Subject: RE: [Simple] Extending <status> for presence

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 18:08:20 -0600

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rosen, Brian [mailto:[email-masked]]
>
> I don't think so.  The presentity sets his state by what he 
> is actually
> doing.  The systems around him react to that appropriately.
> I don't want to have a caller know what is happening (although he
> might care, the note would work to tell him what to expect when he
> places a call), but I want my system to decide if it should ring
> my desk, my cell or my home phone depending on who is calling and
> what my presence state is.
> 
> It's up to me (the presentity) to decide if I will in fact forward
> a call from you to my cellphone if I am "out of office", and in
> fact, if it's my wife calling, I will forward the call to my mobile
> even if I'm "On Vacation".  So, presence state of "On Vacation" is
> what my local incoming proxy needs.  I make it a watcher, and 

This application seems a little orthagonal to the whole presence
issue in the "PIM" context. Don't get me wrong; it's cool. I just
think that there are cleaner ways to do it, probably even
in ways that preserve the user experience you have in mind.

It seems that we already have tools that can provide this
orthagonal call processing (or, at least, are aware of the
problems and are actively working on them). For example, you
could acheive the same effect as you propose by setting your
presence state to CLOSED, adding a human-readable string
of "Out of Office", and uploading a new CPL script to your
registrar to route calls according to the rules you outline.

Of course, this would all be transparent to the user, who
has simply clicked on the "Out of Office" menu option.

/a
_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 22:36:56 -0500

inline.

> in ways that preserve the user experience you have in mind.

I would not be so quick to dismiss presence-based call-routing. I think 
its an important application, and one we should allow to be properly built.

> registrar to route calls according to the rules you outline.

The fatal assumption here is that, whenever presence changes in a way 
which may affect call routing, it is also possible at that time to 
upload a new CPL. I see several problems here:

(1) The thing which is changing the presence state may not know the 
actual call routing application. For example, consider some nicely fancy 
call routing application provided by an operator, which is NOT CPL-based 
(it requires more than CPL can do). This application needs presence.

(2) The thing which is changing the presence state may have nothing to 
do with the entities which can upload a CPL script. Consider the case of 
an HLR publishing geolocation information as part of my presence. I'd 
like a call routing application that directs calls to the dynamicsoft TX 
main number if I am physically in the vicinity of the office (because 
there is no cell coverage there), to my cell otherwise. The thing 
publishing my presence has no authority to upload CPL scripts.

-Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist                             First Floor
dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 15:04:16 -0500

> its an important application, and one we should allow to be properly built.

I too am interested in presence-based routing. I had thought the world 
wasn't ready for it yet, and so have postponed discussing it publicly. 
But maybe I was wrong, and it is time to discuss it.

One place where this is very interesting is for call-center routing. For 
this you may have a proxy trying to select one among many (hundreds, 
thousands) of presentities, each characterized by various sorts of 
presence status.

This will typically involve some call-center specific status values 
having to do with things like skill in dealing with certain topics. But 
it also involves some of the more general things we are talking about 
here. For instance, a call-center agent on a voice call typically can't 
take another call at the same time. But a call center agent handling an 
IM call may well be able to take another one. And if the one agent 
skilled in a particular topic is away momentarily, it may be better to 
have a call wait than assign it to a less skilled agent.

The key here is that typically this kind of routing is across a number 
of presentities. In this form it doesn't compete with normal proxy 
routing across the multiple contacts of a single Address of Record.

Taken to the extreme, presence based routing could replace registration 
altogether. But I doubt we want to go there, at least yet.

	Paul