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

From: Suhas Nandakumar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 10:14:19 -0700

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

---

From: Emil Ivov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:04:12 -0500

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 <[email-masked]> 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.
> please send them to the list by 4th August.
>
> First Consensus Call:
>     - 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Perc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perc
>

-- 
https://jitsi.org

---

From: Emil Ivov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:10:08 -0500

On a different note. The slides you quote seem to say this:

> Exciting and awesome joint proposal from Sergio, Cullen, Emil, & Alex that none of us like and all of us can live with (ietf bumpy consensus)

I am not sure how my name ended up in this list. The two PERC points I
am concerned about (wedging double SRTP for RTX and FEC and
overwriting SSRCs) still seem to be in debate and I have yet to see
something that represents consensus there.

Emil

-- 
https://jitsi.org

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 11:26:19 -0700

I am ok with putting the OHB in the payload and E2E DTMF.

However, I would prefer the "lite" Option to Option A.

Emil said:

"No, this makes no sense"

[BA] Seems to me that the "lite" option is more likely to be implemented
than "Option A".

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Emil Ivov <[email-masked]> wrote:

> was

---

From: Suhas Nandakumar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 11:20:32 -0700

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Emil Ivov <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > Exciting and awesome joint proposal from Sergio, Cullen, Emil, & Alex
> that none of us like and all of us can live with (ietf bumpy consensus)
>

 Hello Emil

    Sorry for the confusion on the slide deck. We did get an update request
from the double presenters that your name be removed from that list in the
slide deck. Nils has the copy of the modified slide deck and he will upload
that version once he is back from the vacation.

Here is the video link for the same that has the updated slide deck:
  https://youtu.be/PK4yunnH364?list=PLC86T-6ZTP5jdbiwi5ggLNnwLn1-r0M4h&t=375

Cheers
Suhas

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 09:18:56 -0600

> On Jul 27, 2017, at 12:10 PM, Emil Ivov <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I am not sure how my name ended up in this list. 

Emil, just to be clear, the version presented and the meeting did not have your name on that list. I'm sure the chairs will get the correct one sin the minutes.