RE: [XCON] CPCP Requirement: Hidden Participants

["Drage, Keith (Keith)" <drage@lucent.com>]

In the current mechanisms I know of for supporting legal intercept (in 3GPP), the interceptor would not even be a participant, therefore I am not convinced that this is relevant to the issue of hidden participants anyway.

regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:fluffy@cisco.com]
> Sent: 03 February 2004 17:08
> To: Eric Burger; XCON-IETF
> Subject: Re: [XCON] CPCP Requirement: Hidden Participants
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care if we support hidden participants but I feel that the
> requirements for Legal Intercept should definitely be out. 
> There are way too
> many land minds over yonder and it is not the point of this 
> WG to solve
> those. 
> 
> Cullen
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/20/04 8:00 AM, "Eric Burger" <eburger@snowshore.com> wrote:
> 
> > Would Legal Intercept be in or out?  E.g., hidden 
> participants that CANNOT be
> > known.
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Drage, Keith (Keith) [mailto:drage@lucent.com]
> >> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 6:14 AM
> >> To: hisham.khartabil@nokia.com; mhammer@cisco.com
> >> Cc: xcon@ietf.org
> >> Subject: RE: [XCON] CPCP Requirement: Hidden Participants
> >> 
> >> 
> >> I believe hidden users are appropriate.
> >> 
> >> I do not believe that this adds complexity to the
> >> specifications (particularly to the specification of CPCP),
> >> so I see no need to make it a DEFER as far as the
> >> specifications are concerned. It may add complexity to the
> >> implementation, so I am quite happy to see it a MAY in the
> >> requirements, so that it is optional to implement.
> >> 
> >> As regards the legal implications of hidden users, then yes,
> >> there may be priveleged users that are able to request the
> >> identity of hidden users (along with an indication that they
> >> are hidden). This of course requires the enabling of such a
> >> privileged user in the first place.
> >> 
> >> Secondly, it may not be necessary to identify hidden users,
> >> but merely that there are hidden users in the conference (in
> >> addition to any that may have made themselves visible). Some
> >> countries require some form of tone or announcement on voice
> >> conferences when someone else is listening in. They also
> >> require an announcement or other indication in the call is
> >> being recorded.
> >> 
> >> regards
> >> 
> >> Keith
> >> 
> >> Keith Drage
> >> Lucent Technologies
> >> drage@lucent.com
> >> tel: +44 1793 776249
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: hisham.khartabil@nokia.com 
> [mailto:hisham.khartabil@nokia.com]
> >>> Sent: 15 December 2003 16:29
> >>> To: mhammer@cisco.com
> >>> Cc: xcon@ietf.org
> >>> Subject: RE: [XCON] CPCP Requirement: Hidden Participants
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: ext Michael Hammer [mailto:mhammer@cisco.com]
> >>>> Sent: 15.December.2003 18:17
> >>>> To: Khartabil Hisham (NMP-MSW/Helsinki)
> >>>> Cc: xcon@ietf.org
> >>>> Subject: Re: [XCON] CPCP Requirement: Hidden Participants
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Related to this is there a requirement that, while not
> >>> revealing the 
> >>>> identity of a hidden user, the conference policy contains
> >>>> state indication
> >>>> about either the presence of hidden users, or the
> >>>> possibility/preclusion
> >>>> that such hidden users may be present?
> >>>> 
> >>>> I am anticipating that:
> >>>> 1) Laws may exist that require notification of such.
> >>> 
> >>> That's a good point. This might require changes to the
> >>> conference event package to indicate if there are hidden
> >>> participants or not, and if so, how many.
> >>> 
> >>> The question remain: is there a need for such a feature (to
> >>> hide users?)?
> >>> 
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Hisham
> >>> 
> >>>> 2) In some conferences, participants may want technical
> >>>> assurance that
> >>>> hidden users are not possible before they speak.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Mike
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> At 02:55 PM 12/15/2003 +0200, hisham.khartabil@nokia.com wrote:
> >>>>> This is in reference to requirements REQ-A7 and REQ-E10 in
> >>>> 
> >>> 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-xcon-cpcp-reqs-00.txt
>>>> 
>>>>    REQ-A7: It SHOULD be possible to participate in a
>> conference as a
>>>>    hidden user. Hidden user is present in a conference, but
>>> his presence
>>>>    is not revealed.
>>>> 
>>>>    REQ-E10: It MUST be possible to allow and disallow
>>> hidden membership
>>>>    in a conference.
>>>> 
>>>> Should a conference policy, using CPCP, specify if a user
>>> can be hidden? 
>>>> This means that the conference state package does not report the
>>>> participation on the hidden user. CPCP is used to identify
>>> which users are
>>>> hidden. The list of hidden users is only manipulated by a
>>> privileged user
>>>> such as the moderator.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Hisham
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> XCON mailing list
>>>> XCON@ietf.org
>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> XCON mailing list
>> XCON@ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> XCON mailing list
>> XCON@ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> XCON mailing list
> XCON@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon
> 


_______________________________________________
XCON mailing list
XCON@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon

_______________________________________________
XCON mailing list
XCON@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon