Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-15.txt

"Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <> Fri, 08 July 2016 21:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D27312D640 for <>; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 14:39:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.946
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.946 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, 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 ixNKqCm0l6pg for <>; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 14:39:46 -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 78B1712D623 for <>; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 14:39:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=17626; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1468013985; x=1469223585; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=PeX9fgQGHUaaFbOnKjiiiSGK4OnWiqrDsEj4kL2c8DY=; b=MmAeC09DJGU3xSnerPbPhnyrmNdJv/8a/Kev87LeDOpdhJHZKr77xCbg X2VSw/YzL6wOF3n2sI7367m09sVHgDZ6K6SvyiPaLjYpxadUje0SjbCUZ ciOoaGKjeeghdZSWgi4Jd0vTrdQKiOAmJYPTB4u8a9j6AnGNzdhfkscUW w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,332,1464652800"; d="scan'208,217";a="123863991"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 08 Jul 2016 21:39:44 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u68Ldiov030023 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 8 Jul 2016 21:39:44 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 16:39:43 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 16:39:43 -0500
From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <>
To: Tom Kristensen <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-15.txt
Thread-Index: AQHR2BZJ6+RwBuJ2LEmHzb0cRI/sf6AM0QQAgAIfwQA=
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 21:39:43 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.15.1.160411
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7BF75673A58B4FD49DEBB2EE585E9756ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Christer Holmberg <>, "Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku)" <>, "Tom Kristensen (tomkrist)" <>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-15.txt
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: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 21:39:49 -0000

Hi Tom,

Thanks for incorporating the changes. The dtls-id change looks good. Unfortunately, the MUX category change suffers from the fact we are chasing a moving target. draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes was updated recently and the NOT RECOMMENDED category was replaced with the CAUTION category.

Upon taking another look at draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes, my previous suggestion was not good. draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes already defines the Mux category for all SDP attribute defined in rfc4583bis except the newly added bfcpver SDP attribute. For this, I think the Mux category should be IDENTICAL. However, I’m not sure if it should be added to rfc4583bis or to draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes directly. I have cc’d Suhas to Christer to get their input, both on the mux category selected and where it should be specified.

As for multiplexing of BFCP lines, perhaps rfc4583bis should simply say, "Multiplexing of BFCP ‘m' lines, as defined in BUNDLE [16], is not defined by this specification.”
If we agree to this, the reference to BUNDLE should be Informational instead of Normative.


From: bfcpbis <<>> on behalf of Tom Kristensen <<>>
Date: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 11:13 PM
To: "<>" <<>>
Cc: Tom Kristensen <<>>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-15.txt

Incorporates the two issues spotted by Charles in the -14 version. The draft should most likely and hopefully be ready to proceed through the next stages now.

-- Tom

On 7 July 2016 at 08:10, <<>> wrote:

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Binary Floor Control Protocol Bis  of the IETF.

        Title           : Session Description Protocol (SDP) Format for Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP) Streams
        Authors         : Gonzalo Camarillo
                          Tom Kristensen
                          Paul E. Jones
        Filename        : draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-15.txt
        Pages           : 21
        Date            : 2016-07-06

   This document specifies how to describe Binary Floor Control Protocol
   (BFCP) streams in Session Description Protocol (SDP) descriptions.
   User agents using the offer/answer model to establish BFCP streams
   use this format in their offers and answers.

   This document obsoletes RFC 4583.  Changes from RFC 4583 are
   summarized in Section 14.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:

There's also a htmlized version available at:

A diff from the previous version is available at:

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at<>.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:

bfcpbis mailing list<>

# Cisco                         |
##<>  |
###                               |