Subject: Re: v10 review: text for optional commands

From: Fernando Cuervo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 12:08:49 -0500

I believe this proposal has been out there for a while. The intent is to
allow transactions to succeed even if certain things do not happen, (i.e.,
those labelled o-). This becomes handy for features such as name display
(you don't necessarily fail the call if you fail to display callId). And
yes, it extends the classical definition of a transaction, but extensions
have been done before for practical reasons in the enterprise world
(chained, hierachical  transactions, etc.). As far as doing it with two
transactions, that wouldn't work at all in the call display example..

Fernando Cuervo

> ----------
> From:         Taylor, Tom-PT [CAR:B904-I:EXCH]
> Sent:         September 27, 1999 10:18 AM
> To:   [email-masked]
> Subject:      v10 review: text for optional commands
>
> Last Thursday, Nancy Greene posted a proposal for an "o-" syntax for
> optional commands within a transaction.  Why bother?  Couldn't the command
> simply go into a transaction of its own?
>
> Tom Taylor
> Advisor -- IPConnect Standards
> E-mail: [email-masked] (internally, Tom-PT Taylor)
> Phone and FAX: +1 613 736 0961
>

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 14:58:09 +1000

When I first thought of the optional transactions it was more to fix the
transaction handling and error handling for a large list of wildcarded
terminations (which I think is fixed now). However I think that the
point that Fernando brings up below is another valid use of the o- . I
think the first concern in a call is that it is through connected in the
minimum time possible.

We shouldn't have to wait for error handling/rejected
transaction/re-establishment for a failure (ie. callID) that isn't
critical to through connection. If we can mark commands as o- I think
this would prove beneficial particularly in the residential gateway.

Cheers, Christian