[XCON] CPCP Issue 16: Interpreting the <id> Element

[hisham.khartabil at nokia.com]

(I start with issue number 16 because the last set of issues that were discussed on the list were numbered 1 to 15).

Text in the draft currently says:

"The <identity> element is already defined in the common policy framework [1].  However, the rules for interpreting the identities in <id> elements are left for each application to define separately.  This document, however, does not define the rules for interpreting identities in <id> elements in conferencing applications since those interpretation rules are signalling protocol specific."

The question was: Do we need to say more than this? Specifically, how do you derive the identities (from different using protocols) used in the <id> elements?

There was no strong consensus about this during the XCON meeting, but the rough consensus was to add text to at least SIP and H.323 and any other signalling protocol that people will send me text for. Please send text about your favoute signalling protocol detailing how the identity in the <id> element can be mapped to an authenticated identity in the signalling protocol.

Regards,
Hisham


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