Re: [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-01.txt

Christer Holmberg <> Mon, 15 February 2016 05:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19E351A0018 for <>; Sun, 14 Feb 2016 21:10:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v4eeL99JoUKl for <>; Sun, 14 Feb 2016 21:10:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E65CC1B2E6D for <>; Sun, 14 Feb 2016 21:10:46 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-f794c6d000006f31-58-56c15dd453bc
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 57.0D.28465.4DD51C65; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 06:10:44 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 06:10:43 +0100
From: Christer Holmberg <>
To: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <>, "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHRXn09awGPcMtKSOuEMOqqlqy9z58kBpWAgAia4Qs=
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 05:10:43 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B37DEF39DESESSMB209erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFupmkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZGbHdSfdK7MEwgyUTlCz+rTvKZLFp1hc2 i+VdOxgdmD2m/N7I6rFkyU+mAKYoLpuU1JzMstQifbsErozlDz4yFuxLqWiZ+4i9gfFBYhcj J4eEgInEnL4vzBC2mMSFe+vZuhi5OIQEDjNK/NmzFspZzCix9t9lxi5GDg42AQuJ7n/aIHER gXZGif89v1hBuoUFXCTe/9zGBmKLCLhKvPt8iRXCtpLY/PA/I4jNIqAqcf7pQbAaXgFfiUe3 ZzKB2EICgRInNpwEq+cU0JfYc7cLLM4IdNH3U2vAbGYBcYmmLytZIS4VkFiy5zzU1aISLx// YwW5jVkgX+LL3DKI8YISJ2c+YZnAKDwLSfcshKpZSKogwpoS63fpQ1QrSkzpfsgOYWtItM6Z y44svoCRfRWjaHFqcXFuupGxXmpRZnJxcX6eXl5qySZGYBQd3PJbdwfj6teOhxgFOBiVeHg3 nDsQJsSaWFZcmXuIUYKDWUmEVyTmYJgQb0piZVVqUX58UWlOavEhRmkOFiVx3jXO68OEBNIT S1KzU1MLUotgskwcnFINjAJ/5W5smbbz8oklepM8y9Jm7/TfvXPlNSfZJYKV1zf3Bu1vVBfr NJp2J6Pb62sDU6WJbq3Sp0ipVXlRZk/2/Gw8cc5sXe/2o9uti1dpCGReUP9Qsbauh93fqKHP tFSIu9f5aMSFXYm5i2QalM32it9I/7XsUcSLnWd/OpV1b/q+12Bx7PrMSiWW4oxEQy3mouJE AGX/RdKeAgAA
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-01.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 05:10:50 -0000


I think the draft is ready for adoption.



Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Charles Eckel (eckelcu)<>
Sent: ‎09/‎02/‎2016 21:45
To: Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)<>; Christer Holmberg<>;<>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-01.txt

Ram and other draft authors,

Thanks for updating and posting the revised draft.
I would like to poll the working group to see if people think this draft
is now ready to be adopted as a bfcpbis working group draft.


On 2/3/16, 4:20 AM, "bfcpbis on behalf of Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)"
< on behalf of> wrote:

>Hi Christer,
>Thanks for the feedback. All the below comments has been take care and a
>new revision is published. Please look at the diffs here:
>Link to draft  -
>From:  bfcpbis <> on behalf of Christer Holmberg
>Date:  Wednesday, 21 October 2015 at 12:23 AM
>To:  "" <>
>Subject:  [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-01.txt
>I have reviewed draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-01.txt.
>I think the draft needs some editorial work, and there is also technical
>procedures (related to SDP Offer/Answer) missing.
>Q3_1:    I suggest to remove ³Media² from the section titles. Instead the
>text should indicate that the attributes are media-level attributes. Also,
>in the text you should say something like ³This section defines a new SDP
>media-level attribute,
> <attribute-name>,Š.² instead of the current text which says ³The new
>attribute MUST be a media levelŠ².
>Q3_2:    Sections 3.1 and 3.2 start with text saying:
>³Applications that use SDP for negotiation and also use WebSocket as a
>              transport protocol MAY indicate the connection URI for the
>I don¹t think this text belongs in the attribute definition sections.
>Instead I suggest to add a section ³3.1 General² where you describe the
>need for the attributes.
>Also, instead of saying ³Applications that use SDP for negotiationŠ² I
>would say ³Applications that use the SDP Offer/Answer mechanism [RFC3264]
>for negotiating mediaŠ².
>Q3_3:    There is no port information in c= lines.
>Q3_4:    There should be an ŒSDP Offer/Answer¹ section, describing the
>usage of the attributes. The structure should be:
>   X.  SDP Offer/Answer Procedures
>     X.1.  General
>     X.2.  Generating the Initial SDP Offer
>     X.3.  Generating the SDP Answer
>     X.4.  Offerer Processing of the SDP Answer
>     X.5.  Modifying the Session
>For example, in section X.5 you need to describe what it means to NOT
>include the attributes in a subsequent offer. Does it mean that the
>websocket connection shall be terminated? Etc.
>bfcpbis mailing list