RE: [AVT] RTP: IPv6 examples for RTCP SDES CNAME

Stephen Casner <casner@acm.org> Thu, 09 January 2003 04:34 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA19308 for <avt-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 23:34:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h094jcY15523 for avt-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 23:45:38 -0500
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h094ikJ15492; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 23:44:46 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h094hbJ15459 for <avt@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 23:43:37 -0500
Received: from mailman.packetdesign.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA19279 for <avt@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 23:31:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ash.packetdesign.com (ash.packetdesign.com [192.168.0.243]) by mailman.packetdesign.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h094YdkB010004; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 20:34:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from casner@acm.org)
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 20:34:39 -0800
From: Stephen Casner <casner@acm.org>
To: Peter Barany <pbarany@nortelnetworks.com>
cc: AVT WG <avt@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [AVT] RTP: IPv6 examples for RTCP SDES CNAME
In-Reply-To: <1B54FA3A2709D51195C800508BF9386A080B36AB@zrc2c000.us.nortel.com>
Message-ID: <20030108202911.X76233-100000@ash.packetdesign.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: avt-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: avt-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
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>

On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Peter Barany wrote:

> Regarding ::10.0.0.1, I believe this is a valid representation of an IPv4
> compatible address. However, let me take another stab at amending the text
> below to account for this an additional rules (e.g.., there are 3 forms for
> representing IPv6 addresses as text strings). Another way around this would
> be to refer to the appropriate IETF IPv6 WG document in order to account for
> all of the variations/rules. What do you think? NOTE: RFC 2373 (which is a
> Proposed Standard) has been advanced to Draft Standard
> (draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-11.txt), approved for publication on Oct.
> 29, 2002 (RFC #?).

Peter,

Thanks for the expanded text, but I think we don't want to go into
that much detail here.  Your alternate suggestion is better.  I
suggest the following:

   For example, the standard ASCII representation of an IP Version 4
   address is "dotted decimal", also known as dotted quad, and for IP
   Version 6, addresses are textually represented as groups of
   hexadecimal digits separated by colons (with variations as detailed
   in RFC 2373).

                                                        -- Steve

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