IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [AVTCORE] FW: New Version Notification for draft-rescorla-avtcore-6222bis-00.txt

"Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com> Sat, 29 December 2012 21:49 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 0A4A721F87B3 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Dec 2012 13:49:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.43
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.43 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.584, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X-NT6FL3mprC for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Dec 2012 13:49:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5667A21F87B1 for <avt@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Dec 2012 13:49:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1704; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1356817745; x=1358027345; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=CH12pNlP4qg5ihZxIsCpb/waToHyijR88BlobP2j0aQ=; b=j6QETRAnQreJg8GYDb2kCOrxD1ID43n39MTFWq2Z3w8pF1O7CiKPWq/e G6sd7YNVD7F5aK/yX+9fIORi+RloZZDRWIjNJpeyj0QqClAeXcOFlbdsp IgLwhm88xd/xL1arN5/aK2WEoQNAUc7OnkexD9xieQvda7Qk2GLhVh6L3 k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgMFAAFk31CtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABFgmyDTrY2dBZzgh4BAQEENEMCDAYBCBEDAQIFBiIEMBwBCAIEDgUIiAsBiz+abQaQWYEcizuDKjhhA6ZUgnSCJg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,379,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="157416881"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Dec 2012 21:48:54 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com [173.37.183.85]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qBTLms53001796 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sat, 29 Dec 2012 21:48:54 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com ([fe80::747b:83e1:9755:d453]) by xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com ([173.37.183.85]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Sat, 29 Dec 2012 15:48:54 -0600
From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com>
To: Kevin Gross <kevin.gross@avanw.com>
Thread-Topic: [AVTCORE] FW: New Version Notification for draft-rescorla-avtcore-6222bis-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHNqbPzDESOY6uX60uCchMrTLBMoZe47vUAgCNpJYCAAB0HAIBUZM6A
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 21:48:52 +0000
Message-ID: <C15918F2FCDA0243A7C919DA7C4BE9940CDE16EA@xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C15918F2FCDA0243A7C919DA7C4BE994F67420@xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.5.121010
x-originating-ip: [10.86.245.254]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="euc-kr"
Content-ID: <BF4EFAEF59ECA246BDFC0159EF634699@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "avt@ietf.org" <avt@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] FW: New Version Notification for draft-rescorla-avtcore-6222bis-00.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: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 21:49:06 -0000

Kevin,

-----Original Message-----
From: "Ali C. Begen" <abegen@cisco.com>
Date: Monday, November 5, 2012 7:02 PM
To: Kevin Gross <kevin.gross@avanw.com>
Cc: "avt@ietf.org" <avt@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-rescorla-avtcore-6222bis-00.txt

>>Second bullet point in section 4.2 Item (b): Proposes truncating our nice
>>96-bit random CNAME to 48 bits. I think we have an unacceptable
>>opportunity for duplication with this approach. This CNAME should
>>probably use RFC 4648 in which case these CNAMEs
>>take the same form as the per-session CNAMES but differ in the
>>requirement to create once at software initialization. Is it necessary
>>for the different types of CNAMEs to have different appearance?
>
>I don¹t think there is such a requirement and your suggestion makes sense.

Thinking more about this, I think the current text is good. Item (a) uses
48-bit MAC addresses. So, even if we use truncating in item (b), its
collision probability will not be any worse than item (a)'s. Note that
both item (a) and (b) use 17-octet string representation whereas the
per-session CNAME uses 16-octet string representation.

Let me know if you think otherwise.

-acbegen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email