TSV-ART review of draft-pd-dispatch-msrp-websocket

Allison Mankin <allison.mankin@gmail.com> Mon, 01 August 2016 19:28 UTC

Return-Path: <allison.mankin@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EDA612D98C; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 12:28:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jXmB4ZemDMl8; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 12:28:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22c.google.com (mail-vk0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B34E312D611; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 12:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id w127so106742638vkh.2; Mon, 01 Aug 2016 12:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Y04lR6qHrMbI1SHvONYGDG43dNz20xPEpZ5Q0XFES2Q=; b=0UuALAW3TO9PtQHQgbVqWnQr9EP+0iMNLEltLck0PsOgSw20lgrtunur9RkNVdfs4w 2R43osQoPwd8dBi1Q2VQGbIC67zzIffBbT+LZIlXL/oo7fxuMBY44a61jwzBWu8+G5V8 +7br5TvrGu6q9Z9XPM+Ok6ZJjxy8C7ltzcFPQv2+UYpKl8NAA1C14MMaJOVrtXXxTGEM lecshPztiEukTCgwpSNOVXO6FHcl0rKx3fy97BDZxDKPewVzpLZoXEgMqlaII5Gt4M5u tjoOvuFZOZpfG4i+tTWwnysOIjAR2Ebh8PcNgcrmU3xJmDC0l92iyx9tUUTblTggu+cK SJmQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Y04lR6qHrMbI1SHvONYGDG43dNz20xPEpZ5Q0XFES2Q=; b=B97vopjze/FdfST/3lCoto7Jv9BZG759AFh9JpQnNJD8TeMXZk6Xk+eUavswJtT1eI Vx6Yc8VnjbIYRU0jAY8sPx2vfZsG0S0iqQgsUDnGM6CJPuoxIeORVio0DmKFE06F8MQW 3Mymk2vo1Pshs8ketPIlsel+shSP4fHH1Uf5Ow3MgUeQhGrJak8Je3Dx4/HoSQsQx92k xN5QKMVPUWl30RVlGrgl4e0cda9ZPU8FNhvagRz/x+ylKWhGz2jU91De6r2BNheszuzF NjfxnhSk292AwamZ+A41uEUW9ha6pnROgm85zIUHfv09A8vRTDwM6FFgh1x6M5NmPQJl tYcA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouvC2XVkqfcWA0VUCFH1kMV8a9NczCpImqjMFFvWFIQUDJuHDG+50MWsXszC8ON1hIyyKB2g9q2JFZya3Q==
X-Received: by with SMTP id f1mr12517915vkg.47.1470079711856; Mon, 01 Aug 2016 12:28:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 12:28:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Allison Mankin <allison.mankin@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2016 15:28:31 -0400
Message-ID: <CAP8yD=s0e7HYNMh2LtgJwHqpSWkOa+rB5rx2-q4FTPgJZtxdvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: TSV-ART review of draft-pd-dispatch-msrp-websocket
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, tsv-art@ietf.org, draft-pd-dispatch-msrp-websocket@ietf.org, Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114e1ff6044cd60539079b86"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/c3wRuk9vs7EMtRKvhs61LymPUwM>
Cc: amankin@salesforce.com
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2016 19:28:37 -0000

Hey, folks,

I've reviewed this draft (draft-pd-dispatch-msrp-websocket-13) as part of
the TSV Area Review Team, paying special attention to transport-related
concerns. Please take these as any other (belated) IETF last call comments,
addressing them in conjunction with the present IESG review.

Summary: This draft specifies the WebSocket sub-protocol for MSRP, the
SIP-based messaging protocol.   It is very similar to RFC 7118, WebSocket
as a Transport for SIP, which is already a PS.  It does not appear to pose
any transport-related danger, and is broadly ready for publication as a PS.

Although the draft looks ready to go from a transport point of view, I have
a couple of small questions:

Section 5

Does the second sentence in the following mean "impossible for a WebSocket
MSRP client to communicate directly with other MSRP clients"?  The
paragraph is confusing.

   WebSocket clients cannot receive WebSocket connections initiated by
   other WebSocket clients or WebSocket servers.  This means that it is
   impossible for an MSRP client to communicate directly with other MSRP
   clients.  Therefore, all MSRP over WebSocket messages MUST be routed
   via an MSRP WebSocket Server.

Section 8

bob.example.com:8145 occurs in many of the path examples.  Although I
notice it also occurs in the MSRP Relay RFC (4976) along with many other
unassigned port numbers from the User Space, I wonder if it could be
replaced with a port from the Dynamic space (49152-65535) - in this draft,
it's the only unassigned port, and this could be one RFC that doesn't
confuse port users IRL.

Thanks and good luck,