Re: [rtcweb] CNAMEs and multiple peer connections

Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com> Wed, 12 March 2014 15:18 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C7F71A073C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 08:18:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=1.049, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=no
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 UR5nUpdKXeCu for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 08:18:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDC701A046F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 08:17:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=868; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1394637471; x=1395847071; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=6+1aiJjk4Z6DfX0NR1Nf6X8G9ZPIDhSJHCj1Qb/mpcU=; b=QiO/8jZnitTRQs9zMNxU087quz66pOVQ9uP1GtFrGNf3VrETFAxMMkQa Uv9kXkLDpHwTCoN53DdqJMRCIM3mrXMdxA0OP9WGteNA59CAw9Qxyup94 ECsrf/lQf4FdlMk/jtZJcF4rLwjM8V1YGAvOJJAOpp1QgloUAYDY8yRJi E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgkFAIZ5IFOrRDoH/2dsb2JhbABagwbCZoEcFnSCJQEBAQMBOj8FCwsYLiE2BhOHZQMJB8taDYYwF4xFgWQzB4MkgRQBA5ZYgW2GTIYZhUiDLT0
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,638,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="26898582"
Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Mar 2014 15:17:50 +0000
Received: from [10.21.79.5] ([10.21.79.5]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s2CFGx06018410; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 15:17:49 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnUaHHZqdsA5VQY9HgO-iJESOKfbhkgBqNdMYYGGMsHNuA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 00:51:02 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DFF2335C-F97E-43FA-9DB4-1E9B8E74F253@cisco.com>
References: <CABkgnnWGQ7GtKd33iF-RNbkeAyqKYshaPDDB=sAh5o-izKichQ@mail.gmail.com> <C702F0CB-0BBF-4A55-97A7-EC44FFAAC62B@cisco.com> <CABkgnnUaHHZqdsA5VQY9HgO-iJESOKfbhkgBqNdMYYGGMsHNuA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/qgtXUmpmX_79GKKAzrypqYiymtY
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] CNAMEs and multiple peer connections
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 15:18:10 -0000

On Mar 8, 2014, at 6:48 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 7 March 2014 20:14, Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com> wrote:
>> About half a year ago, AVTCORE published an updated recommendation for CNAME as RFC7022.  Is its guidance insufficient?
> 
> Necessary, but not sufficient.  Unfortunately, the definition of a
> "session", while sufficient for the description in 7022, is not quite
> precise enough for this use case.  The implication there is that it
> means "RTP session", which is both not at the right level of
> granularity, and not directly actionable.

Perhaps AVTCORE can take on an update to use WebRTC terminology.

> I also note this little gem:
> 
>   A longer-term persistent RTCP CNAME is sometimes useful to facilitate
>   third-party monitoring, consistent with [RFC3550].

Yep, it's true.

-d