IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dispatch] Updated PERC Charter proposal

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Wed, 03 June 2015 12:38 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 BF4191A8777 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 05:38:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 b6O8CSKQCSlw for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 05:38:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com (mail-wi0-f180.google.com [209.85.212.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A73931A8778 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 05:38:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wifw1 with SMTP id w1so20306379wif.0 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 05:38:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=szsmO+1wmZFLgm/sjy1twSgmg2o5oJhVCHcih0iu+Ds=; b=Pbx4ucH04uu1g/HdJtDaHDDaowmUBOmqlRm3HCMccwTcg8jd3GH5qzUWcHnQzQwVwI jdcMezg5t76hfTDIlFdnulFfALdNhZkuuKA8zJHaon9JFHHNthE2w+FPIvv/FZBIn8Gz zIHspxcwlQ7t68DIxppM/rrbWxHp8EpylLMQEMWpDODt3vzyYJI9o33k6FjxEjAyy7ei iQdVHy9zk56Y8JzKl7VYmzkqg9Xc5lwz6LZKHHjLeRBOMUYtTXj8CuO813j+P2SHueqi 6pNqkmlRxXjMKZvVSfAexBGT0ZxYz3+dpzo0W4RGPK8H1pOcJC8dS/035n6/CpgZzkzH ldoA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlog3ar8BPT3WX1EFbhoKVpD/BpFhSmjMrGC0uJ58qNMV5Z3sPgMYf4/k9UQ9I6xh9JY9J5
X-Received: by 10.180.73.176 with SMTP id m16mr42373532wiv.68.1433335101321; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 05:38:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.27.225.14 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 05:37:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <556DF837.8050704@alum.mit.edu>
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>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 05:37:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBP_Zd+MVCY+_dU9z-e9MCgD==4HFTarQk2R2MMorO9Ugw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d043c7e588f097b05179c5532"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/FFQeSduf7YWQ54Xrc-3hJ5fWg1I>
Cc: DISPATCH <dispatch@ietf.org>
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 12:38:30 -0000

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> 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. 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.
>

I don't really understand the problem here. The *signaling* server needs to
bring
the recorder in, but that's intentional: the whole point of PERC is that
you have
to be a first-class participant in order to be any part of the call.

In any case, I'm not opposed to exploring whether PERC can support some kind
of (consensual) recording, but I'm definitely opposed to making it a charter
requirement that it do so.

-Ekr



        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/dispatchI do
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email