Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cnames-02

["Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 11:02 AM
> To: Dan Wing (dwing); 'Tobias Gondrom'; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc: Ali C. Begen (abegen); [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: secdir review of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cnames-02
> 
> Just coming back on the following:
> 
> > > 2.3. in section 4.2. next to last paragraph it states:
> > (other methods)
> > > "beyond the three methods listed above, are not compliant with this
> > > specification and SHOULD NOT be used."
> > > If the document is std track and updates 3550 and uses
> > "MUST" for the
> > > methods it would be inconsistent to frame it here as "SHOULD NOT".
> >
> > We will delete the sentence that says:
> >
> >   Other methods, beyond the
> >   three methods listed above, are not compliant with this
> > specification
> >   and SHOULD NOT be used.
> >
> > because it is really saying "if you don't comply with this
> > document's requirements, you aren't in compliance with this
> > document" -- which is a silly thing to say.
> >
> 
> This sentence was added as a result of my comment in the document shepherd review as follows:
> 
> "1)	Section 3 contains the following statement:
> 
>    The recommendation in [RFC3550] is to generate an RTCP CNAME of the
>    form "user@host" for multiuser systems, or "host" if the username is
>    not available.  The "host" part is specified to be the fully
>    qualified domain name (FQDN) of the host from which the real-time
>    data originates.  While this guidance was appropriate at the time
>    [RFC3550] was written, FQDNs are no longer necessarily unique, and
>    can sometimes be common across several endpoints in large service
>    provider networks.  Thus, the use of FQDN as the CNAME is strongly
>    discouraged.
> 
> Given the statement above, can you point me at the SHOULD requirement that I would expect to see relating to this in
> section 4."
> 
> So if we no longer have that added text in section 4, then we need to go back and revisit section 3, and particularly the
> sentence: "Thus, the use of FQDN as the CNAME is strongly discouraged." because it no longer is discouraged by this
> document.
> 
> An alternative statement in section 3 would be: "This document replaces the use of FQDN as a CNAME by alternative
> mechanisms."

This replacement works.

Thanks, acbegen.
 
> regards
> 
> Keith