[XCON] CPCP Issue 21: <any> vs. <unauthenticated>

To: <xcon at ietf.org>
Subject: [XCON] CPCP Issue 21: <any> vs. <unauthenticated>
From: hisham.khartabil at nokia.com
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:04:35 +0300
List-help: <mailto:xcon-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-id: Centralized Conferencing <xcon.ietf.org>
List-post: <mailto:xcon@ietf.org>
List-subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon>, <mailto:xcon-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon>, <mailto:xcon-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xcon-bounces at ietf.org
Thread-index: AcSBLbMvwECQfK9TSuWYOI2ixzjHng==
Thread-topic: CPCP Issue 21: <any> vs. <unauthenticated>

- <any> in the draft refers to any authenticated user
- <unauthenticated> refers to any unauthenticated user

The lack of <identity> element in the conditions means any unauthenticated user, so we do not need <unauthenticated> element as a condition. The consensus was to remove it.

Regards,
Hisham

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

Prev by Date: [XCON] CPCP Issue 19: Conference Information
Next by Date: [XCON] CPCP Issue 22: Media Stream Security Policy
Previous by thread: [XCON] CPCP Issue 19: Conference Information
Next by thread: [XCON] CPCP Issue 22: Media Stream Security Policy
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[XCON] CPCP Issue 21: <any> vs. <unauthenticated>

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.