Re: [XCON] CPCP Requirement: Hidden Participants

[Rohan Mahy <rohan at cisco.com>]

Hi,

I believe there are plenty of uses for hidden participants.  A robot 
that announces folks when they enter or whispers things to you in a 
sidebar via IM should be hidden.  They detract from my view of who is 
there.  This is very different from anonymous.

thx,
-rohan


> > -----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

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