Dale Worley wrote: > On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 15:56 -0400, Scott Lawrence wrote: >> On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 15:16 -0400, Huijun Yang wrote: >> >>> What would be an appropriate name for the new rule type? "Inter-site >>> rule"? >> Site-to-Site >> ? > > "Federated system"? I don't know if anyone outside Nortel knows that > term, but it's popular in NT circles, and has the advantage that the > phrase has no other meanings. > > Dale > >
I actually quite like "Site to Site". Federated system is less graphic and more scary. We could use UI similar to the one used for Long Distance rule (drop prefix, add prefix etc. - custom rule UI might be a bit too much). On a slightly related note (http://track.sipfoundry.org/browse/XCF-3634). I spent some time thinking about generous offer sipXconfig team got from Robert ;-) "A meeting was held [...]. The sipXconfig team is free to implement whichever solution they deem the safest and simplest." None of the proposals actually look very safe and obvious to the end user. But since we're already adding a new type of dialing rule the least invasive change would be to modify authrules generation just for this type of rule. In other word if you use site-to-site rule type sipXconfig will generate an entry in authrules matching any user part and allowing for transfers with no permission required. Generation of of authrules for other rules' types would not be affected. That strikes me as the safest option. Will that fix site-to-site transfer problem? Damian _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
