Re: Review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-07

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Tue, 03 January 2017 14:17 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CC821295EE; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 06:17:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.722
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.722 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
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 0LgyNkgr8gor; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 06:17:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBD411295E7; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 06:17:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE06D4A7E64; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 06:17:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=1.tigertech; t=1483453060; bh=Qiy/DWrXN11rA4XgX8fpM4X99ExZaA6cCgb+K4S+jdg=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ZlfOVLQIpg1RQfOJWIJmpbLFHJcR/5BpMtDZQxSq7bBNzxNa6F3eYZ2GiqQfqodBB nF9S2AC31f9dSMawLTwATKoUepYowYBV34KhCE2iqdPzA+1xiF+TGv+nH0NoPZvf0c w/XB8mBFD9dAepMMESK5ihz87MJAIfc6OSE4kwcU=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0C6FA1C0502; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 06:17:39 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-07
To: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>
References: <148253493203.16856.4857620752315294427.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <571231A9-2757-4B86-BC65-2491B6B7F882@cisco.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <fbd71455-723b-01a2-ea18-f479ed3be79d@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 09:17:38 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <571231A9-2757-4B86-BC65-2491B6B7F882@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/tD8dm5RdBhvIm-YFrhRdFNxjQDI>
Cc: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri.all@ietf.org>
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: Tue, 03 Jan 2017 14:17:45 -0000

Yes, those fixes ddress my concerns.  Thank you.
Joel

On 1/3/17 3:36 AM, Ram Mohan R (rmohanr) wrote:
> Hi Joel,
>
> Thanks for your response. Please see inline
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>;
> Date: Saturday, 24 December 2016 at 4:45 AM
> To: "gen-art@ietf.org"; <gen-art@ietf.org>;
> Cc: "bfcpbis@ietf.org"; <bfcpbis@ietf.org>;, "ietf@ietf.org"; <ietf@ietf.org>;, "draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri.all@ietf.org"; <draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri.all@ietf.org>;
> Subject: Review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-07
> Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org>;
> Resent-To: <rmohanr@cisco.com>;, <gsalguei@cisco.com>;, <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>;, <eckelcu@cisco.com>;, <ben@nostrum.com>;, <alissa@cooperw.in>;, <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>;, Charles Eckel <eckelcu@cisco.com>;
> Resent-Date: Saturday, 24 December 2016 at 4:45 AM
>
>     Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>     Review result: Ready with Nits
>
>     I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>     Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
>     by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
>     like any other last call comments.
>
>     For more information, please see the FAQ at
>
>     <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>;.
>
>     Document: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-??
>     Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>     Review Date: 2016-12-23
>     IETF LC End Date: 2017-01-12
>     IESG Telechat date: 2017-01-19
>
>     Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard
>     RFC.  I have a few minor comments that should be considered s they may
>     improve future understanding of the document.
>
>     Major issues: None
>
>     Minor issues:
>         In reading section 4.2 and 4.3, I believe I can guess at certain
>     intended behaviors, but it is not as clearly stated as I think is
>     desirable.  There is also one odd statement in section 4.3
>
>         Taking the odd statement first, the text in section 4.3 refers the
>     active answerer "towards
>        the IP address and port of the offerer".  But when WebSockets is
>     used, one does not connect to the IP address and port, but to the URI
>     specified.
>
> <Ram> I will replace the text as below:
>
> EXISTING:
> Towards the IP address and port of the offerer using the procedures described
>    in [RFC6455]
>
> NEW:
> Towards the URI specified in a=ws-uri or a=wss-uri attribute using procedures described
>    in [RFC6455]
>
>         I believe that the intent in 4.2 and 4.3 is that whichever side
>     will be "passive" is required to provide an a=ws-uri or a=wss-uri so
>     that the other side can establish the connection to the URI.  But
>     section 4.2 does not say that.
>
> <Ram>
> EXISTING:
>    The offerer SHOULD assign the SDP "setup" attribute with a value of
>    "active" (the offerer will be the initiator of the outgoing TCP
>    connection), unless the offerer insists on being a receiver of an
>    incoming connection, in which case the offerer SHOULD use a value of
>    "passive".  The offerer MUST NOT assign an SDP "setup" attribute with
>    a "holdconn" value.
>
> NEW:
>    The offerer SHOULD assign the SDP "setup" attribute with a value of
>    "active" (the offerer will be the initiator of the outgoing TCP
>    connection), unless the offerer insists on being a receiver of an
>    incoming connection, in which case the offerer SHOULD use a value of
>    "passive".  The offerer MUST NOT assign an SDP "setup" attribute with
>    a "holdconn" value. If the “setup” attribute has a value “passive” it MUST also
> have URI in the a=ws-uri or a=wss-uri attribute.
>
>  And the text in section4.3 that talks
>     about providing the URI in the a= does not qualify whether it is
>     required with active, passive, or both.
>
> <Ram>
> NEW:
> If the answers assigns SDP “setup” attribute with “passive”, then it MUST have URI in either
> a=ws-uri or a=wss-uri attribute.
>
> Does this look good and makes it more clear ?
>
> Regards,
> Ram
>
>     Nits/editorial comments:  N/A
>
>
>
>