[bfcpbis] Review of draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-01.txt

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Tue, 20 October 2015 18:53 UTC

Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A87A1ACE5F for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:53:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iwtyKr__4021 for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:53:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sessmg22.ericsson.net (sessmg22.ericsson.net []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72CA91ACE13 for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:53:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-f79136d0000071e2-e5-56268da1b050
Received: from ESESSHC020.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain []) by sessmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id BA.B5.29154.1AD86265; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 20:53:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([]) by ESESSHC020.ericsson.se ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 20:53:21 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Review of draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-01.txt
Thread-Index: AdELZe1rawGPcMtKSOuEMOqqlqy9zw==
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 18:53:20 +0000
Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37B7DB91@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37B7DB91ESESSMB209erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrGLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje7CXrUwgzu3tS3+rTvK5MDosWTJ T6YAxigum5TUnMyy1CJ9uwSujFnNJ9gLdjlWrLuymLmB8aFFFyMHh4SAicStefVdjJxAppjE hXvr2boYuTiEBI4yStw41MIK4SxmlOjd+YsFpIFNwEKi+582SIOIgKbE5u13mUBsYQEziRev rzJDxK0ljl1tYYOw9STef2liAbFZBFQlJrUuZAexeQV8JbqP7WIFsRmBFn8/tQZsDrOAuMSt J/OZIA4SkFiy5zwzhC0q8fLxP1YIW0li7eHtLBD1+RIfrv1nhZgpKHFy5hOWCYxCs5CMmoWk bBaSMoi4jsSC3Z/YIGxtiWULXzPD2GcOPGZCFl/AyL6KUbQ4tbg4N93ISC+1KDO5uDg/Ty8v tWQTIzAiDm75bbWD8eBzx0OMAhyMSjy8D9JVw4RYE8uKK3MPMUpzsCiJ8zYzPQgVEkhPLEnN Tk0tSC2KLyrNSS0+xMjEwSnVwFgbqnl95Vy/uE8SpU335otv3rdfO2nujOa7EZ4OO7YuL7K5 lXX0YvuNVE3BNPf6T6rV5V1pyz5YLti38O+Bir6NH3V3qunZ31ilvYQh4k7mFOHPmr+T7s2f xqb+wiHVal/GoinZ1WtfH7mTuf7nu8Nvgx4pZTHFiz6Z8srVpa3bri1t8mYDbSElluKMREMt 5qLiRAAPs9RnaQIAAA==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bfcpbis/S_MlYOJz-kkE3yLu5IANL93ndmM>
Subject: [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-01.txt
X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list <bfcpbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bfcpbis>, <mailto:bfcpbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bfcpbis/>
List-Post: <mailto:bfcpbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bfcpbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis>, <mailto:bfcpbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 18:53:52 -0000


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 "Media" 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 "This section defines a new SDP media-level attribute, <attribute-name>,...." instead of the current text which says "The new attribute MUST be a media level...".

Q3_2:    Sections 3.1 and 3.2 start with text saying:

"Applications that use SDP for negotiation and also use WebSocket as a
              transport protocol MAY indicate the connection URI for the WebSocket..."

I don't think this text belongs in the attribute definition sections. Instead I suggest to add a section "3.1 General" where you describe the need for the attributes.

Also, instead of saying "Applications that use SDP for negotiation..." I would say "Applications that use the SDP Offer/Answer mechanism [RFC3264] for negotiating media...".

Q3_3:    There is no port information in c= lines.

Q3_4:    There should be an 'SDP Offer/Answer' 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.