IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [AVTCORE] comment on draft-jones-avtcore-private-media-reqts-00

"David Benham (dbenham)" <dbenham@cisco.com> Mon, 10 November 2014 10:21 UTC

Return-Path: <dbenham@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 170C91A8940 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 02:21:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fecAbni0TQZu for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 02:21:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C37C71A893B for <avt@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 02:21:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1104; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1415614911; x=1416824511; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=xKM9CqaJcqMZ6Y2WDzcgmIFD6+ncIDPJkWL3Bi03wDE=; b=QhRbEiHuvMFJQHjdY6Bxzgf4zEHwPO82LdFxzeykwbF44/rdukbebIuk 07+8hiNub0v8ogy4frBMyUEDBbZVisk/by0jJfQSaHZEPV8lBmYA9T57o 1eh6v0db54sK62be5gP4OhintiDXgGyXBLqYs8I8ShNsMKCs/xUOhG1DS 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgoFAKiQYFStJA2D/2dsb2JhbABbgw6BMdNEAoEmFgEBAQEBfYQDAQEDATpEDQEIIhRCJgEEARoTiB0JzgkBAQEBAQUBAQEBHpAzEQEdAoNlgR4BBJIxjSiHAYZ4hzODeoF7OYEDAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,351,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="95073921"
Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([173.36.13.131]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Nov 2014 10:21:51 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com [173.37.183.85]) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sAAALpax005615 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 10 Nov 2014 10:21:51 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.5.151]) by xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com ([173.37.183.85]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 04:21:50 -0600
From: "David Benham (dbenham)" <dbenham@cisco.com>
To: "avt@ietf.org" <avt@ietf.org>, "ron.even.tlv@gmail.com" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [AVTCORE] comment on draft-jones-avtcore-private-media-reqts-00
Thread-Index: Ac/80B1pZt4AnLYZR/C+pmJ+PKDfRg==
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 10:21:50 +0000
Message-ID: <0683D6CB32AC424D8AF52C0F660E5DC564EF2ED7@xmb-aln-x10.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.21.94.239]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/vwp7VuV_BmGw-TdBMZYLuOyO2IM
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] comment on draft-jones-avtcore-private-media-reqts-00
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 10:21:54 -0000

For purposes of requirements-00, we purposefully avoided trying to select a particular topology and thus no repeat of one of its terms.     

If we come up with a solution variant that doesn't require changes to SRTP but does require addition(s)/mod(s) to the topology draft, for example, then I assert we would want to do that.    Plus, to quote Stephan from an earlier email,  "... a document like the topologies will *always* be incomplete."


> I read the document and was wondering which of the topologies in
> draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-topologies-update-04 is used here (figure 3). Is it
> the selective forward middlebox. It will be good to either use the same
> terminology or if it is a different topology define it in the topology
> draft.
> 
> 
> As for the sequence number, when using example in figure 3 , each RTP stream
> received (from the same SSRC) may have a gap in the sequence number or the
> receiver may report a loss for a stream switched out by the midlebox? Any
> requirement here?
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> Roni Even
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email