IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dispatch] Updated PERC Charter proposal

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Tue, 02 June 2015 18:38 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 54AEC1A1B84 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 11:38:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
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 oRPu90oyD0bF for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 11:38:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-11v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-11v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E88C1A1B60 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 11:38:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-ch2-16v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.112]) by resqmta-ch2-11v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id bWcZ1q0032S2Q5R01WepKo; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 18:38:49 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.151]) by resomta-ch2-16v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id bWeo1q00Y3Ge9ey01Weoez; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 18:38:49 +0000
Message-ID: <556DF837.8050704@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:38:47 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dispatch@ietf.org
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>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBPtc-Wp=4WSc_NXCZM+SSY6o0eFDbnPE+zCLTB_LY7PvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1433270329; bh=Bw3ExQ4kuTzGVS+8h+vdvq6JsmbF8QBzef8/nxJtjyY=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=aYPaP8O5ZNxQ+ShQnjM1VJSkXmngcR+ccFlDLcYp+XN9ldHYB/NLyo3eB7TlmeKYa 6bVIKWwAr0MEaXYSOKA/TniEOwRKgi+g+BetN6C5lw1APgviauUgdYLgcGKNT7slJR SjCZcFIjdp+6bj7l8dYGEekYeHCTtmIWzbBJwEF4Rp91uRqDgrvk6V1NafYTff3Rh1 D+HUzppE1OW9wp1Ge7A28ppz312mqf+3bKFRGsyssAQINTIGY6BvHDMgqzuRulflCD gpwfz3zyrvJmGJt2bBaW1491pU2OsJUzrZpQOigMkoZjMG3CI3zVhvD5nwsOMkvoqQ 8vAbAE8KYKukA==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/KRI-3monC3wFOXEItztTYHGAwq0>
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: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 18:38:51 -0000

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.

	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
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email