Re: [dispatch] I-D Action: draft-pd-dispatch-msrp-websocket-03.txt

[Sergio Garcia Murillo <[e-mail]>]

What I mean is that I expect quite a lot of "over websocekts" drafts and we
should try to use the same solution for advertising it in the SDP, and not
have each one have their own way of handling it.

Best regards
Sergio
El 13/02/2014 16:49, "Mary Barnes" <[e-mail]> escribió:

> Sergio,
>
> The draft you mention is being discussed in the BFCPBIS WG and any
> comments that others might have on that document should go to that list.
>
> It's not clear to me whether your suggestion is that changes are needed to
> this MSRP document or whether you are just proposing to make the BFCPBIS
> consistent with this MSRP document?
>
> Mary.
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Sergio Garcia Murillo <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We also have recently published a different draft for BFCP over
>> websockets:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pascual-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-00
>>
>> I beleive that we should harmonize who the WS transport is signaled and
>> how to signal the WS version if also the "normal" TCP version is supported.
>>
>> In your case you seem to be using the same transport line TCP/MSRP and
>> use the path to signal the ws part, in our case, we choose to signal it in
>> the transport TCP/WS/BFCP and include a new attribute ws-uri to signal the
>> full url (I could not reuse the path attribute as it is restricted to msrp
>> urls only).
>>
>> Best regards
>> Sergio
>> El 13/02/2014 16:17, Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei) escribió:
>>
>>> Hi Mary -
>>>
>>> Thanks for taking the time to review the document.  We have published an
>>> -05 that (hopefully) addresses all your feedback.
>>>
>>> Inline, trimming to only the points requiring responses...
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 10, 2014, at 5:58 PM, Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  I have agreed to shepherd this document.  I've reviewed the document in
>>>> anticipation of doing the PROTO write-up and have the following comments
>>>> and questions.  Ben Campbell has agreed to do the required expert review
>>>> and that should be posted within the next week or so.    This is also a
>>>> good time for anyone in the WG that hasn't previously reviewed this
>>>> document to review and provide any final comments.  Note, that this
>>>> document was agreed to be AD sponsored around the IETF-86 timeframe.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Mary.
>>>>
>>>> Review Summary: Almost ready. Comments & questions below.
>>>>
>>> <snip/>
>>>
>>>  5) Section 10.1. Since securing the connection is just RECOMMENDED,
>>>> what are the implications and risks if the MSRP traffic isn't transported
>>>> over a secure connection?
>>>>
>>> Other review comments indicated that it was problematic to downgrade the
>>> 4976 MUST requirement for TLS between a client and a server. Thus, the
>>> document has been updated so that MSRP traffic transported over WebSockets
>>> MUST be protected by using a secure WebSocket connection (i.e., using TLS).
>>>  I believe this renders this point moot.
>>>
>>> <snip/>
>>>
>>>  8) It's typical for documents that are updating existing RFCs to have a
>>>> section that summarizes the updates to the existing RFCs that are made by
>>>> this document.
>>>>
>>> This was the intent of Sections 5.2 and 5.3.  Is this sufficient? Or did
>>> you have something else in mind?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Gonzalo
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dispatch mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dispatch mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>>
>
>