Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-05.txt

["Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Suhas - 

I think that is a reasonable approach. We'll add the categorization and associated text.

Thanks!

Gonzalo

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 15, 2016, at 2:10 PM, Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Paul for bringing out the thinking of RTP over WebSockets. 
> I did had similar thoughts of a future possibility but wasn't sure if anyone would want to do though (given rtp over tcp itself is not a great user experience)
> 
> I am inclined towards NOT_RECOMMENDED as the mux category but adding note to explain something similar to Paul's explanation below shouldn't hurt either.
> This would ensure that the implementors of this draft are aware that the mux-category has been assigned due to lack of any use-cases in the foreseeable future
> 
> Please let me know your thoughts 
> 
> Thanks
> Suhas
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 11:35 AM
> To: Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei); Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku)
> Cc: Christer Holmberg; Charles Eckel (eckelcu); Ram Mohan R (rmohanr); [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-05.txt
> 
>> On 2/10/16 1:33 PM, Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei) wrote:
>> Paul/Suhas -
>> 
>> Could you share your thoughts on this so we know what document updates are required.
> 
> I guess the question is whether there is any case where a websocket
> makes sense in a bundle. My first thought was No. But on further
> thinking, ISTM that *in principle* it would be possible to run RTP over
> websocket. And then, since it makes sense to bundle RTP, it could also
> be possible to bundle websocket.
> 
> Of course to do this would first require a binding of RTP to websockets.
> Since you can already run RTP over TCP, it should be possible. (And
> easier, since the websocket provides the framing.)
> 
> Whether anybody would find reason to do so is another question. I doubt
> we will see it any time soon, and probably never.
> 
> *For now* I don't think there are any cases where it makes sense to use
> websocket in a bundle.
> 
> I'll leave it to Suhas to figure out what classification applies in this
> case.
> 
>        Thanks,
>        Paul
> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Gonzalo
>> 
>> 
>>> On Feb 9, 2016, at 3:08 PM, Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> In general I am fine with the latest versions of the draft.
>>> 
>>> However, in draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri I think the mux category needs to be specified for the new SDP attributes.
>>> 
>>> Now, as I assume the attributes will never be used in a mux scenario, the question is which category shall be used. Suhas/Paul? NOT RECOMMENDED?
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Christer
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: 09 February 2016 21:50
>>> To: Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: Ram Mohan R (rmohanr) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-05.txt
>>> 
>>> Thanks, Charles.
>>> 
>>> We’re awaiting sign-off from Christer that his points on both drafts are properly addressed.  Once that happens there are no more open issues.
>>> 
>>> Two comments:
>>> 
>>> - We think draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket is ready for WGLC
>>> - We’d appreciate some direction from the chairs on how to move forward the new draft (draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri) that was spawned from this effort, which we also believe is ready for WGLC.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Gonzalo
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 9, 2016, at 2:43 PM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Ram and other draft authors,
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for updating and posting the revised draft ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-06 ).
>>>> I would like to poll the working group to see if people think this draft is now ready for WGLC.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Charles
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2/3/16, 12:20 AM, "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Charles / WG,
>>>>> 
>>>>> We have published a new revision of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket
>>>>> and also draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri which addresses the comments
>>>>> given by Christer
>>>>> (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bfcpbis/S_MlYOJz-kkE3yLu5IANL9
>>>>> 3ndmM)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Ram
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: bfcpbis <[e-mail]> on behalf of Cisco Employee
>>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>>> Date: Saturday, 14 November 2015 at 10:12 AM
>>>>> To: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <[e-mail]>, "Gonzalo Salgueiro
>>>>> (gsalguei)" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
>>>>> <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
>>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>>> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action:
>>>>> draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-05.txt
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Charles,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I will get back with responses and updated diffs to
>>>>>> draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri soon. I agree that we should wait till
>>>>>> this is resolved before looking to start WGLC.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Ram
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <[e-mail]>
>>>>>> Date: Saturday, 14 November 2015 12:14 am
>>>>>> To: "Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <[e-mail]>,
>>>>>> "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
>>>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>>>> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,
>>>>>> Cisco Employee <[e-mail]>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action:
>>>>>> draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-05.txt
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Christer reviewed draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri and recommended
>>>>>>> substantial changes to it. The authors have not yet responded to
>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Regarding draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket, I¹d like to see this
>>>>>>> response and potential impacts on either/both drafts before
>>>>>>> starting WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Charles
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 10/13/15, 10:02 AM, "bfcpbis on behalf of Gonzalo Salgueiro
>>>>>>> (gsalguei)"
>>>>>>> <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> New version of the draft has been published and addresses all open
>>>>>>>> comments raised by Christer.  At this point authors feel this is
>>>>>>>> ready for WGLC.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> There is a pending request for Christer to review the
>>>>>>>> complementary draft he requested
>>>>>>>> (draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-00) be split off from the original
>>>>>>>> document. Once this is done, we ask the chairs for guidance on how
>>>>>>>> best to progress this spin-off draft.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Gonzalo
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 13, 2015, at 12:43 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>>>>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
>>>>>>>>> Internet-Drafts directories.
>>>>>>>>> This draft is a work item of the Binary Floor Control Protocol
>>>>>>>>> Bis Working Group of the IETF.
>>>>>>>>>        Title           : The WebSocket Protocol as a Transport for the
>>>>>>>>> Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP)
>>>>>>>>>        Authors         : Victor Pascual
>>>>>>>>>                          Antón Román
>>>>>>>>>                          Stéphane Cazeaux
>>>>>>>>>                          Gonzalo Salgueiro
>>>>>>>>>                          Ram Mohan Ravindranath
>>>>>>>>>                          Sergio Garcia Murillo
>>>>>>>>> Filename        : draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-05.txt
>>>>>>>>> Pages           : 14
>>>>>>>>> Date            : 2015-10-13
>>>>>>>>> Abstract:
>>>>>>>>>   The WebSocket protocol enables two-way realtime communication
>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>   clients and servers.  This document specifies a new WebSocket sub-
>>>>>>>>>   protocol as a reliable transport mechanism between Binary Floor
>>>>>>>>>   Control Protocol (BFCP) entities to enable usage of BFCP in new
>>>>>>>>>   scenarios.
>>>>>>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>>>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocke
>>>>>>>>> t/ There's also a htmlized version available at:
>>>>>>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-05
>>>>>>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websock
>>>>>>>>> et-05 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the
>>>>>>>>> time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are
>>>>>>>>> available at tools.ietf.org.
>>>>>>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>>>>>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> bfcpbis mailing list
>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> bfcpbis mailing list
>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> bfcpbis mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
>