Re: [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-04

"Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <> Mon, 12 October 2015 21:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3745B1A1A64 for <>; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GH3lqmgV3hia for <>; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:52:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97AEC1A1B44 for <>; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:52:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=11811; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1444686777; x=1445896377; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=xEvB1jvBkBEpC6HiHxzfUKsW/SFdri+zcwK7IwRYGK8=; b=gWEWAsXcavlUNYBOB//ebBOMD/ZywUwUllyMoMprs/PiZ1oiyGXU0h0n QQP2RgVX289K1i3zLk7m95kKTMH5ac9aDoaA0bvjij0S3q82NEFtSvpj5 YIyAiWo4A7qPyFxrB1VZD43xMLjow4DMSrU3KgGywZTpY1JzOJW2ARn+p M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.17,675,1437436800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="35022061"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 12 Oct 2015 21:52:55 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t9CLqtXB025757 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 12 Oct 2015 21:52:56 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:52:43 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:52:42 -0500
From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <>
To: "Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <>
Thread-Topic: [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-04
Thread-Index: AQHQ24v2XEqd0jP1zEWw4qlKCxlsg54WQoMAgFJVjoA=
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 21:52:42 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D24178995B462eckelcuciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "Ram Mohan R \(rmohanr\)" <>, "" <>, "" <>, Christer Holmberg <>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-04
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 21:53:01 -0000

Any update on this?
I have requested and been assigned a slot for bfcpbis on Monday of IETF 95. Would it be helpful so have some time to discuss these drafts?
As both drafts have expired, I think it is best to publish updates to both drafts, request comments, and schedule time to discuss on Monday if necessary.


From: "Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <<>>
Date: Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 10:33 PM
To: Charles Eckel <<>>
Cc: Christer Holmberg <<>>, "<>" <<>>, "<>" <<>>, "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <<>>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-04

@Charles - Ram and I are working on the updated version and hope to publish it very soon. One additional request below.

@Christer - It would be helpful to get your review of the complementary draft you requested (draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-00<>)0>). That way we can update both at the same time. Let us know if this is something forthcoming.



On Aug 20, 2015, at 5:05 PM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <<>> wrote:


Thanks for the review and comments.

Draft authors, when can we expect responses to Christer's comments, and/or a corresponding update to the draft?


From: bfcpbis <<>> on behalf of Christer Holmberg <<>>
Date: Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 11:12 AM
To: "<>" <<>>
Cc: "<>" <<>>
Subject: [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-04


Below is my review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-04.

In general, things look good, and my comments should be mostly editorial. Also, my previous comments on the draft have been addressed. Thanks forthat!

Q1: There are a few abbreviations (TLS, HTTP etc) that are not expanded on first occurrence. I didn't check whether they are considered well knowndouble check.

Q2: I think the last paragraph of section 1, talking about not preventing other mechanisms, can be removed completely.

(I think I previously had the same comment on the draft - or maybe it was another WebSocket sub-protocol draft)

Q3: Section one says "since WebSocket is a reliable transport". Perhaps "provides a reliable transport" would be better?

Q4: Section 5 says "WebSocket [RFC6455] is a reliable protocol". I don't know what "reliable protocol" means, but I assume this text should also talkabout providing reliable transport.

Q5: In section 6.1, there should be a reference for the 'setup' attribute. Also, when talking about SDP attributes, I'd suggest to explicitly say"SDP setup attribute", or something similar.

Q6: The introduction says that the draft updates rfc4582bis and rfc4583bis. I think it would be good to have two explicit "Updates to RFCXXXX" sectionsto list exactly what those updates are.

Q7: Just to check: are the new SDP m- line proto values aligned with the naming approach that has taken place in MMUSIC?



bfcpbis mailing list<>