Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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: 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 In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:50:22 -0400 Message-Id: References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4BC27452@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> To: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Archived-At: Cc: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" , "Tom Kristensen \(tomkrist\)" , Tom Kristensen <2mkristensen@gmail.com>, "Suhas Nandakumar \(snandaku\)" , Christer Holmberg 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 14:50:36 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_8AB2C53C-73F8-4DDD-B589-9D805C5A1559 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Aug 22, 2016, at 4:07 PM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) = wrote: >=20 > Thanks Christer. > I don=E2=80=99t think a separate =E2=80=9CBUNDLE Considerations=E2=80=9D= 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=E2=80=99= 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 >=20 > Thank s again, > Charles >=20 > From: Christer Holmberg > > Date: Friday, August 19, 2016 at 12:39 PM > To: Charles Eckel >, Tom = Kristensen >, Tom = Kristensen <2mkristensen@gmail.com >, = "bfcpbis@ietf.org " > > Cc: "Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku)" > > Subject: RE: SV: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: = draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-15.txt >=20 >> Hi, >> =20 >> 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. >> =20 >> Perhaps you could put that text in a small =E2=80=9CBUNDLE = Considerations=E2=80=9D chapter, or something similar? >> =20 >> 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. >> =20 >> Regarding the mux category value, I guess IDENTICAL would work =E2=80=93= eventhough it=E2=80=99s a little strange considering we don=E2=80=99t = define BFCP multiplexing to begin with. Would TBD be more suitable? >> =20 >> Regards, >> =20 >> Christer >> =C2=A0 <> >> From: Charles Eckel (eckelcu) [mailto:eckelcu@cisco.com = ]=20 >> Sent: 02 August 2016 17:43 >> To: Tom Kristensen (tomkrist) >; Tom Kristensen <2mkristensen@gmail.com = >; bfcpbis@ietf.org = >> Cc: Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku) >; Christer Holmberg = > >> Subject: Re: SV: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: = draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-15.txt >> =20 >> Thanks Tom. >> Suhas, Christer, any thoughts? >> =20 >> Cheers, >> Charles >> =20 >> From: Tom Kristensen > >> Date: Monday, August 1, 2016 at 4:49 AM >> To: Charles Eckel >, Tom = Kristensen <2mkristensen@gmail.com >, = "bfcpbis@ietf.org " > >> Cc: "Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku)" >, Christer Holmberg = > >> Subject: SV: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: = draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-15.txt >> =20 >>> 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=E2=80=8B will add them to this = draft. >>> =20 >>> I do like to move the BUNDLE reference to informational, so I = support Charles' text proposal in his last paragraph below. >>> =20 >>> -- Tom >>> Fra: Charles Eckel (eckelcu) >>> Sendt: 8. juli 2016 23:39 >>> Til: Tom Kristensen; bfcpbis@ietf.org >>> Kopi: Tom Kristensen (tomkrist); Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku); = Christer Holmberg >>> Emne: Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-15.txt >>> =20 >>> Hi Tom, >>> =20 >>> 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.=20 >>> =20 >>> 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=E2=80=99m not = sure if it should be added to rfc4583bis or to = draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes directly. I have cc=E2=80=99d Suhas = to Christer to get their input, both on the mux category selected and = where it should be specified. >>> =20 >>> As for multiplexing of BFCP lines, perhaps rfc4583bis should simply = say, "Multiplexing of BFCP =E2=80=98m' lines, as defined in BUNDLE [16], = is not defined by this specification.=E2=80=9D >>> If we agree to this, the reference to BUNDLE should be Informational = instead of Normative. >>> =20 >>> Cheers, >>> Charles >>> =20 >>> =20 >>> From: bfcpbis > on behalf of Tom Kristensen = <2mkristensen@gmail.com > >>> Date: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 11:13 PM >>> To: "bfcpbis@ietf.org " > >>> Cc: Tom Kristensen > >>> Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: = draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-15.txt >>> =20 >>>> 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.=20 >>>> =20 >>>> -- Tom >>>> =20 >>>> On 7 July 2016 at 08:10, > wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>> 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. >>>>>=20 >>>>> 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 >>>>>=20 >>>>> 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. >>>>>=20 >>>>> This document obsoletes RFC 4583. Changes from RFC 4583 are >>>>> summarized in Section 14. >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis/ = >>>>>=20 >>>>> There's also a htmlized version available at: >>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-15 = >>>>>=20 >>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at: >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-15= >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> 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 . >>>>>=20 >>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ = >>>>>=20 >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> bfcpbis mailing list >>>>> bfcpbis@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis = >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> =20 >>>> -- >>>> # Cisco | = http://www.cisco.com/telepresence/ >>>> ## tomkrist@cisco.com | = http://www.tandberg.com >>>> ### | http://folk.uio.no/tomkri/ = ______________________________________________= _ > bfcpbis mailing list > bfcpbis@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis = --Apple-Mail=_8AB2C53C-73F8-4DDD-B589-9D805C5A1559 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8


On = Aug 22, 2016, at 4:07 PM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <eckelcu@cisco.com> = wrote:

Thanks = Christer.
I don=E2=80=99t think a separate = =E2=80=9CBUNDLE Considerations=E2=80=9D 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=E2=80=99m = 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>
Date: Friday, August 19, = 2016 at 12:39 PM
To: Charles Eckel <eckelcu@cisco.com>, Tom = Kristensen <tomkrist@cisco.com>, Tom Kristensen <2mkristensen@gmail.com>, = "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>
Cc: "Suhas Nandakumar = (snandaku)" <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 =E2=80=9CBUNDLE Considerations=E2=80=9D 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 =E2=80=93 eventhough it=E2=80= =99s a little strange considering we don=E2=80=99t define BFCP = multiplexing to begin with. Would TBD be more suitable?
 
Regards,
 
Christer
 
From: Charles = Eckel (eckelcu) [mailto:eckelcu@cisco.com] 
Sent: 02 = August 2016 17:43
To: Tom Kristensen (tomkrist) = <tomkrist@cisco.com>; Tom = Kristensen <2mkristensen@gmail.com>; bfcpbis@ietf.org
Cc: Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku) = <snandaku@cisco.com>; = Christer Holmberg <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>
Date: Monday, August 1, 2016 = at 4:49 AM
To: Charles Eckel <eckelcu@cisco.com>, Tom = Kristensen <2mkristensen@gmail.com>, "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>
Cc: "Suhas Nandakumar = (snandaku)" <snandaku@cisco.com>, Christer Holmberg <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=E2=80=8B 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
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=E2=80=99m not sure if it = should be added to rfc4583bis or = to draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes directly. I have = cc=E2=80=99d 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 =E2=80=98m' = lines, as defined in BUNDLE [16], is not defined by this = specification.=E2=80=9D
If= we agree to this, the reference to BUNDLE should be Informational = instead of Normative.
 
Cheers,
Charles
 
 
From: bfcpbis <bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org> = on behalf of Tom Kristensen <2mkristensen@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 = at 11:13 PM
To: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>
Cc: Tom Kristensen <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> 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/=

There's also a htmlized version = available at:
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=3Ddraft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583b= is-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.

Internet-Drafts are also available by = anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
bfcpbis mailing list
bfcpbis@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis


 
--
# Cisco     =                     | =  http://www.cisco.com/telepresence/
## tomkrist@cisco.com  |  http://www.tandberg.com
###     =                     =       |  http://folk.uio.no/tomkri/
<= /div>
_______________________________________________
bfcpbis mailing list
bfcpbis@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis

= --Apple-Mail=_8AB2C53C-73F8-4DDD-B589-9D805C5A1559--