Subject: [AVTCORE] 6222bis

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 10:42:07 -0700

As requested of RTCWEB, I have read this document.  It is good and
should be published.

I suspect that many people find it hard to get excited enough about
this to bother reading it.  It's just not that interesting a subject.
Especially since this is entirely non-controversial.

I feel a little uncomfortable that the document justifies its
existence (as a -bis) largely based on a reference to an individual
draft.  I would prefer to see the rationale presented in an appendix
instead; it's fairly important information to retain.

---

From: "Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 07:55:52 +0000

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 8:42 PM
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, Magnus Westerlund
<[email-masked]>
Subject: [AVTCORE] 6222bis

>Especially since this is entirely non-controversial.

Compared to rtcweb stuff, yeah.
>instead; it's fairly important information to retain.

If you really feel strong about it, we can consider it but the current
draft mentions why we are doing this bis (due to the linkability of the
CNAMEs resulting from 6222 algorithms). For the purpose of 6222bis, where
that linkability comes from is not really essential IMO.

-acbegen

>_______________________________________________
>Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
>

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 09:58:30 -0700

> that linkability comes from is not really essential IMO.

My point was that the assertion (6222 provides linkability) is
unsupported and not especially obvious.  I would be happier if the
document provided some stronger support for that claim.  Happier.  I'm
already happy that this is far, far better than 6222.