
OPTIONAL FOR END USERS) to keep users from being annoyed.