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

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

>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.

Correct.

Regards,

Christer




2014/1/21 Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]>] Puolesta Christer Holmberg
Lähetetty: 20. tammikuuta 2014 11:55
Vastaanottaja: Peter Dunkley
Kopio: DISPATCH; Ben Campbell; [e-mail]<mailto:[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]]
Lähetetty: 20. tammikuuta 2014 11:45
Vastaanottaja: Christer Holmberg
Kopio: Mary Barnes; DISPATCH; Ben Campbell; [e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]>] Puolesta Mary Barnes
Lähetetty: 11. tammikuuta 2014 0:59
Vastaanottaja: DISPATCH
Kopio: Ben Campbell; [e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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<http://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]<mailto:[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



--
Peter Dunkley
Technical Director
Crocodile RCS Ltd