[bfcpbis] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-08: (with COMMENT)
"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 19 January 2017 03:07 UTC
Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietf.org
Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C6C712940F; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 19:07:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.40.3
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <148479523358.2237.1559325648971286444.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 19:07:13 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bfcpbis/j6sJT26bp2r6vJPFy-YRM1lbqOQ>
Cc: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri@ietf.org, bfcpbis@ietf.org, eckelcu@cisco.com, bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: [bfcpbis] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-08: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 19 Jan 2017 03:07:13 -0000
Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-08: Yes When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- How does this interact with websocket sub-protocol specifications? Is there an expectation one might take some existing media protocol and use it with this draft _without_ a sub-protocol spec? I note the examples use bfcp, which in fact has a sub-protocol spec on this same telechat. (Most of my detailed comments are related to this) - 4.2, first paragraph: Am I correct that the "proto" field would also include the sub-protocol? (e.g. TCP/WSS/BFCP)? Would you ever have a "proto" filed value of just "TCP/WS(S)? - 4.2, 2nd paragraph I wonder if the guidance here (the recommendation that the offerer is the active party) doesn't vary by sub-protocol? Or if it doesn't, if it's more a matter of topology (e.g. servers with global IP addresses vs clients behind NATs) than a matter of who sends the offer? Also, please consider citing 4145 in this paragraph. (You do in 4.3).
- [bfcpbis] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-bfcpbi… Ben Campbell
- Re: [bfcpbis] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-bf… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)