We have CUCM 8.6 and Verint Call Recording 10. We use CUCM silent monitoring through the BIB (Built-In Bridge). What I understand is that the monitoring party should automatically placed on hold when the agent places the customer on hold and the monitoring session automatically resumes when the agent resumes the call. I believe when the agent places the customer on hold, recording calls are torn down. When the call is resumed, two new recording calls are established. Is this assumtion valid?
Our issue is that the recording stops as soon as the agent retrievs the call from hold. Anybody got into a similar situation. Any solution/recommandation would be greately appreciated.
Recording calls get torn down when the agent puts the call on hold, and they get reestablished when the agent resumes the call.
The Start Recording Request from an application persists throughout the call.
Yes, in a normal scenario recording should resume after hold/resume. There were a couple of bugs related to call recording on cucm 8.6 version, one of them is given below
Intermittently calls are not being recorded from BiB.
An active call to an agent will go on hold even before recording call start ( with a CTI application initiating the hold immediately after the media cut thru; it is hard to hit this issue via manual hold). However, upon resume of the call; we would expect recording to start automatically; however it does not. It is a race condition between the hold and the recording.The fix is to handle this race condition and let the recording resume upon the call resume.
Delay the hold from the application for a few milliseconds to let the recording start before going on hold.
Although it is not the exact match as yours but you can check if your cucm 8.6.2 is running one of the fixed or higher versions listed in it.
Thank you for taking the time and replying.
I don`t understand the workaround. Could you please explain how to "Delay the hold from the application for a few milliseconds "?
Our current version is 126.96.36.19900-9
Soon, we are upgrading to 9.1.2SU2a, would the bug be fixed in that version?