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

[Suhas Nandakumar <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Emil Ivov <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 at 15:24, Suhas Nandakumar <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Emil
>>
>>    The votes that went to deciding consensus includes *both the  in-room
>> and on-list responses* towards the proposal.  We had a strong consensus
>> in the favor of the proposal in the room at the IETF 99 meeting (as
>> reflected in the minutes and recordings).
>>
>> Hope this clarifies your question
>>
>
> Well no, of course it doesn't. It is unclear from the recording exactly
> how much support there was during the meeting and there are no mails in
> support of this proposal on the list.
>
> There are some discussing it and some opposing it.
>
> So why you choose to determine consensus in support of this proposal
> remains a mystery to me. (Well not really)
>
>
Hi Emil

  The chairs did call for the hum for the proposal in the room of around 25
people on "who strongly or somewhat supports the proposal vs who strongly
objects" and there were considerable support for the former and none for
the latter. The hums and on-list inputs were accounted for making the
consensus call.

Thanks
Perc Chairs


> Emil
>
>
>
>> Cheers
>> Suhas
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 8:29 AM, Emil Ivov <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Suhas,
>>>
>>> I would really appreciate it if you could point me to mails on this
>>> list, sent from the "substantially more people in the favor" that express
>>> theor support?
>>>
>>> I am struggling to find any.
>>>
>>> Emil
>>>
>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 at 10:26, Suhas Nandakumar <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Emil Ivov <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Come again?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding point 2, the only mail you received in response to your
>>>>> request for confirmation were actually expressing the opposite.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this working group really becoming that much of a joke?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello Emil,
>>>>
>>>> For calling the final consensus, the chairs considered the aggregate of
>>>> inputs from the in-room consensus call at the IETF-99 and inputs on the
>>>> email list. In effect, there were substantially more people in the favor of
>>>> the proposal than against it. Hence following the IETF consensus process,
>>>> the chairs made the final consensus call as described in
>>>>
>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/perc/4JTYOVGcE9KXXjQ7ks3YRm7LFBI
>>>>
>>>> The WG has heard your concerns, but unless there are new technical
>>>> arguments to be made, the consensus stands.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Chairs
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Suhas Nandakumar <[e-mail]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> > 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 <
>>>>> [e-mail]>
>>>>> > 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
>>>>> > [e-mail]
>>>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perc
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> https://jitsi.org
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>> sent from my mobile
>>>
>>
>> --
> sent from my mobile
>