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
<christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think the draft is ready for adoption.
>
> Regards.
>
> Christer
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ________________________________
> From: Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
> Sent: ‎09/‎02/‎2016 21:45
> To: Ram Mohan R (rmohanr); Christer Holmberg; bfcpbis@ietf.org
> 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.
>
> Thanks,
> Charles
>
>
>
> On 2/3/16, 4:20 AM, "bfcpbis on behalf of Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)"
> <bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of rmohanr@cisco.com> 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:
>>https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-02
>>
>>Link to draft  -
>>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-02
>>
>>Regards,
>>Ram
>>
>>From:  bfcpbis <bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Christer Holmberg
>><christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
>>Date:  Wednesday, 21 October 2015 at 12:23 AM
>>To:  "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>
>>Subject:  [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-01.txt
>>
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>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>,Š.² instead of the current text which says ³The new
>>attribute MUST be a media levelŠ².
>>
>>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
>>WebSocketŠ²
>>
>>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 negotiationŠ² I
>>would say ³Applications that use the SDP Offer/Answer mechanism [RFC3264]
>>for negotiating mediaŠ².
>>
>>Q3_3:    There is no port information in c= lines.
>>
>>Q3_4:    There should be an ŒSDP 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.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Christer
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
>


-- 
Victor Pascual Ávila