W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > October to December 2008

Re: Notification of implicit bridge teardowns - ISSUE-525

From: RJ Auburn <rj@voxeo.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 09:45:57 -0500
Cc: "Sanders, Derek (Derek)" <dsanders@avaya.com>, www-voice@w3.org, W3C Voice Browser Working Group <w3c-voice-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0CAEED71-F174-40AF-A8EC-A69D35C6FA11@voxeo.com>
To: RJ Auburn <rj@voxeo.com>


FYI if we do not hear from you by 12/18/2008 we will consider this  
issue resolved.

Best regards,


RJ Auburn
CTO, Voxeo Corporation
Chair, Editor and Chair, CCXML, VBWG, W3C

On Nov 24, 2008, at 10:47 PM, RJ Auburn wrote:

> Derek:
> The working group reviewed your question and has the following  
> response.
>> CCXML platforms do not generate ‘conference.unjoined’ events as a  
>> result of implicit teardowns when applications perform <join>/ 
>> <unjoin> or equivalent actions (such as <createcall> with a  
>> joined), regardless of whether these teardowns are partial or  
>> complete.  The reason for this is that such teardowns are a direct  
>> consequence of actions taken by the application, for which outcome  
>> events already exist (‘conference.joined’/’conference.unjoined’  
>> against the media endpoints directly affected).  State variables  
>> for both directly and implicitly affected media endpoints are  
>> updated when this primary events fires; failing to do so would  
>> result in inconsistent session state between the two events when  
>> bridges appeared to exist that in actuality do not.  By contrast,  
>> the ‘conference.unjoined’ events specified to 10.6.14 exist to  
>> ensure that media bridges are determined entirely using  
>> ‘connection.joined’ and ‘connection.unjoined’ events, rather than  
>> being derived from call control events such as  
>> ‘connection.disconnected’.
> Hopefully this clarification addresses your concern. If you have any  
> follow up questions please let us know.
> Best regards,
> 	RJ
> ---
> RJ Auburn
> CTO, Voxeo Corporation
> Chair, Editor and Chair, CCXML, VBWG, W3C
> On Jul 17, 2008, at 10:33 AM, RJ Auburn wrote:
>> 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, 4 December 2008 14:46:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:40 UTC