Re: [AVTCORE] AD review: draft-ietf-ports-for-ucast-mcast-rtp-00
Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Fri, 25 February 2011 17:02 UTC
Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.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 EDADA3A6781 for <avt@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 09:02:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.53
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.068, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 yzfse1P6Mn9X for <avt@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 09:02:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (shaman.nostrum.com [72.232.179.90]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28C283A6407 for <avt@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 09:02:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dn3-177.estacado.net (vicuna-alt.estacado.net [75.53.54.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p1PH2F4G047753 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 25 Feb 2011 11:02:15 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-10-371071812"
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540E614655@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 11:02:15 -0600
Message-Id: <F605EF15-FFA0-476B-A836-CCE975B0E3B0@nostrum.com>
References: <50196776-A554-45C7-9E40-E44008E99D0E@nostrum.com> <04CAD96D4C5A3D48B1919248A8FE0D540E614655@xmb-sjc-215.amer.cisco.com>
To: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <abegen@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 75.53.54.121 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
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 17:02:40 -0000
(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". RjS
- [AVTCORE] AD review: draft-ietf-ports-for-ucast-m… Robert Sparks
- Re: [AVTCORE] AD review: draft-ietf-ports-for-uca… Ali C. Begen (abegen)
- Re: [AVTCORE] AD review: draft-ietf-ports-for-uca… Robert Sparks
- Re: [AVTCORE] AD review: draft-ietf-ports-for-uca… Ali C. Begen (abegen)