Re: [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-01.txt

"Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku)" <> Mon, 15 February 2016 19:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A831A1ACD29 for <>; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 11:53:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.506
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xKvxltOfeiNr for <>; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 11:53:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7B5F1ACD0E for <>; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 11:53:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=20413; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1455565998; x=1456775598; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=0uD3CGRe33oNGvhSdbDadlpu6wEk5k9tUjDE2SJD54M=; b=iEfNBFrB86bVtkZxBfmZchtCzHyYbXbl0SbRai9m5pPy4q/x358i9uY1 kfjppjo1wsrNK9xFWDg9nfVXjU8Caxiq8oOutmu6bPmOpJqqXUVqQKd8s LIsSYu1H3jz93tu46axcycKFLSJ0eSx03tgng0iLQvMBZW8uYlO98LzZR E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.22,452,1449532800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="71610367"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 15 Feb 2016 19:53:17 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u1FJrHfv016538 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <>; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:53:17 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 13:53:16 -0600
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 13:53:16 -0600
From: "Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku)" <>
To: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHRXn09awGPcMtKSOuEMOqqlqy9z58kBpWAgAia4QuAAK7PgIAAQwLGgAAEpdU=
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:53:16 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>, <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_145556599672853190ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 22:37:41 -0800
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-01.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:53:22 -0000

?I support adopting this draft



From: Victor Pascual Avila <<>>
Date: February 15, 2016 at 4:36:23 AM EST
To: Christer Holmberg <<>>
Cc: "Ram Mohan R \(rmohanr\)" <<>>, "<>" <<>>, "Charles Eckel \(eckelcu\)" <<>>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-01.txt

I support adoption

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 6:10 AM, Christer Holmberg
<<>> wrote:

I think the draft is ready for adoption.



Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
Sent: ?09/?02/?2016 21:45
To: Ram Mohan R (rmohanr); Christer Holmberg;<>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-01.txt

Ram and other draft authors,

Thanks for updating and posting the revised draft.
I would like to poll the working group to see if people think this draft
is now ready to be adopted as a bfcpbis working group draft.


On 2/3/16, 4:20 AM, "bfcpbis on behalf of Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)"
<<> on behalf of<>> wrote:

Hi Christer,

Thanks for the feedback. All the below comments has been take care and a
new revision is published. Please look at the diffs here:

Link to draft  -


From:  bfcpbis <<>> on behalf of Christer Holmberg
Date:  Wednesday, 21 October 2015 at 12:23 AM
To:  "<>" <<>>
Subject:  [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-01.txt


I have reviewed draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-01.txt.

I think the draft needs some editorial work, and there is also technical
procedures (related to SDP Offer/Answer) missing.

Q3_1:    I suggest to remove ³Media² from the section titles. Instead the
text should indicate that the attributes are media-level attributes. Also,
in the text you should say something like ³This section defines a new SDP
media-level attribute,
<attribute-name>,S.² instead of the current text which says ³The new
attribute MUST be a media levelS².

Q3_2:    Sections 3.1 and 3.2 start with text saying:

³Applications that use SDP for negotiation and also use WebSocket as a
            transport protocol MAY indicate the connection URI for the

I don¹t think this text belongs in the attribute definition sections.
Instead I suggest to add a section ³3.1 General² where you describe the
need for the attributes.

Also, instead of saying ³Applications that use SDP for negotiationS² I
would say ³Applications that use the SDP Offer/Answer mechanism [RFC3264]
for negotiating mediaS².

Q3_3:    There is no port information in c= lines.

Q3_4:    There should be an OESDP Offer/Answer¹ section, describing the
usage of the attributes. The structure should be:

 X.  SDP Offer/Answer Procedures
   X.1.  General
   X.2.  Generating the Initial SDP Offer
   X.3.  Generating the SDP Answer
   X.4.  Offerer Processing of the SDP Answer
   X.5.  Modifying the Session

For example, in section X.5 you need to describe what it means to NOT
include the attributes in a subsequent offer. Does it mean that the
websocket connection shall be terminated? Etc.



bfcpbis mailing list<>

bfcpbis mailing list<>

Victor Pascual Ávila

bfcpbis mailing list<>