[Standards-JIG] FW: Jingle - P2P and PBX calls
twaffle at gmail.com
Fri Jan 6 00:24:19 UTC 2006
On 1/5/06, Scott Ludwig <scottlu at google.com> wrote:
> > This sort of call control is always handled by using a
> (re)INVITE. After
> > thinking about it, this is a problem with the correct
> specification. There
> > really IS no direct mapping for an INVITE or reINVITE. INVITE can also
> > used to renegotiate, and really, this isn't addressed at all.
> > This sort of functionality would be, I suspect part of 'replace',
> > I'd like to point out, isn't defined. The above conversation can
> > help solidify the usage of the replace action within jingle.
> > Hypothetically, with replace, you'd send a replace to place a user on
> > or send one when you wanted to call to be on hold.
> There is a message for this, called "modify" (it might be written as
> "replace" in the jep). It is up to the session type to handle modify
> since it's meaning is session type specific (modify could just as
> easily be an info message). The concept behind it is to re-negotiate
> the session, within the same session context. This currently isn't
> discussed in jingle-audio, but will need to be.
Aye. In the case of PBX connectivity, this provides such things like on
hold music, transfer and hold, supervised transfers, etc.
This is really why SIP handles it as an INVITE. Basically, they are
fugging with the last leg of the call. Using an info message to handle this
is possible as well, though..
> For hold, it is easiest to signal it as a specific action, through a
> jingle-audio info message. Modify / replace would be if you want to
> re-negotiate something about the session media, like format, or number
> of streams, etc.
Yes, but in the case of call control, just using an info message means you
lose alot of control over the call itself. replace or modify would provide
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Standards