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

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 12:16 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,
    
    >    
    >    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.
    
    Section 4 does not talk about the role. The text says:
    
      "If an SDP media description in an offer contains a 'floorctrl'
       attribute, the answerer accepting that media MUST include a
       'floorctrl' attribute in the corresponding media description of the
       answer.²
    
    
    
    >[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.
    
    Based on the text in section 11.2, if the answerer does NOT include the
    attribute in the answer, it would mean that the answerer acts as floor
    control client. Right?

[cue] My understanding is that this scenario is not possible, but I see your point.  
How about if section 4 is changed as follows:

OLD
   If the 'floorctrl' attribute is not used in an offer/answer exchange,
   by default the offerer and the answerer will act as a floor control
   client and as a floor control server, respectively.
NEW
   If the 'floorctrl' attribute is included in an offer, it MUST be included in the answer.
   If the ‘floorctrl’ attribute is not included in the offer, the default value of ‘c-only’ is assumed.

    BUT, the text in section 4 says:
    
      "If the 'floorctrl' attribute is not used in an offer/answer exchange,
       by default the offerer and the answerer will act as a floor control
       client and as a floor control server, respectively.²
    
    So, to me that means that if the answerer does NOT include the attribute
    in the answer, the answerer acts as server.
    
    
    
    >[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?
    
    In my opinion, section 4 should only define the attribute, and what it is
    used for. The offer/answer considerations should ONLY be in section 11.

[cue] The combination of your persistence and going through the rules and scenarios in section 4-6 as well as in 11 have convinced me that you are correct. Sprinkling offer/answer stuff in multiple places results in duplication and confusion. I agree that is would be better to divide as you suggest. I really wanted to avoid making changes of this magnitude at this point; however, better to make them now than to wait for the same issues to arise even later in the process.
Tom and others, any concerns with this approach?
If not, Tom, can you rev the draft within the next week or two?

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
    >            
    >        
    >        
    >    
    >    
    >