Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-01.txt

[Tom Kristensen <[e-mail]>]

On 07/03/2012, Alan Ford <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Re-reading rfc4582bis, I noticed some confusing terminology. The 'I' Bit is
> described as the 'Transaction Initiator' flag. But, by its description, it
> is set by the Transaction _Responder_, not the initiator. This seems a
> recipe for confusion. I think it would it be better to rename it the 'R'
> bit, as the 'Transaction Responder' flag.

I agree, this is a better name for the flag clarifying the actual
usage of the flag bit.

> As a secondary point, we are starting to define multiple BFCP version values
> with this spec. It seems to me that it was an oversight in the original spec
> not to include an error message of "Unsupported Version".  Is there any
> reason why we should not take this opportunity to define this value?

Also a good idea, since we are now specifying a new version value and
the chances for "version clash" occurs.

No objections to these two proposal was sent to the list. Given no
negative reactions, I'll add them to the upcoming version of the
rfc4582bis draft tomorrow - before the cut-off time for IETF-83.

[...]

-- Tom

-- 
# Cisco                         |  http://www.cisco.com/telepresence/
## [e-mail]  |  http://www.tandberg.com
###                               |  http://folk.uio.no/tomkri/