Robert Joly wrote: [...]
>>> >>> To prevent toll fraud, all call operations would need to be >> performed >>> with the credentials of the call initiator (200 in this example) >>> >> Permission to call a number is not the same as a permission >> to initiate the call from it. IOW - the fact that I can call >> woof does not mean that I should be able to make woof call Kevin. >> We might need a slightly more elaborate permission scheme to >> support something like this, ideas? > > This is analogous to a blind transfer using 'normal' phones. In > sipXecs, you will be permitted to transfer Woof to Kevin only if you > have the necessary permissions to call Kevin directly. In other words, > when transfering someone, you will be able to transfer him to whatever > destination you have permisssions to call. We should re-use that model > for C2C. > [...] I still think it's different. Let's say I am able to call Kevin, and I am able to call woof, and of course that I am able to transfer woof's call to Kevin. I still do not think that it would make woof happy (does anything?) if I make him without his knowledge to call Kevin. And if that happens I am not 100% sure if my credentials or woof's credentials should be used to make this call. In any case: if everybody is OK with how permissions would play out in these scenarios I am certainly *not* going to object. 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 sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/
