Re: [bfcpbis] Status update on draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp [was: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis]

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

Great, thanks Tom. I look forward to seeing the update posted before the
end of this week.

Cheers,
Charles

On 11/2/15, 4:45 PM, "Tom Kristensen (tomkrist)" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>Perfect! I'll update and polish the draft as discussed and agreed upon
>below and submit.
>
>-- Tom
>
>On 11/02/2015 08:04 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp was discussed at MMUSIC today.
>>
>> At this moment there are no technical open issues. The plan is to add
>>some editorial work, based on comments received during the session, and
>>the add text regarding DTLS-usage drafts/specs that the draft updates.
>>After that, unless something unexpected comes up, the draft should be
>>ready for WGLC.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Christer
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Charles Eckel (eckelcu) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: 28 September 2015 18:50
>> To: Christer Holmberg<[e-mail]>; Tom Kristensen
>>(tomkrist)<[e-mail]>
>> Cc: Alissa Cooper<[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
>>[e-mail]; Gonzalo
>>Camarillo<[e-mail]>; Ben Campbell<[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis
>>
>> Thanks Christer.
>>
>> Tom, can you please post the corresponding update to the draft?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Charles
>>
>> On 9/28/15, 3:07 AM, "bfcpbis on behalf of Christer Holmberg"
>> <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>    
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>      
>>>> In that case, I prefer Tom’s original suggestion,
>>>>
>>>>   What if we keep the text and adds this as an additional reference
>>>> in the two new text passages proposed by Charles: "... [13], and  the
>>>> clarifications defined in [draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp], ...".
>>>>
>>>>   Where [13] is a reference to RFC 5763.
>>>>        
>>> If that's something people can agree to, then can live with such
>>> compromise :)
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Christer
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If it turns out that draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp updates RFC 5763, then
>>> there is some redundancy. But that is better than having a hole when it
>>> comes to backward compatibility with existing implementations, which is
>>> what we will have today if we reference draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp
>>>only.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Charles
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/25/15, 2:21 AM, "Christer Holmberg"
>>> <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>> Hi Charles,
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>> As a simple example, we currently refer to rfc4582bis instead of the
>>>>> eventual RFC. Assuming rfc4582bis does become an RFC, we would want
>>>>> the RFC editor to update references to it and to RFCxxxx with the
>>>>> actual RFC number.
>>>>> Similar here, we would want them to check with authors/chairs/ADs on
>>>>> the state of draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp to see if we want to replace
>>>>> our reference to RFC 5763 with a reference to it. This way we can
>>>>> move forward while draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp continues to progress
>>>>> as well.
>>>>>          
>>>> I don't think it's the same thing. First you talk about a draft, where
>>>> the draft name will be replaced with the to-be-assigned RFC number. In
>>>> the case of DTLS-SDP we are talking about two separate specifications.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Christer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/24/15, 2:53 AM, "Christer Holmberg"
>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>> Hi Charles,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am still not sure I understand your suggestion: what is meant by
>>>>> "as determined prior to publication"? When/where/who? :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Christer
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Charles Eckel (eckelcu) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>> Sent: 22. syyskuuta 2015 17:05
>>>>> To: Christer Holmberg; Tom Kristensen (tomkrist)
>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>>>>> Alissa Cooper; Gonzalo Camarillo; Ben Campbell
>>>>> Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis
>>>>>
>>>>> I view referring to draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp now instead of RFC
>>>>> 5763 to be like writing a blank check. Debate is actively occurring
>>>>> on the list, the normative language in RFC 5763 is expected to be
>>>>> updated in multiple ways, and backward compatibility with the the
>>>>> normative language provide in previous version of rfc4583bis is not
>>>>> fully addressed. It seems more appropriate to me at this stage to
>>>>> continue to refer to RFC 5763 with a note regarding updating or
>>>>> replacing that reference with one to draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp, as
>>>>> determined prior to publication.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Charles
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/21/15, 11:48 PM, "Christer Holmberg"
>>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>> I see. As this is a moving target, perhaps where we reference RFC
>>>>>>> 5763 we can add a note for the RFC editor that
>>>>>>> draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp is expected to add clarifications and
>>>>>>> make changes to RFC 5763 that should be considered prior to
>>>>>>> publication of rfc4583bis.
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>> I am not sure I understand. I don't think it's up to the RFC editor
>>>>>> to make a decision whether the draft should reference DTLS-SDP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Christer
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/21/15, 11:23 AM, "Christer Holmberg"
>>>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>> RFC 5763, which is currently required for BFCP with DTLS reads:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    o  The endpoint MUST NOT use the connection attribute defined
>>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>>      [RFC4145<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4145>].
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>> Correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And, IF we decide to use define usage of the 'connection' attribute
>>>>>>> for DTLS, we would change that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, a few days ago we sent an e-mail to the MMUSIC list,
>>>>>>> suggesting that we should NOT use the 'connection' attribute for
>>>>>>>DTLS.
>>>>>>> Instead we should define a new attribute (for more details, please
>>>>>>> see the MMUSIC list).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>> Section 5.1 of draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp reads:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    When used with DTLS, there is no default value defined for the
>>>>>>>>    attribute.  Implementations that wish to use the attribute MUST
>>>>>>>>    explicitly include it in SDP offers and answers.  If an offer
>>>>>>>>or
>>>>>>>>    answer does not contain an attribute, other means needs to be
>>>>>>>> used in
>>>>>>>>    order for endpoints to determine whether an offer or answer is
>>>>>>>>    associated with an event that requires the DTLS association to
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> re-
>>>>>>>>    established.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suppose if draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp pulls in enough from RFC
>>>>>>>> 5763 to make it clear how the DTLS establishment and
>>>>>>>> re-establishment works for the case of which the connection
>>>>>>>> attribute is not used, then we can change the reference from RFC
>>>>>>>> 5763 to draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The last several updates of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis have
>>>>>>>> removed supporting text from the draft in favor of pointing to RFC
>>>>>>>> 5763 as the  source of truth. I fear that
>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp in its current state does not serve
>>>>>>>> that need for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis. I value  Christer’s
>>>>>>>> thoughts and welcome the opinion of others, especially those who
>>>>>>>> have or are implementing BFCP with DTLS and ICE, which I have not.
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>> Please note that DTLS-SDP does not only define usage of the
>>>>>>> 'connection'
>>>>>>> attribute, it also does other things. Maybe more important, it does
>>>>>>> not state that an address change by default requires a new DTLS
>>>>>>> association
>>>>>>> - which is a another 5763 modification.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Christer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/21/15, 9:32 AM, "bfcpbis on behalf of Christer Holmberg"
>>>>>>> <[e-mail] on behalf of
>>>>>>> [e-mail]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>> Hi Charles,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>> The problem I see with this is that it is not just a matter of
>>>>>>>>> changing the reference, it is also a matter of changing the
>>>>>>>>> normative behavior.
>>>>>>>>> For DTLS with BFCP, we never required the use of the>“connection”
>>>>>>>>> attribute.
>>>>>>>>> If we are to start requiring it, we would need add text to
>>>>>>>>> describe how to address backward compatibility in cases in which
>>>>>>>>> the connection attribute is not specified.
>>>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>> The intention is to cover backward compatibility in the draft.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>> Are there plans for this within RFC 5763bis draft? If so, Tom’s
>>>>>>>>> recommendation of continuing to point to RFC 5763 for now may be
>>>>>>>>> the best approach.
>>>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>> I am not familiar with the 5763bis draft. But, even if the
>>>>>>>> DTLS-SDP draft makes updates to 5763, it won't become a 5763bis
>>>>>>>>draft.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Christer
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/11/15, 1:11 PM, "Christer Holmberg"
>>>>>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>>>> Hmm, yes maybe an idea if it's fine proceeding with referring a
>>>>>>>>>> work-in-progress draft here.
>>>>>>>>>> What if we keep the text and adds this as an additional
>>>>>>>>>> reference in the two new text passages proposed by Charles: "...
>>>>>>>>>> [13], and the clarifications defined in
>>>>>>>>>>[draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp], ...".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Where [13] is a reference to RFC 5763.
>>>>>>>>>>         
>>>>>>>>> My suggestion is to *only* refer the new dtls-sdp draft. Because,
>>>>>>>>> one of the ideas with the new draft is to also update RFC 5763 to
>>>>>>>>> reference the new dtls-sdp draft.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, I'd still prefer to keep the text in
>>>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-12 and redirect the readers to the
>>>>>>>>>> rfc5763bis, that eventually then will obsolete (or extend?) RFC
>>>>>>>>>> 5763.
>>>>>>>>>>         
>>>>>>>>> The new dtls-sdp draft will not become 5763bis (eventhough it MAY
>>>>>>>>> update some parts of 5763). It's a generic document, which *any*
>>>>>>>>> DTLS usage can then reference.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Christer
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 09/11/2015 01:25 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>>>>>>>>>          
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My suggestion would actually be to refer to the new
>>>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp, which is going to clarify the
>>>>>>>>>> DTLS-SRTP rules regarding when a new DTLS association must be
>>>>>>>>>> established.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Christer
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>> From: Tom Kristensen [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 11. syyskuuta 2015 13:25
>>>>>>>>>> To: Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Christer Holmberg; Alissa Cooper; Gonzalo Camarillo;
>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]; Ben Campbell;
>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Pointing to the DTLS-SRTP (and by that any updates of it) is a
>>>>>>>>>> simple, safe and straigt-forward solution.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The only change in the new version of rfc4583bis just submitted.
>>>>>>>>>> And as Charles says, this should be the last missing fix for
>>>>>>>>>> this draft until next stages in the process at least.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -- Tom
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 09/08/2015 07:48 PM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>         
>>>>>>>>>>> Picking up on this old thread regarding
>>>>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis.
>>>>>>>>>>> I think this is the only outstanding item with respect to the
>>>>>>>>>>> current  version of the draft. Unless anyone has an issue with
>>>>>>>>>>> the proposed  resolution, I request we update the draft
>>>>>>>>>>> accordingly and then use it  as the basis for Mary, the
>>>>>>>>>>> document shepherd, to provide a proto writeup.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>> Charles
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/15, 10:39 AM, "Charles Eckel
>>>>>>>>>>> (eckelcu)"<[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>        
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Christer,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I reread the current draft and went through the following
>>>>>>>>>>>> MMUSIC thread on this subject:
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg14631.
>>>>>>>>>>>> h
>>>>>>>>>>>> t
>>>>>>>>>>>> m
>>>>>>>>>>>> l
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As a result, I better understand the issue you are addressing.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest the following changes to be consistent with what is
>>>>>>>>>>>> being proposed in
>>>>>>>>>>>> MMUSIC:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------
>>>>>>>>>>>> Section 9:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> OLD:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Endpoints that use the offer/answer model to establish a DTLS
>>>>>>>>>>>>      association MUST support the 'setup' attribute, as
>>>>>>>>>>>> defined in [7].
>>>>>>>>>>>> When DTLS is used with UDP, the 'setup' attribute indicates
>>>>>>>>>>>> which of the endpoints (client or floor control server)
>>>>>>>>>>>> initiates the DTLS association setup. The requirements for the
>>>>>>>>>>>> offer/answer exchange specified in [13], Section 5 of [13]
>>>>>>>>>>>> MUST be followed when using DTLS.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Offer/answer considerations are described in Section 10.5.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> NEW:
>>>>>>>>>>>> When DTLS is used with UDP, the requirements specified in
>>>>>>>>>>>> Section
>>>>>>>>>>>> 5 of [13] MUST be followed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Section 10.5
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> OLD
>>>>>>>>>>>>      If the transport parameters or the key fingerprints
>>>>>>>>>>>> change, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>      endpoints MUST establish a new DTLS connection.  In such
>>>>>>>>>>>> case the
>>>>>>>>>>>>      'active/passive' status of the endpoints will again be
>>>>>>>>>>>> determined
>>>>>>>>>>>>      following the procedures in [7], and the new status will
>>>>>>>>>>>> be used to
>>>>>>>>>>>>      determine the TLS roles associated with the new DTLS
>>>>>>>>>>>> connection.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>         Informational note: The procedure above is identical
>>>>>>>>>>>> to the one
>>>>>>>>>>>>         defined for DTLS-SRTP in [13].
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>         Note: A new DTLS connection needs to be established if
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>         transport parameters or the key fingerprints change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> NEW:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The conditions under which endpoints MUST establish a new
>>>>>>>>>>>> DTLS connection are as the same defined for DTLS-SRTP in [13].
>>>>>>>>>>>> ————————
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This way we avoid any potential conflicts with the intent of
>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC 5763, and when clarifications to RFC 5763 are made, they
>>>>>>>>>>>> will be picked up by the BFCP spec.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Charles
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/15, 2:01 PM, "Christer
>>>>>>>>>>>> Holmberg"<[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>       
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Charles,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>      
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [adding bfcppbis list]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Christer,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your review and comments. In the BFCP usage, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DTLS connection is dedicated to the BFCP stream it contains.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I understand it, the complications around DTLS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> re-establishement discussed in MMUSIC result from use of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single DTLS connection for multiple RTP and/or SCTP streams.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those complications do not exist with the BFCP usage, so I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think it is sufficient to continue to reference RFC 5763 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not use the SDP connection attribute.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The complications do not result from use of a single DTLS
>>>>>>>>>>>>> connection for multiple streams - it mainly results from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> usage of ICE. And, as far as I know, ICE can be used also for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BFCP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, even without ICE we intend to add text saying that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DTLS connection is only re-established if the underlying
>>>>>>>>>>>>> transport changes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Christer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>      
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First, I want to apologize for not providing my review
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earlier.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as the BFCP specifics are concerned, I am ok with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the latest version of the draft.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, there is an issue regarding the DTLS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considerations (section 10.5).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The text says:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 	"Once a DTLS connection has been established, if the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'active/passive'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      	status of the endpoints change during a session, a new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DTLS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      	connection MUST be established."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is currently an ongoing discussion in MMUSIC about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when a DTLS connection is to be re-established.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The discussion is still ongoing, but the outcome will most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely NOT be aligned with the text above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, there has been a suggestion (by myself) to use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the SDP connection attribute to explicitly indicate that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new DTLS connection needs to be established.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The draft also says:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 	"If the transport parameters or the key fingerprints
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      	endpoints MUST establish a new DTLS connection."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is related to the earlier issue. There is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion about ICE "virtual connections", and that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single DTLS connection would apply to all ICE candidates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> associated with an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> m- line. So, even if a candidate changes (read: transport
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameter changes), it would not automatically trigger a new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DTLS connection.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The issues above are also holding up the SCTP-SDP draft, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it doesn't only affect BFCPbis :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Christer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 8. huhtikuuta 2015 3:07
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Gonzalo Camarillo; Tom Kristensen (tomkrist);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]; Ben Campbell;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Christer Holmberg
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adding Christer to this thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 7, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Christer (cc’d) and I discussed some of the changes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offlist in Dallas, and he is to come back to the list with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comments after Dallas
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - which is now :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Charles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/15, 10:26 AM, "Alissa Cooper"<[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Checking in on this — has Christer been prompted to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review the latest rev of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alissa
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 25, 2015, at 9:14 AM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most of the changes I this recent update to rfc4583bis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were inspired by comments and suggested text provided by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Christer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is in the process of reviewing. If all goes well with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that, we are ready to proceed with proto writeup (Mary)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and AD review.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Charles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/15, 7:01 AM, "Alissa Cooper"<[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rfc4583 has not had an AD review yet. Richard can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hopefully take care of that while I¹m on leave (starting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today, actually).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 25, 2015, at 2:56 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[e-mail]>    wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Alissa,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have noted that while rfc4582bis in on the agenda of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the March 5th telechat (thanks for handling that!),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rfc4583bis isn't. Tom revised rfc4583bis on February
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20th. Should rfc4583bis be on the agenda of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> telechat as well or there is still something left for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom to take care of?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gonzalo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/02/2015 9:28 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pinging on this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> March 5 will likely be my last telechat before going
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on leave, so  it would be great to get this scheduled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on that one. To do that,  the rev needs to be posted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The updates are pretty minimal  and are all basically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> written up in Charles¹ response to my AD review.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alissa
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 15, 2015, at 9:13 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have talked offline with the other authors and Tom
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is holding the pen. Tom, do you think you can meet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the time frame below?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gonzalo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my mobile
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---- Alissa Cooper wrote ----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just wanted to see if this rev might get done in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next couple  of days. If so, we could get it on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next telechat agenda (March 5).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alissa
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *From: *Alissa Cooper<[e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject: **Re: [bfcpbis] AD evaluation:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-12*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Date: *February 9, 2015 at 3:58:52 PM PST
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *To: *"Charles Eckel (eckelcu)"<[e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Cc: *"[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Charles,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, some responses inline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 4, 2015, at 10:40 AM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>    wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HI Alissa,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for the review. Please see my thoughts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on your comments and questions inline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Alissa Cooper<[e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 10:19 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [bfcpbis] AD evaluation:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-12
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have reviewed this draft in preparation for IETF LC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Overall the document appears in good shape. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a few questions and comments I¹d like to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss before issuing the IETF last call. I¹ve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also included some editorial nits that should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> addressed together with any last call comments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Comments and questions:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> = Section 5.1 =
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "If an endpoint receives a message with an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unsupported version field value, the receiving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> server MUST send an Error message with parameter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value 12 (Unsupported
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Version) to indicate this.²
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This seems a little misleading since RFC 4582
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn¹t specify what to do upon receipt of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message with a version other than 1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Implementations that do not get upgraded to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compliant with  4582bis (which could certainly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> account for some of those that  will not support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version 2) will therefore never send the  error
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This seems like it should at least be  noted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given the MUST-level requirement. The same applies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Section 13.7.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good point. I believe we made this a MUST because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we were thinking in terms of implementations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compliant with this bis version.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your suggested note about rfc 4582 implementations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here and in  section 13.7 seems useful to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> = Section 7 =
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "BFCP entities MUST support, at a minimum, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA ciphersuite [6].²
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I realize this requirement comes from RFC 4582,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I¹d like to understand why it has not been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> updated to be consistent with more current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidance on cipher suite selection (e.g.,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-uta-tls-bc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> p
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -4)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about we keep this minimum requirement, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> add a reference to draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp along
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a recommendation to adhere to the best
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> practices it outlines in section 4?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think MUST support TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for backwards compatibility and SHOULD support the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ones listed in the UTA drafts would be ok.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> = Sections 8, 8.1, 8.2 = It seems like the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction ID requirements regarding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-reuse/monotonically increasing IDs are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> re-stated multiple times across these three
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sections, in slightly different ways, to the point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where it¹s not clear exactly what they are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like they are:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) Reliable transport, server-initiated transaction:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ID is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) Unreliable transport, server-initiated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ID MUST be monotonically increasing (except for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrap-around)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) Reliable transport, client-initiated transaction:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ID MUST NOT be 0 and MUST NOT be reused in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another message from the client until a response
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >from the server is received for the transaction,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but need not be monotonically increasing (e.g., a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lower, recently used ID could be re-used once a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> response is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> received)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (4) Unreliable transport, client-initiated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transaction:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ID MUST be monotonically increasing (except for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrap-around)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is (3) the correct interpretation of the text in 8.1?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, why not just require IDs in all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> client-initiated transactions to be monotonically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> increasing?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Agree we can and should simplify this. Sections
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8.1 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8.2 cover the client behavior and server behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in detail. As such, the transaction ID related
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information at the start of Section 8 is superfluous.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I recommend reducing the text in Section 8 to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> follow:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8. Protocol Transactions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In BFCP, there are two types of transactions:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> client-initiated transactions and server-initiated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transactions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Client-initiated transactions consist of a request
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from a client to a floor control server and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> response from the floor control server to the client.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Server-initiated transactions have different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior depending on underlying transport:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       When using a reliable transport,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> server-initiated transactions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       consist of a single message from a floor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control server to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       client (notifications).  They do not trigger
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any response.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       When using an unreliable transport,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> server-initiated transactions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       consist of a request from a floor control
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> server to a client and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       response from the client to the floor control
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> server.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When using BFCP over an unreliable transport,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retransmission timer T1 (see Section 8.3) MUST be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used for all requests until the transaction is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then in section 8.1, we add the important details
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> removed from section 8.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8.1.1 Client Behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A client starting a client-initiated transaction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MUST set the Conference ID in the common header of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the message to the Conference ID for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conference that the client obtained previously.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The client MUST set the Transaction ID value in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the common header to a number that is different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                              
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >from 0 and that MUST NOT be reused in another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message from the client until a response from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> server is received for the transaction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The client uses the Transaction ID value to match
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this message with the response from the floor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control server.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When using BFCP over an unreliable transport, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is important to choose a Transaction ID value that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lets the receiver distinguish the reception of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next message in a sequence of BFCP messages from a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retransmission of a previous message.  Therefore,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BFCP entities using an unreliable transport MUST
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use monotonically increasing Transaction ID values
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (except for wrap-around).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A client receiving a server-initiated transaction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over an unreliable transport MUST copy the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Transaction ID from the request received from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> server into the response.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Question: is there a need to copy the Conference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ID and  User ID, if present?]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8.2. Server Behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A floor control server sending a response within a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> client-initiated transaction MUST copy the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conference ID, the Transaction ID, and the User ID
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                              
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >from the request received from the client into the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> response.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Server-initiated transactions MUST contain a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Transaction ID equal to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0 when BFCP is used over a reliable transport.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Over an unreliable transport, the Transaction ID
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shall have the same properties as for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> client-initiated transactions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The server uses the Transaction ID value to match
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this message with the response from the floor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> participant or floor chair.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                              
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, this is better.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> = Section 9 (impacts Section 14 as well) = "BFCP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clients  SHOULD authenticate the floor control
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> server before  sending any BFCP message to it or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepting any BFCP message from it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Similarly, floor control servers SHOULD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> authenticate a client before accepting any BFCP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message from it or sending any BFCP message to it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BFCP supports TLS/DTLS mutual authentication
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between clients and floor control servers, as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified in Section 9.1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the RECOMMENDED authentication mechanism
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in BFCP.²
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are the cases where clients and servers do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not need  to be authenticating each other? I know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this requirement  and the other SHOULD-level
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirements around use of  TLS/DTLS are carried
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over from RFC 4582, but I¹m  concerned that they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren¹t as strong as they should be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For a conference where the signaling traffic is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> authenticated and confidentiality and integrity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> protected, why is it ok for the floor control
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> traffic not to be? Could these requirements be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adjusted to require use of TLS/DTLS at least in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases where the signaling is also protected?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but again, this would be at the expense of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adding a non backward compatible change from rfc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4582. How about saying TLS/DTLS MUST be used for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BFCP in such cases, while pointing out the rfc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4582
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based implementations may not comply (similar to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we did with the version field).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                              
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Works for me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feel free to make all of these changes and submit a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rev and I¹ll issue the IETF LC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alissa
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> = Section 14 =
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See the point above about ciphersuites. ³Non-null
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encryption² is not a sufficient minimum baseline,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and if the requirements change in Section 7 they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be reflected here as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                              
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Editorial nits to be resolved with LC comments:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> = Section 5.1 =
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ³The version field MUST be set to 1 when using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BFCP over a reliable transport, i.e. as in [2].²
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I find it a little odd to reference the spec
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you¹re obsoleting in this sentence, especially
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since BFCP over a reliable transport is completely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified in this bis document. I would suggest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dropping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                
>> the i.e.
>>    
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clause.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good catch. This is a carry over from before this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> draft was adopted as a bis version of rfc4582.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                              
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The version field MUST be set to 2 when using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BFCP over an unreliable transport with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extensions specified in this document.²
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The bit about ³with the extensions specified in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this document² is extraneous and should be removed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "If an endpoint receives a message with an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unsupported version field value, the receiving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> server MUST send an Error message with parameter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value 12 (Unsupported
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Version) to indicate this.²
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Use of the word ³server² here makes it sound as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if only servers could receive headers with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unsupported versions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should this be ³the receiving endpoint²?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> = Section 6.2.4 = "[23], Section 6.7 provides
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful recommendations Š²
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The links in the references are not quite right.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> = Section 8.3.2 = s/when fires/when fired/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> = Section 14 =
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> s/high-jack/hijack/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> = Section B.1 =
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "situation where multiple different and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-interoperable would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> co-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist in the market.²
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a word missing after ³non-interoperable."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                                
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This should read ³non-interoperable implementations².
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Earlier in that same sentence, ³BFCP over UDP were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already used² should read ³BFCP over UDP is already
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being used².
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Charles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                              
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bfcpbis mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                      
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                    
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                              
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> bfcpbis mailing list
>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>            
>>>>>          
>>>>        
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bfcpbis mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
>>>      
>>    
>