Re: [rtcweb] [AVTCORE] Randomly-generated CNAMEs

RFC 3550 has the words 

   To meet these requirements, the
   following format SHOULD be used unless a profile specifies an
   alternate syntax or semantics.  

what I am suggesting here is that we define a profile that specifies a alternative format but still meets all the other SHOULD and MUST in 3550 that are not part of the "following format" referred to in that sentence. 

Now several people are making the argument we need to go and deprecate 6222 and replace it with something else. But I'm not seeing any process reasons why this could not be done as profile if that was what we wanted to do. 

Thoughts?

On Jun 29, 2012, at 1:26 , DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:

> Colin is correct.
> 
> This is not a profiling activity.
> 
> This is an update activity to an existing AVTCORE specification.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Keith
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Colin Perkins
> Sent: 28 June 2012 19:10
> To: Cullen Jennings
> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] [AVTCORE] Randomly-generated CNAMEs
> 
> On 28 Jun 2012, at 15:53, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>> Colin & Magnus, given this is starting to look like it is likely to get consensus, could you update draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage to have text for random generation and resonating behind it?
> 
> 
> As I said, write a draft, and we'll reference it. I don't think this draft is the place to update the RTP specification.
> 
> -- 
> Colin Perkins
> http://csperkins.org/
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb