RE: [XCON] CPCP Requirement: Hidden Participants

Er... I reponded to Eric, not to you. His message
was the first in which legal intercept was raised.

/a

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drage, Keith (Keith) [mailto:drage@lucent.com]
> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 19:04
> To: 'Adam Roach'; 'Eric Burger'; 'xcon@ietf.org'
> Subject: RE: [XCON] CPCP Requirement: Hidden Participants
> 
> 
> It would have been better that you replied to one of the 
> later messages in this thread.
> 
> Your comments make it look like my own comments below refer 
> to legal intercept, when they do not. We have already agreed 
> that hidden participants are nothing to do with legal intercept.
> 
> regards
> 
> Keith
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Adam Roach [mailto:adam@dynamicsoft.com]
> > Sent: 26 February 2004 03:46
> > To: Eric Burger; 'xcon@ietf.org'
> > Subject: RE: [XCON] CPCP Requirement: Hidden Participants
> > 
> > 
> > I know this issue has been settled, but just as a general
> > announcement for any work in any working group: the IAB
> > and IESG have stated positions on the topic of legal
> > intercept that are (to my understanding) binding on all
> > IETF protocols.
> > 
> > These positions are detailed in RFC 2804, and are
> > summarized as follows: "The IETF has decided not to consider
> > requirements for wiretapping as part of the process for
> > creating and maintaining IETF standards."
> > 
> > /a
> > 
> > > -----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
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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