Re: [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-04

@Charles - Ram and I are working on the updated version and hope to publish it very soon. One additional request below.

@Christer - It would be helpful to get your review of the complementary draft you requested (draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-00<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-00>). That way we can update both at the same time. Let us know if this is something forthcoming.

Thanks,

Gonzalo

On Aug 20, 2015, at 5:05 PM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <eckelcu@cisco.com<mailto:eckelcu@cisco.com>> wrote:

Christer,

Thanks for the review and comments.

Draft authors, when can we expect responses to Christer’s comments, and/or a corresponding update to the draft?

Cheers,
Charles

From: bfcpbis <bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Date: Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 11:12 AM
To: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>
Cc: "alissa@cooperw.in" <alissa@cooperw.in>
Subject: [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-04

Hi,

Below is my review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-04.

In general, things look good, and my comments should be mostly editorial. Also, my previous comments on the draft have been addressed. Thanks forthat!

Q1: There are a few abbreviations (TLS, HTTP etc) that are not expanded on first occurrence. I didn’t check whether they are considered well knowndouble check.

Q2: I think the last paragraph of section 1, talking about not preventing other mechanisms, can be removed completely.

(I think I previously had the same comment on the draft – or maybe it was another WebSocket sub-protocol draft)

Q3: Section one says “since WebSocket is a reliable transport”. Perhaps “provides a reliable transport” would be better?

Q4: Section 5 says “WebSocket [RFC6455] is a reliable protocol”. I don’t know what “reliable protocol” means, but I assume this text should also talkabout providing reliable transport.

Q5: In section 6.1, there should be a reference for the ‘setup’ attribute. Also, when talking about SDP attributes, I’d suggest to explicitly say“SDP setup attribute”, or something similar.

Q6: The introduction says that the draft updates rfc4582bis and rfc4583bis. I think it would be good to have two explicit “Updates to RFCXXXX” sectionsto list exactly what those updates are.

Q7: Just to check: are the new SDP m- line proto values aligned with the naming approach that has taken place in MMUSIC?

Regards,

Christer

_______________________________________________
bfcpbis mailing list
bfcpbis@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis