RE: [XCON] CPCP Requirement: Hidden Participants

["Eric Burger" <eburger at snowshore.com>]

I'm happy.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: hisham.khartabil@nokia.com [mailto:hisham.khartabil@nokia.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 5:33 AM
> To: drage@lucent.com; fluffy@cisco.com; Eric Burger; xcon@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [XCON] CPCP Requirement: Hidden Participants
> 
> 
> I agree with Keith. That's why we removed hidden participants 
> and are content with anonymous. Legal interception can be 
> local implementation and policy.
> 
> /Hisham
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xcon-admin@ietf.org [mailto:xcon-admin@ietf.org]On 
> Behalf Of ext
> > Drage, Keith (Keith)
> > Sent: 04.February.2004 11:47
> > To: Cullen Jennings; Eric Burger; XCON-IETF
> > Subject: RE: [XCON] CPCP Requirement: Hidden Participants
> > 
> > 
> > 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.
[snip]


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