On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Paul Mossman <[email protected]> wrote: > Ranga wrote: > ... >> Let us not change things for now even if it is not consistent >> with the way other gateways are configured. > > The UI needs improvement. But I agree, a re-structure is too much to > bite off at this point in the 4.2 release. > > > So to fix the larger problem of the configured values being ignored > (including XX-7695): > > 1. For forwardingrules.xml generation: Start using the 'address' value > from the 'gateway' DB table. > > 2. For sipxbridge.xml generation: > itsp-proxy-domain: Start using the 'address' value from the > 'gateway' DB table. > itsp-proxy-address: Start using the "settings" value. (i.e. The > "itsp-account/itsp-proxy-address" path value in the 'setting_value', > when not default.) > > 3. Remove the "please.contact.att" <itsp-proxy-domain> value from the > att.xml template.
AT&T hardly requires a template. It only needs a single address to be specified. Really simple configuration. > > > Note that the default Gateway Address value will be taken from the ITSP > template (<itsp-proxy-domain>), if a value is specified. But in either > case, sipXconfig will not create a Gateway with a blank Address. > > > Sound good? Yes it sounds fine. We should also make the ITSP domain name un-editable in the ITSP configuration screen. That way the user can only ever enter that in one place - i.e. the gateway configuration screen. The domain must be made a required field in the ITSP gateway configuration. Just so long as I see that ITSP domain name in the request URI that gets to sipxbridge, user interface is negotiable. Regards, Ranga. > > > -Paul > [email protected] > > > > -- M. Ranganathan _______________________________________________ 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/
