Re: [bfcpbis] More comments on RFC 4582
"Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com> Thu, 31 May 2012 15:46 UTC
Return-Path: <eckelcu@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5626C11E8128 for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 May 2012 08:46:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IboOGMcL-H27 for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 May 2012 08:46:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-4.cisco.com (mtv-iport-4.cisco.com [173.36.130.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65ABB11E811C for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 May 2012 08:46:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=eckelcu@cisco.com; l=3492; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1338479170; x=1339688770; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=Pjr0usQyMbU1drp1f73KxVAac7ZQ6k8dZFUaGt0WgFc=; b=KiLHG75XNtqlqWgUDK3s5mDFHlMHlzZzXpuzbK46kYG2uLhJOyuzgsSZ 8qR+X6MCoyi1OvQQ6mNlJC9E7lnM2c/OP1mpKOfekwJ08H0xEhV04e8XI b4Kah/fsJw3AE7IWCUJ7jkzT1Ykklp1Htz4WbEYw6DLdaSkn3VGTEkb+V k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAHORx0+rRDoH/2dsb2JhbABEtAyBB4IYAQEBBAEBAQ8BFAkKGxkLDAQCAQgOAwQBAQEKBhcBBgEmHwkIAQEEARIIGodoAQuZN59ZixGEZmADiECNZ4lsgxKBZoMAgT8
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,693,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="47043116"
Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 May 2012 15:46:10 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4VFkA0Q010262; Thu, 31 May 2012 15:46:10 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-234.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.111]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 31 May 2012 08:46:09 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 08:46:06 -0700
Message-ID: <E1CBF4C7095A3D4CAAAEAD09FBB8E08C0738688C@xmb-sjc-234.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFHv=r-HYXM-F+-aTz8hc94tkx0=L9NwXZOsuA-4veDrS-sM8g@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [bfcpbis] More comments on RFC 4582
Thread-Index: Ac0++tvA2M2IzxSgSfinQ3pyrMlGRgASV+Mg
References: <49DD8DED.3010908@ericsson.com><4F8BFB3C.7040207@ericsson.com> <CAFHv=r-HYXM-F+-aTz8hc94tkx0=L9NwXZOsuA-4veDrS-sM8g@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>
To: Tom Kristensen <2mkristensen@gmail.com>, Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 May 2012 15:46:09.0906 (UTC) FILETIME=[7FDBF520:01CD3F44]
Cc: bfcpbis@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] More comments on RFC 4582
X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list <bfcpbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bfcpbis>, <mailto:bfcpbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bfcpbis>
List-Post: <mailto:bfcpbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bfcpbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis>, <mailto:bfcpbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 15:46:11 -0000
(as an individual) I agree with Tom's assessments and think the comments have been addressed adequately. Cheers, Charles > -----Original Message----- > From: bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Tom Kristensen > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 11:59 PM > To: Gonzalo Camarillo > Cc: bfcpbis@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] More comments on RFC 4582 > > On 16/04/2012, Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > below you can find another old email with more comments on RFC 4582. > [...] > > I've commented the issues inline below. > The two new error codes is included in the upcoming draft version. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------- > > [...] I got the action > > point to list the things that could be fixed in a potential revised > > BFCP spec. These are the contents of my notes. Of course, if someone > > knows of more issues, please let us know: > > > > o When a user performs a third-party floor request the beneficiary of > > the floor is not informed when the floor is granted. This may not be > > a problem because endpoints using third-party floor requests probably > > have different means to get in synch but we may want to add some text > > about this. > > Tom: Not sure this is needed, as it is stated in Section 2 that: > "... The protocol between a floor participant and a media participant > (that are not colocated) is outside the scope of this document". > > > o We do not have errors for an unsupported version of the protocol or > > for wrong message length. We do not have a general error either. > > Tom: Unsupported version is handled in the current version of the > rfc4582bis draft. The other two is added to the upcoming version, > i.e. Incorrect Message Length and Generic Error. > > > o When we get more experience on queue management from real > > deployments, it would be nice to explaining it further in the spec. > > Tom: I have no knowledge of queue management from deployments. > Does anyone else out there have any deployment experience? If not, > we don't really have much to add at present. > > > o UserStatus > > > > UserStatus = (COMMON-HEADER) > > [BENEFICIARY-INFORMATION] > > 1*(FLOOR-REQUEST-INFORMATION) -> remove the 1 > > *[EXTENSION-ATTRIBUTE] > > Tom: Was already correct in RFC4582, outdated note I presume. > > > o A message may need to be longer than the maximum message length > > supported by the protocol > > Tom: We've solved the fragmentation issue. No demands voiced for length > exceeding the maximum message length for reliable transport voiced in > BFCPbis. > > > o A rather small number of typos > > Tom: A couple of typos fixed in both current and upcoming version of > rfc4582bis. Reviewers might find more! > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------- > > > -- Tom > > -- > # Cisco | http://www.cisco.com/telepresence/ > ## tomkrist@cisco.com | http://www.tandberg.com > ### | http://folk.uio.no/tomkri/ > _______________________________________________ > bfcpbis mailing list > bfcpbis@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
- [bfcpbis] More comments on RFC 4582 Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [bfcpbis] More comments on RFC 4582 Tom Kristensen
- Re: [bfcpbis] More comments on RFC 4582 Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
- Re: [bfcpbis] More comments on RFC 4582 Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [bfcpbis] More comments on RFC 4582 Tom Kristensen
- Re: [bfcpbis] More comments on RFC 4582 Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [bfcpbis] More comments on RFC 4582 Chelliah Sivachelvan (chelliah)
- [bfcpbis] rfc4583bis TLS SDP example - Re: More c… Tom Kristensen
- Re: [bfcpbis] rfc4583bis TLS SDP example - Re: Mo… Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
- Re: [bfcpbis] rfc4583bis TLS SDP example - Re: Mo… Tom Kristensen
- Re: [bfcpbis] rfc4583bis TLS SDP example - Re: Mo… Tom Kristensen