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

"Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com> Tue, 14 June 2016 15:38 UTC

Return-Path: <eckelcu@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 C869012D7D5 for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 08:38:18 -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 Jwa3eUhHbd0b for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 08:38:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0729B12D6AA for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 08:38:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9214; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1465918693; x=1467128293; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=XXZyEqgk143kjSEf4VCbhekKBlkDpoc+CJ/GWC1t7o8=; b=OF8kzoDYtTVnLv3dmr7Qdca7vkobE4NR+md99XWp8r2ajIcC4LXi0Wl7 pK/PkddvgBlBH2WvhH1Aag58vlSaM4/ICpEfBWLe+7cbLznvZ0XrS++je OVDhNlZA6EAq+hNQHPBbjId0pJfOFruwao7EGXK+1Y1IcFvBndBlsE/PT E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0D7AQC/I2BX/4wNJK1dgz5WfQavMYwCg?= =?us-ascii?q?XkXC4UrSgIcgRI4FAEBAQEBAQFlJ4RLAQEBBAEBASAROhcEAgEIEQMBAgECAiY?= =?us-ascii?q?CAgIfBgsVCAgCBAESiBYDFw6rFY0QDYNzAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBH?= =?us-ascii?q?IEBhx0Igk6CQ4R+K4IvBZgvNAGGBIYqgXqBaU6EBIhnhk2BOodsAR42g25uAYk?= =?us-ascii?q?IfwEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,471,1459814400"; d="scan'208";a="115124722"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 14 Jun 2016 15:38:12 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-018.cisco.com (xch-aln-018.cisco.com [173.36.7.28]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u5EFcC14014413 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:38:12 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-018.cisco.com (173.36.7.28) by XCH-ALN-018.cisco.com (173.36.7.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 10:38:12 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-018.cisco.com ([173.36.7.28]) by XCH-ALN-018.cisco.com ([173.36.7.28]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 10:38:12 -0500
From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>
To: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com>, "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-08.txt
Thread-Index: AQHRu9IUgtCM8tsKUkqkEXZGBK8P25/U/BCAgAkyewCAAH3wgIAAAQSAgACvfACABMdXAIAE6AaA
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:38:11 +0000
Message-ID: <60B3D2FF-ABD2-4028-981A-DF62DE04FF32@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>
In-Reply-To: <D381A264.5F480%rmohanr@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.15.1.160411
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.20.182.36]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <4C28C7BC7EED1641A8D204AACF6E2E64@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bfcpbis/DfKC-n01mcQ8OlgEm1myy74TQ1I>
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 15:38:19 -0000

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>o.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>isco.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