Re: [AVTCORE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-6222bis-05.txt

"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Tue, 09 July 2013 15:38 UTC

Return-Path: <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.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 0F46B11E8128 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 08:38:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 1CX4VaVl3-ch for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 08:38:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com (ihemail4.lucent.com [135.245.0.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9556211E812A for <avt@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 08:38:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-239-2-122.lucent.com [135.239.2.122]) by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id r69FcY27028495 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 9 Jul 2013 10:38:35 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.111]) by fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id r69FcXqj026928 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:38:33 +0200
Received: from FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.7.194]) by FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.111]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:38:33 +0200
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, "avt@ietf.org" <avt@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [AVTCORE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-6222bis-05.txt
Thread-Index: AQHOfCI3WkFGIrKCkEarOElRktFoVplb3cQAgACdy0A=
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 15:38:32 +0000
Message-ID: <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B0675B2@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <20130708212917.31411.52919.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <51DBC578.9000306@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <51DBC578.9000306@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.41]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.39
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-6222bis-05.txt
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, 09 Jul 2013 15:38:46 -0000

No comment on removing option a), but later in the document I did note the sentence:

"This	value MUST be at least 96 bits and MAY be up to 512 bits."

To me "MAY defines an option, and therefore this appears to be stating that the upper limit is optional, whereas I believe you are stating:

"This	value MUST be at least 96 bits and MUST be less than 512 bits."

Regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Magnus Westerlund
> Sent: 09 July 2013 09:11
> To: avt@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-6222bis-05.txt
> 
> WG,
> 
> This document has just been in IESG review and the authors has discussed
> with the IESG. One discuss raised was the implications of the MAC based
> generation of short-term persistent CNAMES. The conclusion in that
> discussion was to remove that option and rely only on random names in
> that case.
> 
> I wanted to inform the WG about this significant change and give you a
> chance to react to this change before the document is approved. You will
> have one week to react.
> 
> The details can be seen in this diff:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-avtcore-6222bis-05
> 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Magnus Westerlund
> 
> 
> On 2013-07-08 23:29, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> >
> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> >  This draft is a work item of the Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
> Working Group of the IETF.
> >
> > 	Title           : Guidelines for Choosing RTP Control Protocol
> (RTCP) Canonical Names (CNAMEs)
> > 	Author(s)       : Ali Begen
> >                           Colin Perkins
> >                           Dan Wing
> >                           Eric Rescorla
> > 	Filename        : draft-ietf-avtcore-6222bis-05.txt
> > 	Pages           : 10
> > 	Date            : 2013-07-08
> >
> > Abstract:
> >    The RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Canonical Name (CNAME) is a
> >    persistent transport-level identifier for an RTP endpoint.  While the
> >    Synchronization Source (SSRC) identifier of an RTP endpoint may
> >    change if a collision is detected or when the RTP application is
> >    restarted, its RTCP CNAME is meant to stay unchanged, so that RTP
> >    endpoints can be uniquely identified and associated with their RTP
> >    media streams.
> >
> >    For proper functionality, RTCP CNAMEs should be unique within the
> >    participants of an RTP session.  However, the existing guidelines for
> >    choosing the RTCP CNAME provided in the RTP standard are insufficient
> >    to achieve this uniqueness.  RFC 6222 was published to update those
> >    guidelines to allow endpoints to choose unique RTCP CNAMEs.
> >    Unfortunately, later investigations showed that some parts of the new
> >    algorithms were unnecessarily complicated and/or ineffective.  This
> >    document addresses these concerns and replaces RFC 6222.
> >
> >
> > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-6222bis
> >
> > There's also a htmlized version available at:
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-avtcore-6222bis-05
> >
> > A diff from the previous version is available at:
> > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-avtcore-6222bis-05
> >
> >
> > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
> > avt@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Magnus Westerlund
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
> Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
> avt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt