On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 11:04 -0500, Robert Joly wrote: > > > Damian, I finally found some time to look up the work you had done. > Probably but some stories lead to confusing configuration. Consider an > Ottawa location where you have a set of designer phones and a set of > guest phones. For such a deployment, one may create two groups: > "designers" and "guests", the first one having many permissions and the > second one have a narrow set of permissions however, the administrator > would like to have phones from either group use the same local gateway. > In order to facilitate such a configuration using the current > "group~=location" paradigm, the admin would have to create a > permission-less group called "Ottawa" as well as the already mentioned > "designers" and "guests" groups. It would have to assign every designer > to groups "Ottawa" and "Designers" in that order and every guest to > groups "Ottawa" and "Guests" in that order. From a management > point-of-view, this is not as straight-forward as it could be and is > error-prone as things will not behave as expected if you put the groups > in the wrong order.
Actually, my understanding is that the group hierarchy is fixed - it depends on the order of the groups in the groups list, not on how they are entered. (is this right Damian?) > This configuration is much simplified if groups and users can be > assigned locations. All that would be required here would be to set the > locations of "Designers" and "Guests" groups to "Ottawa". But since users can be in multiple groups, you're right back where you started with possible conflicts. > > > > > 3- The 'Location' pull-down list of gateways does not allow > > multiple > > > selections. We need to be able to specify that a gateway serves > > > several locations. > > > > Again intentional: in this case I am not really even sure > > that the concept of multiple 'locations' of a single gateway > > is really needed - and it does complicate configuring and > > understanding of the concept. > > Any good reasons why admin might need > > It is conceivable that a given gateway be relied upon to serve more than > one location. "Conceivable" is a metric that leads to the Dark Side. Is it "necessary" that we be able to this? I don't think so. _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
