> Robert Joly wrote: > >> Scott Lawrence wrote: > >> This location code mechanism seems to me to go way beyond what the > >> original requirements called for. It adds quite a lot of > complexity > >> for little extra benefit. Personally, I dislike anything that > >> requires that users be taught feature codes that > explicitly control > >> routing - and a feature code that controls routing through extra > >> layers of indirection seems to me to be a nightmare waiting to > >> happen. > >> > >> I'd suggest that this entire part of the proposal be removed. > >> I will be amazed if any user notices its absence. > > > > Thank you for the prompt feedback. Perhaps you are right > and I will > > let Martin decide on its usefulness (or lack thereof). To better > > illustrate where I'm coming from with this, let me propose > a use case: > > > > Joe works of a single sipXecs, multi-branch business and is a user > > based out of Ottawa. He is part of the 'Ottawa' location which is > > configured to route PSTN calls using gateways located in > Ottawa. He > > is traveling for two days to the Calgary to meet with a partner. > > Although he will not be at that site, Joe knows that the > business he > > works for has a branch office in Calgary. Joe has a > softphone on his > > laptop and is expecting to have to make numerous > Calgary-local calls. > > For the duration of his stay in Calgary he would like to be able to > > call the business across the street without having to make a > > long-distance call via the Ottawa-based gateways. Instead, > he would > > prefer making local calls using his company's Calgary gateway > > facilities therefore saving on long distance charges. Fortunately, > > when the company sent him his travel approval confirmation, it > > included a cost-cutting tip on how to make local calls from the > > various sites that the company has. Using the right > location code, he > > can make local calls in Calgary. He can also make local > calls in the > > Ottawa region (calling his wife for example) by dialing as > though he was sitting at his Ottawa desk. > > > [...] > I am with Scott on that. I read the user story and the > concept that users will have to remember the location code > not to change the destination of the call but to change its > routing is so user unfriendly that I doubt any corporation > would force it on its employees. Joe just want to make calls: > asking him to understand the phone system gateway topology to > do that is asking too much. > Remove it at least from the initial phase.
My personal experience differs. If you take DISA (Direct Inward System Access) for example, it is common for companies to hand out the DISA information to their employees. If fact, I probably still have my Nortel DISA calling card in my wallet. Having said that, I do not think that this is an absolute must-have feature but it is easy enough to implement while the hood is open. I will only add this incremental feature if I have left-over time in this sprint - the marketing folks can decide if they want to expose it or not. _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
