Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-03.txt

[Tom Kristensen <[e-mail]>]

Charles,

The additional text is good. However, I don't think it's necessary to 
include.

-- Tom

On 10/23/2012 11:43 PM, Jonathan Lennox wrote:
> Hi Charles,
>
> I agree that description makes sense.  I thought I had recalled the IMTC document recommending that the floorid include a dangling mstrm, rather than no mstrm, but now I can't find it.
>
> Making the text more explicit couldn't hurt, but it's also not particularly necessary I think.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Eckel (eckelcu) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 2:17 PM
> To: Tom Kristensen (tomkrist); Jonathan Lennox
> Cc: [e-mail]; Gonzalo Camarillo ([e-mail]) Robert Sparks ([e-mail])
> Subject: RE: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-03.txt
>
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> I revisited this section of the draft, and on closer inspection, I noticed it currently reads as follows:
>
>     The 'floorid' attribute is used in the SDP media description for BFCP
>     media.  It defines a floor identifier and, possibly, associates it
>     with one or more media streams.
>
> I interpret this to already account for the possibility of a floorid that is not yet associated with an existing media stream. Do you think we need to be more explicit? How about we extend the next paragraph as follows:
>
>     Endpoints that use the offer/answer model to establish BFCP
>     connections MUST support the 'floorid' and the 'label' attributes.  A
>     floor control server acting as an offerer or as an answerer SHOULD
>     include these attributes in its session descriptions.
>
> Is extended as follows:
>
>     Endpoints that use the offer/answer model to establish BFCP
>     connections MUST support the 'floorid' and the 'label' attributes.  A
>     floor control server acting as an offerer or as an answerer SHOULD
>     include these attributes in its session descriptions. In some scenarios,
>     a "floorid" may be specified in an initial offer/answer exchange with
>     any associated media streams being identified in subsequent
>     exchanges.
>
> Cheers,
> Charles
>
>
>    
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>> Behalf Of Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
>> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 1:33 PM
>> To: Tom Kristensen (tomkrist); Jonathan Lennox
>> Cc: [e-mail]; Gonzalo Camarillo
>> ([e-mail]) Robert Sparks ([e-mail])
>> Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action:
>> draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-03.txt
>>
>> I see no harm in adding such a note, and it may help. As for
>> referencing the IMTC best practice document, it is available through a liaison statement at:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2012-05-31-imtc
>> - the-ietf-imtc-work-on-sip-feature-parity-with-h323-attachment-3.pdf
>>
>> However, I expect this IMTC document to be updated and made available
>> externally once the BFCPBIS work completes, so I am not sure
>> referencing it this way is appropriate.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Charles
>>
>>      
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Tom Kristensen (tomkrist)
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 1:44 AM
>>> To: Jonathan Lennox
>>> Cc: Charles Eckel (eckelcu); [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action:
>>> draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-03.txt
>>>
>>> I'm not sure we should say much about this in rfc4583bis. This is
>>> similar to existing "best effort encryption" schemes, where
>>> different vendors historically have had their own interpretation of
>>> a best current practice.
>>>
>>> Anyway, it is not a big deal adding an informational note, if people
>>> thinks that's a good idea, explaining that one may very well meet an
>>> mstrm referring to a still undefined label.
>>>
>>> (Do we then reference the IMTC document as an informational
>>> reference
>>>        
>> or
>>      
>>> simply state the fact that this behaviour exists in the wild?!)
>>>
>>> -- Tom
>>>
>>> On 10/16/2012 12:15 AM, Jonathan Lennox wrote:
>>>        
>>>> I greatly apologize; I should have sent this earlier.
>>>>
>>>> There are some BFCP usages in the IMTC Role-Based Video Streams
>>>>          
>>> work<https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1170/>   which have some
>>>        
>> unusual
>>      
>>> features -- in particular, it recommends sending an offer with a
>>> BFCP
>>>        
>> stream
>>      
>>> referencing an mstrm that does not yet exist.  (The intention is
>>> that if the SDP answer indicates that the peer understands both BFCP
>>> and the SDP content attribute, a re-INVITE can be sent adding an
>>> additional BFCP- controlled video stream with "content:slides".)
>>>        
>>>> This document should probably call out that usage, at least to
>>>> indicate
>>>>          
>> that
>>      
>>> it's valid for an mstrm to reference an undefined label.
>>>        
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 15, 2012, at 12:29 PM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>          
>>>>> (As co-chair)
>>>>>
>>>>> For everyone, if there are any outstanding issues of questions
>>>>> you have
>>>>>            
>>> related to this draft, please share them now.
>>>        
>>>>> We plan to proceed with the proto writeup soon.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Charles
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>            
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>>>              
>> On
>>      
>>>>>> Behalf Of Tom Kristensen (tomkrist)
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 5:02 AM
>>>>>> To: [e-mail]
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action:
>>>>>> draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-03.txt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 01:54 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           : Session Description Protocol (SDP) Format for Binary
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>                
>>>>>> Floor Control Protocol (BFCP) Streams
>>>>>>
>>>>>>              
>>>>>>> 	Author(s)       : Gonzalo Camarillo
>>>>>>>                             Tom Kristensen
>>>>>>> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-03.txt
>>>>>>> 	Pages           : 15
>>>>>>> 	Date            : 2012-10-12
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Abstract:
>>>>>>>      This document specifies how to describe Binary Floor
>>>>>>> Control
>>>>>>>                
>>> Protocol
>>>        
>>>>>>>      (BFCP) streams in Session Description Protocol (SDP) descriptions.
>>>>>>>      User agents using the offer/answer model to establish BFCP
>>>>>>>                
>> streams
>>      
>>>>>>>      use this format in their offers and answers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      This document obsoletes RFC 4583.  Changes from RFC 4583 are
>>>>>>>      summarized in section 12.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>                
>>>>>> No comments or input received after WGLC. Anyway, this is a
>>>>>> short, simple draft where the changes follows more or less
>>>>>> automatically
>>>>>>              
>> from
>>      
>>>>>> the extensions in rfc4582bis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After checking out with the original author of RFC 4583, the ipr
>>>>>> parameter is changed s/pre5378Trust200902/trust200902/.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cf.<URL:
>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org//rfcdiff?url1=http://tools.ietf.org/id/dra
>>>>>> ft-ietf-
>>>>>>              
>>> bfcpbis-
>>>        
>>>>>> rfc4583bis-02.txt&url2=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bfcpb
>>>>>> is-
>>>>>>              
>>> rfc4583bis-
>>>        
>>>>>> 03.txt
>>>>>>
>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>                
>>>>>> -- Tom
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> bfcpbis mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
>>>>>>
>>>>>>              
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> bfcpbis mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>            
>>>> --
>>>> Jonathan Lennox
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>          
>> _______________________________________________
>> bfcpbis mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
>>