Re: [bfcpbis] WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis

Hi all,

I agree with Christer re Section 4 here, the text has become slightly confused. Now the presence of this attribute in O/A has been raised to a MUST, the following paragraph serves no purpose any more and should be removed:

   If the 'floorctrl' attribute is not used in an offer/answer exchange,
   by default the offerer and the answerer will act as a floor control
   client and as a floor control server, respectively.

That would resolve the confusion highlighted here.

Regarding my own WGLC comments, I’m not going to kick up any more of a fuss about this, but in Section 6, although the text re “mstrm” has been improved to clarify being optional, I remain confused as to what the scenario actually is for a floorid without associated media stream(s). Does it affect all streams in that case? Or would it be used for floors that do not have any associated media streams (whatever that means)? I think it would be useful to define what the lack of mstrm means (unless it’s application-specific, in which case we can ignore it).

Other than that, I am happy with the document as it now stands.

Regards,
Alan

> On 7 Dec 2017, at 08:16, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> 
>>   Q1: SDP 'floorctrl' attribute:
>>   -------------------------------------
>> 
>>   It is very unclear whether the attribute is mandatory in
>> offers/answers or not.
>> 
>>   Section 11.1 says that it MUST be included in offers. However,
>> section 4 seems to indicate that it may not be included in an offer.
>> 
>>   Section 11.2 says that it MUST be included in an answer, while
>> section 4 indicates that it is only included if present in the offer.
>> 
>> [cue] Sections 11.1 says it MUST be included in offers IF the offerer
>> acts as a floor control server.
>> [cue] Similarly, section 11.2 says it MUST be included in the answer IF
>> the answerer acts as a floor control server.
> 
> Section 4 does not talk about the role. The text says:
> 
>  "If an SDP media description in an offer contains a 'floorctrl'
>   attribute, the answerer accepting that media MUST include a
>   'floorctrl' attribute in the corresponding media description of the
>   answer.²
> 
> 
> 
>> [cue] This is consistent with section 4, which states a floor control
>> server acting as an offerer or as an answerer MUST include this attribute
>> in its session descriptions.
> 
> Based on the text in section 11.2, if the answerer does NOT include the
> attribute in the answer, it would mean that the answerer acts as floor
> control client. Right?
> 
> BUT, the text in section 4 says:
> 
>  "If the 'floorctrl' attribute is not used in an offer/answer exchange,
>   by default the offerer and the answerer will act as a floor control
>   client and as a floor control server, respectively.²
> 
> So, to me that means that if the answerer does NOT include the attribute
> in the answer, the answerer acts as server.
> 
> 
> 
>> [cue] So I think this is technically correct, though as you point out,
>> perhaps not the best wording. That said, it was reworded in this draft to
>> try to make it more clear. Do you have a different wording that you think
>> would be better?
> 
> In my opinion, section 4 should only define the attribute, and what it is
> used for. The offer/answer considerations should ONLY be in section 11.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer
> 
> 
>>       -----Original Message-----
>>       From: Charles Eckel (eckelcu) [mailto:eckelcu@cisco.com]
>>       Sent: 19 July 2017 12:23
>>       To: bfcpbis@ietf.org
>>       Cc: Tom Kristensen (tomkrist) <tomkrist@cisco.com>; Roman Shpount
>> <rshpount@turbobridge.com>; Alan Ford <alan.ford@gmail.com>; Gonzalo
>> Camarillo <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>; Christer Holmberg
>> <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>; alan@pexip.com
>>       Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis
>> 
>>       (As WG co-chair)
>> 
>>       Thanks to those who provided reviews. We have decided to extend
>> WGLC an additional week, through July 25, to provide folks tied up with
>> other IETF matters time to complete their reviews.
>> 
>>       Cheers,
>>       Charles 
>> 
>>       -----Original Message-----
>>       From: bfcpbis <bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Charles
>> Eckel <eckelcu@cisco.com>
>>       Date: Monday, July 17, 2017 at 10:10 AM
>>       To: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>
>>       Cc: Tom Kristensen <tomkrist@cisco.com>, Roman Shpount
>> <rshpount@turbobridge.com>, Alan Ford <alan.ford@gmail.com>, Gonzalo
>> Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>, Christer Holmberg
>> <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
>>       Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis
>> 
>>           (As WG co-chair)
>> 
>>           This is a reminder that WGLC ends tomorrow. I realize the
>> time to review overlaps with IETF prep and meeting times. If you require
>> more time to review the draft, please let me know. Otherwise, please
>> share your review comments by the end of tomorrow.
>> 
>>           Thanks,
>>           Charles
>> 
>>           -----Original Message-----
>>           From: bfcpbis <bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Charles
>> Eckel <eckelcu@cisco.com>
>>           Date: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 5:59 PM
>>           To: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>
>>           Subject: [bfcpbis] WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis
>> 
>>               (As WG co-chair)
>> 
>>               This is to announce an additional working group last call
>> for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis, "Session Description Protocol (SDP)
>> Format for Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP) Streams".
>> 
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis/
>> 
>>               This is intended as a Standards Track RFC, obsoleting RFC
>> 4583.
>>               Please respond to the list by July 18th (i.e. 2 weeks)
>> with any comments.
>> 
>>               We had a working group last call previous, but a
>> significant amount of time and some substantial changes and additions
>> have occurred to justify another review of the draft in its entirely. It
>> is helpful to attempt to categorize your comment (e.g. technical issue
>> vs. editorial), and also to provide any replacement text you feel is
>> necessary.
>>               If you review the document and have no comments, please
>> tell the chairs that you have reviewed it. This is always useful
>> information in assessing the degree of WG review and consensus behind the
>> document.
>>               Note, we have not scheduled a working group session for
>> IETF 99 in Prague. This WGLC will close during IETF 99. If helpful, we
>> can arrange a side meeting to discuss any significant issues, or with any
>> luck, gather at a bar to celebrate the draft being ready to advance to
>> the next step toward RFC.
>> 
>>               Cheers,
>>               Charles
>> 
>> 
>>               _______________________________________________
>>               bfcpbis mailing list
>>               bfcpbis@ietf.org
>>               https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
>> 
>> 
>>           _______________________________________________
>>           bfcpbis mailing list
>>           bfcpbis@ietf.org
>>           https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

Re: [bfcpbis] WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis - Christer's review