Re: [bfcpbis] WGLC on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-06

Ram,

This also seems good to me.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 5/2/16 7:29 AM, Ram Mohan R (rmohanr) wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Thanks for your feedback. Please see inline. Also attached are the diffs
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bfcpbis <bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Paul Kyzivat
> <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
> Date: Wednesday, 16 March 2016 at 2:08 AM
> To: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] WGLC on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-06
>
>> Generally in good shape. A couple of comments:
>>
>> * Section 4.1:
>>
>> I see you are using "bfcp" for the subprotocol name.
>> IMO it would be better to use "BFCP" for consistency with what is used
>> in the m-line proto field.
>
> Agree. Will change to "BFCP"
>
>>
>> (I've been querying for information about case-sensitivity of the
>> sub-protocol field. I have not gotten a definitive answer, but the
>> prudent path is to assume it is case-sensitive.)
>>
>> * Section 7.1 says:
>>
>>    An endpoint (i.e., both the offerer and the answerer) MUST create an
>>    SDP media description ("m=" line) for each BFCP-over-WebSocket media
>>    stream and MUST assign a TCP/WSS/BFCP value to the "proto" field of
>>    the "m=" line.  Furthermore, the SDP answerer (Server) MUST add an
>>    "a=ws-uri" or "a=wss-uri" attribute in the "m=" line of each BFCP-
>>    over-WebSocket media stream depending on whether it is WS or WSS.
>>
>> This says to use TCP/WSS/BFCP even when using "a=ws-uri". I presume that
>> is wrong.
>
> An endpoint (i.e., both the offerer and the answerer) MUST create an
>     SDP media description ("m=" line) for each BFCP-over-WebSocket media
>     stream and MUST assign either TCP/WSS/BFCP  or TCP/WS/BFCP value to
> The "proto" field of the "m=" line depending on whether the endpoint
> wishes to
> use secure WebSocket or WebSocket. Furthermore, 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
>           depending on whether it wishes to use WebSocket or secure
> WebSocket.
>
>
>>
>> Also, see my comment on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-01
>> (http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bfcpbis/_y_FxCOw5pI_YeRQXGvMLpKGZY0)
>>
>> regarding the case where the offer is generated by the server. They
>> apply here equally. The text needs some reworking to address that case.
>
>
> Agree. I will add following para at the end of section 7.2
>
> NEW:
>
> It is possible that a endpoint (e.g., a browser) sends an offerless INVITE
> to
> the server. In such cases the server will act as SDP offerer. The server
> MUST
> assign the SDP "setup" attribute with a value of "passive. The server MUST
> have an "a=ws-uri" or "a=wss-uri² attribute in the media section depending
> on
> whether the application uses WebSocket or secure WebSocket. This attribute
> MUST
> follow the syntax defined in Section 3. For BFCP application, the "proto"
> value in
> the "m=" line MUST be TCP/WSS/BFCP if WebSocket is over TLS, else it MUST
> be TCP/WS/BFCP.
>
> Regards,
> Ram
>
>
>
>>
>> 	Thanks,
>> 	Paul
>>
>>
>> On 3/13/16 12:55 PM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) wrote:
>>> This is to announce a 2 week WGLC on the draft:
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-06
>>>
>>> Please review and provide any comments by Monday, March 28, 2016.
>>> Comments should be sent to the authors and the BFCPBIS WG list.
>>> If you review the draft but do not have any comments, please send a note
>>> to that effect as well.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Charles
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bfcpbis mailing list
>>> bfcpbis@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bfcpbis mailing list
>> bfcpbis@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
>