Bob wrote: > > Peter Fowler wrote: ... > > 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 don't think the analogy to Blind Transfer is perfect. In a blind transfer you already have one established call, the transferee. In practice you have a conversation with that person before performing the transfer. -Paul [email protected] _______________________________________________ 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/
