[bfcpbis] More comments on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-03

"Horvath, Ernst" <ernst.horvath@siemens-enterprise.com> Wed, 27 June 2012 15:20 UTC

Return-Path: <ernst.horvath@siemens-enterprise.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 6E8E221F873A for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MANGLED_LIST=2.3]
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 5EvRUJs93TwD for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com [62.134.46.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABABF21F8736 for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MCHP01HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.234]) by senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (Server) with ESMTP id 4DD371EB84FF; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:20:04 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from MCHP03MSX.global-ad.net ([169.254.2.115]) by MCHP01HTC.global-ad.net ([172.29.42.234]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:20:04 +0200
From: "Horvath, Ernst" <ernst.horvath@siemens-enterprise.com>
To: Tom Kristensen <tomkrist@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: More comments on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-03
Thread-Index: AQHNVHhTDz+k+A4RcUuwy0a8/WYs/g==
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:20:03 +0000
Message-ID: <C2BCA7974025BD459349BED0D06E48BB018864@MCHP03MSX.global-ad.net>
Accept-Language: de-AT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.26.0.183]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>
Subject: [bfcpbis] More comments on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-03
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: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:20:06 -0000

Tom,

Here is the rest of (mostly minor) things I noticed during my review of the -03 draft:

Section 5.20.10:
The explanation of Padding below Table 17 says "Two octets of padding...". Why not one or three octets as well, as in other similar caeses?

Section 5.3.14:
Should the 1st sentence read "... on receipt of a _subsequent_ FloorRequestStatus message ..." since the first FlooRequestStatus is itself an acknowledgement and needs no further acknowledgment?

Section 5.3.16:
Similar to previous comment, should it be "... of a subsequent FloorStatus message ..."?

Section 6.1:
Why was the final paragraph of RFC 4582 section 6 omitted from the -bis draft? I assume it's an editorial slip.

Section 6.2, 2nd paragraph:
Change "only upon receipt can the client consider" to "only upon receipt of HelloAck can the client consider".

Section 6.2.1:
"... the message is retransmitted up to three times." Does that mean 3 retransmissions (i.e. 4 transmissions altogether) or the original transmission plus 2 retransmissions? The latter seems to be meant in section 8.3.1, which says "failing after three unacknowledged transmission attempts". Or should 8.3.1 also say "retransmission attempts"?

Section 6.2.2:
The text "and behave accordingly" at the end of the 1st sentence seems redundant.

Section 11.1:
In the 2nd paragraph, shouldn't "floor participant's  identifier" be "floor chair's identifier"?

Section 13, 2nd paragraph:
The second sentence should start "If it is not" (rather than "If it does not").

Section 13.1.1, 1st paragraph:
"... the first of which SHOULD be generated as soon as possible" could be made more specific with a hint to the retransmision window in case of an unreliable transport. Similarly in later subsections of 13.

Section 13.1.2:
The third paragraph is only true for reliable transport, a 2nd statement should be added for unreliable transport.

Section 13.4, 6th paragraph:
Change "the floors being requested" to "the floors being released".

Section 13.5, 1st paragraph:
On the 3rd line, change "FloorRelease message" to "FloorQuery message".

Section 13.5.2, end of 1st paragraph:
"but their Transaction ID is 0" is true for reliable transport only. Add a statement for unreliable transport. Similarly at the end of the 2nd paragraph.

Section 14, 4th paragraph:
I am not sure whether "Floor control server impersonation is avoided by having servers only accept BFCP messages over authenticated TLS/DTLS connections" is sufficient. Shouldn't there also be an onus on a client to send and accept messages over secure connections only?

Section 15:
Delete "This" from the start of the 1st sentence below the editorial note.

Regards,
Ernst