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

"Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> Mon, 07 August 2017 11:58 UTC

Return-Path: <paulej@packetizer.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 E6928127ABE for <perc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 04:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.99
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.99 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=packetizer.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 GOOF-lm5uj76 for <perc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 04:58:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com [75.101.130.125]) (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 BACE2129ABE for <perc@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 04:58:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dyn-167.arid.us (cpe-098-122-167-029.nc.res.rr.com [98.122.167.29] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by dublin.packetizer.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v77BwgpR006730 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 7 Aug 2017 07:58:43 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=packetizer.com; s=dublin; t=1502107124; bh=XOhfvdIqGdOqP+sadXzivNB2Vm9phA7rgyINWSaIZwA=; h=Date:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:To:From; b=K3Q/O3WMA8gOw9Nfz+7PMIVvBqJE46/WqXbU8x/RQDDa40usCmiFG3URIKpUX3yNo lE60+8bNIxdEAwQwcT8QGbatvL+AvUHgPXF/Fc+heKvy08sM15SepWEBj8E0apAWlV gHLE6T0V0es2l3jZHkwPen34YqlDJzl8U4avcMqE=
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 07:58:41 -0400
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD7F1970@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <CAMRcRGRW4JkyTSfUeDVWrXGAt0_x-yWhAzdKXDjkUJ0XH-P7cA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMRcRGSdPa6WDFDxCe=HxEsWA2fmb1_fEPBcybbgTsCRSGrdzQ@mail.gmail.com> <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD7F1970@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----MYY0O49IHYJWW432JINP343LTNGNYI"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: perc@ietf.org, Roni Even <roni.even@huawei.com>, Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com>, "perc@ietf.org" <perc@ietf.org>
From: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
Message-ID: <522888F9-8AC8-47CF-BA0F-A820ABEB9EC1@packetizer.com>
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.1 (dublin.packetizer.com [10.165.122.250]); Mon, 07 Aug 2017 07:58:44 -0400 (EDT)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/perc/o1YPfwW3VaE7L8NEh_9uGtLWEvw>
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: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 11:58:58 -0000

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


-------- Original Message --------
From: Roni Even <roni.even@huawei.com>
Sent: August 7, 2017 2:57:30 AM EDT
To: Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com>, "perc@ietf.org" <perc@ietf.org>
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:perc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Suhas Nandakumar
Sent: יום א 06 אוגוסט 2017 23:42
To: perc@ietf.org
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 <suhasietf@gmail.com<mailto: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