Re: [bfcpbis] WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis - Christer's review

["Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Christer,

Please see inline.

-----Original Message-----
From: Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, December 4, 2017 at 11:50 AM
To: Charles Eckel <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Cc: Tom Kristensen <[e-mail]>, Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>, Alan Ford <[e-mail]>, Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [bfcpbis] WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis - Christer's review

    Hi,
    
    Many of my WGLC comments have been addressed. However, I still have some issues.
    
    Q1: SDP 'floorctrl' attribute:
    -------------------------------------
    
    It is very unclear whether the attribute is mandatory in offers/answers or not.
    
    Section 11.1 says that it MUST be included in offers. However, section 4 seems to indicate that it may not be included in an offer.
    
    Section 11.2 says that it MUST be included in an answer, while section 4 indicates that it is only included if present in the offer.

[cue] Sections 11.1 says it MUST be included in offers IF the offerer acts as a floor control server.
[cue] Similarly, section 11.2 says it MUST be included in the answer IF the answerer acts as a floor control server.
[cue] This is consistent with section 4, which states a floor control server acting as an offerer or as an answerer MUST include this attribute in its session descriptions.
[cue] So I think this is technically correct, though as you point out, perhaps not the best wording. That said, it was reworded in this draft to try to make it more clear. Do you have a different wording that you think would be better?


    Q2: Previous comment on SECTION 5:
    ---------------------------------------------------
        
        Q5_1: In section 4, the name of the section is "Floor Control Server Determination", and then section 4.1 defines the associated SDP attribute.
        
        However, in section 5 you start by defining the 'confid' and 'userid' attributes. I think it would be good to have a similar structure as in section 4, where you first give an overview of the feature, and then define the attributes in subsections.
     
    [cue] This is a carryover from RFC 4583. While I agree with you, I’m not sure it is worth changing at this point. Do you have text you think would be helpful as an intro to the section?   
    
    [christer] My suggestion (more simple than my original suggestion) would be to name section 4 to 'SDP 'floorctrl' Attribute', and structure it in a similar way as sections 5 and 6.

[cue] I do not have a strong preference here.    
            
    Q3: Previous comment on  SECTION 11:
    -----------------------------------------------------
        
        Q11_1: I think the mux category for the 'bfcpver' attribute should be defined in the section that defines the attribute - not in the offer/answer procedures.
    
    [cue] Sounds good to me.
        
    [christer] The fix is good.
    
    I note that the mux categories for the other attributes are defined in draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-attributes. That would probably be good to mention that, and while draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-attributes references RFC 4583, the mux considerations also apply to this 4583bis.

[cue] I agree, that would be good to add.

Cheers,
Charles
        
    Regards,
        
    Christer
        
        
        -----Original Message-----
        From: Charles Eckel (eckelcu) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
        Sent: 19 July 2017 12:23
        To: [e-mail]
        Cc: Tom Kristensen (tomkrist) <[e-mail]>; Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>; Alan Ford <[e-mail]>; Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>; Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
        Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis
        
        (As WG co-chair)
        
        Thanks to those who provided reviews. We have decided to extend WGLC an additional week, through July 25, to provide folks tied up with other IETF matters time to complete their reviews.
        
        Cheers,
        Charles 
        
        -----Original Message-----
        From: bfcpbis <[e-mail]> on behalf of Charles Eckel <[e-mail]>
        Date: Monday, July 17, 2017 at 10:10 AM
        To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
        Cc: Tom Kristensen <[e-mail]>, Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>, Alan Ford <[e-mail]>, Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>, Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>
        Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis
        
            (As WG co-chair)
            
            This is a reminder that WGLC ends tomorrow. I realize the time to review overlaps with IETF prep and meeting times. If you require more time to review the draft, please let me know. Otherwise, please share your review comments by the end of tomorrow.
            
            Thanks,
            Charles
            
            -----Original Message-----
            From: bfcpbis <[e-mail]> on behalf of Charles Eckel <[e-mail]>
            Date: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 5:59 PM
            To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
            Subject: [bfcpbis] WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis
            
                (As WG co-chair)
                
                This is to announce an additional working group last call for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis, "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Format for Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP) Streams".
                http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis/
                
                This is intended as a Standards Track RFC, obsoleting RFC 4583.
                Please respond to the list by July 18th (i.e. 2 weeks) with any comments.
                
                We had a working group last call previous, but a significant amount of time and some substantial changes and additions have occurred to justify another review of the draft in its entirely. It is helpful to attempt to categorize your comment (e.g. technical issue vs. editorial), and also to provide any replacement text you feel is necessary.
                If you review the document and have no comments, please tell the chairs that you have reviewed it. This is always useful information in assessing the degree of WG review and consensus behind the document.
                Note, we have not scheduled a working group session for IETF 99 in Prague. This WGLC will close during IETF 99. If helpful, we can arrange a side meeting to discuss any significant issues, or with any luck, gather at a bar to celebrate the draft being ready to advance to the next step toward RFC.
                
                Cheers,
                Charles
                
                
                _______________________________________________
                bfcpbis mailing list
                [e-mail]
                https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
                
            
            _______________________________________________
            bfcpbis mailing list
            [e-mail]
            https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis