W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: Notification of implicit bridge teardowns - ISSUE-525

From: RJ Auburn <rj@voxeo.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:33:57 -0400
Cc: www-voice@w3.org, W3C Voice Browser Working Group <w3c-voice-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FB6EADEE-2CF2-4B45-AE59-D8C2ECDCE98B@voxeo.com>
To: "Sanders, Derek (Derek)" <dsanders@avaya.com>
Derek:

This is being tracked as ISSUE-525. Thanks for the feedback and we  
will have an answer for you shortly.

Best regards,

	RJ

On May 30, 2008, at 1:23 PM, Sanders, Derek (Derek) wrote:

>
> The January 19th, 2007 CCXML Working Draft is not very clear on how  
> implicit bridge teardowns resulting from a <join> should be  
> handled.  Section 10.4.1 shows all of the possible outcomes of a  
> <join> tag.  Some of these examples require a full or partial  
> teardown of an existing bridge.  The spec does not state if a  
> ‘conference.unjoined’ event should be generated when this occurs.   
> It does state in section 10.6.14 that if a connection is dropped (as  
> in a merge, disconnect, etc.), then the appropriate  
> ‘conference.unjoined’ event(s) should be sent.  It may be an easy  
> assumption that ANY implicit bridge teardowns should result in a  
> ‘conference.unjoined’ event, but what about partial teardowns?  It  
> starts to get a little more complicated there.  Is it enough to just  
> update the connection state variables when bridges change as a  
> result of a <join>?
>
> Thanks,
> -Derek Sanders
>



Received on Thursday, 17 July 2008 14:34:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 17 July 2008 14:34:51 GMT