Re: [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-01.txt

"Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <> Tue, 09 February 2016 19:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 770021ACEC3 for <>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 11:45:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P2ecNrpFhdPk for <>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 11:45:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C96A51ACED7 for <>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 11:45:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=4032; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1455047155; x=1456256755; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=YQtg0zfx3omAzekLOmwfBz+o4fZe7+SO6uPbFumyJ5I=; b=BXemepjTQdhCPqL+T3oUqslB5F9sbptOkvcKfERJriyWP73Xt6OkblhT gdADSA1Iu3EEp8yVEeUGKnKrGnN327X8diNMHqtLc9bNMyzNbcKWr1NMM 1/1Q4hkgVHi39meULB1rA6cyvLYST4g3AAVuhaurZ7NPQhJMKH+2bLKkc k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,422,1449532800"; d="scan'208";a="75365851"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Feb 2016 19:45:54 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u19JjsQh007617 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 9 Feb 2016 19:45:54 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 13:45:54 -0600
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 13:45:53 -0600
From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <>
To: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <>, Christer Holmberg <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHRXn09awGPcMtKSOuEMOqqlqy9z58kBpWA
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 19:45:53 +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: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-01.txt
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: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 19:45:58 -0000

Ram and other draft authors,

Thanks for updating and posting the revised draft.
I would like to poll the working group to see if people think this draft
is now ready to be adopted as a bfcpbis working group draft.


On 2/3/16, 4:20 AM, "bfcpbis on behalf of Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)"
< on behalf of> wrote:

>Hi Christer, 
>Thanks for the feedback. All the below comments has been take care and a
>new revision is published. Please look at the diffs here:
>Link to draft  - 
>From:  bfcpbis <> on behalf of Christer Holmberg
>Date:  Wednesday, 21 October 2015 at 12:23 AM
>To:  "" <>
>Subject:  [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-01.txt
>I have reviewed draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-01.txt.
>I think the draft needs some editorial work, and there is also technical
>procedures (related to SDP Offer/Answer) missing.
>Q3_1:    I suggest to remove ³Media² from the section titles. Instead the
>text should indicate that the attributes are media-level attributes. Also,
>in the text you should say something like ³This section defines a new SDP
>media-level attribute,
> <attribute-name>,Š.² instead of the current text which says ³The new
>attribute MUST be a media levelŠ².
>Q3_2:    Sections 3.1 and 3.2 start with text saying:
>³Applications that use SDP for negotiation and also use WebSocket as a
>              transport protocol MAY indicate the connection URI for the
>I don¹t think this text belongs in the attribute definition sections.
>Instead I suggest to add a section ³3.1 General² where you describe the
>need for the attributes.
>Also, instead of saying ³Applications that use SDP for negotiationŠ² I
>would say ³Applications that use the SDP Offer/Answer mechanism [RFC3264]
>for negotiating mediaŠ².
>Q3_3:    There is no port information in c= lines.
>Q3_4:    There should be an ŒSDP Offer/Answer¹ section, describing the
>usage of the attributes. The structure should be:
>   X.  SDP Offer/Answer Procedures
>     X.1.  General
>     X.2.  Generating the Initial SDP Offer
>     X.3.  Generating the SDP Answer
>     X.4.  Offerer Processing of the SDP Answer
>     X.5.  Modifying the Session
>For example, in section X.5 you need to describe what it means to NOT
>include the attributes in a subsequent offer. Does it mean that the
>websocket connection shall be terminated? Etc.
>bfcpbis mailing list