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

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ben,

My thinking is that the WS client could indicate support of CEMA.

Regards,

Christer


Sent from Windows Mail

From: Ben Campbell<mailto:[e-mail]>
Sent: ‎Monday‎, ‎January‎ ‎20‎, ‎2014 ‎6‎:‎32‎ ‎AM
To: Christer Holmberg<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: Peter Dunkley<mailto:[e-mail]>, Mary Barnes<mailto:[e-mail]>, DISPATCH<mailto:[e-mail]>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>


On Jan 19, 2014, at 9:28 PM, 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.

Christer, I assume you mean for a WebSocket MSRP "server" acting on behalf of a WS MSRP client to be able to use CEMA between itself and a third party client? Not between a WebSocket MSRP client and a WebSocket MSRP server, right?

>
> 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