- From: Petr Kuba <kuba@optimsys.cz>
- Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:09:15 +0200
- To: RJ Auburn <rj@voxeo.com>
- CC: Chris Davis <davisc@iivip.com>, www-voice@w3.org
RJ, Thanks for response and clarification. Best regards, Petr On 16.9.2010 4:52, RJ Auburn wrote: > Petr: > > As Chris said below this is the exact rational. We have tried to have a 1-1 mapping of events to connection state changes whenever possible. > > Best regards, > > RJ > > --- > RJ Auburn > CTO, Voxeo Corporation > tel:+1-407-418-1800 > skype:zscgeek > > > > On Aug 20, 2010, at 10:21 AM, Chris Davis wrote: > >> It seems logical to me to issue one event per connection to indicate >> that each connection had transitioned to DISCONNECT as a result of the<merge>. >> >> This seems consistent with other parts of the CCXML Recommendation that require >> a connection.* event to trace each state change of each connection. >> >> Regards, >> Chris >> >>> Paolo, >>> >>> This resolution is acceptable for us although we would prefer to change the Specification to generate only one 'connection.merged'. >>> >>> Could you please explain us what is the rationale for having two 'connection.merged' events? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Petr >> >> >> -- >> Chris Davis >> Interact Incorporated R&D >> 512-502-9969x117 >> >> >> >
Received on Thursday, 16 September 2010 07:09:48 UTC