Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-05.txt

"Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku)" <snandaku@cisco.com> Mon, 15 February 2016 19:43 UTC

Return-Path: <snandaku@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 213E11A910B for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 11:43:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.506
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 Yiv8a6brI1ks for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 11:43:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF6F31A9100 for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 11:43:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=42071; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1455565385; x=1456774985; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=t6Ku8s5pJuu8QQtywNq9UvYEbumCPLxUDviDJq2Yi7Q=; b=U7bvuptAyNnTs1u3ZhH1/jz85ZAfETpXsD8Do24TIvq9YMYuEKxIAAhD QC50xXnjKTc9q/NtCkMRCJGCpLV+P+B/cpog9/Xhw4jx75RIWeVtp1tNm dl390fi+DMe2OJGzsSjTvp+xhYzUQRRijPzt0AogPlyRnk/QWRHUXgFUK g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0D9BAChKcJW/5JdJa1eDoJgTFJtBoV9p?= =?us-ascii?q?TkBBAGOXAENgWQDFwELhSBKAhyBGjgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhEEBAQEDAQEBARcJSws?= =?us-ascii?q?FBwQCAQgRAwEBAQEJFwcDAgICDRgLFAMBBQgCBAENBYgSCA6oII5iAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBFYYRgzp7hDkPCg0JCIJCgToFiC6Cf4tMAYVOiAaBXEq?= =?us-ascii?q?DeYhVjj0BHgEBQoICGYENO2oBh1J8AQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.22,452,1449532800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="77002905"
Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Feb 2016 19:43:03 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-008.cisco.com (xch-rcd-008.cisco.com [173.37.102.18]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u1FJh40f020089 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:43:04 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-008.cisco.com (173.36.7.18) by XCH-RCD-008.cisco.com (173.37.102.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 13:43:03 -0600
Received: from xch-aln-008.cisco.com ([173.36.7.18]) by XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com ([173.36.7.18]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 13:43:03 -0600
From: "Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku)" <snandaku@cisco.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>, "Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <gsalguei@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-05.txt
Thread-Index: AQHRBdZd8ZaNi1A2Sk6SL+5srhxrhJ5phKWAgDDllgCAAKcNAIB/icyAgAosyQCAAAHYAIAAFJ4wgAHdtQCAABE0gIAHbmoUgABtv4D//5uu+A==
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:43:03 +0000
Message-ID: <1455565383051.96917@cisco.com>
References: <20151013164348.9920.89287.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6D74D935-2204-49AD-9CDA-D432A74BD477@cisco.com> <D26B6E1C.5EAA1%eckelcu@cisco.com> <D26CBA43.490B0%rmohanr@cisco.com> <D2D7B752.501D2%rmohanr@cisco.com> <D2DF8092.663D0%eckelcu@cisco.com> <A01A06CB-BCAE-45E8-9DF2-2F2F41005143@cisco.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37DC990A@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <B3EA2EA2-79DD-438C-AA25-9FDFB580D519@cisco.com>, <56BB90F3.1090405@alum.mit.edu>, <1455563420150.71088@cisco.com>, <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37DF5680@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37DF5680@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.35.132.38]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_145556538305196917ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bfcpbis/UehV4qpAU6FvnvH-etYZD3d7m58>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 22:37:41 -0800
Cc: "Ram Mohan R \(rmohanr\)" <rmohanr@cisco.com>, "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>, "bfcpbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <bfcpbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "Charles Eckel \(eckelcu\)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-05.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: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:43:10 -0000

Hello Christer


  We do have TBD category to postpone the assignments. However, I am not comfortable with draft authors using that category as a means to not analyze the multiplexing behavior :)


Hence i thought NOT_RECOMMENDED made sense with a note.


Does TBD with a explanation instead be more logical ??


Excerpt from the MUX Draft

"

4.9<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes-12#section-4.9>.9>.  Category: TBD


   Attributes that have not been analyzed under the proposed
   multiplexing framework.  For the purposes of implementations it is
   advised to consider "NOT RECOMMENDED" as the category when
   multiplexing these attributes.

"

​


Thanks

Suhas


________________________________
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 11:37 AM
To: Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku); Paul Kyzivat; Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)
Cc: Charles Eckel (eckelcu); Ram Mohan R (rmohanr); bfcpbis@ietf.org; bfcpbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: RE: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-05.txt

Hi,

In my opinion there should be a NOT APPLICABLE or NOT SPECIFIED category. But, that is of course not something this WG can specify.

Regards,

Christer

Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku)<mailto:snandaku@cisco.com>
Sent: ‎15/‎02/‎2016 21:10
To: Paul Kyzivat<mailto:pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>; Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)<mailto:gsalguei@cisco.com>
Cc: Christer Holmberg<mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>; Charles Eckel (eckelcu)<mailto:eckelcu@cisco.com>; Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)<mailto:rmohanr@cisco.com>; bfcpbis@ietf.org<mailto:bfcpbis@ietf.org>; bfcpbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org<mailto:bfcpbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-05.txt

Thanks Paul for bringing out the thinking of RTP over WebSockets.
I did had similar thoughts of a future possibility but wasn't sure if anyone would want to do though (given rtp over tcp itself is not a great user experience)

I am inclined towards NOT_RECOMMENDED as the mux category but adding note to explain something similar to Paul's explanation below shouldn't hurt either.
This would ensure that the implementors of this draft are aware that the mux-category has been assigned due to lack of any use-cases in the foreseeable future

Please let me know your thoughts

Thanks
Suhas


________________________________________
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 11:35 AM
To: Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei); Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku)
Cc: Christer Holmberg; Charles Eckel (eckelcu); Ram Mohan R (rmohanr); bfcpbis@ietf.org; bfcpbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-05.txt

On 2/10/16 1:33 PM, Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei) wrote:
> Paul/Suhas -
>
> Could you share your thoughts on this so we know what document updates are required.

I guess the question is whether there is any case where a websocket
makes sense in a bundle. My first thought was No. But on further
thinking, ISTM that *in principle* it would be possible to run RTP over
websocket. And then, since it makes sense to bundle RTP, it could also
be possible to bundle websocket.

Of course to do this would first require a binding of RTP to websockets.
Since you can already run RTP over TCP, it should be possible. (And
easier, since the websocket provides the framing.)

Whether anybody would find reason to do so is another question. I doubt
we will see it any time soon, and probably never.

*For now* I don't think there are any cases where it makes sense to use
websocket in a bundle.

I'll leave it to Suhas to figure out what classification applies in this
case.

        Thanks,
        Paul

> Thanks,
>
> Gonzalo
>
>
>> On Feb 9, 2016, at 3:08 PM, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> In general I am fine with the latest versions of the draft.
>>
>> However, in draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri I think the mux category needs to be specified for the new SDP attributes.
>>
>> Now, as I assume the attributes will never be used in a mux scenario, the question is which category shall be used. Suhas/Paul? NOT RECOMMENDED?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Christer
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei) [mailto:gsalguei@cisco.com]
>> Sent: 09 February 2016 21:50
>> To: Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <eckelcu@cisco.com>
>> Cc: Ram Mohan R (rmohanr) <rmohanr@cisco.com>om>; bfcpbis@ietf.org; Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>om>; bfcpbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-05.txt
>>
>> Thanks, Charles.
>>
>> We’re awaiting sign-off from Christer that his points on both drafts are properly addressed.  Once that happens there are no more open issues.
>>
>> Two comments:
>>
>> - We think draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket is ready for WGLC
>> - We’d appreciate some direction from the chairs on how to move forward the new draft (draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri) that was spawned from this effort, which we also believe is ready for WGLC.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Gonzalo
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 9, 2016, at 2:43 PM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <eckelcu@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ram and other draft authors,
>>>
>>> Thanks for updating and posting the revised draft ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-06 ).
>>> I would like to poll the working group to see if people think this draft is now ready for WGLC.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Charles
>>>
>>> On 2/3/16, 12:20 AM, "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Charles / WG,
>>>>
>>>> We have published a new revision of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket
>>>> and also draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri which addresses the comments
>>>> given by Christer
>>>> (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bfcpbis/S_MlYOJz-kkE3yLu5IANL9
>>>> 3ndmM)
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Ram
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: bfcpbis <bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Cisco Employee
>>>> <rmohanr@cisco.com>
>>>> Date: Saturday, 14 November 2015 at 10:12 AM
>>>> To: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>om>, "Gonzalo Salgueiro
>>>> (gsalguei)" <gsalguei@cisco.com>om>, "bfcpbis@ietf.org"
>>>> <bfcpbis@ietf.org>rg>, "christer.holmberg@ericsson.com"
>>>> <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
>>>> Cc: "bfcpbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <bfcpbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action:
>>>> draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-05.txt
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Charles,
>>>>>
>>>>> I will get back with responses and updated diffs to
>>>>> draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri soon. I agree that we should wait till
>>>>> this is resolved before looking to start WGLC.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Ram
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>
>>>>> Date: Saturday, 14 November 2015 12:14 am
>>>>> To: "Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <gsalguei@cisco.com>om>,
>>>>> "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>rg>, "christer.holmberg@ericsson.com"
>>>>> <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
>>>>> Cc: "bfcpbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <bfcpbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org>rg>,
>>>>> Cisco Employee <rmohanr@cisco.com>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action:
>>>>> draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-05.txt
>>>>>
>>>>>> Christer reviewed draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri and recommended
>>>>>> substantial changes to it. The authors have not yet responded to
>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regarding draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket, I¹d like to see this
>>>>>> response and potential impacts on either/both drafts before
>>>>>> starting WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Charles
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/13/15, 10:02 AM, "bfcpbis on behalf of Gonzalo Salgueiro
>>>>>> (gsalguei)"
>>>>>> <bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of gsalguei@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> New version of the draft has been published and addresses all open
>>>>>>> comments raised by Christer.  At this point authors feel this is
>>>>>>> ready for WGLC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is a pending request for Christer to review the
>>>>>>> complementary draft he requested
>>>>>>> (draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-00) be split off from the original
>>>>>>> document. Once this is done, we ask the chairs for guidance on how
>>>>>>> best to progress this spin-off draft.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gonzalo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Oct 13, 2015, at 12:43 PM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
>>>>>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
>>>>>>>> Internet-Drafts directories.
>>>>>>>> This draft is a work item of the Binary Floor Control Protocol
>>>>>>>> Bis Working Group of the IETF.
>>>>>>>>         Title           : The WebSocket Protocol as a Transport for the
>>>>>>>> Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP)
>>>>>>>>         Authors         : Victor Pascual
>>>>>>>>                           Antón Román
>>>>>>>>                           Stéphane Cazeaux
>>>>>>>>                           Gonzalo Salgueiro
>>>>>>>>                           Ram Mohan Ravindranath
>>>>>>>>                           Sergio Garcia Murillo
>>>>>>>> Filename        : draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-05.txt
>>>>>>>> Pages           : 14
>>>>>>>> Date            : 2015-10-13
>>>>>>>> Abstract:
>>>>>>>>    The WebSocket protocol enables two-way realtime communication
>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>    clients and servers.  This document specifies a new WebSocket sub-
>>>>>>>>    protocol as a reliable transport mechanism between Binary Floor
>>>>>>>>    Control Protocol (BFCP) entities to enable usage of BFCP in new
>>>>>>>>    scenarios.
>>>>>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocke
>>>>>>>> t/ There's also a htmlized version available at:
>>>>>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-05
>>>>>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websock
>>>>>>>> et-05 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the
>>>>>>>> time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are
>>>>>>>> available at tools.ietf.org.
>>>>>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>>>>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> bfcpbis mailing list
>>>>> bfcpbis@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>