Re: [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-04

"Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com> Thu, 20 August 2015 21:05 UTC

Return-Path: <eckelcu@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 810DA1B29EF for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 14:05:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ovj-3A3cjoJL for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 14:05:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.142.95]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AA7C1B29E9 for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 14:05:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=12576; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1440104739; x=1441314339; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=wCsjkp2WgNLBSVR7T+7VTxfShc7+FapAjXfOMnedQtQ=; b=j8IB2SrRiR53abkmKPdqoap+N8ynZnwtCaG2ba3C1dJ++1B85y+7Xnyt ooSCDU47tog+ehk9ccOODbCxVBdPVfZp980IdDip+p110r6qbYPIsOrC9 4zpyxsNpDbk5cgmSg4Oy2HM/quc3GLHNGlyQFXHBrVtTg7A80fY9Nhsye w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0B+AgDBQNZV/5FdJa1dgk5NVGkGvVABCYdygT44FAEBAQEBAQGBCoQjAQIELUwSAQgRAwECKDkUCQoEAQ0FiC7QQgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGItThHkRhDMFlSkBjG6BSpBAiDEmg31xgUiBBAEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,717,1432598400"; d="scan'208,217";a="180600642"
Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Aug 2015 21:05:38 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (xch-rcd-003.cisco.com [173.37.102.13]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7KL5cvW031585 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 20 Aug 2015 21:05:38 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.102.13) by XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (173.37.102.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 16:05:37 -0500
Received: from xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com (173.36.12.78) by xch-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.102.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 16:05:37 -0500
Received: from xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com ([169.254.3.202]) by xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com ([173.36.12.78]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 16:05:37 -0500
From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-04
Thread-Index: AQHQ24v2XEqd0jP1zEWw4qlKCxlsgw==
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 21:05:37 +0000
Message-ID: <D1FB8E67.55AD7%eckelcu@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.4.150722
x-originating-ip: [173.37.102.27]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D1FB8E6755AD7eckelcuciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bfcpbis/epbC69FLAZimKopKUtvtC7mts8E>
Cc: "alissa@cooperw.in" <alissa@cooperw.in>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-04
X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 21:05:41 -0000

Christer,

Thanks for the review and comments.

Draft authors, when can we expect responses to Christer’s comments, and/or a corresponding update to the draft?

Cheers,
Charles

From: bfcpbis <bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com<mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>>
Date: Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 11:12 AM
To: "bfcpbis@ietf.org<mailto:bfcpbis@ietf.org>" <bfcpbis@ietf.org<mailto:bfcpbis@ietf.org>>
Cc: "alissa@cooperw.in<mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>" <alissa@cooperw.in<mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>>
Subject: [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-04

Hi,

Below is my review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-04.

In general, things look good, and my comments should be mostly editorial. Also, my previous comments on the draft have been addressed. Thanks for that!

Q1: There are a few abbreviations (TLS, HTTP etc) that are not expanded on first occurrence. I didn’t check whether they are considered well known abbreviations, but it would be good to double check.

Q2: I think the last paragraph of section 1, talking about not preventing other mechanisms, can be removed completely.

(I think I previously had the same comment on the draft – or maybe it was another WebSocket sub-protocol draft)

Q3: Section one says “since WebSocket is a reliable transport”. Perhaps “provides a reliable transport” would be better?

Q4: Section 5 says “WebSocket [RFC6455] is a reliable protocol”. I don’t know what “reliable protocol” means, but I assume this text should also talk about providing reliable transport.

Q5: In section 6.1, there should be a reference for the ‘setup’ attribute. Also, when talking about SDP attributes, I’d suggest to explicitly say “SDP setup attribute”, or something similar.

Q6: The introduction says that the draft updates rfc4582bis and rfc4583bis. I think it would be good to have two explicit “Updates to RFCXXXX” sections to list exactly what those updates are.

Q7: Just to check: are the new SDP m- line proto values aligned with the naming approach that has taken place in MMUSIC?

Regards,

Christer