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

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi Gonzalo,

> So just to be explicit; despite DC being the preferred transport for 3GPP, are we are still waiting on supplementary text from you on MSRP-CEMA 
> for this MSRPoWS draft?  If so, when do we expect to have that so we can progress the draft?  We have some pending edits to make after Ben 
> and Mary's reviews, but we plan to publish a new version soon. It would be good to incorporate this new text along with those other edits.

As there is no 3GPP connection, I would have to put this pretty far down on my priority list. And, as I don't want to hold the work, I guess the best thing is for you to move on with the work.

Mabye you could add a note to the draft, saying something like:

"NOTE: As the WebSocket server acts as a MSRP relay, the usage of MSRP-CEMA [RFC6714] will be disabled in most cases. A mechanism where the WebServer does not act as a MSRP relay is outside the scope of this document, and would have to be defined in a specification."

In addition, I think it would be good to point out that RFC 6135 (An Alternative Connection Model for the MSRP) CAN be used with MSRP over WebSocket. That has no impact on the mechanism itself, and is not impacted by the usage of relays.

Regards,

Christer




> Hi,
>  
> >I believe current approach for 3GPP (WebRTC access to IMS) is datachannel transport for both MSRP and BFCP being open to other mechanisms like websocket.
>  
> Correct.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Christer
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 2014/1/21 Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]> Hi,
>  
> I made a false statement earlier, regarding 3GPP.
>  
> 3GPP does not have requirement to transport MSRP over WebSocket.
>  
> Sorry for the confusion.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Christer
>  
> Lähettäjä: dispatch [mailto:[e-mail]] Puolesta 
> Christer Holmberg
> Lähetetty: 20. tammikuuta 2014 11:55
> Vastaanottaja: Peter Dunkley
> Kopio: DISPATCH; Ben Campbell; 
> [e-mail]
> 
> Aihe: Re: [dispatch] I-D Action: 
> draft-pd-dispatch-msrp-websocket-03.txt
>  
> Hi Peter,
>  
> I am willing to help, and contribute text.
>  
> But, I request that we don't move the document forward before I've had 
> a chance to do that :)
>  
> (3GPP also has a requirement to specify the usage of MSRP over 
> WebSocket.)
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Christer
>  
> Lähettäjä: Peter Dunkley [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Lähetetty: 20. tammikuuta 2014 11:45
> Vastaanottaja: Christer Holmberg
> Kopio: Mary Barnes; DISPATCH; Ben Campbell; 
> [e-mail]
> Aihe: Re: [dispatch] I-D Action: 
> draft-pd-dispatch-msrp-websocket-03.txt
>  
> Hi Christer,
> 
> There is working code for the document as-is and plans for more implementations. I think that if someone has a need for MSRP-CEMA in this scenario then they should join with the current authors to contribute the text and working code for this.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Peter
>  
> 
> On 20 January 2014 03:28, Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi,
>  
> I see no reason why it should be a separate document, as it should not have any affect on the websocket specific procedures, which is the main scope of the document.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Christer
>  
> Sent from my Sony Ericsson Xperia arc S
>  
> Peter Dunkley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>  
> Hello,
>  
> Perhaps the document title should be corrected. MSRP-CEMA is outside of the scope of this document as this document is intended to describe connecting to a WebSocket server that is an MSRP relay.
>  
> I can see no reason why MSRP-CEMA can't be used over WebSockets, but if anyone has an interest in this I think that they should put it in a document of its own.
>  
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Peter
>  
> 
> On 18 January 2014 08:52, Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi,
>  
> I have not followed the work on this draft, so I appologize if the following has been discussed.
>  
> While I do understand that a WS Client has to establish the WebSocket with the Web Server, I don't understand why we need to mandate the WS Server to be an MSRP Relay. That would e.g. prevent the usage of MSRP-CEMA.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Christer
>  
>  
>  
> Lähettäjä: dispatch [mailto:[e-mail]] Puolesta Mary 
> Barnes
> Lähetetty: 11. tammikuuta 2014 0:59
> Vastaanottaja: DISPATCH
> Kopio: Ben Campbell; [e-mail]
> Aihe: Re: [dispatch] I-D Action: 
> draft-pd-dispatch-msrp-websocket-03.txt
>  
> 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.
>  
> 1)  Section 2 & General.  I'm not sure the documented approach for separating normative text from non-normative is quite so helpful.  In general, we expect that in the case of standards track document use RFC 2119 language to indicate normative behaviors.  I think the first sentence is good, but that's not a terminology thing.   I just don't see a lot of value in writing the document this way.  For example, the definitions aren't stated to be non-normative, but I don't see anything normative about the definitions.  I think you could easily title Section 3 as "WebSocket Protocol overview" and that would clearly imply non-normative behavior.  There are also several places in the document in sections that I believe are intended to provide normative behavior, but there is certainly non-normative text in those sections (e.g., section 5.2.2, second paragraph).  I would suggest this document follow the typical (and accepted) style of identifying normative behavior with 2119 language (consistently using upper case for normative behavior and avoiding using 2119 language in cases where alternative words can be substituted).
>  
> 2) Section 5.2.2, 2nd paragraph.  Related to my point above, it's not clear to me this is normative behavior.  I don't think it is since it's referring to existing 4975 behavior. However, I didn't see that the reference given in 4975 relates to the second part of that sentence stating that implementations "should" already be allowing unrecognized transports.  It would be quite useful to have the exact reference here as I was trying to double check this point and I couldn't find it. 
>  
> 3) Section 6.  I'm really puzzled as to why the Connection Keep-alive would be non-normative.  In particular given that 2119 language is clearly being used.  
>  
> 4) Section 7.  Again, I'm puzzled as to why Authentication is considered non-normative. AGain, you have 2119 language in this section.  
>  
> 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? 
>  
> 6) Section 11.  You should change the name of the registry to be the exact name of the IANA registry to avoid any confusion.- i.e.,:
> OLD:
>   registry of WebSocket sub-protocols
> NEW: 
>   WebSocket Subprotocol Name Registry
>  
> 7) Section 11. There is also a Reference field in that IANA registry. I would suggest you use the same information as the pointer to the Subprotocol Definition (i.e., this RFC). 
>  
> 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.  
>  
>  
>  
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:57 PM, <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> 
> 
>         Title           : The WebSocket Protocol as a Transport for the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)
>         Author(s)       : Peter Dunkley
>                           Gavin Llewellyn
>                           Victor Pascual
>                           Anton Roman
>                           Gonzalo Salgueiro
>         Filename        : draft-pd-dispatch-msrp-websocket-03.txt
>         Pages           : 21
>         Date            : 2013-12-12
> 
> Abstract:
>    The WebSocket protocol enables two-way real-time communication
>    between clients and servers.  This document specifies a new WebSocket
>    sub-protocol as a reliable transport mechanism between MSRP (Message
>    Session Relay Protocol) clients and relays to enable usage of MSRP in
>    new scenarios.  This document normatively updates RFC 4975 and RFC
>    4976.
> 
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pd-dispatch-msrp-websocket
> 
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pd-dispatch-msrp-websocket-03
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-pd-dispatch-msrp-websocket-03
> 
> 
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of 
> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or 
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>  
> 
> 
>  
> --
> Peter Dunkley
> Technical Director
> Crocodile RCS Ltd
> 
> 
>  
> --
> Peter Dunkley
> Technical Director
> Crocodile RCS Ltd
>  
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch