Subject: [rtcweb] Response to old message about CNAMEs

From: Randell Jesup <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 12:02:15 -0400

Magnus wrote:
 >> David Singer skrev 2011-04-18 20:10:
 >>
 >> If I am doing a point-to-point call, and I have the connectivity
 >> established (i.e. IP addresses and the like), why should I trouble at
 >> all with CNAME?  And, indeed, are there privacy concerns with it
 >> (well, there are with using <userid>@<host>, I rather suspect).  Can
 >> the CNAME problem be handled when aggregation happens?
 >
 >Because you don't know when a peer is a single user, or a conference
 >bridge. In the later case of you will need the cname. Also for point to
 >point you might need it if you have multiple sources that should or
 >should not be synchronized. The point of the new RFC is that the cname
 >can be set session specific, by drawing a random number that is being
 >used. Thus you can avoid the downsides of CNAME from privacy point of
 >view, and the generation aspects.

(Working on catching up with traffic on this list... you may see some 
more answers to old messages)

The bridge aspect is a strong example.

Another random obvious example: even a single user might be sending 
multiple A/V pairs, which need to be synced to each other, but do not 
necessarily need to be synced to each other, or multiple 
non-synchronized audio streams.

-- 
Randell Jesup
[email-masked]