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

[Victor Pascual <[e-mail]>]

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.

*Victor Pascual*
Chief Strategy Officer @ Quobis <http://www.quobis.com/> | e:
[e-mail] | m:  [phone] | t: [phone]


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]<[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<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announceInternet-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
>