Re: [AVTCORE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-6222bis-02.txt

Hi Ali,
My comments are addressed in this version.
Roni

-----Original Message-----
From: avt-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:avt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ali C.
Begen (abegen)
Sent: 13 April, 2013 1:44 PM
To: avt@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-6222bis-02.txt

I think we got all the essential WGLC comments addressed in this revision.
If there is something we skipped, please let us know.

-acbegen

-----Original Message-----
From: "internet-drafts@ietf.org" <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
Date: Saturday, April 13, 2013 1:34 PM
To: "i-d-announce@ietf.org" <i-d-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: "avt@ietf.org" <avt@ietf.org>
Subject: [AVTCORE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-6222bis-02.txt

>
>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-02.txt
>	Pages           : 10
>	Date            : 2013-04-13
>
>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-02
>
>A diff from the previous version is available at:
>http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-avtcore-6222bis-02
>
>
>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
>

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
avt@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt