Re: [Perc] Confirmation of Consensus on PERC Double from IETF 99
Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> Sun, 13 August 2017 19:27 UTC
Return-Path: <emcho@jitsi.org>
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 7C4631324C4 for <perc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Aug 2017 12:27:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=jitsi-org.20150623.gappssmtp.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 e-kSZUNoEAJ9 for <perc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Aug 2017 12:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x229.google.com (mail-wm0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D65B613277C for <perc@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Aug 2017 12:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x229.google.com with SMTP id k20so12858840wmg.0 for <perc@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Aug 2017 12:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jitsi-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Cp+EpD5t/XPkKfg3Er2ui4w7Dlp1y6qYYPG9Hw6Yo6g=; b=TgFycZebX4fG39VYu4WjvE4xtbavEK304GrNWDhcOi4ZPiA1zRJeMUkgExIyxjM2p0 IcNW8z9W6K4YQd7bo2mP73g5aO9415DCgiFqGJ4M0H8FMhN6/QQduRt8AiKVa8YPqTD8 cqUDcTKy5Ht+klay2RajdkplB6n+8+NZ8v2KdjT3aYzwIfoLGsZ7MQbyXSjTaPCL9wCW y7JqJF/UydKNk75sVDvt0WqDyqybmUtBsxgoxbKPJJjPDaqBCfRXudgLtWsB+LQkHw7T agcvfw8MDVqNTwekXaWprs7WVD1R7wjygPcVA0WgnFaQO0Z/ZkRNzuaoqqcw3ZXHtaQ3 HVAw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Cp+EpD5t/XPkKfg3Er2ui4w7Dlp1y6qYYPG9Hw6Yo6g=; b=Nr9vF/pAjDV6dyU9I4EVh+Hi47tWHgEFKDZjh2/BdrUvWfLjV1zHQf2Z6fWlIKvQ/u 3Q0rX83Wg8MIOCcCs8yYNRTnE7OuACP1Fbs3xuxepiIxeYG7+8+Lfjqn9JaWBvFZUjXx O1kze3ocqzQy9ESk5ha1fe9Vb3rEAPLlwFRcmVyZpqzcgzEpXakq4Vr+G1XzHTP6XP3o AR6bYSROEvcYG/GgyOsq+F3N8ifyVNcrzloVlAKecAQF8G4NFLjghj3TlWccFIQvssBw MYyZCpUvzoWykk+9a1XGrbJX/RIA3SKJXvSr0cz6CB6DUw55Yqg09hjDdm+hzL7ooSxn iB4w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5iyMR9LyU3ttf16RD2p3rDcVGnYf3CK49kfWx315mWaBumOI1Qe 0L60778HG27w47svk5yJu6k/cloJttMn
X-Received: by 10.80.140.36 with SMTP id p33mr22202358edp.257.1502652422327; Sun, 13 Aug 2017 12:27:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMRcRGRW4JkyTSfUeDVWrXGAt0_x-yWhAzdKXDjkUJ0XH-P7cA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMRcRGSdPa6WDFDxCe=HxEsWA2fmb1_fEPBcybbgTsCRSGrdzQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPvvaaJkL39k97tZf1gDtu-gcdf+gQmMRUW6Q_mxi91mPj5AMg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMRcRGS0B3Pg7wvuHjX5MBJ2BMKZJwA9Ggb0G783JfbzP=m6-A@mail.gmail.com> <CAPvvaaK8zZxKGnpKZR5Qp_Te2Cx+a_zbaGxRireKVFt5aLMPRQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAMRcRGSYFLRNd13GmtpepyGJu51-QVEVrsqAbFDqvg_QKeoX7g@mail.gmail.com> <CAPvvaaLz6NQypo65NKqbe60BGhATiCHZn_wYdeEiAnUwn_p2Xg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPvvaaLz6NQypo65NKqbe60BGhATiCHZn_wYdeEiAnUwn_p2Xg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 19:26:50 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPvvaaJrrAzhGSU6b=UZ8HGyQRkyMzL0Z7vD5ZQcTF3SUiR1eQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com>
Cc: perc@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1951e2daa5c40556a78745"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/perc/zusBG_KQifv2pSxmy1pX0xGZyZc>
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: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 19:27:07 -0000
OK then, I guess we'd have to wait for IETF last call On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 at 16:35, Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 at 15:24, Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com> > 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) > > Emil > > > >> Cheers >> Suhas >> >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 8:29 AM, Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> 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 <suhasietf@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> 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 <suhasietf@gmail.com> >>>>> 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 < >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> -- >>> sent from my mobile >>> >> >> -- > sent from my mobile > -- sent from my mobile
- [Perc] Confirmation of Consensus on PERC Double f… Suhas Nandakumar
- Re: [Perc] Confirmation of Consensus on PERC Doub… Emil Ivov
- Re: [Perc] Confirmation of Consensus on PERC Doub… Emil Ivov
- Re: [Perc] Confirmation of Consensus on PERC Doub… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [Perc] Confirmation of Consensus on PERC Doub… Suhas Nandakumar
- Re: [Perc] Confirmation of Consensus on PERC Doub… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [Perc] Confirmation of Consensus on PERC Doub… Suhas Nandakumar
- Re: [Perc] Confirmation of Consensus on PERC Doub… Emil Ivov
- Re: [Perc] Confirmation of Consensus on PERC Doub… Roni Even
- Re: [Perc] Confirmation of Consensus on PERC Doub… Paul E. Jones
- Re: [Perc] Confirmation of Consensus on PERC Doub… Roni Even
- Re: [Perc] Confirmation of Consensus on PERC Doub… Stephen Botzko
- Re: [Perc] Confirmation of Consensus on PERC Doub… Roni Even
- Re: [Perc] Confirmation of Consensus on PERC Doub… Suhas Nandakumar
- Re: [Perc] Confirmation of Consensus on PERC Doub… Emil Ivov
- Re: [Perc] Confirmation of Consensus on PERC Doub… Suhas Nandakumar
- Re: [Perc] Confirmation of Consensus on PERC Doub… Emil Ivov
- Re: [Perc] Confirmation of Consensus on PERC Doub… Emil Ivov
- Re: [Perc] Confirmation of Consensus on PERC Doub… Suhas Nandakumar