Re: [AVTCORE] Max SSRC declaration: Objection to retrofitting rules

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Fri, 28 October 2011 17:25 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 2411F21F854F for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:25:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.345
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.345 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.254, 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 ufKyUxrdhI8c for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:25:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 874E421F8514 for <avt@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:25:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EA3B39E165; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 19:25:45 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3ewDO6xBRn0w; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 19:25:44 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [172.19.29.10] (216-239-45-4.google.com [216.239.45.4]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEA2639E048; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 19:25:43 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4EAAE596.5000805@alvestrand.no>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:25:42 -0700
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110921 Thunderbird/3.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bo Burman <bo.burman@ericsson.com>
References: <4EA8410A.7070801@alvestrand.no> <05F760EF51FA6A4F804F9759C239313A29ABC9B09E@ESESSCMS0361.eemea.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <05F760EF51FA6A4F804F9759C239313A29ABC9B09E@ESESSCMS0361.eemea.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "avt@ietf.org" <avt@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Max SSRC declaration: Objection to retrofitting rules
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: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 17:25:47 -0000

On 10/28/2011 08:45 AM, Bo Burman wrote:
> Hello Harald,
>
> I think your objection as well as your proposed replacement text are both very reasonable, and we will update the document accordingly.
Thanks!
> Do you think that the proposed "local heuristics" approach will be a generally acceptable method to apply when the proposed attributes are not present? I am aware that it is most likely what will have to be done, but is it acceptable to refer to it in an Internet Draft, or need it somehow be more elaborate?
My personal opinion is that the more our internet-drafts reflect 
reality, the better off we are....

It is not an area in which I am expert, but I would think that people 
who do SBCs for a living are the best people to turn to for advice on 
how to describe what needs to be done here - and whether it is at all 
helpful to have these local heuristics described in an I-D.

                    Harald