Re: [AVTCORE] Reminder: Re: WG last call on draft-ietf-avtcore-6222bis-01

["Roni Even" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ali,
The new text is OK. I did not ask for the algorithm itself.
Roni

-----Original Message-----
From: Ali C. Begen (abegen) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 11 April, 2013 2:44 PM
To: Roni Even; 'Magnus Westerlund'; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Reminder: Re: WG last call on draft-ietf-avtcore-6222bis-01

-----Original Message-----
From: Roni Even <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, April 11, 2013 12:26 PM
To: Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
<[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Reminder: Re: WG last
call	on	draft-ietf-avtcore-6222bis-01

>Hi,
>Sorry for being late.
>I read the draft and in general it looks OK.

Thanks.

>Two comments:
>
>1. I think that the folowing text in section 5  "The algorithm 
>described below is intended to be used for locally  generated unique identifiers.
>It
>is based on simply generating a  cryptographically pseudorandom value 
>[RFC4086].  This value MUST be  at least 96 bits but MAY be longer." Is 
>a bit confusing since I expected to algorithm and not a reference (the 
>first sentence is from RFC6222). Maybe explain that the algorithm is in 
>RFC4086, and maybe point to it.

OLD:

   The algorithm described below is intended to be used for locally
   generated unique identifiers.  It is based on simply generating a
   cryptographically pseudorandom value [RFC4086].  This value MUST be
   at least 96 bits but MAY be longer.


NEW:

   To locally produce a unique identifier, we simply generate a
   cryptographically pseudorandom value as described in [RFC4086].  This value MUST be
   at least 96 bits but MAY be longer.


I dont think we should explain how this generation is done in this draft.

>
>2. PRNG is not expanded anywhere in the document

I will fix this.

-acbegen

>
>Roni Even
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of 
>Magnus Westerlund
>Sent: 28 March, 2013 12:02 PM
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: [AVTCORE] Reminder: Re: WG last call on
>draft-ietf-avtcore-6222bis-01
>
>WG,
>
>So far there has be no other reviews of this document than mine.
>
>Can someone please review this document?
>
>I hereby extended the WG last call with one week until the 7th of April.
>
>Cheers
>
>Magnus
>
>On 2013-03-12 20:04, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>> WG,
>> 
>> This is to announce the start of a WG last call on:
>> 
>> Guidelines for Choosing RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Canonical Names
>> (CNAMEs) to be published as a proposed standard.
>> 
>> Document can be retrieved here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-6222bis/
>> 
>> Please provide any feedback by the 31st of March.
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Magnus Westerlund
>> WG chair
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> - Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]
>> Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
>> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance [e-mail] 
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
>> 
>> 
>
>
>--
>
>Magnus Westerlund
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]
>Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
>SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
>
>_______________________________________________
>Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
>