Re: [bfcpbis] Updates to draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis required to enable ICE

[Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Tom Kristensen <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On 2 March 2017 at 23:14, Roman Shpount <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> 1. In Section 3, we need to define an additional proto field value:
>> TCP/DTLS/BFCP, which is realized by running BFCP on top of DTLS as descibed
>> in this specification and running DTLS on top of TCP is realized using the
>> framing method defined in RFC4571, with DTLS packets being sent and
>> received instead of RTP/RTCP packets using the shim defined in RFC4571 so
>> that length field defined in RFC4571 precedes each DTLS message. All
>> sections of the document should be updated to include the TCP/DTLS/BFCP
>> transport.
>>
>
> This was questioned by Charles and I agree with the conclusion, backwards
> and forward compliancy is good although confusing/differing "syntax".
>

I am not sure if this means you want to change this somehow or that you are
going to update the draft with TCP/DTLS/BFCP. I agree that the syntax is
not ideal but it is in line with other documents such as dtls-sdp or
sctp-sdp.

The id-nits checker made me aware of RFC 8122 obsoleting RFC 4572, I reckon
> the additions necessary from the draft-ietf-mmusic-4572-update is covered
> in the new RFC 8122 or not?
>

draft-ietf-mmusic-4572-update is now published as RFC 8122, so references
to RFC 4572 should be updated to RFC 8122

The rest sounds good.

When you publish the updated version I will review and provide comments. I
will also sync comments which were made against the ICE Considerations
section of sctp-sdp with your draft.

Regards,
_____________
Roman Shpount