Woof!
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Paul Mossman <[email protected]> wrote:
> It seems like if there's no need to keep the strings secret, then
> Intercom should use a hard-coded one so that phone configuration doesn't
> need to be updated. But if the strings should be kept secret then I
> don't see the point in hiding one but not the other.
>
> Is there a reason for the Page and Intercom Alert-Info strings to be
> handled so differently? Thanks.
The wasn't supposed to be a hard coded one. The mappingrules.xml file
is supposed to contain a rule for the pager that includes the intercom
secret as a URL parameter so that sipXpage can use that for Polycoms.
But somewhere along the line, there was an issue with Paging phones
that weren't intercom enabled, and so it got complicated, and I seem
to recall that the resolution was just to add a second fixed value
("sipXpage") to Polycom profiles, and put that value into
mappingrules.xml so sipXpage can use it.
As all the other phones just use answer-after=0 header, there really
is no reason to be so secretive, and I see no reason not to switch
Intercom to using the fixed version (although I'd change it from
"sipXpage" to "auto-answer" or something that makes it obvious what it
means.
--Woof!
_______________________________________________
sipx-dev mailing list
[email protected]
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev
Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
