Subject: [Perc] New Version Notification for draft-groves-perc-clue-00.txt

From: "Yangweiwei (Tommy)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 09:18:02 +0000

Hello PERC experts,

We have just submitted a new draft to PERC working group, to formulate an initial discussion of the relationship between PERC and CLUE.

The issue of telepresence endpoints using CLUE in PERC architecture is documented in the Charter of PERC. The idea of this draft is to show the background to CLUE and clarify the relations.

Please read the draft, and let we know your interests.

@Suhas, Richard, we also like to show the ideas of this draft at the IETF#94, please help to reserve a slot for it.

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Tommy

________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 16:15
To: Roni Even; Yangweiwei (Tommy); Roni Even; Yangweiwei (Tommy); Christian Groves; Christian Groves
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-groves-perc-clue-00.txt

A new version of I-D, draft-groves-perc-clue-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Christian Groves and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:           draft-groves-perc-clue
Revision:       00
Title:          Usage of CLUE with PERC
Document date:  2015-10-16
Group:          Individual Submission
Pages:          13
URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-groves-perc-clue-00.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-groves-perc-clue/
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-groves-perc-clue-00

Abstract:
   This document provides an initial discussion of the relationship
   between PERC and CLUE.  It seeks to identify any potential impacts
   or/and enhancement to the way that CLUE is used in the PERC
   architecture.

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:54:28 -0400

(Those not well informed of CLUE may wish to ignore this message.)

(Disclaimer - I quickly read the document. I might not have fully 
understood it. And I *don't* understand section 5.1.)

IIUC, what is described more or less equates the CLUE MCU with the perc 
MDD. And then the constraints placed on the MDD severely cripple the 
CLUE functionality.

I think this can be improved upon by breaking that association. Instead, 
decompose the CLUE MCU:
- merge the CLUE protocol handling into the trusted KMF for the
   conference.
- put any capture *composition* functions into a trusted device,
   possibly combined with the KMF, or could be separate.
- assign capture *switching* and media distribution functions to
   the MDD.
- expose a control interface between the MCU and the MDD, so that
   the MCC can tell the MDD how to switch and distribute the media.

This means that there is some media processing that can't be delegated 
to the MDD, but it is reduced to what is necessary for composition. This 
is unavoidable since you must examine media to compose it. But it is 
only necessary to generate one copy of each distinct composition - the 
MDD can distribute it to multiple participants.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 10/16/15 5:18 AM, Yangweiwei (Tommy) wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Perc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perc
>

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 23:22:08 +0300

Hi Paul,
Some of these points are not CLUE specific and PERC does not address the MCU
decomposition, this is why I sent a question to the mailing list asking for
clarification about the authentication of users. The MKF is not the
conference manager pat of an MCU
Roni

-----Original Message-----
From: Perc [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 8:54 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Perc] New Version Notification for
draft-groves-perc-clue-00.txt

(Disclaimer - I quickly read the document. I might not have fully understood
it. And I *don't* understand section 5.1.)

IIUC, what is described more or less equates the CLUE MCU with the perc MDD.
And then the constraints placed on the MDD severely cripple the CLUE
functionality.

This means that there is some media processing that can't be delegated to
the MDD, but it is reduced to what is necessary for composition. This is
unavoidable since you must examine media to compose it. But it is only
necessary to generate one copy of each distinct composition - the MDD can
distribute it to multiple participants.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 10/16/15 5:18 AM, Yangweiwei (Tommy) wrote:
> Hello PERC experts,
>
> We have just submitted a new draft to PERC working group, to formulate an
initial discussion of the relationship between PERC and CLUE.
>
> The issue of telepresence endpoints using CLUE in PERC architecture is
documented in the Charter of PERC. The idea of this draft is to show the
background to CLUE and clarify the relations.
> @Suhas, Richard, we also like to show the ideas of this draft at the
IETF#94, please help to reserve a slot for it.
> A new version of I-D, draft-groves-perc-clue-00.txt has been 
> successfully submitted by Christian Groves and posted to the IETF 
> repository.
>
> URL:
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-groves-perc-clue-00.txt
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of 
> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
tools.ietf.org.

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:39:35 +0200

Hello Paul,

Please see my replies below.

Regards, Christian

> understood it. And I *don't* understand section 5.1.)
[CNG] Section 5.1 is trying to show that most of the mechanics of CLUE 
can work through a MDD with minimal privacy issues even if certain 
attributes are encrypted.

> IIUC, what is described more or less equates the CLUE MCU with the 
[CNG] I think that's a reasonable starting point.

> And then the constraints placed on the MDD severely cripple the CLUE 
[CNG] Its trying to provide an analysis of the issues with trying to run 
CLUE through an MDD. Its given that a MDD can only provide switching so 
this limits what a MDD can advertise. If you're running PERC you 
probably aren't too worried about composition. How much endpoints trust 
the MDD with the CLUE attribute data is another factor on how much the 
functionality of CLUE is reduced.

>
> I think this can be improved upon by breaking that association. 
> Instead, decompose the CLUE MCU:
[CNG] I had assumed that the KMF was a virtual function for key 
management. CLUE protocol handling would be another virtual function. It 
would be strange to merge CLUE into the KMF.

>   the MCC can tell the MDD how to switch and distribute the media.
[CNG] These points don't seem CLUE specific. A non-CLUE MCU also does 
composition and switching.

> to the MDD, but it is reduced to what is necessary for composition. 
> This is unavoidable since you must examine media to compose it. But it 
> is only necessary to generate one copy of each distinct composition - 
> the MDD can distribute it to multiple participants.
>
>     Thanks,
>     Paul
>
>> We have just submitted a new draft to PERC working group, to 
>> formulate an initial discussion of the relationship between PERC and 
>> CLUE.
>>
>> The issue of telepresence endpoints using CLUE in PERC architecture 
>> is documented in the Charter of PERC. The idea of this draft is to 
>> show the background to CLUE and clarify the relations.
>>
>> submission