Re: [bfcpbis] WGLC on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-06

Generally in good shape. A couple of comments:

* Section 4.1:

I see you are using "bfcp" for the subprotocol name.
IMO it would be better to use "BFCP" for consistency with what is used 
in the m-line proto field.

(I've been querying for information about case-sensitivity of the 
sub-protocol field. I have not gotten a definitive answer, but the 
prudent path is to assume it is case-sensitive.)

* Section 7.1 says:

    An endpoint (i.e., both the offerer and the answerer) MUST create an
    SDP media description ("m=" line) for each BFCP-over-WebSocket media
    stream and MUST assign a TCP/WSS/BFCP value to the "proto" field of
    the "m=" line.  Furthermore, the SDP answerer (Server) MUST add an
    "a=ws-uri" or "a=wss-uri" attribute in the "m=" line of each BFCP-
    over-WebSocket media stream depending on whether it is WS or WSS.

This says to use TCP/WSS/BFCP even when using "a=ws-uri". I presume that 
is wrong.

Also, see my comment on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-01 
(http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bfcpbis/_y_FxCOw5pI_YeRQXGvMLpKGZY0) 
regarding the case where the offer is generated by the server. They 
apply here equally. The text needs some reworking to address that case.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 3/13/16 12:55 PM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) wrote:
> This is to announce a 2 week WGLC on the draft:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-06
>
> Please review and provide any comments by Monday, March 28, 2016.
> Comments should be sent to the authors and the BFCPBIS WG list.
> If you review the draft but do not have any comments, please send a note
> to that effect as well.
>
> Thanks,
> Charles
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bfcpbis mailing list
> bfcpbis@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
>