Re: [bfcpbis] Updates to draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis required to enable ICE

["Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <[e-mail]>]

Tom,

How are things coming with updating the draft? Any questions or problems incorporating these changes?
The deadline for internet draft submissions is Monday, March 13. Can we expect an update to post before then?

Cheers,
Charles

From: Charles Eckel <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, March 3, 2017 at 7:18 AM
To: Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>
Cc: Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>, Tom Kristensen <[e-mail]>, Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>, Tom Kristensen <[e-mail]>, Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>, Paul Jones <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Updates to draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis required to enable ICE

These additions look good to me.

Cheers,
Charles

From: Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 7:49 PM
To: Charles Eckel <[e-mail]>
Cc: Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>, Tom Kristensen <[e-mail]>, Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>, Tom Kristensen <[e-mail]>, Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>, Paul Jones <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Updates to draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis required to enable ICE

I would like to make to additional corrections to my proposed text.

1. The text for seciton 3 should be update to mention that BFCP version for unreliable transports should be used in case of TCP/DTLS/BFCP:

TCP/DTLS/BFCP, which is realized by running BFCP for unreliable transports on top of DTLS as described in this specification and running DTLS on top of TCP is realized using the framing method defined in RFC4571, with DTLS packets being sent and received instead of RTP/RTCP packets using the shim defined in RFC4571 so that length field defined in RFC4571 precedes each DTLS message.

2. In ICE considerations, I would like to add:

Using ICE with protocols other then UDP/TLS/BFCP and TCP/DTLS/BFCP is outside of scope for this specification.

Thank You,

_____________
Roman Shpount

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Roman Shpount <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Charles,

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 6:29 PM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
[cue] We define the proto field value UDP/TLS/BFCP in this draft for BFCP over DTLS. Would it not be more straightforward and consistent to define the new proto value as TCP/UDP/TLS/BFCP instead of TCP/DTLS/BFCP?


I am trying to keep proto names as close as possible to draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp. I understand that there are already implementations which use UDP/TLS/BFCP so we cannot change it to the technically correct value which is UDP/DTLS/BFCP. After all, we are using DTLS transport, which is different from TLS.

Since there are no implementations of TCP/DTLS/BFCP, we should use the technically correct protocol string. There is no UDP layer in TCP/DTLS/BFCP transport stack, since DTLS packets are passed directly to RFC4571 shim. Because of this I think TCP/DTLS/BFCP value is accurate and appropriate.

Regards,
_____________
Roman Shpount