> 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.
That is correct however some subtleties need to be mentioned. #1- Scenarios that have users belonging to multiple groups are not frequent and #2 for those cases, conflicts could be avoided altogether by using the user-based location setting instead of the group-based ones. > > > > > > > > 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. I have my opinion on what is necessary but it does not really count because I'm not out there talking to customers and trying to sell the product. I think we'll have to defer to Martin on that one. _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
