Subject: [XCON] CPCP Requirements: hidden users

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 23:13:54 +0200

We need to close this open issue asap so we can move forward. 
Support for this was removed from cpcp-reqs-02 draft 
but no concensus has so far been reached in the list.

However, the discussion has lately been focusing on callee capabilities
and whether (and how) hidden or hideable users are shown in the user interface
and in the conference package.

Callee capabilities can indeed be extended to include such roles or attributes 
(in addition to attendant, msg-taker etc), but it seems that this issue has 
nothing to do with CPCP. Only issue which might be linked to 
CPCP is that the conference policy can define whether hidden or hideable users are 
allowed in a conference (but it opens yet another rathole). 
If a user wants to remain anonymous that is supported already.

I propose that we close this open issue as it has nothing to do with CPCP requirements.
Extending callee-caps (and conf package) is another issue and should be discussed
in a separate thread.

--
Petri

_______________________________________________
XCON mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon

---

From: "Orit Levin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 13:26:02 -0800

I agree with this proposal.

I would like to mention that the current conference package is "the
basic conference package" which covers SIPPING conferencing
requirements. I suggest keeping it as is and declare it as done on the
SIPPING list. The XML schema is extensible and extensions to the package
will need to be separately defined based on the XCON work.

Would we agree to this?
Orit.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 1:14 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [XCON] CPCP Requirements: hidden users

We need to close this open issue asap so we can move forward. 
Support for this was removed from cpcp-reqs-02 draft but no concensus
has so far been reached in the list.

However, the discussion has lately been focusing on callee capabilities
and whether (and how) hidden or hideable users are shown in the user
interface and in the conference package.

Callee capabilities can indeed be extended to include such roles or
attributes (in addition to attendant, msg-taker etc), but it seems that
this issue has nothing to do with CPCP. Only issue which might be linked
to CPCP is that the conference policy can define whether hidden or
hideable users are allowed in a conference (but it opens yet another
rathole). 
If a user wants to remain anonymous that is supported already.

I propose that we close this open issue as it has nothing to do with
CPCP requirements.
Extending callee-caps (and conf package) is another issue and should be
discussed in a separate thread.

--
Petri