I wrote: > Does anyone see a good reason why the following are "Call" > permissions? > - Attendant Directory > - Record System Prompts > - Voice Mail > > These seems like "General" permissions. > > Sure you can re-use these to control calling. For example, > if by chance there's a dial rule that you only want users > with VM to access. But you could make the same argument for > "General" permissions. > > I think it is un-intuitive to have "Call" permissions that > control behaviour not related to calling. (Or "General" > permissions that also apply to calling.) The real behaviour > of these permissions is not apparent, and surely leads to confusion.
This thread also relates to TLS Peers and Authorization Codes. The TLS Peer Call Permissions do not list the "Record System Prompts" or "Voice Mail" permissions, presumably for the reasons I've listed above. Is this true? Would it also be valid to omit the "Attendant Directory" permission? In the requirements for XX-8533 [1], I've explicitly asked for these three permissions to not be listed under Authorization Code Call Permissions. Is there any reason we should include them? -Paul [email protected] [1] http://track.sipfoundry.org/browse/XX-8533 Add Authorization Code configuration _______________________________________________ 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/
