IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dispatch] Updated PERC Charter proposal

"Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com> Wed, 03 June 2015 03:10 UTC

Return-Path: <rmohanr@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DA751B32FF for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 20:10:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jJud-Pfj4R6Z for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 20:10:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E5EB1B32FB for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 20:10:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2401; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1433301021; x=1434510621; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=kY/B4K06tRsACIia33CUeX4lgbMRcX0+sRDEM0L/ycY=; b=TNa9MuOwDgToYfmfFUB2EUvtzURN8GUNq+LiJjxBYx26dCK8ZjJqfaiU ygOT4LxXQUqN38cciTNfW6Golo+nZ69OAj6bVpewMbsWR5oA7OZflOcPX YFnNnDM7yarg/+uK0ZKErHtDsftG+JgowXBD5j9P7hcEhw9Oz8ptH/YLd E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BcBAD3bm5V/4cNJK1PDA6DAlReBr5wCYFQCoUtSgKBRDgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhCIBAQEEAQEBGksGFwQCAQgOAwMBAgEnBycLFAkIAgQBEogtDdo9AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBFgSLQ4QeAW4GhCcFjAyHBYsel0AjYYJZPm+BRoEBAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,544,1427760000"; d="scan'208";a="155869428"
Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 03 Jun 2015 03:10:20 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com [173.37.183.84]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t533AKB2000506 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 3 Jun 2015 03:10:20 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x05.cisco.com ([169.254.11.78]) by xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([173.37.183.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 22:10:20 -0500
From: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>, "dispatch@ietf.org" <dispatch@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [dispatch] Updated PERC Charter proposal
Thread-Index: AQHQnarSsS6MnJSWb0icHD/hN/fwhg==
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 03:10:19 +0000
Message-ID: <D1946A1E.32827%rmohanr@cisco.com>
References: <CAHBDyN6BeyL-wh_=t7jN+tfhTTnZK0uTBra-F7MR11x9eFkGpg@mail.gmail.com> <D188F24E.14D48%goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.com> <55683230.3020600@ericsson.com> <CAHBDyN68U=KiyM8aTzbmmFzN9cZJ_MgZs00VPCODyufMn=JpUA@mail.gmail.com> <556C2A44.8010805@ericsson.com> <D193CBFB.32759%rmohanr@cisco.com> <CABcZeBMGUG0A8ypCz2kF8hqfsKemXK4CX8ujLFOi2HjGWunJ9g@mail.gmail.com> <556DDC0C.3010107@andyet.net> <CABcZeBPtc-Wp=4WSc_NXCZM+SSY6o0eFDbnPE+zCLTB_LY7PvQ@mail.gmail.com> <556DF837.8050704@alum.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <556DF837.8050704@alum.mit.edu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.7.141117
x-originating-ip: [173.39.64.86]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <54B24D5880CDF74EB846725D4BF9E2E7@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/59BxyjvU7CJQE9uoZVgfJlNgMeY>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Updated PERC Charter proposal
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 03:10:36 -0000

Hi Paul,

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Wednesday, 3 June 2015 12:08 am
To: "dispatch@ietf.org" <dispatch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Updated PERC Charter proposal

>At some level this would "work", but it might require rethinking the
>whole approach to recording in an enterprise where recording is an
>important part of the business.
>
>IIUC, with PERC there is still likely to be a conference focus, for
>signaling, much as without PERC. But the details of how the media is
>handled will be different

Yes. The way PERC handles media would likely bring in differences on how
recording needs to be done.
IIUC PERC also brings in a model where in the conference cloud is less
trusted and hence there needs
to be some thinking on how recording needs to be handled in general.

>. Such a focus could automatically bring in a
>recorder as a participant. That is already one of the models covered by
>siprec. But PERC would prevent the focus and the PERC 'mixer" from
>directly serving as the SRC.

Yes. That¹s exactly where I am coming from as well. The conference model
where a mixer acts as SRC that SIPREC defines today will not work with
PERC. 
I am trying to see if there is an interest in looking at this problem.
Given that recording is critical in many business I believe there
is some value in looking at it.

Regards,
Ram
>
>	Thanks,
>	Paul
>
>As long as PERC conferences are
>
>On 6/2/15 12:40 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet
>> <peter@andyet.net <mailto:peter@andyet.net>> wrote:
>>
>>     On 6/2/15 10:21 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>
>>         The way you record PERC sessions is by bringing them into the
>>         call at
>>         the signaling level. There's no PERC-level accommodation needed.
>>
>>
>>     Who is "them"? Do you mean "recording resources" of some kind would
>>     be added as participants to the call? Just trying to clarify the
>>     model...
>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> -Ekr
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dispatch mailing list
>> dispatch@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>dispatch mailing list
>dispatch@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email