Re: [bfcpbis] SDP directorate review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-10

"Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <> Wed, 19 October 2016 15:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85C0F129678 for <>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:14:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.952
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.952 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GmBLqlSnWJYr for <>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:13:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B324D12965B for <>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:13:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=5218; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1476890039; x=1478099639; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=B/wDHNvOFNBtYigCYTougGg2MQl/zlous+RvEKqgfsY=; b=Ku7sOXk7IP83yGgV9/PgqGS61mt1EfcA4V1ae7k9h7ctNZAWkWBB4zGN p3/EPuT8zBLweNwosJyP4zi2WmsFiKhtvQHhESsTnxudgdUuoxu9mkD8p 7EKSxpx94EM+1brQaQMVenJggYFEp2ij2tFB6gYRkUYGdr/TfDtx/Uf3A c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,514,1473120000"; d="scan'208";a="164479706"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 19 Oct 2016 15:13:58 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u9JFDwXs020529 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 15:13:58 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:13:57 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:13:57 -0400
From: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <>
To: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [bfcpbis] SDP directorate review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-10
Thread-Index: AQHSKDzWFP80rM3CWUi/TJAnzwnmUqCwhZcA
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 15:13:57 +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="euc-kr"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] SDP directorate review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-10
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 15:14:01 -0000

Both this draft and its companion draft draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri has
been published now.


-----Original Message-----
From: bfcpbis <> on behalf of Ram Mohan
Ravindranath <>
Date: Monday, 17 October 2016 at 11:38 AM
To: "" <>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] SDP directorate review of

>Sorry for getting back late on this. We have addressed the comments given
>by Dan. Please find the diffs attached.
>I will publish this in a few days if I don¹t receive any further feedback.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: bfcpbis <> on behalf of "Dan Wing (dwing)"
>Date: Sunday, 7 August 2016 at 12:01 AM
>To: ""
><>>, ""
>Cc: "" <>rg>,
>"" <>
>Subject: [bfcpbis] SDP directorate review
>of	draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-10
>>My review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-10 as part of SDP
>>directorate review.
>>Section 6.1, "Transport Negotiation" is unclear if it is overriding the
>>port handling described in draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-05, or merely
>>re-stating the port handling described in
>>draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-05.  That is, the text is not clear if the
>>port in the wss-uri override what is in the 'm' line?  I suggest using
>>exactly the same phrasing in both documents.  This is stated clearly in
>>Section 6.2, and should only be stated once in this document -- or
>>perhaps just defer to what draft-ietf-bcpbis-dsp-ws-uri says and not
>>attempt to re-discuss it here in this document would be best, no?
>>Section 7 seems pretty duplicative of draft-ietf-bcpbis-dsp-ws-uri, too;
>>which document is normative where the text disagrees, and if the text is
>>word-for-word identical, what purpose is served to repeat it?
>>nits:  Section 4.1 should clarify that "bFcP" is compared
>>case-insensitive, which we all know, but bears repeating.
>>Section 8:
>>"   When a BFCP WebSocket client connects to a BFCP WebSocket server, it
>>   SHOULD use TCP/WSS as its transport.  The WebSocket client SHOULD
>>   inspect the TLS certificate offered by the server and verify that it
>>   is valid."
>>"Is valid" is too vague.  Please add citation to RFC7525, if that is
>>appropriate.  Or if RFC7525's procedures are inappropriate, detail what
>>steps are performed to determine validity.  It seems the a=fingerprint is
>>*not* supposed to be used, right?  Rather, chasing the certificate chain
>>is used against the FQDN in the wss-uri.
>>Section 8:
>>"   Section 9 of [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis] states that BFCP clients
>>   and floor control servers SHOULD authenticate each other prior to
>>   accepting messages, and RECOMMENDS that mutual TLS/DTLS
>>   authentication be used."
>>"   In order to authorize the WebSocket connection, the BFCP WebSocket
>>   server MAY inspect any cookie [RFC6265] headers present in the HTTP
>>   GET request."
>>This "MAY" to check cookies is too weak, when the recommendation in
>>ietf-bcpbis-rfc4582bis was mutual authentication! The server needs to
>>better authorize the client than just a MAY!  I don't understand how this
>>document can suggest reducing a SHOULD to a MAY, when we're talking of
>>authorizing and authenticating clients.
>>bfcpbis mailing list