Re: [AVT] draft-kerr-avt-vorbis-rtp-04

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Wed, 19 January 2005 16:26 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA26053 for <avt-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:26:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CrIuN-0006fY-H0 for avt-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:42:18 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CrIZ9-0005ib-3J; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:20:19 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CrIQO-0003sf-UM for avt@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:11:17 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24890 for <avt@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:11:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from penguin.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.47]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CrIfs-0006Fh-JP for avt@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:27:18 -0500
Received: from esealmw141.al.sw.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.120]) by penguin.ericsson.se (8.12.10/8.12.10/WIREfire-1.8b) with ESMTP id j0JGBEh5006324 for <avt@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:11:14 +0100 (MET)
Received: from esealnt613.al.sw.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.125]) by esealmw141.al.sw.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:11:13 +0100
Received: from [147.214.34.55] (research-1fd0e1.ki.sw.ericsson.se [147.214.34.55]) by esealnt613.al.sw.ericsson.se with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2657.72) id ZAPGDNPX; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:11:13 +0100
Message-ID: <41EE86A0.4080204@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:11:12 +0100
X-Sybari-Trust: a0b12a57 8bd604a9 e7288af9 00000138
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Arthur de Castro Callado <arthur@gprt.ufpe.br>
Subject: Re: [AVT] draft-kerr-avt-vorbis-rtp-04
References: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0501191205520.21640@mail.gprt.ufpe.br>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0501191205520.21640@mail.gprt.ufpe.br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jan 2005 16:11:13.0610 (UTC) FILETIME=[7F593AA0:01C4FE41]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f60d0f7806b0c40781eee6b9cd0b2135
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IETF AVT WG <avt@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: avt-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: fb6060cb60c0cea16e3f7219e40a0a81
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Arthur,

I am not certain why you ask this question. When it comes to using a CRC 
for Vorbis, the problem is not really about all the possible choices, it 
is about documenting precisly which version one shall use. There is also 
advantages and disadvantages of using the same CRC as is used on the 
transport layer. The advantage is that the implementation may be 
available, however the disadvantage would be that any error that 
inflicted on the protected data is not detected with a second CRC if the 
first identical one fails to detecet. However this disadvantage does not 
appear to be an issue in the usage considered for the vorbis RTP payload 
format.

I haven't read RFC 3385 properly to see if it is guarranted to be a 
suitable reference. I do however get the impression that it is likely by 
pointing at the relevant sections. However it is also important to 
remeber to provide the definition for the data to perform the 
calculation over.

Cheers

Magnus

Arthur de Castro Callado wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Can RFC 3385 be considered enough of a reference for CRC32 
> implementations, or is it desirable to have (create) another RFC defining 
> and naming all versions of CRC32 that MAY or SHOULD NOT be used in future 
> IETF standards?
> 
> Thanks,
> Arthur Callado.
> 
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Linus Walleij wrote:
> 
> 
>>>I don't know if there is an RFC for CRC32 that you could simply 
>>>reference (after checking that it conforms to your implementation of 
>>>course).
>>
>>Now I know that there is RFC 3385 which carries an example 
>>implementation in Verilog, sort of awkward unless you're devising 
>>hardware implementations.
>>
>>I'd say that SHA-1 is better for any modern software implementation, but 
>>it's partly a matter of taste and opinion IMHO.
>>
>>
>>Linus Walleij
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Working Group
> avt@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
> 


-- 

Magnus Westerlund

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt