Re: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alexey,

Please see inline <Ram>

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, 16 January 2017 at 7:57 PM
To: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <[e-mail]>, The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

    Hi Ram,
    
    On Mon, Jan 16, 2017, at 06:09 AM, Ram Mohan R (rmohanr) wrote:
    > Hi Alexey,
    > 
    > Thanks for your feedback. Please see inline <Ram>
    > 
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: bfcpbis <[e-mail]> on behalf of Alexey Melnikov
    > <[e-mail]>
    > Date: Saturday, 14 January 2017 at 3:49 AM
    > To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
    > Cc: "[e-mail]"
    > <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
    > <[e-mail]>, "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <[e-mail]>,
    > "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
    > Subject: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on
    > draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
    > 
    >     Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
    >     draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-08: Discuss
    >     
    
    >     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    >     DISCUSS:
    >     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    >     
    >     This is generally a well written document, but I have a small list of
    >     issues that I would like to discuss before recommending its approval:
    >     
    >     1) Are a=ws-uri and a=wss-uri mutually exclusive? (Section 4.3 is a
    >     good
    >     place to mention what to do if both are specified).
    > 
    > <Ram> Yes kind of. In a given media line (m= line) we will either have
    > a=ws-uri or a=wss-uri. That said a response from a BFCP server using
    > webSocket as a transport can
    > have two media lines one with ws and other with wss. Something like:
    > 
    > Answer (server):
    >    m=application 50000 TCP/WSS/BFCP *
    >    a=setup:passive
    >    a=connection:new
    >    a=wss-uri:wss://bfcp-ws.example.com?token=3170449312
    >    m=application 50000 TCP/WS/BFCP *
    >    a=setup:passive
    >    a=connection:new
    >    a=ws-uri:ws://bfcp-ws.example.com?token=3170449312
    
    [Alexey]: This is exactly my problem, you should specify how a recipient
    should handle your example above. If you only have 1 attribute, the
    problem goes away entirely.

<Ram> in the above case, they are still two different m= lines. The receiver (after offer/answer is done) of this SDP connects to the URI mentioned in that m= line. 
Note I just re-used the same URL/port in the example above. If there are multiple m=application media lines (they will be for different applications) being negotiated in SDP, one application may use secure WS and other application may use non-secure WS. The client after it receives the answer SDP will just setup the connection to the URI specified in the attribute.  

I don’t see any problem in here.  

Regards,
Ram

    >     Why not a single attribute, considering that both ws: and wss: URIs
    >     are
    >     possible?
    > 
    > <Ram> I would still prefer two attributes. We just followed the
    > convention / approach that was used in [RFC6455].