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

Suhas,

I would really appreciate it if you could point me to mails on this list,
sent from the "substantially more people in the favor" that express theor
support?

I am struggling to find any.

Emil

On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 at 10:26, Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>>
>
>
> Hello Emil,
>
> For calling the final consensus, the chairs considered the aggregate of
> inputs from the in-room consensus call at the IETF-99 and inputs on the
> email list. In effect, there were substantially more people in the favor of
> the proposal than against it. Hence following the IETF consensus process,
> the chairs made the final consensus call as described in
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/perc/4JTYOVGcE9KXXjQ7ks3YRm7LFBI
>
> The WG has heard your concerns, but unless there are new technical
> arguments to be made, the consensus stands.
>
> Regards
>
> Chairs
>
>
>>
>> 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
>>
> --
sent from my mobile