Re: [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-07
"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Tue, 03 January 2017 14:17 UTC
Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CC821295EE; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 06:17:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.722
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.722 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_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
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 0LgyNkgr8gor; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 06:17:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBD411295E7; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 06:17:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE06D4A7E64; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 06:17:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=1.tigertech; t=1483453060; bh=Qiy/DWrXN11rA4XgX8fpM4X99ExZaA6cCgb+K4S+jdg=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ZlfOVLQIpg1RQfOJWIJmpbLFHJcR/5BpMtDZQxSq7bBNzxNa6F3eYZ2GiqQfqodBB nF9S2AC31f9dSMawLTwATKoUepYowYBV34KhCE2iqdPzA+1xiF+TGv+nH0NoPZvf0c w/XB8mBFD9dAepMMESK5ihz87MJAIfc6OSE4kwcU=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0C6FA1C0502; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 06:17:39 -0800 (PST)
To: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>
References: <148253493203.16856.4857620752315294427.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <571231A9-2757-4B86-BC65-2491B6B7F882@cisco.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <fbd71455-723b-01a2-ea18-f479ed3be79d@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2017 09:17:38 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <571231A9-2757-4B86-BC65-2491B6B7F882@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bfcpbis/qZFiXOaefD0A5S7IeVdNyZW3Df8>
Cc: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri.all@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-07
X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 03 Jan 2017 14:17:45 -0000
Yes, those fixes ddress my concerns. Thank you. Joel On 1/3/17 3:36 AM, Ram Mohan R (rmohanr) wrote: > Hi Joel, > > Thanks for your response. Please see inline > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> > Date: Saturday, 24 December 2016 at 4:45 AM > To: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org> > Cc: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri.all@ietf.org> > Subject: Review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-07 > Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org> > Resent-To: <rmohanr@cisco.com>, <gsalguei@cisco.com>, <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>, <eckelcu@cisco.com>, <ben@nostrum.com>, <alissa@cooperw.in>, <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>, Charles Eckel <eckelcu@cisco.com> > Resent-Date: Saturday, 24 December 2016 at 4:45 AM > > Reviewer: Joel Halpern > Review result: Ready with Nits > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-?? > Reviewer: Joel Halpern > Review Date: 2016-12-23 > IETF LC End Date: 2017-01-12 > IESG Telechat date: 2017-01-19 > > Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard > RFC. I have a few minor comments that should be considered s they may > improve future understanding of the document. > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: > In reading section 4.2 and 4.3, I believe I can guess at certain > intended behaviors, but it is not as clearly stated as I think is > desirable. There is also one odd statement in section 4.3 > > Taking the odd statement first, the text in section 4.3 refers the > active answerer "towards > the IP address and port of the offerer". But when WebSockets is > used, one does not connect to the IP address and port, but to the URI > specified. > > <Ram> I will replace the text as below: > > EXISTING: > Towards the IP address and port of the offerer using the procedures described > in [RFC6455] > > NEW: > Towards the URI specified in a=ws-uri or a=wss-uri attribute using procedures described > in [RFC6455] > > I believe that the intent in 4.2 and 4.3 is that whichever side > will be "passive" is required to provide an a=ws-uri or a=wss-uri so > that the other side can establish the connection to the URI. But > section 4.2 does not say that. > > <Ram> > EXISTING: > The offerer SHOULD assign the SDP "setup" attribute with a value of > "active" (the offerer will be the initiator of the outgoing TCP > connection), unless the offerer insists on being a receiver of an > incoming connection, in which case the offerer SHOULD use a value of > "passive". The offerer MUST NOT assign an SDP "setup" attribute with > a "holdconn" value. > > NEW: > The offerer SHOULD assign the SDP "setup" attribute with a value of > "active" (the offerer will be the initiator of the outgoing TCP > connection), unless the offerer insists on being a receiver of an > incoming connection, in which case the offerer SHOULD use a value of > "passive". The offerer MUST NOT assign an SDP "setup" attribute with > a "holdconn" value. If the “setup” attribute has a value “passive” it MUST also > have URI in the a=ws-uri or a=wss-uri attribute. > > And the text in section4.3 that talks > about providing the URI in the a= does not qualify whether it is > required with active, passive, or both. > > <Ram> > NEW: > If the answers assigns SDP “setup” attribute with “passive”, then it MUST have URI in either > a=ws-uri or a=wss-uri attribute. > > Does this look good and makes it more clear ? > > Regards, > Ram > > Nits/editorial comments: N/A > > > >
- [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri… Joel Halpern
- Re: [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
- Re: [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws… Jari Arkko