Re: [bfcpbis] [IANA #809493] Last Call: <draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-13.txt> (The Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP)) to Proposed Standard
Tom Kristensen <2mkristensen@gmail.com> Thu, 20 August 2015 13:07 UTC
Return-Path: <2mkristensen@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C3411ACE20; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 06:07:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 tplJeKpaNhe3; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 06:07:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x22c.google.com (mail-la0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80A401ACE21; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 06:07:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lagz9 with SMTP id z9so22083081lag.3; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 06:07:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=oice/8NB5547hz7G/2Zi7n+EbVAwURy35pJaf/G5vpw=; b=oHPfcH060YcLZ0VUXpq1OF+3K99CepDkxKR3M8Kck+J6oLq2tkcP46XDdj0y/fNZV2 18wB5DRZLoWWAMtftFfjr2xYu97axqgyLzjEFGFkgT5p+YsSHn/q+MuJQLA7SVrDkDm+ 0w4BCWl4kpp/tyF63BIO4UvRYsgSCqDCgSLS99NVLtvi0KGPD5pCMGSrAdjJvJPUKh0U JSTb8YNVR4zyHXtz9BD58Zn00Ka+yLHjART3rL3TOfpiOCrJfOLhwdnY+OH2NILQ3Zjj KLR/IVW38IYAX/rs7ChOc7zEh3JYjDmdYUX4Jyb2JsCzA5B3cbSQg67qD2S6BJJk7AqE UVuw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.26.163 with SMTP id m3mr2888320lag.86.1440076040004; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 06:07:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.85.67 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 06:07:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <rt-4.2.9-2870-1425321749-2.809493-7-0@icann.org>
References: <RT-Ticket-809493@icann.org> <20150219174215.4401.59106.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <rt-4.2.9-2870-1425321749-2.809493-7-0@icann.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 15:07:19 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFHv=r_cu_rN9p+RNK4k15L03xXAPwt8uEmCLUttwU_7zj3ErA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tom Kristensen <2mkristensen@gmail.com>
To: drafts-lastcall@iana.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0158c73ed06c2a051dbdd474"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bfcpbis/zupZIjxCZ-B0SKjmN1rsD5ql3ys>
Cc: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis.all@ietf.org, "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>, iesg@ietf.org, bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] [IANA #809493] Last Call: <draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-13.txt> (The Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP)) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 13:07:26 -0000
Answers inline below. On 2 March 2015 at 19:42, Pearl Liang via RT <drafts-lastcall@iana.org> wrote: > (BEGIN IANA LAST CALL COMMENTS) > > IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: > > IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-13. Authors should review > the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and > respond to any questions as soon as possible. > > IANA has some questions about the IANA actions requested in this draft. > > We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer: > > IANA understands that, upon approval of this document there are four > actions which IANA must complete. > > First, the document directs IANA to establish a Attribute subregistry of > the The Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP) Parameters registry located at: > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/bfcp-parameters/ > > IANA observes that the initial values provided in the document being > considered are already in the existing Attribute subregistry. Thus: > > - IANA will simply change the reference for the subregistry and its > registrations from RFC 4582 to [ RFC-to-be ]. > - This draft revises the registration procedure from "Standards-Track RFC" > to "Specification > Required" as defined in RFC5226. Please note that Specification Required, > when > used, also implies use of a Designated Expert. > Good. Questions: Is value 0 the first value of BFCP attributes? And if so, > should value 0 > be marked as Reserved in the registry? Is there a maximum value of this > registry? > 32-bit? Or is this an unlimited resource registry? > The first value of BFCP attributes is 1 and a 7-bit field is used to represent the attribute type. > Second, the document directs IANA to establish a Primitive subregistry of > the The Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP) Parameters registry located at: > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/bfcp-parameters/ > > IANA observes that the initial values provided in the document being > considered, with four exceptions, are already in the existing Primitive > subregistry. Thus: > > - IANA will simply change the reference for the subregistry and its > registrations from RFC 4582 to [ RFC-to-be ]. > - This draft revises the registration procedure from "Standards-Track RFC" > to "Specification > Required" as defined in RFC5226. Please note that Specification Required, > when > used, also implies use of a Designated Expert. > - In addition, IANA will add four new values to the registry as follows: > > Value: 14 > Primitive: FloorRequestStatusAck > Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] > > Value: 15 > Primitive: FloorStatusAck > Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] > > Value: 16 > Primitive: Goodbye > Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] > > Value: 17 > Primitive: GoodbyeAck > Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] > Good. > Questions: Is value 0 the first value of BFCP primitives? And if so, > should value 0 > be marked as Reserved in the registry? Is there a maximum value for this > registry? > Or is this an unlimited resource registry? > The first value of BFCP primitives is 1 and an 8-bit field is used to represent the primitive type. Third, the document directs IANA to establish a Request Status subregistry > of the The Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP) Parameters registry located > at: > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/bfcp-parameters/ > > IANA observes that the initial values provided in the document being > considered, are already in the existing Request Status subregistry. Thus: > > - IANA will simply change the reference for the subregistry and its > registrations from RFC 4582 to [ RFC-to-be ]. > - This draft revises the registration procedure from "Standards-Track RFC" > to "Specification > Required" as defined in RFC5226. Please note that Specification Required, > when > used, also implies use of a Designated Expert. > Good. > Questions: Is value 0 the first value of BFCP request status values? And > if so, should > value 0 be marked as Reserved in the registry? Is there a maximum value > for this > registry? 8-bit? Or is this an unlimited resource registry? > The first value of BFCP request status values is 1 and an 8-bit field is used to represent the request status type. > Fourth, the document directs IANA to establish a Error Code subregistry of > the The Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP) Parameters registry located at: > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/bfcp-parameters/ > > IANA observes that the initial values provided in the document being > considered, with five exceptions, are already in the existing Error Code > subregistry. Thus: > > - IANA will simply change the reference for the subregistry and its > registrations from RFC 4582 to [ RFC-to-be ]. > - This draft revises the registration procedure from "Standards-Track RFC" > to "Specification > Required" as defined in RFC5226. Please note that Specification Required, > when > used, also implies use of a Designated Expert. > - In addition, IANA will add five new values to the registry as follows: > > Value: 10 > Meaning: Unable to parse message > Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] > > Value: 11 > Meaning: Use DTLS > Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] > > Value: 12 > Meaning: Unsupported Version > Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] > > Value: 13 > Meaning: Incorrect Message Length > Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] > > Value: 14 > Meaning: Generic Error > Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] > Good. Questions: Is value 0 the first value of BFCP request status values? And > if so, should > value 0 be marked as Reserved in the registry? Is there a maximum value > for this > registry? 32-bit? Or is this an unlimited resource registry? > The first value of BFCP error code values is 1 and an 8-bit field is used to represent the error code type. > IANA understands that these four actions are the only ones required to be > completed upon approval of this document. > > Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until > the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is > only to confirm what actions will be performed. > Sounds good and should be the action needed when this draft becomes an RFC! -- Tom Thanks, > > Pearl Liang > ICANN > > (END IANA LAST CALL COMMENTS) > > > On Thu Feb 19 17:42:40 2015, iesg-secretary@ietf.org wrote: > > > > The IESG has received a request from the Binary Floor Control Protocol > > Bis WG (bfcpbis) to consider the following document: > > - 'The Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP)' > > <draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-13.txt> as Proposed Standard > > > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > > ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-03-05. Exceptionally, comments may > be > > sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the > > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > > > Abstract > > > > > > Floor control is a means to manage joint or exclusive access to > > shared resources in a (multiparty) conferencing environment. > > Thereby, floor control complements other functions -- such as > > conference and media session setup, conference policy manipulation, > > and media control -- that are realized by other protocols. > > > > This document specifies the Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP). > > BFCP is used between floor participants and floor control servers, > > and between floor chairs (i.e., moderators) and floor control > > servers. > > > > This document obsoletes RFC 4582. Changes from RFC 4582 are > > summarized in Section 16. > > > > > > > > > > The file can be obtained via > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis/ > > > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis/ballot/ > > > > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > bfcpbis mailing list > bfcpbis@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis > -- # Cisco | http://www.cisco.com/telepresence/ ## tomkrist@cisco.com | http://www.tandberg.com ### | http://folk.uio.no/tomkri/
- [bfcpbis] Last Call: <draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582b… The IESG
- [bfcpbis] [IANA #809493] Last Call: <draft-ietf-b… Pearl Liang via RT
- Re: [bfcpbis] [IANA #809493] Last Call: <draft-ie… Tom Kristensen
- [bfcpbis] [IANA #840618] Re: Last Call: <draft-ie… Amanda Baber via RT
- Re: [bfcpbis] [IANA #840618] Re: Last Call: <draf… Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
- Re: [bfcpbis] [IANA #840618] Re: Last Call: <draf… Tom Kristensen