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

Hi,

We also have recently published a different draft for BFCP over websockets:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pascual-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-00

I beleive that we should harmonize who the WS transport is signaled and 
how to signal the WS version if also the "normal" TCP version is supported.

In your case you seem to be using the same transport line TCP/MSRP and 
use the path to signal the ws part, in our case, we choose to signal it 
in the transport TCP/WS/BFCP and include a new attribute ws-uri to 
signal the full url (I could not reuse the path attribute as it is 
restricted to msrp urls only).

Best regards
Sergio
El 13/02/2014 16:17, Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei) escribió:
> Hi Mary -
>
> Thanks for taking the time to review the document.  We have published an -05 that (hopefully) addresses all your feedback.
>
> Inline, trimming to only the points requiring responses...
>
>
> On Jan 10, 2014, at 5:58 PM, Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
> <snip/>
>
>> 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?
> Other review comments indicated that it was problematic to downgrade the 4976 MUST requirement for TLS between a client and a server. Thus, the document has been updated so that MSRP traffic transported over WebSockets MUST be protected by using a secure WebSocket connection (i.e., using TLS).  I believe this renders this point moot.
>
> <snip/>
>
>> 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.
> This was the intent of Sections 5.2 and 5.3.  Is this sufficient? Or did you have something else in mind?
>
> Regards,
>
> Gonzalo
>
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> dispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch