[bfcpbis] Comments on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-03

[Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>]

Folks,

here you have some comments on the following draft:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-03

Cheers,

Gonzalo


Comments on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-03

Section 3 includes a discussion about how to set the port field. That
discussion is only relevant to TCP. The new draft needs to explain that
and add a discussion about port handling in UDP.

Also, the document needs to discuss what is the equivalent of
establishing a TCP connection (i.e., it allows endpoints to start
exchanging BFCP messages) in UDP.

Section 6 contains the following new paragraph:

" Note: In [15] 'm-stream' was erroneously used in Section 9.  Although
  the example was non-normative, it is implemented by some vendors.
  Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED to support parsing and interpreting
  'm-stream' the same way as 'mstrm' when receiving."

The text should clarify (or be more explicit about) whether existing
implementations are floor control server implementations or client
implementations. The idea is that new implementers know clearly what
exactly they need to support in order to be backwards compatible with
those legacy implementations (whose implementers did not read RFCs but
only the examples :-) ).

The last paragraph of Section 8 discusses which entity behaves as the
TLS server. Do we need a similar discussion for DTLS?