Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-08.txt

"Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com> Tue, 14 June 2016 16:35 UTC

Return-Path: <rmohanr@cisco.com>
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 8F28012D818 for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 09:35:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.947
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 MhQxcYADX79t for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 09:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92FA512D811 for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 09:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10076; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1465922132; x=1467131732; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=W8Pg993EBKKNuaGuQTYStBF3TZFXMTRX68+n17YYJtc=; b=XQuqcd2tU/LR/CP0MmpJscM+dR6monBDVvRAuyKxz+ddbzJ9hjyCBVD1 Tj3QNFR7y4niNY8AkBaXvyVtNJdPCI9CqIr9gOBDFklII03hxs6w9ujol Whq5xoy503sx79dMmnBi9kQKjvygSz25T5n3GS6ruVkozn2dpduGcvu9y Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0D7AQANMmBX/5RdJa1dgz5WfQavMowCg?= =?us-ascii?q?XkXC4UrSgIcgRU4FAEBAQEBAQFlJ4RLAQEBBAEBASAROhcEAgEIEQMBAgECAiY?= =?us-ascii?q?CAgIfBgsVCAgCBAESiBYDFw6rU40LDYNzAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEdg?= =?us-ascii?q?QGJc4JDgX2DAYJaBZgvNAGGBIYqgXqBaU6EBIhnhk2BOodsAR42g25uAYkIfwE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,471,1459814400"; d="scan'208";a="285614092"
Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Jun 2016 16:35:18 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-017.cisco.com (xch-rtp-017.cisco.com [64.101.220.157]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u5EGZIKk008666 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 16:35:18 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-017.cisco.com (64.101.220.157) by XCH-RTP-017.cisco.com (64.101.220.157) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 12:35:17 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-017.cisco.com ([64.101.220.157]) by XCH-RTP-017.cisco.com ([64.101.220.157]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 12:35:17 -0400
From: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com>
To: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>, "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-08.txt
Thread-Index: AQHRu9IUz5Zg6VbDM0uIw59EcQDej5/U60yAgAmn1ACAAAiYgIAAAQOAgAELqoCABMdVAIAFATOAgABsGAA=
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 16:35:17 +0000
Message-ID: <D3862E7D.5F74A%rmohanr@cisco.com>
References: <20160601065147.20308.50318.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3b65d096-977d-9da6-aa9f-3883ec63dc4e@alum.mit.edu> <F249579F-6200-4902-B965-3E8ADFE1BF43@cisco.com> <75DDBE07-12A5-407E-95D3-E61F0375D672@cisco.com> <F6128D14-A336-40F0-ADC6-11F558F600DE@gmail.com> <D37DA069.5EC56%rmohanr@cisco.com> <D381A264.5F480%rmohanr@cisco.com> <60B3D2FF-ABD2-4028-981A-DF62DE04FF32@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <60B3D2FF-ABD2-4028-981A-DF62DE04FF32@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.4.160422
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.65.90.133]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <BBFB0F8878EB3F448E6E39AF664E0B63@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bfcpbis/4wi2ylmOpBM08RYvWLUa1SBKbvM>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-08.txt
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: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 16:35:34 -0000

Thanks Charles for the feedback. I will address them.

Regards,
Ram

-----Original Message-----
From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>
Date: Tuesday, 14 June 2016 at 9:08 PM
To: Cisco Employee <rmohanr@cisco.com>om>, "bfcpbis@ietf.org"
<bfcpbis@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-08.txt

>Hi Ram,
>
>The changes look good. However, upon reviewing sections 6.1 and 6.2, I
>think they need some work. Most importantly, I believe the reference in
>section 6.2 to section 7 of rfc4582bis is incorrect. Section 7 deals with
>lower layer transport security. It would be better to reference section 3
>and/or section 8.1  of rfc4583bis. I also suggest combining sections
>sections 6.1 and 6.2 and renaming, e.g.
>
>OLD: 6.1. Extensions to RFC4583bis
>OLD: 6.2. Extensions to RFC4582bis
>
>
>NEW: 6.1. Transport Negotiation
> 
>Thoughts?
>
>Charles
>
>
>
>On 6/10/16, 10:42 PM, "bfcpbis on behalf of Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)"
><bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of rmohanr@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>>I just published a new revision addressing the comments below. Here is
>>the
>>diff.
>>
>>https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-09
>>
>>
>>Regards,
>>Ram
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: bfcpbis <bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Cisco Employee
>><rmohanr@cisco.com>
>>Date: Wednesday, 8 June 2016 at 10:14 AM
>>To: Victor Pascual <victor.pascual.avila@gmail.com>om>, "Gonzalo Salgueiro
>>(gsalguei)" <gsalguei@cisco.com>
>>Cc: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>rg>, "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)"
>><eckelcu@cisco.com>isco.com>, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
>>Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action:
>>draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-08.txt
>>
>>>Works for me as well.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Ram
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: bfcpbis <bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Victor Pascual
>>><victor.pascual.avila@gmail.com>
>>>Date: Tuesday, 7 June 2016 at 11:46 PM
>>>To: "Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <gsalguei@cisco.com>
>>>Cc: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>rg>, "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)"
>>><eckelcu@cisco.com>u@cisco.com>, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
>>>Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action:
>>>draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-08.txt
>>>
>>>>Fine with me
>>>>
>>>>> On 07 Jun 2016, at 20:12, Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)
>>>>><gsalguei@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I¹m OK with that approach.  I also agree that they are entirely too
>>>>>different in purpose to try and merge them.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -G
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jun 7, 2016, at 1:41 PM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
>>>>>><eckelcu@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> (As an individual)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Good question. I agree it seems a bit strange. But my thinking is
>>>>>>that
>>>>>>our use of ³Updates² may not be appropriate. I view RFC 4582 and RFC
>>>>>>4583 as defining BFCP over TCP and over UDP. This draft takes BFCP
>>>>>>over
>>>>>>TCP and defines how to encapsulate it within a WebSocket and how to
>>>>>>negotiate that encapsulation. So I think these drafts are related but
>>>>>>separate, and that we should remove the ³Updates² label and simply
>>>>>>have
>>>>>>RFC4582bis and RFC4583bis as normative references (as they already
>>>>>>are). Thoughts?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Charles
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 6/1/16, 7:14 AM, "bfcpbis on behalf of Paul Kyzivat"
>>>>>>><bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I have a question.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> This document updates RFC4582bis and RFC4583bis.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Those documents are *drafts*. Does it really make sense to handle
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>> changes this way? I guess that means that this document will need
>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>be 
>>>>>>> held until they become RFCs, and then it can update them.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Wouldn't it make more sense to simply make the changes in those
>>>>>>>drafts 
>>>>>>> now, before they become RFCs?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    Thanks,
>>>>>>>    Paul
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 6/1/16 2:51 AM, internet-drafts@ietf.org 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
>>>>>>>>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-08.txt
>>>>>>>>    Pages           : 13
>>>>>>>>    Date            : 2016-05-31
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 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.  This document updates RFC4582bis and RFC4583bis.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket/
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>>>>>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-08
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket
>>>>>>>>-0
>>>>>>>>8
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> bfcpbis@ietf.org
>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>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