IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Perc] Drop support for E2E RTP header extensions

Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com> Mon, 24 April 2017 15:38 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=02872524ae=jonathan@vidyo.com>
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 E2EBF131738 for <perc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:38:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 0WdGfFQXikqk for <perc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:38:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00198e01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00198e01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57B7A131730 for <perc@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:38:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0073110.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00198e01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.20/8.16.0.20) with SMTP id v3OFcrS6023511; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 11:38:53 -0400
Received: from mail.vidyo.com ([162.209.16.214]) by mx0b-00198e01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2a01x6sha2-1 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 24 Apr 2017 11:38:53 -0400
Received: from 492132-EXCH1.vidyo.com ([fe80::50:56ff:fe85:4f77]) by 492133-EXCH2.vidyo.com ([fe80::50:56ff:fe85:6b62%13]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 10:38:52 -0500
From: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>
To: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
CC: "perc@ietf.org" <perc@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Perc] Drop support for E2E RTP header extensions
Thread-Index: AQHSvRCAPTZRb6xCM0OEHs1XPMlsHKHU+2+A
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 15:38:51 +0000
Message-ID: <1CF6F66C-939F-484D-8C53-46ACB8CA69BE@vidyo.com>
References: <49c7de34-8bc6-bb7d-4524-0af26089eecb@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <49c7de34-8bc6-bb7d-4524-0af26089eecb@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [173.243.43.122]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <ABCF1B8F5E03E3479798615260D172B7@vidyo.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-04-24_12:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1703280000 definitions=main-1704240267
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/perc/VZuerb1x3rE2vFWgQlCk7aKQx-s>
Subject: Re: [Perc] Drop support for E2E RTP header extensions
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: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 15:39:00 -0000

> On Apr 24, 2017, at 6:36 AM, Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I have seen no more activity regarding the E2E RTP header issue.
> 
> Is there a consensus that they can't be supported and that there is no use case for them? Does anyone have a different view? Should this be discussed and agreed on next virtual interim meeting?

At previous virtual interims, I believe the consensus was that no one had a current use case for E2E RTP header extensions; however, if we didn’t support them, retrofitting them into the protocol later would be extremely difficult.  Thus, we (reluctantly) decided to support them.

If they turn out to complicate the protocol too much, I suppose this can be revisited.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email