Re: [bfcpbis] More comments on RFC 4582
Tom Kristensen <tomkrist@cisco.com> Mon, 04 June 2012 13:16 UTC
Return-Path: <tomkrist@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A6BE21F8742 for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 06:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XfFdtTDq4uRN for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 06:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-4.cisco.com (ams-iport-4.cisco.com [144.254.224.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F49121F8736 for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 06:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=tomkrist@cisco.com; l=2372; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1338815792; x=1340025392; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6yaT4NNIIlmYPi2g4SXM1QLVQFsFw8LDjgqcI08HCG4=; b=BEFY7R+7ozJ1gUFegxfWl5YdQJY1QB/S8R4eu6xIbtqKN/1Z7S0MT0T3 +Sybtd5505It4RiOIVaVx4StjpHWjSRYlV6duk7TwaUpH6yRHA8mh7f25 E8watC4SMLO4BpKxaYCnZLYZsT1o1o2NlL9izXPE7GI2P348VMKPgy1/8 w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApEFADO0zE+Q/khL/2dsb2JhbABEgx2tN4NTgQeCGAEBAQMBEgElQAEQCxgJFg8JAwIBAgFFBg0BBwEBFweHZAWWfZ8tixGGEAOVG4VQiECBZoJi
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,712,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="5347605"
Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by ams-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Jun 2012 13:16:31 +0000
Received: from [10.61.91.28] (ams3-vpn-dhcp6941.cisco.com [10.61.91.28]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q54DGUN5011984; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 13:16:30 GMT
Message-ID: <4FCCB52E.5010109@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 15:16:30 +0200
From: Tom Kristensen <tomkrist@cisco.com>
Organization: Cisco
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.15) Gecko/20101027 Fedora/3.0.10-1.fc12 Lightning/1.0b2pre Thunderbird/3.0.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo@meetecho.com>
References: <20120604131529.133a66fa@lminiero-acer>
In-Reply-To: <20120604131529.133a66fa@lminiero-acer>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: bfcpbis@ietf.org, Tom Kristensen <2mkristensen@gmail.com>, Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] More comments on RFC 4582
X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 13:16:33 -0000
On 06/04/2012 01:15 PM, Lorenzo Miniero wrote: > <snipping here and there> > > >>> o When we get more experience on queue management from real >>> deployments, it would be nice to explaining it further in the spec. >>> >> Tom: I have no knowledge of queue management from deployments. >> Does anyone else out there have any deployment experience? If not, >> we don't really have much to add at present. >> >> > > We don't do anything fancy with queue management in our current > implementation: I don't think the spec needs to say anything about that > anyway. > Agree. And if there's no demand here in BFCPbis, no text will be added for this issue. >>> o A message may need to be longer than the maximum message length >>> supported by the protocol >>> >> Tom: We've solved the fragmentation issue. No demands voiced for length exceeding the maximum message length for reliable transport voiced in BFCPbis. >> > > I was one of those bringing this issue to the ML, back in the days: I > think the solution proposed in this new document could correctly > address the problem not only when using unreliable connections, but > reliable ones too. The only concern I have, though, is that the draft > currently says that, when using TCP, the version bit must be set to 1 > as per RFC4582: this means that involved entities will get confused > about the new fragment part of the header. Legacy implementations > instead would definitely fail when fragmentation is involved, since the > overall length would now match the actual payload containing the first > fragment. > > I'm not sure how the problem may be solved: I guess setting the version > to 2 for reliable connections might be a way, whereas in that case the > only new "feature" to be used would be the fragmentation stuff and not > the whole spec. > My hope is that this kind of fragmentation, due to the existing payload length field in the BFCP messages being 16 bit, could be avoided by pointing at BFCP's usage domain ("small messages...") and if needed recommend using other means for distributing laaaarge messages (SIP Event framework, other conferencing protocols, ...). Note that the BFCP common header payload length field is a 16-bit field that contains the length of the message in 4-octet units. -- Tom
- [bfcpbis] More comments on RFC 4582 Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [bfcpbis] More comments on RFC 4582 Tom Kristensen
- Re: [bfcpbis] More comments on RFC 4582 Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
- Re: [bfcpbis] More comments on RFC 4582 Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [bfcpbis] More comments on RFC 4582 Tom Kristensen
- Re: [bfcpbis] More comments on RFC 4582 Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [bfcpbis] More comments on RFC 4582 Chelliah Sivachelvan (chelliah)
- [bfcpbis] rfc4583bis TLS SDP example - Re: More c… Tom Kristensen
- Re: [bfcpbis] rfc4583bis TLS SDP example - Re: Mo… Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
- Re: [bfcpbis] rfc4583bis TLS SDP example - Re: Mo… Tom Kristensen
- Re: [bfcpbis] rfc4583bis TLS SDP example - Re: Mo… Tom Kristensen