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

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ram,

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017, at 02:49 PM, Ram Mohan R (rmohanr) wrote:
> Hi Alexey,
> 
> Please see inline <Ram>
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>
> Date: Monday, 16 January 2017 at 7:57 PM
> To: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <[e-mail]>, The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "[e-mail]"
> <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
> <[e-mail]>, "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <[e-mail]>,
> "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on
> draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
>     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 <[e-mail]> on behalf of Alexey Melnikov
>     > <[e-mail]>
>     > Date: Saturday, 14 January 2017 at 3:49 AM
>     > To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
>     > Cc: "[e-mail]"
>     > <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
>     > <[e-mail]>, "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <[e-mail]>,
>     > "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>     > 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.
> 
> <Ram> in the above case, they are still two different m= lines. The
> receiver (after offer/answer is done) of this SDP connects to the URI
> mentioned in that m= line. 
> Note I just re-used the same URL/port in the example above. If there are
> multiple m=application media lines (they will be for different
> applications) being negotiated in SDP, one application may use secure WS
> and other application may use non-secure WS. The client after it receives
> the answer SDP will just setup the connection to the URI specified in the
> attribute.  

Sorry, I was thinking about different example:

m=application 50000 TCP/WSS/BFCP *
   a=setup:passive
   a=connection:new
   a=wss-uri:wss://bfcp-ws.example.com?token=3170449312
   a=ws-uri:ws://bfcp-ws.example.com?token=3170449312

You have 2 conflicting URIs for the same m= line. Is this possible?

> I don’t see any problem in here.  
> 
> Regards,
> Ram
> 
>     >     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].  
>     
>