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

Victor Pascual <victor.pascual@quobis.com> Tue, 21 January 2014 09:33 UTC

Return-Path: <victor.pascual@quobis.com>
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 506731A02C8 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 01:33:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 0xMqVrY3Dp1r for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 01:33:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-f179.google.com (mail-lb0-f179.google.com [209.85.217.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42BA11A0102 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 01:33:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f179.google.com with SMTP id l4so4041004lbv.24 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 01:33:35 -0800 (PST)
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=Z29X+sAVG3xuAq1Q/EenpQ9gjIOimzjTdAvsRwcCr6A=; b=KXeODy/CqL/uqtBYyjvGjmJhzVcoB6uf8Xtvhw3PUI7nvBAMJRToYk193AhghBax02 b3AHGQn2FaecLwB+sm7A0SsXFj9AzmvU6bF1fB7YnT9bKIQahiWcS2oisyDX6pfj5/QQ 4WemxWJrGA7zwdqgB+AU95u//0oAu/WZvA25vlY1Y19DIsT7QFjuOJuNFXhwvMbf/OMK OiF5lCmoosfBm94j3F68PsXD+nlfCp7aROAQhp3rABwCJQarTp8Sv2E4h5lk3t6RuhLK zmtbQQA02cWKhK9H3QqELglxkcwjYrXRE7ckpIXnngjbsoEMRqwhOwXYGwayNkSBXMiO iuqw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmcs4LDbrmQqjFo36zQP0DPYH8I9am+J9RUr3XtLf7k6ezOamU4I2pqDY/1p+dLXVmPVrkx
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.19.170 with SMTP id g10mr15631379lae.9.1390296815222; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 01:33:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.114.240.136 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 01:33:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D11137F@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
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> <CAEqTk6RgTQGMRx3_JQEj8sPgx-CeiL+4Dj14Oa7u7o_=ZvRb7g@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D10A3A1@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D11137F@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 10:33:35 +0100
Message-ID: <CAGdkcAFVi13z+7r64e8mOrpWJuwfqUT3fLxKbvoTR1PeDZRTmQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Victor Pascual <victor.pascual@quobis.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01493f64cdced304f077b384
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 08:06:48 -0800
Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@estacado.net>, DISPATCH <dispatch@ietf.org>, "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: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 09:33:41 -0000

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:
victor.pascual@quobis.com | m:  +34630169875 | t: +34902999465


2014/1/21 Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>

>  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:dispatch-bounces@ietf.org] *Puolesta *Christer
> Holmberg
> *Lähetetty:* 20. tammikuuta 2014 11:55
> *Vastaanottaja:* Peter Dunkley
> *Kopio:* DISPATCH; Ben Campbell;
> draft-pd-dispatch-msrp-websocket@tools.ietf.org
>
> *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:peter.dunkley@crocodilertc.net<peter.dunkley@crocodilertc.net>]
>
> *Lähetetty:* 20. tammikuuta 2014 11:45
> *Vastaanottaja:* Christer Holmberg
> *Kopio:* Mary Barnes; DISPATCH; Ben Campbell;
> draft-pd-dispatch-msrp-websocket@tools.ietf.org
> *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 <
> christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> 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
>