[bfcpbis] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-08: (with COMMENT)

["Mirja Kuehlewind" <[e-mail]>]

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-08: No Objection

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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- sec 4.2. The MUST here is inappropriate (given the split of docs):
„For example, to negotiate BFCP-over-WebSocket the "proto" value in the
   "m=" line MUST be TCP/WSS/BFCP if WebSocket is over TLS, else it
MUST
   be TCP/WS/BFCP.“
Should be instead:
„For example, to negotiate BFCP-over-WebSocket the "proto" value in the
   "m=" line is TCP/WSS/BFCP if WebSocket is over TLS, else it is
   TCP/WS/BFCP., as specified in [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket]“
- Also remove the following sentence in section 4.3:

„For BFCP application, the "proto" value in the "m=" line
   MUST be TCP/WSS/BFCP if WebSocket is run on TLS, else it MUST be
   TCP/WS/BFCP.“
- In section 6: „a=ws/a=wss-uri“. Maybe use „a=ws-uri/a=wss-uri“ instead?