Re: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> Mon, 16 January 2017 14:27 UTC

Return-Path: <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
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 D7698129503; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 06:27:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.72
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=fastmail.fm header.b=fnXDKiEP; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=GX6u5lMg
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oG3eZqVGNfCn; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 06:27:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A24931294C2; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 06:27:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1B9520A90; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:27:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web5 ([10.202.2.215]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:27:42 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.fm; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=M4UL5oPxb/pATZKZO+eQ9+b2EI 0=; b=fnXDKiEPg0MzV79NumxwoXSrsUqAWYlGGN1Y9i0iyoECewmMVVTxVHYz5r w17v+uzlk0393tqd2hLhjAnXJ3EuAE/6QpqiW/qo4i05xLLi0zZ1gOByB6OcAOim GmhizZhAac5A3cLZ2j2xPC+5KQc0MHVz/fa3c0bp/MBsLxEBE=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=M4 UL5oPxb/pATZKZO+eQ9+b2EI0=; b=GX6u5lMgPWtEFYjZS7mjzm3EblSu2q0636 gAytfOmDiy+4K0b8Q064B3sN6EdVN0Y29yt9E1mASqWVvj5czkB1Ky9m/Z2zMO7v 10Od0veNPukTpnn1iN3fOfPcOZQykKnOB1aGCWYi/OwI1HCWPdRbdK6+ybv+OJfK vyf7pH1Dc=
X-ME-Sender: <xms:Xth8WDhJYyelV3P5hx31r0XQaylPwXJyeIvKTvuldO4ZVXoy9uDE1g>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id B55576ABF3; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:27:42 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <1484576862.2842665.849203352.4F87F4EA@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
To: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-d492654e
References: <148434596441.9752.6696571117558965561.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CC88E0DB-1B9A-4565-BC9B-724ADFC94B75@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CC88E0DB-1B9A-4565-BC9B-724ADFC94B75@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 14:27:42 +0000
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bfcpbis/1RZBlX87wtQsUGHYAXhmfkxD83w>
Cc: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri@ietf.org, bfcpbis@ietf.org, "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>, bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 14:27:48 -0000

Hi Ram,

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017, at 06:09 AM, Ram Mohan R (rmohanr) wrote:
> Hi Alexey,
> 
> Thanks for your feedback. Please see inline <Ram>
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bfcpbis <bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Alexey Melnikov
> <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
> Date: Saturday, 14 January 2017 at 3:49 AM
> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> Cc: "draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri@ietf.org"
> <draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri@ietf.org>, "bfcpbis@ietf.org"
> <bfcpbis@ietf.org>, "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>,
> "bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org" <bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org>
> Subject: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on
> draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
>     Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
>     draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-08: Discuss
>     

>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     DISCUSS:
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     
>     This is generally a well written document, but I have a small list of
>     issues that I would like to discuss before recommending its approval:
>     
>     1) Are a=ws-uri and a=wss-uri mutually exclusive? (Section 4.3 is a
>     good
>     place to mention what to do if both are specified).
> 
> <Ram> Yes kind of. In a given media line (m= line) we will either have
> a=ws-uri or a=wss-uri. That said a response from a BFCP server using
> webSocket as a transport can
> have two media lines one with ws and other with wss. Something like:
> 
> Answer (server):
>    m=application 50000 TCP/WSS/BFCP *
>    a=setup:passive
>    a=connection:new
>    a=wss-uri:wss://bfcp-ws.example.com?token=3170449312
>    m=application 50000 TCP/WS/BFCP *
>    a=setup:passive
>    a=connection:new
>    a=ws-uri:ws://bfcp-ws.example.com?token=3170449312

[Alexey]: This is exactly my problem, you should specify how a recipient
should handle your example above. If you only have 1 attribute, the
problem goes away entirely.

>     Why not a single attribute, considering that both ws: and wss: URIs
>     are
>     possible?
> 
> <Ram> I would still prefer two attributes. We just followed the
> convention / approach that was used in [RFC6455].