Re: [bfcpbis] WGLC on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-06

"Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <> Mon, 02 May 2016 11:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9F0512B020 for <>; Mon, 2 May 2016 04:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.506
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uZwT0ypxfI7u for <>; Mon, 2 May 2016 04:29:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC5AE12B017 for <>; Mon, 2 May 2016 04:29:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=112828; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1462188544; x=1463398144; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=B/h2a6ljCcnZ1h93hyuuT4V5LkJN2Mm+VNO/3Ezm4iw=; b=dQLzSEFxQSQbPa6V4gutG7wf7iOLwyujrK3+5CitLdH9uupPL2koU/lL 3uu29Vie7Af1dNnwchX0VIFlRMBrYVy6sIL4SSX2/85+KuvkHkeTJhIH+ xVW91vXKf4AVj2jle5XqYmJZCtM0hy5RBPlqIjJ0XwLXirjbACHyiZ0aU I=;
X-Files: Diff_ draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-06.txt - draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-07.txt.html, draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-07.txt : 51621, 27081
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0APAwDhOCdX/4kNJK1aAg6DKlN9BoVBq?= =?us-ascii?q?EsHi1oOgXIEFwEMhBSBDkoCgSU4FAEBAQEBAQFlJ4RBAQEBAwEBAQEXARIaDhI?= =?us-ascii?q?BBhcEAgEIDgMDAQIBFgoBDQIfBgsdCAIEAQkJDogHAwoIDq0HhmENhE4BAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQENCIptgkGBQwsRAQYJGQsJKAuFAwWHd4VgOIcfgjU?= =?us-ascii?q?BBSsBgyeCVIJ3gmxCgXeBZxc3g3+HQoEbh1GHXwEeAUOBTDYegRA7bAGHSgcXH?= =?us-ascii?q?38BAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,567,1454976000"; d="txt'?html'217?scan'217,208,217";a="102758275"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 02 May 2016 11:29:01 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u42BT1xX032066 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 2 May 2016 11:29:01 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 2 May 2016 07:29:00 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Mon, 2 May 2016 07:29:00 -0400
From: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <>
To: Paul Kyzivat <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [bfcpbis] WGLC on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-06
Thread-Index: AQHRfUkVo+TnZ4gbOUqcV/Ra3EAi859bPc2AgEsyfQA=
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 11:29:00 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_003_D34CF0805A7B5rmohanrciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] WGLC on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-06
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: Mon, 02 May 2016 11:29:09 -0000

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your feedback. Please see inline. Also attached are the diffs

-----Original Message-----
From: bfcpbis <> on behalf of Paul Kyzivat
Date: Wednesday, 16 March 2016 at 2:08 AM
To: "" <>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] WGLC on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-06

>Generally in good shape. A couple of comments:
>* Section 4.1:
>I see you are using "bfcp" for the subprotocol name.
>IMO it would be better to use "BFCP" for consistency with what is used
>in the m-line proto field.

Agree. Will change to "BFCP"

>(I've been querying for information about case-sensitivity of the
>sub-protocol field. I have not gotten a definitive answer, but the
>prudent path is to assume it is case-sensitive.)
>* Section 7.1 says:
>    An endpoint (i.e., both the offerer and the answerer) MUST create an
>    SDP media description ("m=" line) for each BFCP-over-WebSocket media
>    stream and MUST assign a TCP/WSS/BFCP value to the "proto" field of
>    the "m=" line.  Furthermore, the SDP answerer (Server) MUST add an
>    "a=ws-uri" or "a=wss-uri" attribute in the "m=" line of each BFCP-
>    over-WebSocket media stream depending on whether it is WS or WSS.
>This says to use TCP/WSS/BFCP even when using "a=ws-uri". I presume that
>is wrong.

An endpoint (i.e., both the offerer and the answerer) MUST create an
    SDP media description ("m=" line) for each BFCP-over-WebSocket media
    stream and MUST assign either TCP/WSS/BFCP  or TCP/WS/BFCP value to
The "proto" field of the "m=" line depending on whether the endpoint
wishes to
use secure WebSocket or WebSocket. Furthermore, the server side, which
could be either
          the offerer or answerer, MUST add an "a=ws-uri" or "a=wss-uri"
attribute in the media section
          depending on whether it wishes to use WebSocket or secure

>Also, see my comment on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-01
>regarding the case where the offer is generated by the server. They
>apply here equally. The text needs some reworking to address that case.

Agree. I will add following para at the end of section 7.2


It is possible that a endpoint (e.g., a browser) sends an offerless INVITE
the server. In such cases the server will act as SDP offerer. The server
assign the SDP "setup" attribute with a value of "passive. The server MUST
have an "a=ws-uri" or "a=wss-uri² attribute in the media section depending
whether the application uses WebSocket or secure WebSocket. This attribute
follow the syntax defined in Section 3. For BFCP application, the "proto"
value in 
the "m=" line MUST be TCP/WSS/BFCP if WebSocket is over TLS, else it MUST


>	Thanks,
>	Paul
>On 3/13/16 12:55 PM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) wrote:
>> This is to announce a 2 week WGLC on the draft:
>> Please review and provide any comments by Monday, March 28, 2016.
>> Comments should be sent to the authors and the BFCPBIS WG list.
>> If you review the draft but do not have any comments, please send a note
>> to that effect as well.
>> Thanks,
>> Charles
>> _______________________________________________
>> bfcpbis mailing list
>bfcpbis mailing list