Re: [Perc] Confirmation of Consensus on PERC Double from IETF 99

Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> Sun, 06 August 2017 21:26 UTC

Return-Path: <emcho@jitsi.org>
X-Original-To: perc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: perc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6019132043 for <perc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:26:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=jitsi-org.20150623.gappssmtp.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 H7A94gSp9ADa for <perc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:26:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x230.google.com (mail-wm0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::230]) (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 68394131F19 for <perc@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:26:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x230.google.com with SMTP id m85so54953018wma.0 for <perc@ietf.org>; Sun, 06 Aug 2017 14:26:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jitsi-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=GQ7QAvAeZrf3LMGxwKlCk76iybxFhIJkO2sRlyea4jo=; b=pDS5NWJA8166Ub1q/YoNxhWcGg9WtdCFakhwZL69CO2SRv3nFvPgPxUdMItUPTa1d+ RBHunuZjxqnAKuDzflcKtD3eeJynWnYB5Gb11qdNsF/VDaVkLBNI/G3pNWj62tA12KFn Tg3bZ34NyZc8XWUljwxmW8pzcMucTxWFWLDl/7/Uw5MZn7IEjnyw5gyqaw5coC7TK1i4 sOV918RwNwZWc0DHZaIEPBKxsLrdUmqCGiJZn6fFV1YgQgUFvTfv/g4PDsyqd4nY4vLh tWGzlHSAhyj6jkRiJru2FN52+lwVXAjg86q16zsC3yf42M4oeyr8NOzIOJhoq8DOyOZg 1pHg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=GQ7QAvAeZrf3LMGxwKlCk76iybxFhIJkO2sRlyea4jo=; b=V9WQyhmY6Qjn7xmsfrXmiFCkwiKtTx5Qjs8En6vHsb3OlC2jkSZnoXlnmg/aURn/Zn HEzdyTHz8f2to2y6klBk4ctFR00N9zjAnrklC5cxqlDjotNYFF+iSxjdyo6+CKSSJGKY rH7js72VFiYQYnc63jAJdAUxZIKAZyTrib6J1HbBfGnjOglyPhp8L0MV25x2dWceioEx f1MN07F89qbvwgBVXRDxn7GJ3NhacA8Qzhf2WIjEmvmeDgbD/hIo4qlcvPH6/cq/KgsF yflWa+J7OUC31+FJTYRRTemmDE4SCxV6hg5jGPfJs+pYUO2yRggPSU/+euKALq2LGUr5 aQ1g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw113vo9c00H2HTgzmu+p8XEBunHJ2z0ImTzn8Mg6eUBmF/pZZiKfd tjjfYmkaWr+S+5WX3CwNR6vOIp4XhTHd
X-Received: by 10.80.226.67 with SMTP id o3mr9370161edl.65.1502054811579; Sun, 06 Aug 2017 14:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.80.168.69 with HTTP; Sun, 6 Aug 2017 14:26:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAMRcRGSdPa6WDFDxCe=HxEsWA2fmb1_fEPBcybbgTsCRSGrdzQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMRcRGRW4JkyTSfUeDVWrXGAt0_x-yWhAzdKXDjkUJ0XH-P7cA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMRcRGSdPa6WDFDxCe=HxEsWA2fmb1_fEPBcybbgTsCRSGrdzQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2017 16:26:30 -0500
Message-ID: <CAPvvaaJkL39k97tZf1gDtu-gcdf+gQmMRUW6Q_mxi91mPj5AMg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com>
Cc: perc@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/perc/02-5aK7SJqD5OgyuXzlI9ryRVNM>
Subject: Re: [Perc] Confirmation of Consensus on PERC Double from IETF 99
X-BeenThere: perc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Privacy Enhanced RTP Conferencing <perc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/perc>, <mailto:perc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/perc/>
List-Post: <mailto:perc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:perc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perc>, <mailto:perc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2017 21:26:56 -0000

Come again?

Regarding point 2, the only mail you received in response to your
request for confirmation were actually expressing the opposite.

Is this working group really becoming that much of a joke?


On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello All
>
>    Following up on the consensus confirmation email, the chairs have
> considered all the inputs received from the people in the room and the
> inputs from people on the email list and determined there is consensus for
> the following 2 items.
>
> 1.   Allow MD to modify the 'M' (marker) bit.
>
> 2. Includes all the below
>     - Move the OHB information from header extension to payload
>     - RTX, RED and FlexFEC ordering : use the ordering of applying repair on
> the double-encrypted packet. (Option 'A' in the slides)
>     - DTMF : PERC will only support E2E DTMF and MD will not be able to read
> DTMF info sent as media
>
> Thanks for your inputs.
>
> Cheers
> Chairs
>
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> At the IETF 99 meeting, we took hum on the following proposals and there
>> was a strong consensus in the room in their favor, but we wish to gather any
>> additional inputs on the list.
>> So, if there are any additional inputs that was not expressed in the room,
>> please send them to the list by 4th August.
>>
>> First Consensus Call:
>>    Allow MD to modify the 'M' (marker) bit.
>>
>> Second Consensus called made includes all the following 3 proposals as a
>> singleton:
>>     - Move the OHB information from header extension to payload
>>     - RTX, RED and FlexFEC ordering : use the ordering of applying repair
>> on the double-encrypted packet. (Option 'A' in the slides)
>>     - DTMF : PERC will only support E2E DTMF and MD will not be able to
>> read DTMF info sent as media
>>
>> Here are the notes from the meeting:
>>   https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/99/minutes/minutes-99-perc-01.txt
>>
>> Here are the slides corresponding to the above proposals :
>>   https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/99/slides/slides-99-perc-double-01.pdf
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>> Perc Chairs
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Perc mailing list
> Perc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perc
>



-- 
https://jitsi.org