Re: [dispatch] Updated PERC Charter proposal

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Ram Mohan R (rmohanr) <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> 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 ?
>

I don't agree that there is a requirement to add this.

The way you record PERC sessions is by bringing them into the call at
the signaling level. There's no PERC-level accommodation needed.

-Ekr


> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>