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

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Tue, 03 May 2016 02:55 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE98E12D0BA for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 May 2016 19:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.935
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.935 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=comcast.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FwU2BcByIsXW for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 May 2016 19:55:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-po-10v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-po-10v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe16:19:96:114:154:169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5332D12B04F for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 May 2016 19:55:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-po-03v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.227]) by comcast with SMTP id xQTyaxNJXZjFtxQUtakR3h; Tue, 03 May 2016 02:55:39 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1462244139; bh=AeR3xjHkMGyDG9mTeOWV39rul+WYZpbUwkIzI5S7JMo=; h=Received:Received:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=htfpM/LUJj6dqZMKqmkBDXGTFpycJgUxTS8AVdz+9WFNaIJr79GfkSVN9wmRRo6+v LUDlBJcGPWhaxijA/uWxUVZgRoXPqR3rBS1QyR0Dg57ssdkhhOqbhM0QA8ODR4JFUD 7P5QuYH+IHKnTP6ZKOJHLwBmA2L3J6ebymuB52V5nRnPbyXFww9ns/JAEavyr1KTIK qpIup9B+CoBlcWNq2MZcTRxW3YVcr3tdAaxL1xVADYqWDJx5n/gFcOq3LbnKAYBuHQ UXjz7JMj/MI/PATON+Y+JBpcjkLo20D3zoqyF1V+Ql4IqcjiACiBU8vdDrTGxj8ztY GvmpzY+cknN4A==
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([107.1.110.101]) by resomta-po-03v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id pevf1s0022BJGiK01evfzn; Tue, 03 May 2016 02:55:39 +0000
To: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com>, "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>
References: <D30A9F19.68CEF%eckelcu@cisco.com> <56E872D1.3020204@alum.mit.edu> <D34CF080.5A7B5%rmohanr@cisco.com>
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <7813ecb4-002b-b8c4-fa29-89aa3d9ebba0@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 22:55:38 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <D34CF080.5A7B5%rmohanr@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bfcpbis/SitXDsGNg3QFhi-bajUFednkROI>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] WGLC on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-06
X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 03 May 2016 02:55:42 -0000

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
>