Subject: [AVT] AD review: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-cnames-02

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 10:32:34 -0600

Summary: Ready for IETF LC - watch for the announcement shortly.

Please consider the following as LC comments.

The document does not sufficiently explain _why_ these three mechanisms are the only
three mechanisms allowed and that any other mechanism that satisfies these properties
is explicitly declared to be non-conformant. Did I miss this explanation in the text somewhere?
In particular, I'm looking for support for the argument that interoperability will be harmed if these
requirements are not followed.

Can the document explain why implementations won't run afoul of the problem it calls out with
public IPv4 addresses being used by more than one endpoint when it requires IPv6 addresses
to be used as cnames in the second bullet of 4.2?