Re: [bfcpbis] WGLC on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-01

"Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <> Mon, 02 May 2016 11:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08FA212B055 for <>; Mon, 2 May 2016 04:17:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.496
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.496 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT=0.01, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UvndGyIeWwKr for <>; Mon, 2 May 2016 04:17:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CC6512B052 for <>; Mon, 2 May 2016 04:17:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=128255; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1462187873; x=1463397473; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=VC9pk7sTeDO+z9a3O0iSYrSEKZhXF7yMJhBO+ZQFLdM=; b=PB+cO+GTZJJqYsBIDpk4EOVUknJFvuX+XzkvebrPOZ7N1hxfdyK1MbOo rIhYL1AVbj3vP54pDEt1s4fX2Kx98bdJzxCemAwPVUl5mjgdFQzj7bycd 1CUWgSPqEU/O5iA7DoNkT3QvNu8Jve0OBWdt0oNVWPdonVL6wtEZa5ySq M=;
X-Files: Diff_ draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-01.txt - draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-02.txt.html, draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-02.txt : 67353, 22499
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0C7AgBRNidX/5RdJa1aAg6DKlN9BoVBt?= =?us-ascii?q?CwOgXIEFwEMhBSBDkoCgSU4FAEBAQEBAQFlJ4RBAQEBAwEBAQEXARI6BxcEAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?IDgMDAQIBFgoBDQIlCx0IAgQBCQkOiBQIDrg6AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBDQiKbYQECxEBBi0JKAuFAwWNVziHH4JmAYMnglSCd4JsgjmBZxc3g3+HQoE?= =?us-ascii?q?bjzABHgFDgUyBZDtsAYdRNn8BAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,567,1454976000"; d="txt'?html'217?scan'217,208,217";a="98129732"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 May 2016 11:17:50 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u42BHoDM006060 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 2 May 2016 11:17:50 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 2 May 2016 07:17:49 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Mon, 2 May 2016 07:17:49 -0400
From: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <>
To: Paul Kyzivat <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [bfcpbis] WGLC on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-01
Thread-Index: AQHRfUkcOZ+Rj9LoK0u9S4xD+bjXB59bPLuAgEsuoYA=
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 11:17:49 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_003_D34CE18C5A737rmohanrciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] WGLC on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 11:17:57 -0000

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your feedback. Please see inline. See the attached diffs as
well with proposed changes

-----Original Message-----
From: bfcpbis <> on behalf of Paul Kyzivat
Date: Wednesday, 16 March 2016 at 2:04 AM
To: "" <>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] WGLC on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-01

>Generally in good shape. A few comments:
>* Section 3.2 says:
>    This section defines a new SDP media-level attribute, 'ws-uri' which
>    can appear in any of the media lines.
>But this cannot appear in any media *line*. I think you mean it can
>appear in any media *section*.

Right. I will fix this text

This section defines a new SDP media-level attribute, 'ws-uri' which
    can appear in any of the media sections.

>This also applies to section 3.3.

Yes. Will fix here as well with the above proposed text

>* Section 4.1:
>The text here says that the *answerer* "MUST add an "a=ws-uri" or
>"a=wss-uri" attribute". But Section 4.2 admits the possibility that the
>offerer might be the server. Clearly it is the *server* side that needs
>to include "a=ws-uri" or "a=wss-uri", regardless of whether that side is
>offerer or answerer.

Agree. I will reword the text to:

Furthermore, the server side, which could be either
          the offerer or answerer, MUST add an "a=ws-uri" or "a=wss-uri"
attribute in the media section
          depending on whether it wishes to use  WebSocket or secure

Is this better ?

>I can see how this might be important, such as in cases where a UAC
>sends an offerless invite to the server and the server wants to use
>BFCP. And the "client" might not be *able* to act as a web server. The
>possibility of this case should also be discussed elsewhere in the

Agree. This is a good point. I will add a new sub-section 4.6 with below

Title: Offerless INVITE Scenarios

In some scenarios an endpoint (e.g., a browser) originating the call (UAC)
can send
an offerless INVITE to the server. The server will generate an offer
in response to the INVITE. In such cases the server MUST  send an offer
setup attribute as ³passive" so as to accept incoming connection and
MUST include "a=wss-uri" or "a=ws-uri" attribute in the media section
depending on whether the server wishes to use WebSocket or secureWebSocket.
The SDP offer sent by the server will look like the example in Section 4.3.

Is the above text ok ?

>Also, this section has some problems in use of terminology: The
>construct "add an ... attribute in the "m=" line of each media-line ..."
>makes no sense. Perhaps what you mean is: "add an ... attribute in the

Right will re-word the text at all places to indicate ... attribute in the

>* Section 4.5:
>It would be good to mention the use of "a=connection:existing" for
>websocket reuse.

Sure will mention a=connection:existing and its reference to RFC4145. See
the attached diff.


>	Thanks,
>	Paul
>On 3/13/16 12:55 PM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) wrote:
>> This is to announce a 2 week WGLC on the draft:
>> Please review and provide any comments by Monday, March 28, 2016.
>> Comments should be sent to the authors and the BFCPBIS WG list.
>> If you review the draft but do not have any comments, please send a note
>> to that effect as well.
>> Thanks,
>> Charles
>> _______________________________________________
>> bfcpbis mailing list
>bfcpbis mailing list