Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
Just thinking out aloud What about a web-cam (maybe a wireless one? Never tried to use them...) right under the mic, so that it takes a picture of the badge and shows it on the screen? Everyone (right?) in a meeting has a badge wit his/her/its :) name and affiliation, so privacy concerns are just comparable to those of wearing a badge. Of course, this is not applicable to jabber participants, in that case you need a different solution. On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 2:41 AM, Henning Schulzrinne h...@cs.columbia.edu wrote: Yes, a group from my lab did this, using short-range RFID. (The range was about 1-2 inches.) It required a bit of a setup which made it hard to replicate at scale, but it worked reasonably well. Privacy concerns are an issue, but you'd have to be very close to the person to sense the card (and you can obviously leave it behind any time you'd want to) - it would be much more convenient to track people using BlueTooth or WiFi MAC addresses, if you'd be so inclined, or just use video cameras. Yes, you can use long-range directional antennas to increase your read range, but those would be rather hard to hide. As was mentioned, the hotel room cards use very much the same technology, and you can't really leave them behind when you leave the building. Henning On Aug 5, 2013, at 5:15 AM, Dan York y...@isoc.org wrote: On the topic of badge-sensing at the mic, I seem to recall that we had this working at an IETF sometime back in the RAI working groups. It was maybe 4 or 5 years ago and I think it may have been some student(s) under Henning Schulzrinne at Columbia... but I am not sure about that. I remember that when you went to the mic you put your badge up to this sensor and your name appeared in the jabber room. We used it in several of the RAI sessions at that IETF. Unfortunately I don't remember how well it worked or why it wasn't continued. There may be someone out there who can provide some insight. (And if it was Henning's students we can just drop him a note.) Dan -- Dan York y...@isoc.org +1-802-735-1624 skype:danyork http://twitter.com/danyork On Aug 2, 2013, at 10:26 AM, Paul Aitken pait...@cisco.com wrote: I've remotely participated in several IETFs. I find that the biggest problem with remote attendance is the lack of visual cues. I've come to realise just how important these are in a meeting. -are people paying attention, are they interested / confused / distracted / bored? Also there's no way for local attendees (in the WG room) to know that remote attendees are at the mic and whose turn it is to speak. There's been some discussion on the 87attendees mailer about badge sensing at the mic - whether QR codes, NFC, or RFID. This could help remote attendees too. eg, see what they did with NFC + mic here: http://www.5thbar.me/blog/2012/09/14/nfc-enabled-badges-at-the-5thbar-mobile-marketing-forum/ P. ___ iaoc-rps mailing list iaoc-...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iaoc-rps
Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
On 08/07/2013 02:26 AM, Riccardo Bernardini wrote: Just thinking out aloud What about a web-cam (maybe a wireless one? Never tried to use them...) right under the mic, so that it takes a picture of the badge and shows it on the screen? Everyone (right?) in a meeting has a badge wit his/her/its:) name and affiliation, so privacy concerns are just comparable to those of wearing a badge. Except that this would preclude use of portable/wireless microphones to let people engage in more effective conversation. Even if there continues to be some sort of queue or other discipline to determine who speaks next, we need to get away from the habit of forcing people to walk through narrow rows of chairs and stand in a queue behind a fixed-location microphone in order to speak. Keith
Re: Last Call: draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
A couple of procedural points here: The issue here is whether this proposal should be an IETF Proposed STANDARD. ... Usually when the IETF publishes an algorithm it is given INFORMATIONAL or EXPERIMENTAL status. That is what originally happened with JSON, RFC 4627 has INFORMATIONAL status despite the fact that at the time it was written there was a lot of implementation. First, Proposed Standard is just that: a proposal. It does not require implementations. It requires that it be generally stable, has resolved known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has received significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community interest to be considered valuable. That's from RFC 2026, Section 4.1.1, which goes on to say, Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed Standard. I believe that CBOR qualifies, which is why I agreed to AD-sponsor it. In the process, I'm looking to see if we have rough consensus that all this is the case. Your substantive comments on the document, as well as those of others, should address those points (as some of your comments indeed do). Second, RFC 4627 is Informational because it was not meant to be the standard definition of JSON. It was meant only to register the media type. But one thing led to another, and it did become the referenced definition, which is why the JSON working group is working on fixing its gaps and moving it to Standards Track. Using the individual submissions track as a way to circumvent working group process when there is an actual IETF JSON working group seems completely wrong to me. No one is circumventing anything. The JSON working group is not chartered to deal with this or other documents like it, and we won't be rechartering it to do so any time soon. And remember that any time I'm sponsoring a document as AD, part of what I'm doing is what working group chairs do in a working group: judging rough consensus on the document's content and the issues that concern whether it's intended status is appropriate. If you (and/or others) can show that there are solid reasons that this should not be a Proposed Standard, or if I do not see rough consensus to publish it, I will not bring it to the rest of the IESG. Barry, Applications AD
Re: Last Call: draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
On Aug 6, 2013, at 21:45, Joe Hildebrand hil...@cursive.net wrote: On 8/6/13 1:11 PM, Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org wrote: If a CBOR application does require initial signature bytes for self-description purposes, I would suggest using something like 0xd8 0xf8 ...data item... which decodes as tag248(data item); we could define 248 as a no-op tag. Or a no-op simple value; we could easily pick one that did not generate a valid first character for JSON. Well, simple values don't have content. Using one as a signature would mean the data item ends right on the simple value, and the actual payload would be a second data item. I'd rather have a single data item that is just (ignorably) tagged. Yes, picking a tag number that encodes into a file signature that can't be a valid start for JSON (or many other kinds of things, e.g. UTF-8 text) is easy, as demonstrated above. Grüße, Carsten
Re: Last Call: draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 1:03 AM, Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote: Using the individual submissions track as a way to circumvent working group process when there is an actual IETF JSON working group seems completely wrong to me. No one is circumventing anything. The JSON working group is not chartered to deal with this or other documents like it, and we won't be rechartering it to do so any time soon. And remember that any time I'm sponsoring a document as AD, part of what I'm doing is what working group chairs do in a working group: judging rough consensus on the document's content and the issues that concern whether it's intended status is appropriate. If you (and/or others) can show that there are solid reasons that this should not be a Proposed Standard, or if I do not see rough consensus to publish it, I will not bring it to the rest of the IESG. I would add that CBOR has already seen enough interest and feedback that I believe it would pass a call for adoption in APPSAWG, and be processed there onto the standards track. That would make Barry's job quite a bit easier, since it would then be our job to host the discussion and record consensus in that context. It would also get a shorter IETF Last Call. Instead, it's going what is for all intents and purposes a tougher route. I'm not suggesting we derail its progress to do it the other way, but it does suggest to me that the route it's following is hardly a shortcut or bypass of some kind. -MSK
Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
On Aug 6, 2013, at 5:36 PM, Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote: Maybe attaching such a sign to the MIC from the start could additionally improve the situation. There were signs like this attached to all the mics in all the rooms at this IETF. I never looked at them, and I doubt anybody else did either. Certainly the evidence would suggest that they did not! :}
Re: RPS Accessibility
On Aug 6, 2013, at 5:15 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote: What I've seen in other groups that has worked is a volunteer to record the names of speakers *before* they get to the mic, and then each speaker is announced. Of course that's one more volunteer to find, but it's pretty light duty, and I suspect that some in our crowd would like to have the extra mic time. :) This is a bit low-tech, but would certainly work.
Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
Ted Lemon wrote: Ironically, this IETF everyone who stayed at the Intercontinental was walking around with an RFID key in their pocket the whole meeting. Could there be a conflict if IETF badges also have RFID tags attached, eg we get Room 1283 at the mic? P.
Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
Joe Abley wrote: Or perhaps future IETFers.app releases could talk using bluetooth to a transponder duct-taped to the mic stand and realise the same outcomes (and if you don't like that, you can always touch no in the appropriate place on your phone). Instead of requiring additional hardware on the mic stand + duct tape: Zoosh, a new technology developed by Sunnyvale startup Naratte http://www.naratte.com/, aims to deliver all the benefits of NFC (near-field communication) with any device that has a speaker and microphone. Instead of relying on NFC chips, Zoosh uses ultrasound to perform secure mobile transactions. http://venturebeat.com/2011/06/19/narattes-zoosh-enables-nfc-with-just-a-speaker-and-microphone/ Obviously this requires everyone to carry an app-enabled device to the mic. P.
Re: Berlin was awesome, let's come again
On Aug 6, 2013, at 7:59 PM, Douglas Otis doug.mtv...@gmail.com wrote: Agreed. One minor downside was needing an additional flight. It seems AB who handles about a third of the traffic rather than Lufthansa that handles about one fifth, was not the best choice where a 6 hour layover extended an hour on the tarmac in a hot plane. I just took a train. But yeah, Munich is clearly easier to fly to. I would personally love it if IETF did another Munich meeting, because I haven't been there since I was seven, and I've always wanted to go back (I missed the previous Munich meeting, much to my frustration).
Re: Berlin was awesome, let's come again
From: Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com I would personally love it if IETF did another Munich meeting, because I haven't been there since I was seven, and I've always wanted to go back Many fine lunches and dinners. Some things never change... Noel
Faraday cages...
Dare I ask how many IETFers also kept their cell phones in faraday cages for the duration of the conference?
Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
On Aug 7, 2013, at 2:26 AM, Riccardo Bernardini framefri...@gmail.com wrote: Just thinking out aloud What about a web-cam (maybe a wireless one? Never tried to use them...) right under the mic, so that it takes a picture of the badge and shows it on the screen? Everyone (right?) in a meeting has a badge wit his/her/its :) name and affiliation, so privacy concerns are just comparable to those of wearing a badge. Ummm... methinks female participants might find such a camera offensive. -hadriel
Re: Faraday cages...
My wallet supposedly has a RFID-blocking layer, but I've not actually tested it. I think the only RFID-capable thing in my wallet is my US passport. I used my cell phone in Berlin extensively, both roaming and on wifi, obviously, so both radios were active for most of the time I was there. Clearly, I'm not as para^G^G^G^Gconcerned about being tracked or hacked as some others. Chris. On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote: Dare I ask how many IETFers also kept their cell phones in faraday cages for the duration of the conference? -- Chris Elliott chell...@pobox.com
Re: [iaoc-rps] RPS Accessibility
would this mandate wearing badges only in certain locations, e.g. over the left breast? /bill On 6August2013Tuesday, at 23:26, Riccardo Bernardini wrote: Just thinking out aloud What about a web-cam (maybe a wireless one? Never tried to use them...) right under the mic, so that it takes a picture of the badge and shows it on the screen? Everyone (right?) in a meeting has a badge wit his/her/its :) name and affiliation, so privacy concerns are just comparable to those of wearing a badge. Of course, this is not applicable to jabber participants, in that case you need a different solution. On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 2:41 AM, Henning Schulzrinne h...@cs.columbia.edu wrote: Yes, a group from my lab did this, using short-range RFID. (The range was about 1-2 inches.) It required a bit of a setup which made it hard to replicate at scale, but it worked reasonably well. Privacy concerns are an issue, but you'd have to be very close to the person to sense the card (and you can obviously leave it behind any time you'd want to) - it would be much more convenient to track people using BlueTooth or WiFi MAC addresses, if you'd be so inclined, or just use video cameras. Yes, you can use long-range directional antennas to increase your read range, but those would be rather hard to hide. As was mentioned, the hotel room cards use very much the same technology, and you can't really leave them behind when you leave the building. Henning On Aug 5, 2013, at 5:15 AM, Dan York y...@isoc.org wrote: On the topic of badge-sensing at the mic, I seem to recall that we had this working at an IETF sometime back in the RAI working groups. It was maybe 4 or 5 years ago and I think it may have been some student(s) under Henning Schulzrinne at Columbia... but I am not sure about that. I remember that when you went to the mic you put your badge up to this sensor and your name appeared in the jabber room. We used it in several of the RAI sessions at that IETF. Unfortunately I don't remember how well it worked or why it wasn't continued. There may be someone out there who can provide some insight. (And if it was Henning's students we can just drop him a note.) Dan -- Dan York y...@isoc.org +1-802-735-1624 skype:danyork http://twitter.com/danyork On Aug 2, 2013, at 10:26 AM, Paul Aitken pait...@cisco.com wrote: I've remotely participated in several IETFs. I find that the biggest problem with remote attendance is the lack of visual cues. I've come to realise just how important these are in a meeting. -are people paying attention, are they interested / confused / distracted / bored? Also there's no way for local attendees (in the WG room) to know that remote attendees are at the mic and whose turn it is to speak. There's been some discussion on the 87attendees mailer about badge sensing at the mic - whether QR codes, NFC, or RFID. This could help remote attendees too. eg, see what they did with NFC + mic here: http://www.5thbar.me/blog/2012/09/14/nfc-enabled-badges-at-the-5thbar-mobile-marketing-forum/ P. ___ iaoc-rps mailing list iaoc-...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iaoc-rps
Re: Faraday cages...
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Chris Elliott chell...@pobox.com wrote: My wallet supposedly has a RFID-blocking layer, but I've not actually tested it. I think the only RFID-capable thing in my wallet is my US passport. Take a look at what's in your passport with an NFC tool. For example, you can retrieve the photo. I keep my passport in a cage when I'm not handing it to someone. I'm not concerned about my phone.
Re: Faraday cages...
On Aug 7, 2013, at 1:24 PM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote: I keep my passport in a cage when I'm not handing it to someone. I'm not concerned about my phone. Likewise. The point being, handing everyone in IETF an RFID tag probably doesn't have new privacy implications for most of them, and giving them a faraday cage, as was done in Hiroshima, addresses the remaining implications for those people who do not carry powered-on cell phones or laptops for privacy reasons. If you carry a powered on cell phone, I don't think you can argue that carrying an RFID tag with a simple number in it makes things any worse. Actually, the main argument I'd make against IETF RFID tags is that it's more plastic to throw out.
Re: Faraday cages...
On 2013-08-07, at 13:28, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote: [...] I don't think you can argue that carrying an RFID tag with a simple number in it makes things any worse. That sounds right. The purpose of the badge is to dilute your personal privacy and announce your identity to those close enough to see. You can't always tell who is looking at your badge. People who see your badge in more than one place can infer that you have moved between places. If you don't want people to see your badge, you can take it off. The privacy concerns with badges seem very similar to the privacy concerns of carrying RFID tags. I do not hear a lot of expressed concern about wearing a badge. Joe
Re: Faraday cages...
On Wednesday, August 07, 2013 13:43:06 Joe Abley wrote: On 2013-08-07, at 13:28, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote: [...] I don't think you can argue that carrying an RFID tag with a simple number in it makes things any worse. That sounds right. The purpose of the badge is to dilute your personal privacy and announce your identity to those close enough to see. You can't always tell who is looking at your badge. People who see your badge in more than one place can infer that you have moved between places. If you don't want people to see your badge, you can take it off. In RFID terms, that's what the Faraday cage is for. The privacy concerns with badges seem very similar to the privacy concerns of carrying RFID tags. I do not hear a lot of expressed concern about wearing a badge. It's more common to have a pocket available than a Faraday cage. Scott K
Re: Faraday cages...
I hope the RFID badges transmit (optional) pictures as well, so when I harvest them I can use them to associate names with faces.
Re: Berlin was awesome, let's come again
Agreed! Berlin - Vancouver - Prague my three favourites. cheers! ~Carlos On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote: Venue was great, food options here and in the city were great, all-around great experience. Let's come again! (I do kinda wonder how there wasn't a single local company willing to step up to be the host. That's embarrassing to me as a German, esp. if the IETF meets in the self-declared IT hub of Germany. Better luck next time, I hope.) Lars -- -- = Carlos M. Martinez-Cagnazzo http://cagnazzo.name =
Re: Speaking of VAT
Hello, On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 5:11 PM, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote: At last week's very successful Berlin meeting, the finances were thrown of whack by the late discovery that the IETF had to pay 19% German VAT on the registration fee. At the IAOC session they said that about half of that is likely to be reclaimed from VAT paid, but the net amount is still a large number. In Buenos Aires, the VAT rate is 21% on most goods and services, with a special 27% rate on telecom services. Non-nationals can claim VAT back on almost every purchase made during their stay in Argentina. Given the timeframes involved and that I now doubt that the IAOC is going to ever be taken again by surprise by any tax-related matters, I dare say this would be a non-issue for the (hopefully upcoming) BA meeting. You can even claim VAT back on that case of Malbec wine many will be surely be taking back home. Just keep your receipts and plan an hour extra for the paperwork at the airport. cheers! ~Carlos
Re: Faraday cages...
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Chris Elliott chell...@pobox.com wrote: My wallet supposedly has a RFID-blocking layer, but I've not actually tested it. I think the only RFID-capable thing in my wallet is my US passport. Take a look at what's in your passport with an NFC tool. For example, you can retrieve the photo. for US passports it seems you have to scan the inside of the back cover, scanning from the outside doesn't find/activate the rfid token, yes? You also need to generate the key material to access the data (DOB + expiry date of passport + passport number?) I keep my passport in a cage when I'm not handing it to someone. I'm not concerned about my phone. it seems like simply not waving the passport around open is close to good enough? I recall seeing a blackhat/something-or-other demo with a briefcase that'd read the token though? perhaps with enough wattage you can burn through the rf shield in the cover?
Re: Faraday cages...
On Wed, 7 Aug 2013, Ted Lemon wrote: Actually, the main argument I'd make against IETF RFID tags is that it's more plastic to throw out. Unless we adopt the WIDE practice where the tag is re-used from meeting to meeting. It's an elegant solution, and not that different from the reason I own a complete set of Suica, Pasmo, ICOCA, PASPY and London Oyster cards. Ole
Re: Speaking of VAT
On Aug 4, 2013, at 22:11, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote: At last week's very successful Berlin meeting, the finances were thrown of whack by the late discovery that the IETF had to pay 19% German VAT on the registration fee. At the IAOC session they said that about half of that is likely to be reclaimed from VAT paid, but the net amount is still a large number. I don't get it. Given the above, the VAT adjustment is going to cost the IETF ~ 10 % revenue. At the same time, the attendance increased by more than that. What was thrown out of whack, please? Grüße, Carsten PS.: As a European attendee, of course I enjoy the ability to make a VAT claim. In effect, I'm recovering the VAT that IETF paid on goods and services in Berlin, and that is exactly what the concept of VAT is about. Raising the price to maintain net revenue at $650 would be disingenuous, as the VAT recovered by the IETF is an additional source of income to the IETF on top of that net revenue.
Re: Faraday cages...
On Aug 7, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Ole Jacobsen o...@cisco.com wrote: Unless we adopt the WIDE practice where the tag is re-used from meeting to meeting. It's an elegant solution, and not that different from the reason I own a complete set of Suica, Pasmo, ICOCA, PASPY and London Oyster cards. That is where I was going with that remark, yes. :)
RE: Faraday cages...
Unless we adopt the WIDE practice where the tag is re-used from meeting to meeting. It's an elegant solution, and not that different from the reason I own a complete set of Suica, Pasmo, ICOCA, PASPY and London Oyster cards. That is where I was going with that remark, yes. :) Why bother with RFID tags, or badges? Simply register with your cell phone. We can then scan your Wi-Fi and Blue-Tooth signals when you approach the mic. -- Christian Huitema
Re: Faraday cages...
As far as I know, the simple metallically-coated anti-static plastic bag that's provided with EZPass (and similar electronic toll systems) is quite effective and very cheap. Aluminum foil will also do in a pinch. On Aug 7, 2013, at 2:01 PM, Scott Kitterman sc...@kitterman.com wrote: On Wednesday, August 07, 2013 13:43:06 Joe Abley wrote: On 2013-08-07, at 13:28, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote: [...] I don't think you can argue that carrying an RFID tag with a simple number in it makes things any worse. That sounds right. The purpose of the badge is to dilute your personal privacy and announce your identity to those close enough to see. You can't always tell who is looking at your badge. People who see your badge in more than one place can infer that you have moved between places. If you don't want people to see your badge, you can take it off. In RFID terms, that's what the Faraday cage is for. The privacy concerns with badges seem very similar to the privacy concerns of carrying RFID tags. I do not hear a lot of expressed concern about wearing a badge. It's more common to have a pocket available than a Faraday cage. Scott K
Re: Faraday cages...
What we tried for our experiment was simple: you turn in your RFID card at the end of the meeting, and it is randomly re-used for the next one, i.e., a new number is assigned each meeting. Unfortunately, we only got a relatively small fraction of RFID badges back, if I recall correctly, as people presumably forgot to turn them in. On Aug 7, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote: On Aug 7, 2013, at 1:24 PM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote: I keep my passport in a cage when I'm not handing it to someone. I'm not concerned about my phone. Likewise. The point being, handing everyone in IETF an RFID tag probably doesn't have new privacy implications for most of them, and giving them a faraday cage, as was done in Hiroshima, addresses the remaining implications for those people who do not carry powered-on cell phones or laptops for privacy reasons. If you carry a powered on cell phone, I don't think you can argue that carrying an RFID tag with a simple number in it makes things any worse. Actually, the main argument I'd make against IETF RFID tags is that it's more plastic to throw out.
Re: Speaking of VAT
On Aug 7, 2013, at 4:53 PM, Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org wrote: On Aug 4, 2013, at 22:11, John Levine jo...@taugh.com wrote: At last week's very successful Berlin meeting, the finances were thrown of whack by the late discovery that the IETF had to pay 19% German VAT on the registration fee. At the IAOC session they said that about half of that is likely to be reclaimed from VAT paid, but the net amount is still a large number. I don't get it. Given the above, the VAT adjustment is going to cost the IETF ~ 10 % revenue. At the same time, the attendance increased by more than that. What was thrown out of whack, please? Grüße, Carsten PS.: As a European attendee, of course I enjoy the ability to make a VAT claim. In effect, I'm recovering the VAT that IETF paid on goods and services in Berlin, and that is exactly what the concept of VAT is about. In effect you're getting a $103.78 reduction in your $650 registration fee. Raising the price to maintain net revenue at $650 would be disingenuous, as the VAT recovered by the IETF is an additional source of income to the IETF on top of that net revenue. The VAT paid on the Registration Fees will be about $137,000 USD. The VAT we expect to recover is about $65,000 USD after paying fees to a service company to recover the VAT. Ray IAD
RE: Faraday cages...
Why bother with RFID tags, or badges? Simply register with your cell phone. We can then scan your Wi-Fi and Blue-Tooth signals when you approach the mic. You must not have seen my cell phone. Regards, John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY I dropped the toothpaste, said Tom, crestfallenly.
Bi-weekly SCIM WG conference calls starting August 21, 2013
As discussed on the SCIM mailing list and Berlin WG meeting, the SCIM WG will be having a series of bi-weekly conference calls every other Wednesday at 11AM Pacific time starting on August 21st. The goal of these conference calls is to address remaining open issues and make progress advancing the documents. Agenda for each call will be posted to the SCIM WG mailing list. For call-in information and agenda details see SCIM mailing list [1]. Cheers, SCIM Chairs [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/scim/current/maillist.html
