Re: [Perc] Fwd: Agenda bashing

[Suhas Nandakumar <[e-mail]>]

So here is the updated Agenda uploaded based on Richard's response

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/94/agenda/perc/



Cheers
Suhas

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:43 PM, Richard Barnes <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Sorry for the delayed reply.  For some reason, this message did not
> get delivered.
>
> Given the discussion, I'm going to propose that we revise the agenda
> to the following:
>
> 15min Chairs
> 45min draft-westerlund-perc-rtp-field-considerations
> 30min draft-mattsson-perc-srtp-cloud
> 30min draft-jones-perc-private-media-reqts
> 15min draft-groves-perc-clue
>
> Magnus, if you want more than that, feel free to negotiate with John
> and Cullen :)
>
> --Richard
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>
> Date: Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 1:01 PM
> Subject: [Perc] Agenda bashing
> To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I have looked at the agenda and what topics are on it. I think the
> most important topic for this WG session is that we understand what
> information that is needed end-to-end for the RTP media, and what
> level of protection such information needs.
>
> This includes what treatment we expect of the RTP fields by the MDDs,
> i.e. if the MDD may change them and if the original value is needed.
> Next we need to understand if the receiving endpoint needs the source
> value, and if the value in itself should be authenticated and
> confidentiality protected and the reasons behind that.
>
> Without an agreement about this and common understanding about the
> reasons behind this agreement we will not be able to make progress on
> the solution to the end-to-end protection mechanism.
>
> In the process of writing:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-westerlund-perc-rtp-field-considerations/
> I found some factors that surprised me a bit, and hope people will
> prepare and review this draft.
>
> Having started working on the discussion material for this part, I
> don't think 30 minutes is sufficient for this discussion. I think it
> will take much more time as there are some questions and trade-offs
> that needs WG discussion. Thus, I would request that we bash the
> agenda to allow sufficient time for this discussion. I think at least
> 1 hour should be used for this discussion.
>
> Me personally think that bulk of that time should come from the
> solution topics, as they can't progress without the above agreement on
> what we think really needs protection.
>
> This is clearly up to the chairs in the end, but I want to know if
> people agree with my views?
>
> Cheers
>
> Magnus Westerlund
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                 | Phone  [phone]
> Färögatan 6                 | Mobile [phone]
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Perc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perc
>
> _______________________________________________
> Perc mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perc
>