Subject: Re: [Perc] Last Call: <draft-ietf-perc-private-media-framework-08.txt> (A Solution Framework for Private Media in Privacy Enhanced RTP Conferencing) to Proposed Standard

From: Suhas Nandakumar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 21:36:09 -0700

Considering the concerns raised on this thread, the chairs and ADs
discussed options keeping in mind PERC's scope, historical context on these
concerns and context from this thread. We converged on following as the
decision summary on how we want to proceed.

"Some objections were raised in the working group, and re-raised during the
first IETF LC, proposing that the encryption applied by PERC should be
split so that in the WebRTC case, E2E keys could be supplied by someone
other than the browser. It became clear in both WG discussions and post-LC
discussions involving the ADs that this would be counter to the WebRTC
security model, which is required in the PERC charter. So any work to
address these concerns would be future work, and not blocking on the
current documents. "

Furthermore, there are discussions going on in the W3C WebRTC NV usecases
for enabling secure conferencing (PERC based or otherwise here:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2019Apr/0013.html#start13
).

Regards
PERC Chairs

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 8:27 PM Alexandre GOUAILLARD <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> I do not agree with everything culled say, but still,
> I wanted to say something for his defence on his point where i think he is
> being given credits for my mistake.
>
> You had discussions with people. I was not an active part of them. You put
>> my name on a slide of "supporters" and you were about to present to that to
>> the WG. I saw that and asked you to remove my name. Please do not imply
>> sudden whimsical changes of positions.
>>
>
> I am the culprit for bringing your name in at IETF 99. Sergio and I spoke
> with cullen to try to find a consensus, and we brought to the table what we
> though was important for you. As you clearly stated later, you had not
> asked us to do that, so it s my bad. When I thought we found a consensus, i
> kindly asked cullen tot put your name before presenting it, to show we had
> also included your concerns in our discussion and teh corresponding
> solution.
>
> this one is on me, and I apologise, again, for it.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Perc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perc
>