Re: [XCON] CPCP Requirement: Hidden Participants

In any case.  Wiretaps are not hidden users.  They are just there.  The 
thing that announces that Eric has joined the conference is hidden.  
Not because the identity of the announcer is private, but because 
displaying the identity of the announcer would be annoying.

thx,
-rohan

On Feb 25, 2004, at 7:45 PM, Adam Roach wrote:

> 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