IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dispatch] Proposal for a new WG: Privacy Enhanced RTP Conferencing (PERC)

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Fri, 10 April 2015 15:57 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 CBF831A6F7A for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 08:57:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 dtUxqLlSnGrd for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 08:57:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20E561A6F20 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Apr 2015 08:57:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.23] (cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t3AFvSnl028851 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 10 Apr 2015 10:57:38 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4] claimed to be [10.0.1.23]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 10:57:28 -0500
Message-ID: <809E8D45-6EC7-457D-B24B-8330A14BC0D5@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <5527E01F.9040507@nostrum.com>
References: <55134454.9050302@ericsson.com> <DF642B61-47ED-4F33-BE7F-3F70FF80B294@nostrum.com> <5527E01F.9040507@nostrum.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5084)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/espOQ0nPYXXhpb_wbFSZdtc0rSQ>
Cc: dispatch@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Proposal for a new WG: Privacy Enhanced RTP Conferencing (PERC)
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: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 15:57:41 -0000

On 10 Apr 2015, at 9:37, Robert Sparks wrote:

> What is the motivation for declaring any extensions to signalling 
> systems out of scope? (Not saying I see any that need to be created, 
> but I'm surprised that it's not something that the group might need to 
> investigate rather than making that call at chartering time)?

I'm curious how that limitation interacts with the key-management 
deliverables. If there are assumptions underlying these, it would be 
good to explicitly state them in the charter.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email