Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-15.txt

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Tue, 25 October 2016 14:50 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
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 37F7A12964A for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 07:50:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.71
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.71 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=cooperw.in header.b=h3dtMJse; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=r4Yhdiwm
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lHe1bhyDuSkD for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 07:50:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E31FC12965E for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 07:50:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51EA621354; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:50:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:50:30 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=cc :content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to:x-me-sender; s=mesmtp; bh=DIloUreWUByX4ml FBQVzzYMCOV8=; b=h3dtMJse+B+jqGJAaMQC34Mo0e/gN9OohrkkeBx+kav4OA1 hRZxsvGkKt9GzJSZBLv3dkMdqakymx3JA/J2VIzcXc9MMXPX2nH2bhZmLfVneu1X 3CiuB2/HyW8nqiuQYr8Ctzn7c0VQK+kkBx/0nwUVoSiGJ2Xl2bc886g4Y5gw=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender; s= smtpout; bh=DIloUreWUByX4mlFBQVzzYMCOV8=; b=r4YhdiwmTip8FU19qrKE 3juJWo7ErdWWwFB8E7n/3+bRFjevJ3JvZWrRyTCHf+huVozGxk3hZgX7BCqywgAT lJmCMl8O5qYdvkNU8KUR7urwh+DyS+k4tV5/cStv1ZYcPoaoNXavShYgciXj0DTQ VZwB8XGk/zGoXaLDYSZ5Hew=
X-ME-Sender: <xms:NnEPWIEtdmXXtJzxYh3JHTjeKcN-7UZYCrSHzB_pwIQ2mbd0HN2knA>
X-Sasl-enc: Wru9RZ+iv+JqQ86tY+eZE7WG5Q3d23nbOsAT4F4LuP2G 1477407025
Received: from sjc-alcoop-8813.cisco.com (unknown [128.107.241.165]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 8E9F5F29D5; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:50:24 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8AB2C53C-73F8-4DDD-B589-9D805C5A1559"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <ECE36C48-D3E2-4F94-97F1-89C48C27CD89@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:50:22 -0400
Message-Id: <FDADA906-1933-40DD-B1A8-9800F8B1567D@cooperw.in>
References: <E0BFE4A5-6F33-4D5E-84F3-28D14F957A4D@cisco.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4BC27452@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <ECE36C48-D3E2-4F94-97F1-89C48C27CD89@cisco.com>
To: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bfcpbis/jn6sdldw5TBlP-2a-m8sZmyAqPc>
Cc: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>, "Tom Kristensen \(tomkrist\)" <tomkrist@cisco.com>, Tom Kristensen <2mkristensen@gmail.com>, "Suhas Nandakumar \(snandaku\)" <snandaku@cisco.com>, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-15.txt
X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <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: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 14:50:36 -0000


> On Aug 22, 2016, at 4:07 PM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <eckelcu@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Christer.
> I don’t think a separate “BUNDLE Considerations” section is warranted. Adding the agreed upon text to section 10 is sufficient.
> We can continue to specify the MUX category in the rfc4583bis draft and am okay with TBD.

Having just reviewed draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes again, I’m wondering why TBD would be specified here rather than choosing a value. Is there some future document where the WG would expect to specify the value or some implementation experience that people feel is necessary before the value can be specified? If not, then 4583bis seems like the right place to specify the value.

Alissa


> 
> Thank s again,
> Charles
> 
> From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com <mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>>
> Date: Friday, August 19, 2016 at 12:39 PM
> To: Charles Eckel <eckelcu@cisco.com <mailto:eckelcu@cisco.com>>, Tom Kristensen <tomkrist@cisco.com <mailto:tomkrist@cisco.com>>, Tom Kristensen <2mkristensen@gmail.com <mailto:2mkristensen@gmail.com>>, "bfcpbis@ietf.org <mailto:bfcpbis@ietf.org>" <bfcpbis@ietf.org <mailto:bfcpbis@ietf.org>>
> Cc: "Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku)" <snandaku@cisco.com <mailto:snandaku@cisco.com>>
> Subject: RE: SV: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-15.txt
> 
>> Hi,
>>  
>> I agree that we should say that BUNDLE multiplexing is not supported  in this specification, and that BFCP m- lines MUST NOT be included in a bundle group.
>>  
>> Perhaps you could put that text in a small “BUNDLE Considerations” chapter, or something similar?
>>  
>> Regarding where to define the MUX category for the new attribute, I suggest we do it in this draft, since that is part of the information you need to specify when registering a new attribute.
>>  
>> Regarding the mux category value, I guess IDENTICAL would work – eventhough it’s a little strange considering we don’t define BFCP multiplexing to begin with. Would TBD be more suitable?
>>  
>> Regards,
>>  
>> Christer
>>   <>
>> From: Charles Eckel (eckelcu) [mailto:eckelcu@cisco.com <mailto:eckelcu@cisco.com>] 
>> Sent: 02 August 2016 17:43
>> To: Tom Kristensen (tomkrist) <tomkrist@cisco.com <mailto:tomkrist@cisco.com>>; Tom Kristensen <2mkristensen@gmail.com <mailto:2mkristensen@gmail.com>>; bfcpbis@ietf.org <mailto:bfcpbis@ietf.org>
>> Cc: Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku) <snandaku@cisco.com <mailto:snandaku@cisco.com>>; Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com <mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>>
>> Subject: Re: SV: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-15.txt
>>  
>> Thanks Tom.
>> Suhas, Christer, any thoughts?
>>  
>> Cheers,
>> Charles
>>  
>> From: Tom Kristensen <tomkrist@cisco.com <mailto:tomkrist@cisco.com>>
>> Date: Monday, August 1, 2016 at 4:49 AM
>> To: Charles Eckel <eckelcu@cisco.com <mailto:eckelcu@cisco.com>>, Tom Kristensen <2mkristensen@gmail.com <mailto:2mkristensen@gmail.com>>, "bfcpbis@ietf.org <mailto:bfcpbis@ietf.org>" <bfcpbis@ietf.org <mailto:bfcpbis@ietf.org>>
>> Cc: "Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku)" <snandaku@cisco.com <mailto:snandaku@cisco.com>>, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com <mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>>
>> Subject: SV: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-15.txt
>>  
>>> It would be ideal to treat bfcpver the same way as the other, existing attributes. Hopefully, the authors of  draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes​ will add them to this draft.
>>>  
>>> I do like to move the BUNDLE reference to informational, so I support Charles' text proposal in his last paragraph below.
>>>  
>>> -- Tom
>>> Fra: Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
>>> Sendt: 8. juli 2016 23:39
>>> Til: Tom Kristensen; bfcpbis@ietf.org <mailto:bfcpbis@ietf.org>
>>> Kopi: Tom Kristensen (tomkrist); Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku); Christer Holmberg
>>> Emne: Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-15.txt
>>>  
>>> Hi Tom,
>>>  
>>> Thanks for incorporating the changes. The dtls-id change looks good. Unfortunately, the MUX category change suffers from the fact we are chasing a moving target. draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes was updated recently and the NOT RECOMMENDED category was replaced with the CAUTION category. 
>>>  
>>> Upon taking another look at draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes, my previous suggestion was not good. draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes already defines the Mux category for all SDP attribute defined in rfc4583bis except the newly added bfcpver SDP attribute. For this, I think the Mux category should be IDENTICAL. However, I’m not sure if it should be added to rfc4583bis or to draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes directly. I have cc’d Suhas to Christer to get their input, both on the mux category selected and where it should be specified.
>>>  
>>> As for multiplexing of BFCP lines, perhaps rfc4583bis should simply say, "Multiplexing of BFCP ‘m' lines, as defined in BUNDLE [16], is not defined by this specification.”
>>> If we agree to this, the reference to BUNDLE should be Informational instead of Normative.
>>>  
>>> Cheers,
>>> Charles
>>>  
>>>  
>>> From: bfcpbis <bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Tom Kristensen <2mkristensen@gmail.com <mailto:2mkristensen@gmail.com>>
>>> Date: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 11:13 PM
>>> To: "bfcpbis@ietf.org <mailto:bfcpbis@ietf.org>" <bfcpbis@ietf.org <mailto:bfcpbis@ietf.org>>
>>> Cc: Tom Kristensen <tomkrist@cisco.com <mailto:tomkrist@cisco.com>>
>>> Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-15.txt
>>>  
>>>> Incorporates the two issues spotted by Charles in the -14 version. The draft should most likely and hopefully be ready to proceed through the next stages now. 
>>>>  
>>>> -- Tom
>>>>  
>>>> On 7 July 2016 at 08:10, <internet-drafts@ietf.org <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>>>>> This draft is a work item of the Binary Floor Control Protocol Bis  of the IETF.
>>>>> 
>>>>>         Title           : Session Description Protocol (SDP) Format for Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP) Streams
>>>>>         Authors         : Gonzalo Camarillo
>>>>>                           Tom Kristensen
>>>>>                           Paul E. Jones
>>>>>         Filename        : draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-15.txt
>>>>>         Pages           : 21
>>>>>         Date            : 2016-07-06
>>>>> 
>>>>> Abstract:
>>>>>    This document specifies how to describe Binary Floor Control Protocol
>>>>>    (BFCP) streams in Session Description Protocol (SDP) descriptions.
>>>>>    User agents using the offer/answer model to establish BFCP streams
>>>>>    use this format in their offers and answers.
>>>>> 
>>>>>    This document obsoletes RFC 4583.  Changes from RFC 4583 are
>>>>>    summarized in Section 14.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis/>
>>>>> 
>>>>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-15 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-15>
>>>>> 
>>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-15 <https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-15>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
>>>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org <http://tools.ietf.org/>.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/>
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> bfcpbis mailing list
>>>>> bfcpbis@ietf.org <mailto:bfcpbis@ietf.org>
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> --
>>>> # Cisco                         |  http://www.cisco.com/telepresence/ <http://www.cisco.com/telepresence/>
>>>> ## tomkrist@cisco.com <mailto:tomkrist@cisco.com>  |  http://www.tandberg.com <http://www.tandberg.com/>
>>>> ###                               |  http://folk.uio.no/tomkri/ <http://folk.uio.no/tomkri/>_______________________________________________
> bfcpbis mailing list
> bfcpbis@ietf.org <mailto:bfcpbis@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis>