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

[Roni Even <[e-mail]>]

Hi Paul,
I agree that DTMF is not to the end user. On second thought I think that if DTMF will be used by the conference than there may be a separate entity that will handle DTMF. An example is when you call a conference dial-in number and the bridge will ask for conference number and password using voice messages.
I think this may happen also in Webex when you want to join using your phone to dial in, you get prompted for conference ID
Roni

From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: יום ב 07 אוגוסט 2017 14:59
To: [e-mail]; Roni Even; Suhas Nandakumar; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Perc] Confirmation of Consensus on PERC Double from IETF 99

Roni,

That particular issue is least concerning to me, since all endpoints I know won't play DTMF into a user's ear. AFAIK, only users over the PSTN might be affected, but then that suggests there's a gateway in the path and PERC is no longer securing the conference E2E. Thus, gateways need to stay out of PERC conferences.

Paul
________________________________
From: Roni Even <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: August 7, 2017 2:57:30 AM EDT
To: Suhas Nandakumar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Perc] Confirmation of Consensus on PERC Double from IETF 99

Hi,
I do not have a strong opinion but I am a bit puzzled about the DTMF issue.
My understating so far was that the MD is the media distribution for a multipoint conferencing application. Typically in this cases the DTMF is for the multipoint application and not to the conference participants (The DTMF may even be suppressed by the conferencing bride) .
So how will such application work without DTMF if it depended on it? I think that there should be some text about it (use DTMF in the signaling when there is a PERC MD e.g. SIP INFO?)


Roni


From: Perc [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Suhas Nandakumar
Sent: יום א 06 אוגוסט 2017 23:42
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Perc] Confirmation of Consensus on PERC Double from IETF 99


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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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