--- On Wed, 6/16/10, Mossman, Paul (Paul) <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Mossman, Paul (Paul) <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [sipX-dev] Call Permissions: Attendant Directory, Record System > Prompts, and Voice Mail? > To: "Mossman, Paul (Paul)" <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, June 16, 2010, 5:51 PM > 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? > Yes, see Scott's comment here: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.voip.sipx.devel/20707/focus=20713 "It would be nice if we could remove the permissions used only for internal operations from the permissions tab (Record Prompts, Voicemail) and display only permissions that are required by some dial plan. Not required, but nice (simpler, clearer)." George _______________________________________________ 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/
