IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Perc] Last Call: <draft-ietf-perc-private-media-framework-08.txt> (A Solution Framework for Private Media in Privacy Enhanced RTP Conferencing) to Proposed Standard

Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> Sat, 02 February 2019 15:36 UTC

Return-Path: <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5782512426E; Sat, 2 Feb 2019 07:36:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 B60IbvpegkZK; Sat, 2 Feb 2019 07:36:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-x329.google.com (mail-wm1-x329.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::329]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 730A21228B7; Sat, 2 Feb 2019 07:36:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-x329.google.com with SMTP id y185so6706359wmd.1; Sat, 02 Feb 2019 07:36:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=/VcPNmgRXZEStF69U2xchXUqHWORq8Z/1hcgxmSsXuE=; b=kmy6hcKJGqWdu7gK5UpT2KnJN0TTZyAOYzG4B4ehs/2vZdyUQ2R0iD9J6MWKrsTI1f 99bw1JiozZd1xt/175VITsH8ze22cj0sQ17KBzncGU4o8hO6lLB2KgE5k6otNC1U+phA LCPWTxNVdsIj8ACixTmFrRH5+1ANIvZ2PIXvN49gsXdXPoBN8brqsFV6odtvJAWTu7Zk 5Q+MEe34xDFfzK824iwL1PBPFNuSSPI0AnMk+/1LQ0Huo1gtyOCv06B+n3LTFunxxPDl BOXfr1xzGllkIvKty3+ypu7iNYt28omubK0QK2jqzzwmuIadO8hOHbPq2VrOyyDtA69w Xk6A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=/VcPNmgRXZEStF69U2xchXUqHWORq8Z/1hcgxmSsXuE=; b=Z3AXDfE28FRClBISHpJ4EaQhfkFfwmBxZvtpDSy1H4UirH62OT6gg2kub2CppamZKf TwakvGp5pAIh6yo6R6TES2QlQZzk5l+1RKK6eJonrRmL5DbsY972fmLxZOvd0XHOTuzh AVgicTBiSrzqESjJ+gxHREfhHrHkcDMt5ysCgnwN4diW8yCYHsPmYHy5AzEFGs7reEhk WIWZQAAXDFYlLtHURvQ7i0yjWXBj1Tm2HLWRqd/+j+RypXlZhx0A/6E7av2ccgaigAtC wG0c1dT1OIeL/SDlKs2hmmznNzYt57HFHCTym+Z+z88GeDlRtBCLVeKD38fDGk7uZ8Mg 2tFQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuaSjxsnNBam7TpNaLNtGh8GSmGYgNmo71iSKCQTYVSULdX7wmTA rD3A4jrHqbkBBMdOB1YeU/4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IbJAf72HJJlY6cDUJ+G7cOMQM89neJhCjrzFv5KMe5YqTsQ0maX8wQgf/TIznRPGRgAlvl+0w==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:b1d5:: with SMTP id a204mr7064887wmf.32.1549121814839; Sat, 02 Feb 2019 07:36:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.11] (79.108.125.160.dyn.user.ono.com. [79.108.125.160]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id m4sm5190574wmi.3.2019.02.02.07.36.49 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 02 Feb 2019 07:36:54 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [Perc] Last Call: <draft-ietf-perc-private-media-framework-08.txt> (A Solution Framework for Private Media in Privacy Enhanced RTP Conferencing) to Proposed Standard
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>, Alexandre GOUAILLARD <alex.gouaillard@cosmosoftware.io>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, Emad Omara <emadomara@google.com>, Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>, perc@ietf.org, "hta@google.com" <hta@google.com>, Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@cosmosoftware.io>, Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo@meetecho.com>
References: <154889546931.10496.2408974719921724953.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAOW+2dui_imxyysOCrtdH7OiDcbooi83qtCDifEY3HQ6MpigWA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL02cgSip2cLr8a1+zfK2cg+n8gqUMc9CKPmb7mWd2iLSiRf-g@mail.gmail.com> <8e40d0db-cacb-db93-f2fe-db5b4a7cf7cf@gmail.com> <CAOW+2dtxnSYOPPWxodN633O=dPOQaUnu7eYvgUYkPYRt6iWbaw@mail.gmail.com> <CAPvvaaK_VUXvy2=1TBGfBWWYxiBdXBzuR=Y-rnAdJyg=M8OfQQ@mail.gmail.com> <5486C91C-48EA-4AA1-85EE-05A0B01C1E70@meetecho.com> <C6FEAEB9-CF8E-48AF-B03F-1406FF9CB303@cosmosoftware.io> <CAOW+2ducgj400pk3xPFAkRYxnYvqwhMsE9rOO0u9PgLpniaaRA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a7611fc8-017a-d6af-8add-547771d99291@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2019 16:41:19 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOW+2ducgj400pk3xPFAkRYxnYvqwhMsE9rOO0u9PgLpniaaRA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/QYsBdIVCjbci2aEjvaKDBexOfkE>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2019 15:36:58 -0000

On 02/02/2019 13:30, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> With respect to consensus, this is IETF last call, one of whose 
> purposes is to determine whether there is IETF consensus to publish 
> this document as a Proposed Standard.  Are you saying that you do not 
> agree that there is an IETF consensus to publish this document as a 
> Proposed Standard?  Or that there is no IETF consensus to publish 
> *any* of the PERC WG output as a Proposed Standard?


The consensus we reached in Prague almost two years ago was that despite 
many of us didn't like the solution and while it would huge impact to 
implement it in current deployed based, it was technically feasible and 
we would not oppose getting this go trough as that it could be possible 
to progress alternative solutions (namely PERC lite and js keying) in 
other forums.

However the end to end encryption with trusted application use case had 
to be removed from the w3c nv scope because it was against what has been 
defined within this group. Given that, I would say that the previous 
consensus has been broken.

Best regards

Sergio

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email