IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> Thu, 27 July 2017 18:10 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 80F6813209B for <perc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 11:10:32 -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 QUtAdawiHigJ for <perc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 11:10:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x234.google.com (mail-wm0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::234]) (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 8818013209C for <perc@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 11:10:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x234.google.com with SMTP id e199so671368wmd.0 for <perc@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 11:10:30 -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=vto5oyFvxcOvO/20ENOfoj4VNYTW62KStgKtSwMm7tU=; b=xjT1fLKay297cnRqiVQ7+zO1O+4JMofTP9CvcPK+xLapootYSpDurJuYNZuwrF4gHp NEhWrmMthJw3mTecrPKOB2MLU4t/2F39UXy92fq2mvCDmqT9mDAvKyo2ZAsdJLMjxtR7 WCwTTCu2vHEBle/C8LNLVoNeT4sjA21yOPte5BhwqdkvBaQTNg+qAJcZt6g3DHdcvqCs XpdLNGEytX8EX7CFRRgu4qSOuWdM2F5mjp/+L7TNzhx5eJJ0tts+7c9sHDmK/IFv31kL +rDbTdjqtuBYLaGHxZHZNFwGpFspOTUDBPIsufxzjO3dDzI4daN/qe0E39Hx0JLyJDx7 FugA==
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=vto5oyFvxcOvO/20ENOfoj4VNYTW62KStgKtSwMm7tU=; b=EDLGnS0SS8mqn1MGcAR8zZS36jDObF0nGffl09aiS3yQaPwEBBZIYAb2OAz6m8t8qp O6NIE880ztghAhtc1CTXkieQ4YbVtfaxq5bzyvZDJEd6NKL/s9yIxh8lUk4FzP4bYl7h MwDvJWs8k00hDOhf0WjLyUmuT34YrziAyClZVjY7Drms9HcwRARPdKW2anD8qhk3p0C+ RrgVOKO35cYh2lJlEdxVFrObnZSCw2mkNK0/40sfmT2kOLxCUV9ENgPgt+/CvgjcUQD5 lyD6fdPCZaPDlGd3HWL5R7l9AYplYGYzEnNPxbJ60K1yt6hp6u89ukTAsiNEuJPye+iE gxAQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw112yRO657u4zbPBxSP0HXko69Nyrkf0ysiqvQHk7jgCw+A5lzD9Z zGT9ZLZIujZr5SFTb5+8ogVFOtC3lkyK
X-Received: by 10.80.216.75 with SMTP id v11mr4494893edj.234.1501179029076; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 11:10:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.80.168.69 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 11:10:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAMRcRGRW4JkyTSfUeDVWrXGAt0_x-yWhAzdKXDjkUJ0XH-P7cA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMRcRGRW4JkyTSfUeDVWrXGAt0_x-yWhAzdKXDjkUJ0XH-P7cA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:10:08 -0500
Message-ID: <CAPvvaaJJmah4-b6uV0Q604pKd6XYVV095SkEYOrZtW9rzLwYZQ@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/SWhG1xEdYVTF6yf-t2ZG0BhrYfA>
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: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 18:10:32 -0000

On a different note. The slides you quote seem to say this:

> Exciting and awesome joint proposal from Sergio, Cullen, Emil, & Alex that none of us like and all of us can live with (ietf bumpy consensus)

I am not sure how my name ended up in this list. The two PERC points I
am concerned about (wedging double SRTP for RTX and FEC and
overwriting SSRCs) still seem to be in debate and I have yet to see
something that represents consensus there.

Emil

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 12:14 PM, 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email