Re: [GnomeMeeting-list] gatekeeper considerations
- From: Joachim Keltsch <joachim keltsch net>
- To: gnomemeeting-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: [GnomeMeeting-list] gatekeeper considerations
- Date: 30 Nov 2002 14:16:02 +0100
> Ill add this to the FAQ for next release.
> Thanks for your contribution :)
Thanks, might help other people :-)
> OK, so you mean I should remove ILS support from GM when GM is also
> registered to a gatekeeper, just like for NM?
NO!
On the one hand I believe (i.e. I don't really know) that it is correct
behavior, not to register to the ils if registered to a gk.
But on the other hand it still should remain in GM. So you can work
around incomplete GKs (which is not possible within NM).
If users know that they have a working GK that does proper registration,
they can simply switch off ILS. But all others can keep it switched on.
> > o placing calls to 'cn'@'sipaddress':'port' instead of
> > 'sipaddress':'port' when using ils
> I can easily do that, and I think you are right. That way we can also
> register a MCU to ILS, the cn is the room name in this case.
ok, sounds good to me and solves my problems, though I don't know what
MCUs are. :-)
> I can place that in the FAQ, but I can not put a warning to tell to the
> user because there are many cases where the user doesn't want to
> register his mail to the gk. I can also add the email automatically as
> GK alias #2, GK alias #1 being the one in the prefs.
To put it in the FAQ suits me perfectly well.
The point with the aliases sounds even better. I didn't know that it is
possible to have multiple aliases at the gk. That's because I haven't
read any specs so far (and I actually don't want to). All I said was
phenomenologically observed ;-)
Bye,
Joachim
[
Date Prev][Date Next] [
Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]