Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-01.txt
Alan Ford <alanford@cisco.com> Wed, 07 March 2012 12:07 UTC
Return-Path: <alanford@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 9274B21F87B0 for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 04:07:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.776
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.776 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.244, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F-fuh+ObLUoD for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 04:07:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9545921F86F1 for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 04:07:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=alanford@cisco.com; l=2145; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1331122037; x=1332331637; h=date:subject:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=JD5qhTVmIxX+fTqsX98kz49Pm3KhLMEmoStYJwtFG6o=; b=X3D5y6QCM9UmOOXDzUZ6GUAfYtjijVBeBU7pSS74b9rItMc3xcOyfHrg F1DMcsqzaBXfvPw3AE5mYdUFbIzC9tXChJsBLyiq84mVke/BDHfE6np9G Douv1l21L/cbkaWnhCVxKMuZTu0Al/YuhGVPA6HYAVfb8dArUA89AFcs2 U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtEQACNPV0+Q/khR/2dsb2JhbABDtAYCgQsCgQeCCgEBAQMBAQEBDwEnAgExHQEIbTABAQQTCRmHYQULmU2BJwGfHYtVgXiDIgSVQY5XgUCCYw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,545,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="67884130"
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.72.81]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Mar 2012 12:07:16 +0000
Received: from xbh-ams-201.cisco.com (xbh-ams-201.cisco.com [144.254.75.7]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q27C7GJj002801 for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 12:07:16 GMT
Received: from xmb-ams-203.cisco.com ([144.254.75.14]) by xbh-ams-201.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 7 Mar 2012 13:07:16 +0100
Received: from 144.254.90.168 ([144.254.90.168]) by XMB-AMS-203.cisco.com ([144.254.75.14]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 7 Mar 2012 12:07:16 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.32.0.111121
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 12:07:13 +0000
From: Alan Ford <alanford@cisco.com>
To: bfcpbis@ietf.org
Message-ID: <CB7CFFF1.57FB%alanford@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-01.txt
Thread-Index: Acz8WtSKsLIfktN/VUugSBJd5ish5A==
In-Reply-To: <20120217230931.21273.32773.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Mar 2012 12:07:16.0731 (UTC) FILETIME=[D6C3BCB0:01CCFC5A]
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-01.txt
X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 07 Mar 2012 12:07:18 -0000
Hi all, Re-reading rfc4582bis, I noticed some confusing terminology. The 'I' Bit is described as the 'Transaction Initiator' flag. But, by its description, it is set by the Transaction _Responder_, not the initiator. This seems a recipe for confusion. I think it would it be better to rename it the 'R' bit, as the 'Transaction Responder' flag. As a secondary point, we are starting to define multiple BFCP version values with this spec. It seems to me that it was an oversight in the original spec not to include an error message of "Unsupported Version". Is there any reason why we should not take this opportunity to define this value? Regards, Alan On 17/02/2012 23:09, "internet-drafts@ietf.org" <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 : Revision of the Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP) for use > over an unreliable transport > Author(s) : Tom Kristensen > Charles Eckel > Alfred E. Heggestad > Geir A. Sandbakken > Filename : draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-01.txt > Pages : 34 > Date : 2012-02-17 > > This draft describes how to extend the Binary Floor Control Protocol > (BFCP) for use over an unreliable transport. It details the > differences from the BFCP protocol definition document and the > Session Description Protocol (SDP) format specified for BFCP streams. > > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-01.txt > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-01.txt > > _______________________________________________ > bfcpbis mailing list > bfcpbis@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
- [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582b… internet-drafts
- Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4… Tom Kristensen
- Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4… Alan Ford
- Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4… Tom Kristensen