Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-15.txt

"Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <> Fri, 04 November 2016 15:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32F8512959B for <>; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 08:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -16.017
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.017 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zf2xdWGTjxcE for <>; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 08:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 736C9129598 for <>; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 08:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=19846; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1478274169; x=1479483769; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=DSQSm8/2qZC2Vf3RzpL2U6fY+8Ec1kUIzV9zuSDV9JM=; b=hCwl9KiahgeMBM8G+Ayh+IvvnHVbCwLChZ1QsWfSjCQzEY1eUuhPTery 1u+0sAP+01kgFWDeLY7+u8H9yFw87xXwGyi9xRZNo8vxwgjyMeEXgqyZM eR/koq3geSTzabgHCKM+u+NGK8Ss/fd988DOVC7CpCB5LrZxzaRgZtOkp 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,443,1473120000"; d="scan'208,217";a="165292169"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 04 Nov 2016 15:42:48 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id uA4FgmKs016592 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 4 Nov 2016 15:42:48 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 10:42:47 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 4 Nov 2016 10:42:47 -0500
From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <>
To: Christer Holmberg <>, Paul Kyzivat <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-15.txt
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 15:42:47 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1b.0.161010
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1C782CB8B5D044439B6B443D0429C916ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku)" <>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-15.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 15:42:51 -0000

Any thoughts on this? Based on the last call discussions on the draft-mux-attributes, is this an appropriate change and is there still time to make it.


On 10/27/16, 3:32 AM, "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <<>> wrote:

Christer and Paul,

Having taken another look at the mux attributes draft, I think you are both correct.
TBD is defined as follows:

4.9.  Category: TBD

   The attributes in the TBD category have not been analyzed under the
   proposed multiplexing framework and SHOULD NOT be multiplexed.

This seems appropriate not only for bfcpver but also for floorctlr. If we agree to this, the mux attribute draft would need to be updated to reflect this.


On 10/26/16, 10:08 PM, "bfcpbis on behalf of Christer Holmberg" <<> on behalf of<>> wrote:


I wonder whether draft-mux-attributes should define the mux category for attributes associated with BFCP to begin with. Because, IF someone at some point defines how to bundle BFCP, draft-mux-attributes would have to be updated.



-----Original Message-----
From: bfcpbis [] On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
Sent: 26 October 2016 22:29
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-15.txt

On 10/26/16 2:14 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:

I don't understand how it can be IDENTICAL if we haven't even defined
how to bundle multiple bfcp streams.


I suspect that the solution to bundling bfcp will be bfcp over data channel.


bfcpbis mailing list<>

bfcpbis mailing list<>