-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Burger [mailto:eburger@snowshore.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 10:01
To: xcon@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [XCON] CPCP Requirement: Hidden Participants
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
