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

Because I assume this is also a call for consensus on the list (and
that you are not just informing us of something that happened off list
as if it were a done deal):

>     - RTX, RED and FlexFEC ordering : use the ordering of applying repair on
> the double-encrypted packet. (Option 'A' in the slides)

No, this makes no sense. It would be embarrassing to have IETFs name
associated with this.

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