[dispatch] Fwd: Re: [Perc] PERC Charter

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Fri, 12 June 2015 08:29 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFA891A88C2 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 01:29:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PYmZReOlaNTv for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 01:29:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sessmg23.ericsson.net (sessmg23.ericsson.net []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E0BB1A88C1 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 01:29:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-f794d6d000004501-09-557a987d4391
Received: from ESESSHC014.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain []) by sessmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 83.B2.17665.D789A755; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 10:29:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] ( by smtp.internal.ericsson.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 10:29:49 +0200
Message-ID: <557A987D.6070300@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 10:29:49 +0200
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: DISPATCH list <dispatch@ietf.org>
References: <557A9838.6030108@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <557A9838.6030108@ericsson.com>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <557A9838.6030108@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------070107030200000000080504"
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA2WSfyxVYRjH9957znWvZb0u6olZudZmfhUKfwhtUn811bQmG3e3M2647B4Z prqJfjDNz8XBIiQsCUWkuGYypls3YsuPoUyYaVd+zXTPObfN1n+f93mf7/t9zvM9YqF0m7QV K1WJlFolj5WJzImSKzs33W4Vp4Yer5T41uRXkIHoXHX1piAEhZn7XaNilUmU+ph/pHn0t/LA hJHzyc8XCggNWg3KQhIx4BMwu7gj4PkA6CZfirKQuViK+xBsZs6YDrUIDGs7QrbLArvAR+1X kmUCHwX9zJQZyyLsC+Mbd0QsS/Eh2M0wcK/a4DAomm0keK0lDJTMcWxt1HaUTnNsZeSVTAPJ a12ge7We85JgV/g1+1nIT+cDo7psrkeIQ2Dq2ZrwX78m/QGZiyyZPRbMnjYGiY0cANOvk/jy YWhbLhPyHAjlu/Po//pZWB7b4hjwfrg/OGRkdhWvEMzk9HAXUlwkgLH37vxFAQJdayNiDwR+ RECL3iDi5TLo2pjiLAjsAIWz6wJe0YTgp77K5OEExXU6xI7K+r3QOvJla8jSfCF4toDBwn4R qwWcg0Df9d2Mf0iHoLO1FPGHKgHMNLeTjCndH0trJrt+BJMT2abPMCY6fndFxJgSnU4fIBhT ojXdO2bMnkQZLsVwWOxYJtn5rHEM1M5f5TfgD6VLlSK2LDFu+N1jlwrkU49saIqm46I8vdwp tVJB0/EqdxWV2IyMf2tP67ZbO2pYPK1FWIxk+yyOnEoNlZLyJDolTovsxITsoEVxiypUiqPk iVQMRSVQ6gj1jViK1iKBWGKrQVmQN/xwciKo5814jH+vYjhtzLcvycP+tmtuTshQQr0L83Zg xPNyXsOZkEtpvZFFwfHK8eR7m39GU+ckbZ+CnK/bK5vWP1gjr+CUi+GpZcN6haZDRT0JC4jw mJiry2gtdbCyPPnUbKHzt3cCmb5FrtkpbPycL5Sl5VeUTTltO3rLCDpa7uEsVNPyv5O+hJ2O AwAA
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/euvyLKwi8F2_UNVCTFyNtW4Gpzc>
Subject: [dispatch] Fwd: Re: [Perc] PERC Charter
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: perc@ietf.org
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, 12 Jun 2015 08:29:54 -0000


We will use the PERC list from here on for this type of discussion.


--- Begin Message ---
Ben Campbell skrev den 2015-06-11 18:26:
> (oops, meant to include the mailing list)
> Hi,
> The PERC charter is approved to go to external review, pending a couple
> of last minute things.
> 1) Are you guys willing to put some dates to the milestones? I don't
> think it's _required_ for external review, but people will ask. If so, I
> will move the milestones from the text to the milestone list.

Yes, I am willing to give it an initial shot.

Sep 2016  Submit architecture or framework specification to IESG 
(Standards Track)

Jan 2017 Submit documentation of how to integrate solution in SIP, 
WebRTC and CLUE to IESG (Informational)

Jun 2017  Submit SRTP protocol extension specification to IESG 
(Standards Track)

Jun 2017  Submit Key-management protocol specification to IESG 
(Standards Track)

I know people see this as quite urgent, but we actually appear to have 
quite a lot to discuss on how it should work and be solved. Then we must 
show due dillegence in getting the pieces well specified and well 
reviewed and tested. Thus, I think 2 years is not at all uncalled for, 

> 2) Do you want to add anything based on Stephen's last email (quoted
> below):
>> BTW - just to clarify in case it's useful - I interpret
>> the name of this WG and the charter to be implicitly
>> saying that the goal is to minimise the amount of data
>> (whether metadata or not) that is meaningful to the
>> media distribution device. If that's a bad assumption
>> then it'd probably be good to bottom out on that during
>> chartering. If it's a good assumption then maybe it's
>> something to consider being explicit about in the
>> charter. (Sorry, I forgot to say that in my initial
>> ballot.)

Yes, I think it is a goal. I would propose that we enter into the WG 
objectives the following sentence:

The meta information provided to the central device is to be limited to 
the minimal required for it to perform its function to preserve the 
conference participants' privacy.

The full paragraph would then read:

WG Objectives

This WG will work on a solution that enables centralized SRTP-based 
conferencing, where the central device distributing the media is not 
required to be trusted with the keys to decrypt the participants’ media. 
The media must be kept confidential and authenticated between an 
originating endpoint and the explicitly allowed receiving endpoints or 
other devices. The meta information provided to the central device is to 
be limited to the minimal required for it to perform its function to 
preserve the conference participants privacy. Further, it is desired 
that a solution still provides replay protection, so that the media 
distribution devices can’t replay previous parts of the media.

Opinions on that.

Please respond quickly.

Magnus Westerlund

Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                 | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com

Perc mailing list

--- End Message ---