Re: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <[e-mail]>]

Alissa,

I am fine with the proposed text.

Thanks,
Ram

-----Original Message-----
From: Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, 17 January 2017 at 8:07 PM
To: Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>
Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

    Alexey, would the following changes clarify things?
    
    Section 4.1
    OLD
    the server side, which could be either
       the offerer or answerer, MUST add an "a=ws-uri" or "a=wss-uri"
       attribute in the media section
    NEW
    the server side, which could be either
       the offerer or answerer, MUST add an "a=ws-uri" or "a=wss-uri”
       attribute (but not both) in the media section
    
    Section 4.3
    OLD
    If the answers assigns SDP "setup" attribute with "passive", then it
       MUST have a URI in either "a=ws-uri" or "a=wss-uri" attribute
       depending on whether the application uses WebSocket or
       secureWebSocket.
    NEW
    If the answers assigns SDP "setup" attribute with "passive", then it
       MUST have a URI in either "a=ws-uri" or "a=wss-uri" attribute
       (but not both) in the media section, depending on whether the application uses WebSocket or
       secureWebSocket.
    
    Ram, would you be okay with those clarifications?
    
    Alissa
    
    
    > On Jan 16, 2017, at 10:09 AM, Ram Mohan R (rmohanr) <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > 
    > Hi Alexey,
    > 
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>
    > Date: Monday, 16 January 2017 at 8:25 PM
    > To: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <[e-mail]>, The IESG <[e-mail]>
    > Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
    > Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
    > 
    >    Hi Ram,
    > 
    >    On Mon, Jan 16, 2017, at 02:49 PM, Ram Mohan R (rmohanr) wrote:
    >> Hi Alexey,
    >> 
    >> Please see inline <Ram>
    >> 
    >> -----Original Message-----
    >> From: Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>
    >> Date: Monday, 16 January 2017 at 7:57 PM
    >> To: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <[e-mail]>, The IESG <[e-mail]>
    >> Cc: "[e-mail]"
    >> <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
    >> <[e-mail]>, "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <[e-mail]>,
    >> "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
    >> Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on
    >> draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
    >> 
    >>    Hi Ram,
    >> 
    >>    On Mon, Jan 16, 2017, at 06:09 AM, Ram Mohan R (rmohanr) wrote:
    >>> Hi Alexey,
    >>> 
    >>> Thanks for your feedback. Please see inline <Ram>
    >>> 
    >>> -----Original Message-----
    >>> From: bfcpbis <[e-mail]> on behalf of Alexey Melnikov
    >>> <[e-mail]>
    >>> Date: Saturday, 14 January 2017 at 3:49 AM
    >>> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
    >>> Cc: "[e-mail]"
    >>> <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
    >>> <[e-mail]>, "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <[e-mail]>,
    >>> "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
    >>> Subject: [bfcpbis] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on
    >>> draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
    >>> 
    >>>    Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
    >>>    draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-08: Discuss
    >>> 
    >> 
    >>>    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    >>>    DISCUSS:
    >>>    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    >>> 
    >>>    This is generally a well written document, but I have a small list of
    >>>    issues that I would like to discuss before recommending its approval:
    >>> 
    >>>    1) Are a=ws-uri and a=wss-uri mutually exclusive? (Section 4.3 is a
    >>>    good
    >>>    place to mention what to do if both are specified).
    >>> 
    >>> <Ram> Yes kind of. In a given media line (m= line) we will either have
    >>> a=ws-uri or a=wss-uri. That said a response from a BFCP server using
    >>> webSocket as a transport can
    >>> have two media lines one with ws and other with wss. Something like:
    >>> 
    >>> Answer (server):
    >>>   m=application 50000 TCP/WSS/BFCP *
    >>>   a=setup:passive
    >>>   a=connection:new
    >>>   a=wss-uri:wss://bfcp-ws.example.com?token=3170449312
    >>>   m=application 50000 TCP/WS/BFCP *
    >>>   a=setup:passive
    >>>   a=connection:new
    >>>   a=ws-uri:ws://bfcp-ws.example.com?token=3170449312
    >> 
    >>    [Alexey]: This is exactly my problem, you should specify how a
    >>    recipient
    >>    should handle your example above. If you only have 1 attribute, the
    >>    problem goes away entirely.
    >> 
    >> <Ram> in the above case, they are still two different m= lines. The
    >> receiver (after offer/answer is done) of this SDP connects to the URI
    >> mentioned in that m= line. 
    >> Note I just re-used the same URL/port in the example above. If there are
    >> multiple m=application media lines (they will be for different
    >> applications) being negotiated in SDP, one application may use secure WS
    >> and other application may use non-secure WS. The client after it receives
    >> the answer SDP will just setup the connection to the URI specified in the
    >> attribute.  
    > 
    >    Sorry, I was thinking about different example:
    > 
    >    m=application 50000 TCP/WSS/BFCP *
    >       a=setup:passive
    >       a=connection:new
    >       a=wss-uri:wss://bfcp-ws.example.com?token=3170449312
    >       a=ws-uri:ws://bfcp-ws.example.com?token=3170449312
    > 
    >    You have 2 conflicting URIs for the same m= line. Is this possible?
    > 
    > <Ram> No this is not possible. If the transport is TCP/WSS/BFCP we should have only a=wss-uri. If transport is TCP/WS/BFCP we should have only a=ws-uri.
    > 
    > Regards,
    >  Ram
    > 
    >> I don’t see any problem in here.  
    >> 
    >> Regards,
    >> Ram
    >> 
    >>>    Why not a single attribute, considering that both ws: and wss: URIs
    >>>    are
    >>>    possible?
    >>> 
    >>> <Ram> I would still prefer two attributes. We just followed the
    >>> convention / approach that was used in [RFC6455].  
    >> 
    >> 
    > 
    >