Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-10.txt
Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> Sun, 16 February 2014 09:16 UTC
Return-Path: <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 038CB1A03A7 for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 01:16:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.851
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 n-sVQcu7bj1D for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 01:16:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw2.ericsson.se (mailgw2.ericsson.se [193.180.251.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A7D61A013A for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 01:15:53 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-b7f038e000005d01-48-530081c019f0
Received: from ESESSHC012.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw2.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 32.69.23809.0C180035; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 10:15:45 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [131.160.126.48] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.347.0; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 10:15:44 +0100
Message-ID: <530081BE.6060706@ericsson.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 11:15:42 +0200
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Kristensen <2mkristensen@gmail.com>, "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>
References: <20131104104454.10115.16900.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52777C07.1080403@cisco.com> <52934193.5050304@ericsson.com> <CEFAC2B1.1A751%eckelcu@cisco.com> <CAFHv=r8WN4Nj6ZDHdSNeK194peHWdOZxpJhwePyvpaETgY8-hg@mail.gmail.com> <CF23D77E.1F021%eckelcu@cisco.com> <CAFHv=r8Ggyvq91xwZBNu6_kW-_sgs8+Ps+yToGeZtLXaj7rtHg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFHv=r8Ggyvq91xwZBNu6_kW-_sgs8+Ps+yToGeZtLXaj7rtHg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprHLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje7BRoZgg9dnOCy2HH/HYvFv3VEm i02zvrBZXDnyi82BxWPK742sHjtn3WX3WLLkJ1MAcxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxqSlU1kK5kVW fGj7zdrAeM+yi5GTQ0LARKJ9ehszhC0mceHeerYuRi4OIYFDjBInD/9kh3DWMEo8WH6aDaSK V0BbYv3yHWAdLAKqEv3T17OC2GwCFhJbbt1nAbFFBaIkfl5ZwA5RLyhxcuYTsLiIQIzEygMN YDazQKxE19RjTCC2sIC7xJ9rrWC2kMA5Jome7dFdjBwcnAKBEg/nBIOYEgLiEj2NQRCdBhJH Fs1hhbDlJZq3zmaG6NSWWP6shWUCo9AsJItnIWmZhaRlASPzKkb23MTMnPRyo02MwDA+uOW3 6g7GO+dEDjFKc7AoifN+eOscJCSQnliSmp2aWpBaFF9UmpNafIiRiYNTqoGx+J3d5Wfn5Yt+ arxdPu0KO7OI5yujWSv4eL64NyfOlkgoLNnu1ODqWWQruqm3oDr63rvAowJPiyO+bdEqm1Dq rnTvetzuNO4cffsz6Ss5TJ34D27OfHxqpV798tC9NnoPT62U8fqZkL1pNVfg3va2pZ0O1n9P hufmd04sd5NhS91xY8PHZVOUWIozEg21mIuKEwFVy55QMQIAAA==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bfcpbis/6YJHVWc4irElo0azecU8TTNh3MI
Cc: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>, "Tom Kristensen (tomkrist)" <tomkrist@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-10.txt
X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 09:16:10 -0000
Thanks! Gonzalo On 15/02/2014 1:24 AM, Tom Kristensen wrote: > Thanks, a bit hasty there. Fixed now, time to submit just-in-time. > > -- Tom > > > On 14 February 2014 23:28, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <eckelcu@cisco.com > <mailto:eckelcu@cisco.com>> wrote: > > Editorial nits inline in case you have not submitted yet. > > From: Tom Kristensen <2mkristensen@gmail.com > <mailto:2mkristensen@gmail.com>> > Date: Friday, February 14, 2014 1:38 PM > To: Charles Eckel <eckelcu@cisco.com <mailto:eckelcu@cisco.com>> > Cc: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com > <mailto:Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>>, Tom Kristensen > <tomkrist@cisco.com <mailto:tomkrist@cisco.com>>, "bfcpbis@ietf.org > <mailto:bfcpbis@ietf.org>" <bfcpbis@ietf.org <mailto:bfcpbis@ietf.org>> > Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-10.txt > > On 14 January 2014 20:03, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) > <eckelcu@cisco.com <mailto:eckelcu@cisco.com>> wrote: > > Hi Gonzalo, > > I was looking through the archives and did not see any > response to you > comments. Sorry for the delay. Please see inline. > > On 11/25/13 4:24 AM, "Gonzalo Camarillo" > <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com > <mailto:Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>> > wrote: > > >Hi Tom, > > > >thanks for keeping the draft alive. I have had q quick look at Section 6 > >and I have a few comments. > > > >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-10#section-6 > > > >The first paragraph of Section 6 states that an entity can choose TCP or > >UDP depending on the environment. Lately, the IESG is asking authors to > >be a bit more explicit about operational issues. So, I think we should > >add a few sentences explaining (briefly) who makes that decision. Is it > >the implementation that first tries TCP and, if it does not work, it > >falls back to UDP? Or do we expect administrators to configure this > >depending on the environment? We can describe several potential > >different deployment scenarios as well. > > In practice I have typically seen this configured as either > use TCP first > and fallback to UDP or vice versa. Depending on the product and > environment, the choose of defaulting to TCP vs. UDP is > made. The text in > Appendix B describes the challenges with using TCP in some > environments. > In such environments, UDP would be typically be configured > as the default. > > > I have added an informational note in Section 6, it reads as > follows: > > "Informational note: In practice products is configured to > try one > > > In practice, products are … > > transport initially and use the other one as a fallback. > Whether > TCP or UDP is chosen as underlying transport depends on > type of > product and the nature of the environment it is deployed, > here the > > > deployed. Here … > > considerations in Appendix B is an important input."' > > > … Appendix B are important to consider. > > > > >The second paragraph of Section 6.2 explains that the floor control > >server is considered present and available upon receiving a HelloAck > >message. We should also explain the circumstances in which the service > >is considered to have become unavailable (e.g., ICMP messages or > >timeouts) > > > The ICMP behaviour is defined in 6.2.2. Also, the behaviour when > timers fire are described in Section 8. > > > are described -> is described > > Cheers, > Charles > > > >The following is the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph of Section 6.2: > > > >> Concordantly, messages sent by the floor > >> control server that are not transaction-completing (e.g., FloorStatus > >> announcements as part of a FloorQuery subscription) are server- > >> initiated transactions that require acknowledgement messages from the > >> floor participant and chair entities to which they were sent. > > > > > >I do not think the term "transaction-completing" have been defined in > >the document. We should use a different term or, even better, explain > >explicitly what we mean. Also, I do not understand the point the > >sentence is intended to make. We should rephrase. > > How about: > Concordantly, messages sent by the floor control server that > initiate new > transactions (e.g., FloorStatus announcements as part of a > FloorQuery > subscription) require acknowledgement messages from the > floor participant > and chair entities to which they were sent > > > A better explanation and we avoid introducing a term > (transaction-completing), that is not defined or even needed. > > >The 4th paragraph of Section 6.2 talks about the "Unable to parse" > >message in the context of unreliable transports. Why don't we use that > >with TCP as well? Is it because of backward compatibility issues? If so, > >we should add a clarifying note. > > RFC 4582 stated the following, "If a BFCP entity (a client > or a floor > control server) receives data from TCP that cannot be > parsed, the entity > MUST close the TCP connection, and the connection SHOULD be > reestablished." > As there is no concept of a connection with UDP, we decided > to handle by > defining the new error code. > > > Right. And there's no need for an explanation of that rationale > in the draft I assume. > > >The following sentence appears in the first paragraph of page 41: > > > >> The subsequent changes in state for > >> the request are new transactions whose Transaction ID is determined > >> by the floor control server and whose receipt by the client > >> participant shall be acknowledged with a FloorRequestStatusAck > >> message. > > > >Instead of "shall be", we should write "MUST be" if this behavior has > >not been normatively defined anywhere else, or "is" if the behavior has > >been normatively defined somewhere else. > > The normative language for this situation is in section > 10.1.3, "When > communicating over an unreliable transport and upon receiving a > FloorRequestStatus message from a floor control server, the > participant MUST respond with a FloorRequestStatusAck > message within > the transaction failure window to complete the transaction." > I think replacing "shall be" with "is" is fine. > > > Yes, fixed to avoid "confusion" as normative statements are > provided for this elsewhere. > > > >The following paragraph appears later in Section 6.2: > > > >> If a client wishes to end its BFCP connection with a floor control > >> server, it is RECOMMENDED that the client send a Goodbye message to > >> dissociate itself from any allocated resources. If a floor control > >> server wishes to end its BFCP connection with a client (e.g., the > >> Focus of the conference informs the floor control server that the > >> client has been kicked out from the conference), it is RECOMMENDED > >> that the floor control server send a Goodbye message towards the > >> client. > > > >Why is it RECOMMENDED (i.e., SHOULD level) instead of REQUIRED (i.e., > >MUST level)? This comment is also somewhat related to my first comment > >above about BFCP entities considering other entities gone. Have we > >defined at which point can they forget their state information? This > >also relates to the last paragraph of Section 6.2.2 that talks about > >using STUN connectivity checks for this. We should probably talk about > >all this somewhere. > > I cannot think of good reason for not sending a Goodbye. It > may be that > the Goodbye fails, and I think there may be existing > implementations that > do not send the Goodbye, but from a protocol perspective > MUST/REQUIRED > strength seems appropriate. > > > I agree. I'm not quite sure, but it might be that the SHOULD > level stems from earlier versions where Goodbye also was an > option specified for TCP in a common section. Will change to > REQUIRED in that paragraph. > > >The following paragraph appears in Section 6.2.3: > > > >> When a BFCP implementation receives a BFCP message fragment, it MUST > >> buffer the fragment until it has received the entire BFCP message. > >> The state machine should handle the BFCP message only after all the > >> fragments for the message have been received. > > > >However, the paragraph after that seems to contradict the "MUST" above > >because it allows receivers to discard incomplete buffers. > > I think it needs to read as follows, "When a BFCP > implementation receives > a BFCP message fragment, it MUST buffer the fragment until > either it has > received the entire BFCP message, or until the Response > Retransmission > Timer expires." > There is also a "must" that should be changed to "MUST" in > the paragraph > describing the retransmission timer. > > > Yes, fixed accordingly. > > -- Tom > > -- > # Cisco | > http://www.cisco.com/telepresence/ > ## tomkrist@cisco.com <mailto:tomkrist@cisco.com> | > http://www.tandberg.com > ### | http://folk.uio.no/tomkri/ > > > > > -- > # Cisco | http://www.cisco.com/telepresence/ > ## tomkrist@cisco.com <mailto:tomkrist@cisco.com> | > http://www.tandberg.com > ### | http://folk.uio.no/tomkri/
- [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582b… internet-drafts
- Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4… Tom Kristensen
- Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4… Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4… Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
- Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4… Tom Kristensen
- Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4… Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
- Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4… Tom Kristensen
- Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4… Gonzalo Camarillo