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

Peter Dunkley <peter.dunkley@crocodilertc.net> Mon, 20 January 2014 09:44 UTC

Return-Path: <peter.dunkley@crocodilertc.net>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DD4E1A00B0 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 01:44:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 PjhZEVUSDySs for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 01:44:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-x235.google.com (mail-ie0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1EA31A00AF for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 01:44:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f181.google.com with SMTP id tq11so6181907ieb.40 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 01:44:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=crocodilertc.net; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=EOLwdo9YVTZrKyKwN45DKwfiPZ9+aJbxy5mykkav82E=; b=Muxzal/Oywo+gsZaCkbIOOOOOv+74pG3ZX8XveAv8+pXXSKZnSsH1Krh+9FkljkBrb f0OkSp5Em41O8RSpkYBLozvW2U47HvigzzWe4kU8WiDuHrLTiBhiodBToznv0/spZ5Fx Y8uNeE4NBhTNJkm5ht1wLFZxOg/dzUEnb3Ynk=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=EOLwdo9YVTZrKyKwN45DKwfiPZ9+aJbxy5mykkav82E=; b=QD1ksE+8hLLHlIB1W92rAYo5fgFcHYmdHFP5q0QMj1IKG3IiXittqmehKDo2n+3Rpw zqQs8QlwZN6WoSibQ+NBUrYnbAnFdSeXiPO72dx4JoNMuObglXcbYKjwsQO4yccnF+Rd awMo9qcl7BX3DCaJbgygLj7kNW2x3ENpCNfTq2YfjnikEqNkduCXtCuRKeIjaE1ptTY0 Eqo3dJTKzfzN97ZCWfhjB+7aC1EIvYEiNP0vRDlV3AS4DB/F7jQhK4S3Ovd7NSXwvNY/ acV8qxqnrWgzrFZf+NLMEVyUEHC6p08VKOvvaJKwasAfLiunkNlWpVan0CJbT1VTmGaV MD5A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmS+RIaH/05M9FVvGZVQkTwDzlJAnhG49EKjbRaHxGdYNbv8FrGLzq4yv7vOYTesC483Wsf
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.79.138 with SMTP id j10mr11660440igx.2.1390211093920; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 01:44:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.64.229.13 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 01:44:53 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <t8ggf2ti82dib0706kka9dx1.1390188532252@email.android.com>
References: <20131213005747.777.34301.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAHBDyN4tSRO_nYy7_-V4xfmDbF0ZeLJ24_fEOQ1p9Z2BvJyinQ@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D104D91@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAEqTk6QcSU+u2nrp3oyoyr6p4diGD2s4-4PhBQW-UP2VdZmsqw@mail.gmail.com> <t8ggf2ti82dib0706kka9dx1.1390188532252@email.android.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 09:44:53 +0000
Message-ID: <CAEqTk6RgTQGMRx3_JQEj8sPgx-CeiL+4Dj14Oa7u7o_=ZvRb7g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Dunkley <peter.dunkley@crocodilertc.net>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0122ab746a930a04f063bea1
Cc: DISPATCH <dispatch@ietf.org>, Ben Campbell <ben@estacado.net>, "draft-pd-dispatch-msrp-websocket@tools.ietf.org" <draft-pd-dispatch-msrp-websocket@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] I-D Action: draft-pd-dispatch-msrp-websocket-03.txt
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 09:44:56 -0000

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
<christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>wrote;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 <peter.dunkley@crocodilertc.net> 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 <
> christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> 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:dispatch-bounces@ietf.org] *Puolesta *Mary
>> Barnes
>> *Lähetetty:* 11. tammikuuta 2014 0:59
>> *Vastaanottaja:* DISPATCH
>> *Kopio:* Ben Campbell; draft-pd-dispatch-msrp-websocket@tools.ietf.org
>> *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, <internet-drafts@ietf.org> 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
>> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
>> Internet-Draft<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announceInternet-Draft>directoriestories:
>> 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