IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [AVTCORE] AD review: draft-ietf-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp-00

"Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com> Fri, 25 February 2011 17:06 UTC

Return-Path: <abegen@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: avt@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBE4B3A679F for <avt@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 09:06:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.532
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vJgqjrsXysnR for <avt@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 09:06:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D35323A67A5 for <avt@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 09:06:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=abegen@cisco.com; l=1364; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1298653659; x=1299863259; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=XqSQQ0FyLIZ4cvKEdS09xqYCyKEg0Cnwhx6hmknL1yI=; b=iJcxOSlotWuNwGCj0CicKeG4pFNB+8oCzlTXFYC5kKYMHvY7bjuDJy4Y 0NsTaTt5KM3KCXrRjpPfDxhN7I6fJ6svcW0Kt9xCDvJoWGMxFq51+5O1u AWYrEV7uzw4e+3sBa1GEI07JBHyxV1kwIydkTsZS2bl5HxhjbPt8HIeiG 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgcBAL9wZ02rR7Ht/2dsb2JhbACXa45RdKE2m2qFYASFEIpR
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.62,226,1297036800"; d="scan'208";a="315226874"
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Feb 2011 17:07:39 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p1PH7dxr023632; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 17:07:39 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.169]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 25 Feb 2011 09:07:39 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 09:07:41 -0800
Message-ID: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540E6BF2A8@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <F605EF15-FFA0-476B-A836-CCE975B0E3B0@nostrum.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: AD review: draft-ietf-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp-00
Thread-Index: AcvVDceVMnQ7hsFMQZ+brhkerz2mqAAAKY+A
References: <50196776-A554-45C7-9E40-E44008E99D0E@nostrum.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540E614655@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com> <F605EF15-FFA0-476B-A836-CCE975B0E3B0@nostrum.com>
From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com>
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Feb 2011 17:07:39.0567 (UTC) FILETIME=[81E443F0:01CBD50E]
Cc: avt@ietf.org, draft-ietf-avtcore-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] AD review: draft-ietf-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp-00
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 25 Feb 2011 17:06:47 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjsparks@nostrum.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 9:02 AM
> To: Ali C. Begen (abegen)
> Cc: avt@ietf.org; draft-ietf-avtcore-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: AD review: draft-ietf-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp-00
> 
> (trimming to one topic)
> 
> On Feb 23, 2011, at 5:51 PM, Ali C. Begen (abegen) wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 		3) In section 4.3.1, "might also need to be authenticated" could
> 
> 
> 		be more assertive. Are you trying to primarily influence
> 
> 
> 		implementers or application designers here?
> 
> 
> 
> 	Implementers. As being more assertive, I am not sure how we could do that since we don’t wanna be more assertive.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to not be assertive about implementing or about using? If you're just trying to avoid forcing people to _use_
> the mechanism, but want to make sure a particular deployment can decide to use the mechanism without forklifting its
> install base, you could say something like  "Implementations MUST support authenticating such RTCP messages by
> using a Token".

Ok, thanks. This addresses my concern. I will hold on to the changes till we get the other LC comments.

-acbegen
 
> RjS
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email