Hello!
Most are probably bored seeing another letter about this,
but I've put in a fair amount work on a spec for rewriting
the CDR system in Asterisk, and I have some questions:
First, please look at what I've written so far:
svn co http://svn.digium.com/svn/asterisk/team/murf/RFCs
and look at
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Benny Amorsen wrote:
>
> Only if the dial plan actually gets enough information to set the
> accountcode, which at least historically wasn't the case for Asterisk.
> In 1.2.x, you couldn't in the dialplan tell if a call went A->B or
> A->C(SIP redirect)->B. BLINDX
Steve Murphy wrote:
Hello!
Most are probably bored seeing another letter about this,
but I've put in a fair amount work on a spec for rewriting
the CDR system in Asterisk, and I have some questions:
First, please look at what I've written so far:
svn co http://svn.digium.com/svn/asterisk/team/
On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 19:26 +0200, Apostolos Pantsiopoulos wrote:
> Steve Murphy wrote:
> > Hello!
...
> Hi,
>
> The specs look very promising. I think everyone
> here should be grateful for your efforts. In answer to your
> question I personally find both approaches very useful, although
> I
Steve Murphy writes:
> Which of the two would you see being useful to you?
"Leg based", as far as I can see, because that looks like the only way
to bill transfers differently depending on which end did the transfer.
Possibly "Simple" on the Asterisk systems where we forbid transfers.
> Is the
I wrote a really long email, but it hinged on one thing I need
clarified...
tir, 13 01 2009 kl. 09:05 -0700, skrev Steve Murphy:
> CDR1: A -> B start: e1a ans: e2 end: e4 Party: B disp:
> ANSW linkedID: abc9
> CDR2: A start: e1 ans: e1 end: e6 Party: A disp:
>
On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 21:09 +0100, Benny Amorsen wrote:
> I wrote a really long email, but it hinged on one thing I need
> clarified...
>
> tir, 13 01 2009 kl. 09:05 -0700, skrev Steve Murphy:
>
> > CDR1: A -> B start: e1a ans: e2 end: e4 Party: B disp:
> > ANSW linkedID: abc9
Ok, now for my long mail...
tir, 13 01 2009 kl. 09:05 -0700, skrev Steve Murphy:
> CDR1: A -> B start: e1a ans: e2 end: e4 Party: B disp:
> ANSW linkedID: abc9
> CDR2: A start: e1 ans: e1 end: e6 Party: A disp:
> ANSW linkedID: abc9
Are start time and a
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Steve Murphy wrote:
> Greyman--
>
> I've been thinking of Benny Amorsen's comments on Simple CDRs...
>
>
>> This is tricky... I need to create these CDR's for the billing system:
>>
>> src: A start: e1 ans: e2 end: e6 dst: B disp: ANSW
>> src: A start: e4 a
Grey Man writes:
> The trick with transfers is to forget about the src field for billing
> purposes and make sure the accountcode for the call is set in
> accordance with the business rules. For example if two customers A and
> B are talking to each other and A blind transfers B to a billable
> d
Quoth Steve Murphy...
>Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 08:51:03 -0700
>
>QUESTIONS:
>
>Which of the two would you see being useful to you?
Obvious comment really but given LEG based CDR, one can determine the
'Simple' data but you can't work it the other way.
I'd therefore find LEG based CDR more useful a
2009/1/12 Russell Brown
> Quoth Steve Murphy...
> >Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 08:51:03 -0700
> >
> >QUESTIONS:
> >
> >Which of the two would you see being useful to you?
>
> Obvious comment really but given LEG based CDR, one can determine the
> 'Simple' data but you can't work it the other way.
>
>
David fire wrote:
>
>
> 2009/1/12 Russell Brown mailto:russ...@lls.lls.com>>
>
> Quoth Steve Murphy...
> >Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 08:51:03 -0700
> >
> >QUESTIONS:
> >
> >Which of the two would you see being useful to you?
>
> Obvious comment really but given LEG based CDR
On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 17:08 -0200, David fire wrote:
>
>
> 2009/1/12 Russell Brown
> Quoth Steve Murphy...
> >Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 08:51:03 -0700
> >
> >QUESTIONS:
> >
> >Which of the two would you see being useful to you?
>
> Ob
14 matches
Mail list logo
