Subject: Re: v10 review: text for optional commands

From: Nancy-M Greene <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 10:48:50 -0400

> ----------
> From:         Taylor, Tom-PT [CAR:B904-I:EXCH]
> Sent:         Thursday, September 30, 1999 2:54 PM
> To:   [email-masked]
> Subject:      Re: v10 review: text for optional commands
>
> There's plenty of time in human terms to do the optional item after the
> main
> one has gone through, as a separate transaction in a separate message.  At
> home, my display of calling party doesn't come up until after the first
> ring
> -- that's a delay of at least two seconds.  The rule of thumb I've
> suggested
> for our protocol engineering is to assume a turn-around time in the order
> of
> 100 ms.
>
And this is one of the annoying things that I had hoped our protocol would
improve upon! The 2 second delay is too long. With the optional command in a
transaction, we can eliminate this delay.

Nancy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy M. Greene
Internet & Service Provider Networks, Nortel Networks
T:514-271-7221 (internal:ESN853-1077) E:[email-masked]

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 20:05:52 +1000

Certainly I'd like to see the minimisation of any delays in call
establishment. If we assume  a 100ms turn around time every an
'optional' command fails this would quickly had to establishment times.
Any minimisation in the call setup time in IP networks is certainly
advantageous.

Christian