Subject: [Sip] willis-sip-answeralert-00

From: "Cullen Jennings" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:29:06 -0400

Dean, first of all, I would like to point out the irony of you want my phone
to auto answer and you will not even include your phone number in the draft.
Just to prove you are too paranoid, I put my cell phone number and my email
address in all my recent drafts - contrary to urban legend, it did not
change my rate of spam or telemarketing in the slightest.

I'd like this better if it clearly diffracted between answer and receive
media and answer and send and receive. I will want different policy for the
two.

I would like it better if the UAS had an explicit consent mechanism to allow
the UAC to do this. (ala consent framework)

Seems like the alert mode could be a separate draft that might be better
bundled with the loop back stuff.

I think we need this auto answer stuff, we just need to figure out how to do
it such that it is possible to authorize it. (and this looks like reasonable
direction)

I find the x and xReq a bit weird and under motivated by we need all of them
but assume you will enlighten me on next rev.

Cullen

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:43:38 -0500

> change my rate of spam or telemarketing in the slightest.

Hey, I only put my phone in the corporate directory under duress.

I couldn't change my rate of spam -- it currently approaches the link 
speed on my server. I'm either filtering or rejecting about 3,000 a day 
now. I get these HUGE sendmail log files on stuff it rejects because of 
spamhaus.org. Then SpamAssassin kicks in and picks out about another 
500 a day. But still, 50 or 60 get through.

> media and answer and send and receive. I will want different policy 

Either I don't understand the question, or it's what I had in the first 
rev that Paul K made me change.

> the UAC to do this. (ala consent framework)

As opposed to "just authorization"?

> bundled with the loop back stuff.

I suppose it could, but OMA needs something for POC last month.

> but assume you will enlighten me on next rev.

X means "I want you to use this, but if you can't, do it normally" 
whereas XReq says "I want you to do this so much so that if you can't 
or don't want to, I'd rather you rejected the call."

--
Dean

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:15:12 -0400

> or don't want to, I'd rather you rejected the call."

Ok, makes sense when I think about it that way.