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

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Mon, 02 May 2016 13:26 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 EDA6312D162 for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 May 2016 06:26:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.935
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.935 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=comcast.net
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 Ql7mN1Mdp3A5 for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 May 2016 06:26:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-po-06v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-po-06v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe16:19:96:114:154:165]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61ADE12D0A8 for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 May 2016 06:26:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-po-03v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.227]) by comcast with SMTP id xDr0akNOR9sFTxDrOaHovp; Mon, 02 May 2016 13:26:02 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1462195562; bh=xWnIzVSARpEDV30qcb2UxEgZp37iMaMQF8HKOboDGBw=; h=Received:Received:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=v71WB3e/0tr1hCiIj7BZsc7Gxt8IkYtQ5QgxgpVMwcM00W+FRT+9qo8ZWyVyF7wHa tmclYaVDfF1Qs/gKHD9qS9QYq0xFjFXUxUbTYTu+r2VAhmd83FLlGKGFUl0O1CUvQk dpVOpN3zW7hovtZbUetP3pTdwNUzCh2mGTZ6r28Ubynb8oM0fSBE0j8ODeEhdjJb1k Mg2Toumm4EXPU7U7jNLBprHtugxgJuKPtZA+6A3+xOCtzcBTSD11jYNqEEFWWl/5FE WTnXFg+Yhx04BVndbe4Bv32MGGUACQAhqZ/XJS2SxNsOqP+OLHHsUiVqGKj4PsHZBk txIcyAIdi3JJg==
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([107.1.110.101]) by resomta-po-03v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id pRS21s0082BJGiK01RS2zd; Mon, 02 May 2016 13:26:02 +0000
To: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com>, "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>
References: <D30A9F22.68CF0%eckelcu@cisco.com> <56E871EB.9040802@alum.mit.edu> <D34CE18C.5A737%rmohanr@cisco.com>
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <3b1695a1-589f-8b48-fad1-7c084e270b41@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 09:26:02 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <D34CE18C.5A737%rmohanr@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bfcpbis/4j6gQ4L2OpsSnk_97XMtH2PzMrU>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] WGLC on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-01
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, 02 May 2016 13:26:05 -0000

Ram,

This all sounds good to me.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 5/2/16 7:17 AM, Ram Mohan R (rmohanr) wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Thanks for your feedback. Please see inline. See the attached diffs as
> well with proposed changes
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bfcpbis <bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Paul Kyzivat
> <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
> Date: Wednesday, 16 March 2016 at 2:04 AM
> To: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>
> 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
>
>
> NEW:
> 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:
>
> NEW:
> 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
> WebSocket
>
>
>
> 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
>> document.
>
> Agree. This is a good point. I will add a new sub-section 4.6 with below
> text
>
> 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
> with
> 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
>> media-section".
>
> Right will re-word the text at all places to indicate ... attribute in the
> media-section...
>
>
>>
>> * 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,
> Regards,
> Ram
>
>>
>> 	Thanks,
>> 	Paul
>>
>>
>> On 3/13/16 12:55 PM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) wrote:
>>> This is to announce a 2 week WGLC on the draft:
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-01
>>>
>>> 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@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bfcpbis mailing list
>> bfcpbis@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
>