RE: Company-Confidential indication
"Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg)" <gregv@lucent.com> Wed, 01 December 2004 19:40 UTC
Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iB1JeQ85002275; Wed, 1 Dec 2004 11:40:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-822@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iB1JeO7u002222; Wed, 1 Dec 2004 11:40:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-822@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [192.11.222.163]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iB1JeLSS001912 for <ietf-822@imc.org>; Wed, 1 Dec 2004 11:40:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gregv@lucent.com)
Received: from il0015exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-1-23-83.lucent.com [135.1.23.83]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iB1JeD0x024952 for <ietf-822@imc.org>; Wed, 1 Dec 2004 13:40:14 -0600 (CST)
Received: by il0015exch001h.ih.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <4M3HPFAD>; Wed, 1 Dec 2004 13:40:13 -0600
Message-ID: <54E40201497DF142B06B27255953F7971150568D@il0015exch007u.ih.lucent.com>
From: "Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg)" <gregv@lucent.com>
To: ned+ietf-822@mrochek.com, Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com>
Cc: ietf-822 <ietf-822@imc.org>, Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Subject: RE: Company-Confidential indication
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 13:40:09 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-ietf-822@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-822/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-822.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-822-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
VPIM did not ignore mixer. RFC1911 and 24212 refers to mixer as the normative reference for sensitivity and importance. VPIM profiled how to map these to existing semantics in the voicemail world, where there is no equivalent to company confidential. Because there was no hope of advancing mixer, when it was time to advance VPIM to draft, the VPIM WG was advised to define these two fields directly. Every effort was to make the definitions consistent. If Mixer comes back to life, we may have to do some work to make sure the paperwork matches the intention (and current reality) that these be the same. Greg V. -----Original Message----- From: ned+ietf-822@mrochek.com [mailto:ned+ietf-822@mrochek.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 1:33 PM To: Bruce Lilly Cc: ietf-822; Keith Moore Subject: Re: Company-Confidential indication > As best I can tell from reviewing the documents, Sensitivity > (and Importance) were defined first by MIXER in RFC 987. I believe that's correct. > VPIM then grabbed ahold of the same fields in RFC 1911. > When MIXER was revised as RFC 2156, there was a note > cautioning about other (non-MIXER) uses of these fields. > RFC 1911 was then updated to RFC 2421 (and again to > 3801), apparently ignoring the MIXER cautionary note. I would like to think that MIXER is dead for all practical purposes. There certainly is little if any chance of the specification ever getting updated again. I therefore cannot see taking this cautionary note very seriously. However, I should add that only a few months ago I was contacted by someone writing a brand new implementation. The mind boggles... Ned
- RE: Company-Confidential indication ned+ietf-822
- RE: Company-Confidential indication Bruce Lilly
- RE: Company-Confidential indication ned+ietf-822
- RE: Company-Confidential indication Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg)