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

"Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <> Wed, 03 February 2016 12:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 445311B34F1 for <>; Wed, 3 Feb 2016 04:20:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ka_RD-cMOSFw for <>; Wed, 3 Feb 2016 04:20:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EE781B34F0 for <>; Wed, 3 Feb 2016 04:20:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2416; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1454502019; x=1455711619; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=SG5+wlPgBn+erGqcbYb9m0wlZPHZdYxkTxTaZbz+3bk=; b=Bkr3TsoKKj+8zv8CsPaBswjdWd1NFLm6zQ3WTlc6fuBmdyc1BSHpfRT4 Y/iH8I1F77OzuHxeZmAXik0W70sd0I5ZKLqrFOu7YYQzD5G9J2TFSHIBC fNf9LtWvaEqNR1I1mrzh6xDUaLcmjUff+ASZPUO1kk+jP6xhanLuE28EG c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ADAgBG8LFW/5pdJa1egzpSbQaIVbE+A?= =?us-ascii?q?Q2BZCGFbIFEOBQBAQEBAQEBgQqEQQECBIELAQgRAwECYR0KBAESiBsOv1oBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQUBAQEBAQEBFQSGE4Q2hDCEPAWNJYlMAYVIiASBW4RCiFSOPwEeAQFCg2Rqi?= =?us-ascii?q?G98AQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,390,1449532800"; d="scan'208";a="233605935"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 Feb 2016 12:20:18 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u13CKH9E026526 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 3 Feb 2016 12:20:18 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Wed, 3 Feb 2016 07:20:17 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Wed, 3 Feb 2016 07:20:17 -0500
From: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <>
To: Christer Holmberg <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHRXn09awGPcMtKSOuEMOqqlqy9zw==
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 12:20:17 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 12:20:21 -0000

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.