Subject: [Perc] PERC Charter

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 11:26:47 -0500

(oops, meant to include the mailing list)

Hi,

The PERC charter is approved to go to external review, pending a couple 
of last minute things.

1) Are you guys willing to put some dates to the milestones? I don't 
think it's _required_ for external review, but people will ask. If so, I 
will move the milestones from the text to the milestone list.

2) Do you want to add anything based on Stephen's last email (quoted 
below):

> BTW - just to clarify in case it's useful - I interpret
> the name of this WG and the charter to be implicitly
> saying that the goal is to minimise the amount of data
> (whether metadata or not) that is meaningful to the
> media distribution device. If that's a bad assumption
> then it'd probably be good to bottom out on that during
> chartering. If it's a good assumption then maybe it's
> something to consider being explicit about in the
> charter. (Sorry, I forgot to say that in my initial
> ballot.)

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 10:28:40 +0200

> will move the milestones from the text to the milestone list.

Yes, I am willing to give it an initial shot.

Sep 2016  Submit architecture or framework specification to IESG 
(Standards Track)

Jan 2017 Submit documentation of how to integrate solution in SIP, 
WebRTC and CLUE to IESG (Informational)

Jun 2017  Submit SRTP protocol extension specification to IESG 
(Standards Track)

Jun 2017  Submit Key-management protocol specification to IESG 
(Standards Track)

I know people see this as quite urgent, but we actually appear to have 
quite a lot to discuss on how it should work and be solved. Then we must 
show due dillegence in getting the pieces well specified and well 
reviewed and tested. Thus, I think 2 years is not at all uncalled for, 
unfortunately.

>> charter. (Sorry, I forgot to say that in my initial

Yes, I think it is a goal. I would propose that we enter into the WG 
objectives the following sentence:

The meta information provided to the central device is to be limited to 
the minimal required for it to perform its function to preserve the 
conference participants' privacy.

The full paragraph would then read:

WG Objectives

This WG will work on a solution that enables centralized SRTP-based 
conferencing, where the central device distributing the media is not 
required to be trusted with the keys to decrypt the participants’ media. 
The media must be kept confidential and authenticated between an 
originating endpoint and the explicitly allowed receiving endpoints or 
other devices. The meta information provided to the central device is to 
be limited to the minimal required for it to perform its function to 
preserve the conference participants privacy. Further, it is desired 
that a solution still provides replay protection, so that the media 
distribution devices can’t replay previous parts of the media.

Opinions on that.

Please respond quickly.

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                 | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 14:39:11 -0500

Thanks Magnus,

I've entered the milestones and the addition from Stephen, and will 
approve this for external review now. If others have more feedback, we 
can handle that as part of the external review.

Thanks!

Ben.

On 12 Jun 2015, at 3:28, Magnus Westerlund wrote:

> quite a lot to discuss on how it should work and be solved. Then we 
> must show due dillegence in getting the pieces well specified and well 
> The meta information provided to the central device is to be limited 
> to the minimal required for it to perform its function to preserve the 
> required to be trusted with the keys to decrypt the participants’ 
> media. The media must be kept confidential and authenticated between 
> an originating endpoint and the explicitly allowed receiving endpoints 
> or other devices. The meta information provided to the central device 
> is to be limited to the minimal required for it to perform its 
> function to preserve the conference participants privacy. Further, it 
> is desired that a solution still provides replay protection, so that 
> the media distribution devices can’t replay previous parts of the 
> media.
>
>
> Opinions on that.
>
> Please respond quickly.
>
> Magnus Westerlund
>