Re: [dispatch] Updated PERC Charter proposal

["Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <[e-mail]>]

The proposed charter looks good.

 One question -

As defined in SIPREC WG requirement document RFC6341 recording of
multimedia sessions is a critical requirement in many business
   communications environments, such as call centers and financial trading
floors.  Note that this is active recording where the participants
Of the session will be informed and they can choose to not being recorded.
(like SIPREC WG has defined today).

if PERC based conferencing is used in such deployments, we would then have
a requirement to record those sessions.

This would bring in a requirement to record PERC sessions. Would this be
right place to add this ?

regards,
Ram


-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, 1 June 2015 3:17 pm
To: Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>, DISPATCH <[e-mail]>, Barry
Leiba <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Updated PERC Charter proposal

>Hi,
>
>I have edited the proposed change into the Google Doc. Any more feedback
>on this?
>
>Cheers
>
>Magnus
>
>Mary Barnes skrev den 2015-05-29 16:53:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Magnus Westerlund
>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi,
>>
>>     I hope others can comment on this also.
>>
>>     Göran Eriksson AP skrev den 2015-05-25 17:10:
>>
>>         Hi,
>>
>>         I have some minor comments concerning the meaning of ³SIP² and
>>         ³WebRTC²
>>         endpoints.
>>
>>         Sorry for the late response and for top-posting but it became a
>>         bit messy
>>         to add inline:
>>
>>         1. The link to
>>         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview/ did
>>         not work?
>>
>>
>>     It works fine for me.
>>
>>         2. The text uses ³SIP² and ³WebRTC² to describe the different
>>         kind of
>>         end-points that are in scope.
>>              W3C WebRTC WG recognises the fact that the WebRTC end
>>         points can be
>>         browser end points
>>              (browser + web (client portion of) web app) or native
>>         WebRTC (or rather
>>         rtcweb) clients and both are in scope for the W3C WG.
>>              The browser endpoint trust model is different from that of
>>         native
>>         clients and it is also evolving.
>>              I think that clarity in how different endpoints trust
>>model and
>>         security framework look like and different is beneficial for
>>         several of
>>         the deliverables, notably 2,3 and 5.
>>
>>
>>     The use of WebRTC endpoints where deliberate by my and intended to
>>     cover not only browsers but anything meeting the WebRTC endpoint
>>     definition. So the question, does this need to be made more explicit
>>     in the charter?
>>
>> [MB] I think this is fine as is in the charter - certainly it needs to
>> be clear in the deliverables but that's a detail we can deal with there.
>> [/MB]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         3. The charter says it will ³notify² W3C WebRTC about this
>>         activity; what
>>         do the WG expect to get back and why not Œcoordinate¹? And are
>>         there other
>>         W3C WG¹s that are relevant?
>>
>>
>>     I think the expectation is that in the end W3C and likely RTCWEB WG
>>     agrees to integrate the PERC solution into their specifications so
>>     that one can actually use it with WebRTC. In intermediate step I
>>     think it will be a question of notifying for example when there
>>     exist a proposed blue-print for integration. This may be an example
>>     of where coordinate might be needed.
>>
>>     I could see that we could change the last sentence in the
>>     collaboration part from:
>>     "We will notify AVTCore, CLUE, MMUSIC, RTCWEB, SIPREC, W3C WebRTC,
>>     and other related groups about this work."
>>
>>     to
>>     "We will notify, and when needed coordinate with, AVTCore, CLUE,
>>     MMUSIC, RTCWEB, SIPREC, W3C WebRTC, and other related groups about
>>     this work."
>>
>>     Opinions?
>>
>> [MB] I think the suggested change is fine. [/MB]
>>
>>
>>     Cheers
>>
>>     Magnus Westerlund
>>
>>     
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
>>     
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     Ericsson AB                 | Phone [phone]
>>     <tel:%2B46%2010%207148287>
>>     Färögatan 6                 | Mobile [phone]
>>     <tel:%2B46%2073%200949079>
>>     SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]
>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>
>
>-- 
>
>Magnus Westerlund
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Ericsson AB                 | Phone  [phone]
>Färögatan 6                 | Mobile [phone]
>SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>dispatch mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch