On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 18:59 -0400, Damian Krzeminski wrote: > 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?
I think that's a good solution for 4.0 - we can explore generalizing it later (possibly as part of reworking how authrules work). _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
