Re: [XCON] CPCP Requirement: Hidden Participants

[Rohan Mahy <rohan at cisco.com>]

Well, (hidden) announcement servers are already invited to basic 
conferences today, so clearly this is not a wacky future requirement.  
I don't really see what the big deal is in terms of complexity of 
implementation/specification, but perhaps you can fill me in sometime 
at SIPit.

thx,
-r



On Tuesday, February 10, 2004, at 09:00  AM, 
<hisham.khartabil@nokia.com> wrote:

> We are all creative here and can come up with many use cases and 
> features, but there is a line that we have to draw in order to get 
> something finished. We're aiming at basic conferencing first.
>
> /Hisham
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ext Rohan Mahy [mailto:rohan@cisco.com]
> > Sent: 10.February.2004 02:20
> > To: Eric Burger
> > Cc: Khartabil Hisham (Nokia-TP/Helsinki); xcon@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [XCON] CPCP Requirement: Hidden Participants
> >
> >
> > 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