Re: [AVTCORE] WG last call on draft-ietf-avtcore-6222bis-01

"Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com> Tue, 26 March 2013 09:58 UTC

Return-Path: <abegen@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1008221F88CC for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 02:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0-T57umTEqVs for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 02:58:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FEDA21F88C7 for <avt@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 02:58:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2190; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1364291927; x=1365501527; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Zzp51FnjogZNr7VvEh7DazVsL7ZC4b9n9YbQLPjRmNI=; b=Ot9oGdyUU7Hr1fQSXo5mEQn+bqOjcyXG5UnNsBW8zLsn68cH7gjjWlzw NhbyEZM3SybV9oCseBAcu5eXfFpC59dQoNqnNrr+xR58v/IdVqaDHqrO2 Zt+G9gQ9IigskpoirxulJGWb28emQfuDFto+B6v16JpPbfsZqp2hITw+X U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgQFAHZwUVGtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABDgmeDcL0rDXoWgSqCHwEBAQQBAQEgEVEGAQgRAwECAQICBiACBCULFQgIAgQBEgiIDAELrwiCQJANBIEjjTwCFhASBoInMmEDp26DCoIo
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,911,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="191534234"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Mar 2013 09:58:46 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com [173.37.183.75]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r2Q9wkrR010037 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 26 Mar 2013 09:58:46 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com ([fe80::747b:83e1:9755:d453]) by xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([173.37.183.75]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 04:58:46 -0500
From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com>
To: Steve Underwood <steveu@coppice.org>, "avt@ietf.org" <avt@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [AVTCORE] WG last call on draft-ietf-avtcore-6222bis-01
Thread-Index: AQHOH1SRBgQ8NzU4bUC2VIRlvWTydpi2+uKA///tk62AAJCxAIAAvcqA
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 09:58:05 +0000
Message-ID: <C15918F2FCDA0243A7C919DA7C4BE9940CF74D5E@xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <5150E032.4060307@coppice.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.2.130206
x-originating-ip: [10.61.98.206]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <D93A8F2EBE572140A862DC9E6BB999A7@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] WG last call on draft-ietf-avtcore-6222bis-01
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 09:58:48 -0000

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Underwood <steveu@coppice.org>
Date: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:39 AM
To: "avt@ietf.org" <avt@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] WG last call on draft-ietf-avtcore-6222bis-01

>On 03/26/2013 04:00 AM, Ali C. Begen (abegen) wrote:
>> Thanks for the review.
>>
>> On Mar 25, 2013, at 5:07 PM, "Magnus Westerlund"
>><magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote:
>>
>>> WG & Authors,
>>>
>>> I have reviewed this document as an individual and have the following
>>> comments:
>>>
>>> 1. Section 4.2, second bullet:
>>>
>>>       To produce a short-term persistent RTCP CNAME, an RTP endpoint
>>>       MUST either (a) use the numeric representation of the layer-2
>>>       (Media Access Control (MAC)) address of the interface that is
>>>used
>>>       to initiate the RTP session as the "host" part of its RTCP CNAME
>>>       or
>>>
>>> Is using the MAC really that unique? In these days of MAC cloning is
>>> this good enough to use as long term persistent CNAME identifier? I
>>>also
>> The probability of clash is pretty small but we can make a note of this.
>>
>That depends on the platform. If you use the MAC address on a virtual
>machine it always clashes, as it always appears to be zero.

I checked mine and that is not the case for mine. If an OS uses a MAC of
all zeros, I think it would have more serious issues than the uniqueness
of its CNAME.



>
>Steve
>_______________________________________________
>Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
>avt@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
>