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