Skip to main content

Guidelines for Choosing RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Canonical Names (CNAMEs)
RFC 6222

Yes

(Robert Sparks)

No Objection

(David Harrington)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Ralph Droms)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Sean Turner)
(Stewart Bryant)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2011-01-05)
Support Stewart's Discuss since we have observed "clone" equipment with identical MAC addresses in the past. Also, I believe that some h/w exists with configurable MAC addresses.

---

Abstract
s/these/those/

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2010-12-25)
5.  Procedure to Generate a Unique Identifier

   2.  Obtain an EUI-64 identifier from the system running this

I think this needs an Informative reference to a document which explains what is EUI-64.

       algorithm.  If an EUI-64 does not exist, one can be created from
       a 48-bit MAC address as specified in [RFC4291].  If an EUI-64
       cannot be obtained or created, a suitably unique identifier,
       local to the node, should be used (e.g., system serial number).

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2011-01-04)
1. 
>    After obtaining a identifier by doing (a) or (b),
      the least significant 48 bits are converted to the standard colon-
      separated hexadecimal format, e.g., "00:23:32:af:9b:aa", resulting
      in a 17-octet printable string representation.

It would be good to provide a reference for this 'standard ... format'. RFC 5342 uses a different notation, so arguably there is more than one format used in RFCs. 

2. Also from 5342 - here is a reference for EUI-64 which could be added (also answers the COMMENT from Alexey)

[EUI-64]  IEEE, "Guidelines for 64-bit Global Identifier (EUI-64)
             Registration Authority", <http://standards.ieee.org/
             regauth/oui/tutorials/EUI64.html>, March 1997.

(David Harrington; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2011-01-22)

                            

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2011-01-06)
I support Sean's discuss: hard-coding SHA-1 is unnecessary and counterproductive.  There is no reason that all 
clients need to use the same secure hash algorithm, IMHO.  (For example, two clients using SHA-256 and SHA-512
are no more likely to generate a collision than two clients using SHA-256.)  I suggest "compute a message digest
using a secure hash function (e.g., SHA-256)" would provide the right level of detail for section 5.

A short paragraph should also be added to the security considerations section with appropriate references.  (I think
Sean's discuss has the right list.)

I would also note that the algorithm in section 5 does not *guarantee* uniqueness.  I think your odds of a collision
are one in 2**48 (but check with a real mathematician!).  I note this since the Requirements section states "It is
believed that obtaining uniqueness is an important property ..."

Section 4.2, third bullet:

"After performing the procedure, the significant 96 bits are used ..."

Please specify "most significant" or "least significant"; the latter would be consistent with the preceding bullet.