[bfcpbis] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-08: (with COMMENT)

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

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).