IETF Logo Mail Archive

[AVT] accepting draft-begen-avt-rtp-cnames-02 as a WG document

Roni Even <Even.roni@huawei.com> Fri, 04 June 2010 15:09 UTC

Return-Path: <Even.roni@huawei.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 01A043A6957 for <avt@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 08:09:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.438
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.482, BAYES_40=-0.185, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 c4uM0G+X6DXp for <avt@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 08:09:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58E8B3A6800 for <avt@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 08:09:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0L3H00B4CWQMO6@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for avt@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2010 23:08:46 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0L3H00L2EWQM4Y@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for avt@ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2010 23:08:46 +0800 (CST)
Received: from windows8d787f9 (bzq-79-183-15-228.red.bezeqint.net [79.183.15.228]) by szxml02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0L3H00A6KWQ8N8@szxml02-in.huawei.com>; Fri, 04 Jun 2010 23:08:46 +0800 (CST)
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 18:06:38 +0300
From: Roni Even <Even.roni@huawei.com>
To: 'IETF AVT WG' <avt@ietf.org>
Message-id: <044001cb03f7$8ed1f140$ac75d3c0$%roni@huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_DjhDqu0ULYGLJ4BrGYL1LQ)"
Content-language: en-us
Thread-index: AcsD94cg99aMaKl6ToCSaC4Vj+K4lQ==
Subject: [AVT] accepting draft-begen-avt-rtp-cnames-02 as a WG document
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <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, 04 Jun 2010 15:09:16 -0000

Hi,

In Section 6.5.1 of RFC3550, there are a number of recommendations for
choosing a unique RTCP CNAME for an RTP endpoint.  However, in  practice,
some of these methods are not guaranteed to produce a  unique CNAME. 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-begen-avt-rtp-cnames-02 proposes updated
guidelines for choosing CNAMEs, superseding those presented in Section 6.5.1
of [RFC3550].
 
This was recognized as an issue to solve in the last IETF meetings.
 
The AVT chairs would like to ask if the group feels that this document
should be accepted as a starting point for the working group document for
resolving the issue.
 
Please send any comments till June 12th
 
Thanks
Roni Even
AVT co-chair

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email