Re: [bfcpbis] Updates to draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis required to enable ICE

[Tom Kristensen <[e-mail]>]

A new draft version of the draft (!) is about to be committed. I do believe
all the issues in this thread are considered and handled.

Please, verify if you have time.

Diff to previous version:
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-16.txt&url2=http://ellevilla.it/tmp/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-17.txt

This about to be the new version:
http://ellevilla.it/tmp/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-17.txt

-- Tom


On 6 April 2017 at 21:26, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Please see inline with [cue].
>
>
>
> *From: *Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Thursday, April 6, 2017 at 11:16 AM
> *To: *Tom Kristensen <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *Charles Eckel <[e-mail]>, Tom Kristensen <
> [e-mail]>, Tom Kristensen <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
> <[e-mail]>, Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>,
> Paul Jones <[e-mail]>, Christer Holmberg <
> [e-mail]>, Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [bfcpbis] Updates to draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis
> required to enable ICE
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Tom Kristensen <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> On 2 March 2017 at 23:14, Roman Shpount <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> 1. In Section 3, we need to define an additional proto field value:
> TCP/DTLS/BFCP, which is realized by running BFCP on top of DTLS as descibed
> in this specification and running DTLS on top of TCP is realized using the
> framing method defined in RFC4571, with DTLS packets being sent and
> received instead of RTP/RTCP packets using the shim defined in RFC4571 so
> that length field defined in RFC4571 precedes each DTLS message. All
> sections of the document should be updated to include the TCP/DTLS/BFCP
> transport.
>
>
>
> This was questioned by Charles and I agree with the conclusion, backwards
> and forward compliancy is good although confusing/differing "syntax".
>
>
>
> I am not sure if this means you want to change this somehow or that you
> are going to update the draft with TCP/DTLS/BFCP. I agree that the syntax
> is not ideal but it is in line with other documents such as dtls-sdp or
> sctp-sdp.
>
>
>
> [cue] I believe this was meant to express agreement with the consensus
> that while not perfect, adding TCP/DTLS/BFCP to the draft is the best of
> the alternatives explored.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Charles
>
>
>
> The id-nits checker made me aware of RFC 8122 obsoleting RFC 4572, I
> reckon the additions necessary from the draft-ietf-mmusic-4572-update is
> covered in the new RFC 8122 or not?
>
>
>
> draft-ietf-mmusic-4572-update is now published as RFC 8122, so references
> to RFC 4572 should be updated to RFC 8122
>
>
>
> The rest sounds good.
>
>
>
> When you publish the updated version I will review and provide comments. I
> will also sync comments which were made against the ICE Considerations
> section of sctp-sdp with your draft.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> _____________
>
> Roman Shpount
>



-- 
# http://folk.uio.no/tomkri/ | [phone] (m)
## http://facebook.com/tomkri/ | xmpp:[e-mail]
### "Å leve er å ta stilling. Jeg hater likegyldige mennesker.", A. Gramsci