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

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

Return-Path: <eckelcu@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 770021ACEC3 for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 11:45:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P2ecNrpFhdPk for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 11:45:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C96A51ACED7 for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 11:45:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; 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-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AEAgBWQbpW/5BdJa1dgzpSbQaIVrEdA?= =?us-ascii?q?Q2BZhcKhSJKAhyBGzgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhEEBAQEEAQEBIBE6GwIBCBEDAQIDAiY?= =?us-ascii?q?CAgIlCxUICAIEARKIGw6wHo5zAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARMEe4lOhzKBO?= =?us-ascii?q?gWNJ4lRAYVLiASBW4RDiFWOPgEeAQFCg2Rqh1d8AQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,422,1449532800"; d="scan'208";a="75365851"
Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Feb 2016 19:45:54 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-020.cisco.com (xch-aln-020.cisco.com [173.36.7.30]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (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 xch-aln-018.cisco.com (173.36.7.28) by XCH-ALN-020.cisco.com (173.36.7.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 13:45:54 -0600
Received: from xch-aln-018.cisco.com ([173.36.7.28]) by XCH-ALN-018.cisco.com ([173.36.7.28]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 13:45:53 -0600
From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>
To: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com>, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>
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: <D2DF81D1.663E5%eckelcu@cisco.com>
References: <D2D7EFD6.5024B%rmohanr@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D2D7EFD6.5024B%rmohanr@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.0.151221
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.154.248.47]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <FC6AC87534BDF94ABD1351A96BC9C5BA@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bfcpbis/ljmqRgjhJcdWT__E2pcGhuo1Cbk>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-01.txt
X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list <bfcpbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bfcpbis>, <mailto:bfcpbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bfcpbis/>
List-Post: <mailto:bfcpbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bfcpbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis>, <mailto:bfcpbis-request@ietf.org?subject=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.

Thanks,
Charles



On 2/3/16, 4:20 AM, "bfcpbis on behalf of Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)"
<bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of rmohanr@cisco.com> 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:
>https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-02
>
>Link to draft  - 
>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-02
>
>Regards,
>Ram
>
>From:  bfcpbis <bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Christer Holmberg
><christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
>Date:  Wednesday, 21 October 2015 at 12:23 AM
>To:  "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>
>Subject:  [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ram-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-01.txt
>
>
>Hi,
> 
>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
>WebSocketŠ²
> 
>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.
> 
>Regards,
> 
>Christer
>
>_______________________________________________
>bfcpbis mailing list
>bfcpbis@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis