Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-08.txt

"Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com> Wed, 08 June 2016 04:44 UTC

Return-Path: <rmohanr@cisco.com>
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 E1DC112D595 for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 21:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.947
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 Kss8bgn8Emm2 for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 21:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A65B812D58D for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 21:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4882; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1465361054; x=1466570654; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=FLm1qZ9/wgpRZMuYIux33vtXbFe5HREOa40goRCyrvw=; b=H0C33dX6HJ+VkB0vZhuvQcObQA9Elvu+nc8aaglR5hEmyh6iH5wW4pIT y56qKQSuTtJ4R+6U70WZC5XaAJ40QZGTtBBjdhnBpgotG9AUbDrE+4b9S 25+byU8WEYb2jzVn3vPwrxImbL/X1RhhO/aEqk0lSgYLWZhPMHUqkUPvl k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0A8AgCyoVdX/5tdJa1dgz5WfQavCIt9g?= =?us-ascii?q?XkXC4UnSgKBRTgUAQEBAQEBAWUnhEUBAQEEAQEBawsMBAIBCBEDAQIBLiEGCx0?= =?us-ascii?q?IAgQBDQWIFQMXDrh8DYQBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBHIp0gkOBfYVaB?= =?us-ascii?q?Y4fhRqEXjQBhgKGKYF6gWlOhASIZIY9gTaHawEeNoNubgGJD38BAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,437,1459814400"; d="scan'208";a="112881281"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Jun 2016 04:44:13 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-017.cisco.com (xch-rtp-017.cisco.com [64.101.220.157]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u584iDTG026382 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 8 Jun 2016 04:44:13 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-017.cisco.com (64.101.220.157) by XCH-RTP-017.cisco.com (64.101.220.157) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 00:44:12 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-017.cisco.com ([64.101.220.157]) by XCH-RTP-017.cisco.com ([64.101.220.157]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 00:44:12 -0400
From: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com>
To: Victor Pascual <victor.pascual.avila@gmail.com>, "Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <gsalguei@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-08.txt
Thread-Index: AQHRu9IUz5Zg6VbDM0uIw59EcQDej5/U60yAgAmn1ACAAAiYgIAAAQOAgAELqoA=
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 04:44:12 +0000
Message-ID: <D37DA069.5EC56%rmohanr@cisco.com>
References: <20160601065147.20308.50318.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3b65d096-977d-9da6-aa9f-3883ec63dc4e@alum.mit.edu> <F249579F-6200-4902-B965-3E8ADFE1BF43@cisco.com> <75DDBE07-12A5-407E-95D3-E61F0375D672@cisco.com> <F6128D14-A336-40F0-ADC6-11F558F600DE@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <F6128D14-A336-40F0-ADC6-11F558F600DE@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.4.160422
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.196.92.182]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <9793DF0E48C25D47A4BF1CB4E9FF8C5D@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bfcpbis/VTd_frqNi9f4tBIOlatt2M9DdJ0>
Cc: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>, "Charles Eckel \(eckelcu\)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-08.txt
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: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 04:44:16 -0000

Works for me as well.

Thanks,
Ram

-----Original Message-----
From: bfcpbis <bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Victor Pascual
<victor.pascual.avila@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, 7 June 2016 at 11:46 PM
To: "Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <gsalguei@cisco.com>
Cc: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>rg>, "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)"
<eckelcu@cisco.com>om>, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-08.txt

>Fine with me
>
>> On 07 Jun 2016, at 20:12, Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)
>><gsalguei@cisco.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I¹m OK with that approach.  I also agree that they are entirely too
>>different in purpose to try and merge them.
>> 
>> -G
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jun 7, 2016, at 1:41 PM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
>>><eckelcu@cisco.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> (As an individual)
>>> 
>>> Good question. I agree it seems a bit strange. But my thinking is that
>>>our use of ³Updates² may not be appropriate. I view RFC 4582 and RFC
>>>4583 as defining BFCP over TCP and over UDP. This draft takes BFCP over
>>>TCP and defines how to encapsulate it within a WebSocket and how to
>>>negotiate that encapsulation. So I think these drafts are related but
>>>separate, and that we should remove the ³Updates² label and simply have
>>>RFC4582bis and RFC4583bis as normative references (as they already
>>>are). Thoughts?
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Charles
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 6/1/16, 7:14 AM, "bfcpbis on behalf of Paul Kyzivat"
>>>><bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I have a question.
>>>> 
>>>>> This document updates RFC4582bis and RFC4583bis.
>>>> 
>>>> Those documents are *drafts*. Does it really make sense to handle the
>>>> changes this way? I guess that means that this document will need to
>>>>be 
>>>> held until they become RFCs, and then it can update them.
>>>> 
>>>> Wouldn't it make more sense to simply make the changes in those
>>>>drafts 
>>>> now, before they become RFCs?
>>>> 
>>>>    Thanks,
>>>>    Paul
>>>> 
>>>>> On 6/1/16 2:51 AM, 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
>>>>>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-08.txt
>>>>>    Pages           : 13
>>>>>    Date            : 2016-05-31
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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.  This document updates RFC4582bis and RFC4583bis.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket/
>>>>> 
>>>>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-08
>>>>> 
>>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>>>> 
>>>>>https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-08
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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