Re: [bfcpbis] Draft new version: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-25

Paul Kyzivat <> Fri, 28 September 2018 15:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17B1A130E1E for <>; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 08:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n7pq2BvU4dv9 for <>; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 08:34:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25B0D128C65 for <>; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 08:34:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 12074413-125ff70000000b2e-cc-5bae49ec607f
Received: from (OUTGOING-ALUM.MIT.EDU []) (using TLS with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id DF.D4.02862.CE94EAB5; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 11:34:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from PaulKyzivatsMBP.localdomain ( []) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as pkyzivat@ALUM.MIT.EDU) by (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id w8SFY2iO023685 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <>; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 11:34:03 -0400
References: <> <> <>
From: Paul Kyzivat <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 11:34:02 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrPIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixO6iqPvGc120wcJb4hb/1h1lcmD0WLLk J1MAYxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxu0T5xkLfvBVnDpW2sC4h7uLkZNDQsBE4uzBP+xdjFwcQgI7 mCQmbrjJDpIQEvjBJDFvVj2ILSzgJbG+7SwriC0iICKxY9ZFVoianYwS84/pgdhsAloScw79 ZwGxeQXsJda9u8IEYrMIqEo07O1gA7FFBdIk/nYuYYSoEZQ4OfMJWD2nQKDErRfnwOqZBcwk 5m1+yAxhi0vcejIfKi4v0bx1NvMERv5ZSNpnIWmZhaRlFpKWBYwsqxjlEnNKc3VzEzNzilOT dYuTE/PyUot0zfVyM0v0UlNKNzFCQlJ4B+Ouk3KHGAU4GJV4eB1s10ULsSaWFVfmHmKU5GBS EuW9rAIU4kvKT6nMSCzOiC8qzUktPsQowcGsJMK7r3pttBBvSmJlVWpRPkxKmoNFSZyX2WRv lJBAemJJanZqakFqEUxWhoNDSYJ3nQfQUMGi1PTUirTMnBKENBMHJ8hwHqDhLiA1vMUFibnF mekQ+VOM9hx7vjbNYOZ4MaMDSLY9vQ4kO0CkEEtefl6qlDhvK0ibAEhbRmke3GRYunnFKA70 qDAvDzD5CPEAUxXc7FdAa5mA1oocWAOytiQRISXVwJhmFzhNTuDq1VXtHvkeC6MKo5n7L7V1 5SRUbjaaf0VZJcrVctqdC4zea5eeydpdmvPKuSnv0NIja68fe9BsUtkk8bHnrffPd3Y7Dpzw 3ib5M5Gx+dDjNxfETaZw+oubXRSqTqyb139ux3n938GFC+uyb8ncPsB4RZAnZ/ff4qn3a74e 3qp69qQSS3FGoqEWc1FxIgDfK1q/EgMAAA==
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Draft new version: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-25
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 15:34:07 -0000

On 9/26/18 9:47 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> We definitely need Paul Kyzivat to review and ensure that he's okay with 
> the changes, since he did the SDP directorate review. 

I just did a review of the changes since my review of -22, looking at 
the SDP aspects.

Thanks for updating the format of the SDP specifications!

* General comment:

I have a slight preference for doing references to rules defined in 
other documents differently. E.g.:

    DIGIT = <DIGIT defined in [RFC5234]>

rather than:

    ;DIGIT is defined in [RFC5234]

The advantage is that when mechanically verifying the SDP, the comment 
form results in an undefined symbol while the <> form doesn't. (No, I 
didn't mechanically verify the SDP this time.)

* Section 5.2:

Running both confid and userid into a single subsection is confusing 
rather than helpful. Can you split them please?

* Section 5.3:

The following is wrong:

    floor-id = "a=floorid:" 1*DIGIT SP "mstrm:" token *(SP token)

A minimal fix would be:

    floor-id = 1*DIGIT SP "mstrm:" token *(SP token)

But that reads funny. ISTM the string of digits is the floor-id and the 
sequence of tokens is something else. The attribute seems to be poorly 
named, but you probably can't change it now. I don't have a good 
suggestion on how to improve it.

* Section 5.4:

As in 5.3, the following:

    bfcp-version = "a=bfcpver:" version *(SP version)

ought to be:

    bfcp-version = version *(SP version)

> Note, he 
> mentioned  in a posting that he thought the changes warranted another 
> last call and I don't recall seeing a response to that.   As shepherd, I 
> kindof agree, although I'm okay as long as everyone that reviewed 
> previously confirms on the list that they have reviewed the changes and 
> think the doc is ready to go.

I'll leave that to you all to decide.