Re: [MMUSIC] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-25: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org> Thu, 11 April 2019 14:56 UTC

Return-Path: <rdd@cert.org>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C3FF1202ED; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 07:56:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cert.org
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 VrI-O97xNBiR; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 07:56:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from taper.sei.cmu.edu (taper.sei.cmu.edu [147.72.252.16]) (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 07999120378; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 07:56:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from korb.sei.cmu.edu (korb.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.21.30]) by taper.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id x3BEuRuJ015708; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 10:56:28 -0400
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 taper.sei.cmu.edu x3BEuRuJ015708
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cert.org; s=yc2bmwvrj62m; t=1554994588; bh=DFvctlxXnFTHmo7+HjhC2HDR2zEf5toGzUI8z3knZCo=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=HywfSA8WJqstaSqFBIrXK8I8dbbMW082UOSTrjCQBHckLaDHuPzrK0f0Xl5Idfbp6 x/1v00BEab0c6aEffFKw+PLS1/zwCVrQ/wGMql+lf5GsIsx6fLnfCyU5W/21A4JpB7 69q57gHizkYNXwlGBZOF6WuZTYEwNSIEiDV6uz58=
Received: from CASSINA.ad.sei.cmu.edu (cassina.ad.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.28.249]) by korb.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id x3BEuNrI023859; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 10:56:23 -0400
Received: from MARCHAND.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.251]) by CASSINA.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([10.64.28.249]) with mapi id 14.03.0435.000; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 10:56:23 -0400
From: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
To: "Roni Even (A)" <roni.even@huawei.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg@ietf.org>, Bo Burman <bo.burman@ericsson.com>, "mmusic-chairs@ietf.org" <mmusic-chairs@ietf.org>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-25: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHU7w7aiclXlP59H0y/5xTbuqoJoqY29baAgAAX6kA=
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 14:56:21 +0000
Message-ID: <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC01B3327FF5@marchand>
References: <155484000356.19554.8395796686893872238.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD18CDB59D@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD18CDB59D@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.64.22.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/0EGM1tHmcZ-I3vxcu5ZaKLH2dUs>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-25: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mmusic/>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 14:56:44 -0000


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roni Even (A) [mailto:roni.even@huawei.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 5:25 AM
> To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>rg>; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> Cc: draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg@ietf.org; Bo Burman
> <bo.burman@ericsson.com>om>; mmusic-chairs@ietf.org; mmusic@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-
> sdpneg-25: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Thanks for the review, see inline
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker [mailto:noreply@ietf.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2019 11:00 PM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg@ietf.org; Bo Burman; mmusic-
> chairs@ietf.org; bo.burman@ericsson.com; mmusic@ietf.org
> Subject: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-
> sdpneg-25: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-25: Discuss
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
> addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory
> paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (1) Section 5.2.1.  The ABNF of stream-id of “dcsa-value = stream-id …” does
> not appear to be defined explicitly or by reference in the draft.
> 
> RE: will  add "stream-id = 1*5DIGIT" ; same as dcmap-stream-id

OK.  Thanks for the fix.

> (2) Section 6.6, “… the offerer SHALL include previously negotiated SDP
> attributes … associated with the channel”.  What is the behavior of the
> receiver if the attributes included by the offerer are NOT those that were
> previously negotiated?
> 
> RE: The behavior is protocol specific, offer answer may be used by multiple
> signaling protocol e.g. SIP

Understood.  Could you add that simple sentence that the behavior on mismatch is protocol specific.

> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (1) Section 1.  Editorial Nits.
> s/The concept of establishing a bi-directional data channel running on top of
> the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) is in
> [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel] allowing applications to use data    channels./
> The concept of establishing a bi-directional data channel running on top of
> the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-
> channel] allows applications to use data channels./
> 
> [RE] Not sure - the allowing refers to [rtcweb-data-channel]
>
> s/An in-band Data Channel Establishment Protocol (DCEP) is in [I-D.ietf-
> rtcweb-data-protocol], however other in-band or out-of-band protocols may
> be used for establishing data channels./ In addition to the in-band Data
> Channel Establishment Protocol (DCEP), other in-band and out-of-band
> protocols may be used for establishing data channels/
> 
> [RE] prefer to use as is

No problem.  Keep the original text.
 
> (2) Section 1.  Typo (extra space between close bracket and period) s/For
> MSRP they are documented in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel] ./
> For MSRP they are documented in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-
> channel]./
> [OK]
> 
> (3) Section 3.  Editorial Nit.
> old: "delivery... )."; new: "delivery, etc.)."
> [RE] OK
> 
> 
> 
> (4) Section 6.1.  Editorial Nit.
> There appears to be two instances of the sentence, “SCTP stream identifiers
> associated with data channels that have been negotiated using DCEP MUST
> NOT be included in SDP offers and answers.”
> 
> [RE] thanks, will remove the first instance
> 
> 
> (5) Section 6.5.  The sentence “Note: DCEP is not used, that is neither the SDP
> offerer nor the SDP answerer send an in-band DCEP DATA_CHANNEL_OPEN
> message”
> uses a triple negative so the guidance is not clear.
> [RE]  I can remove the note, does not provide any vaue

Thanks for these changes.

> (6) Section 6.7, Per “SDP offer or answer has an "a=dcsa" attribute, whose
> subprotocol attribute is known, but whose subprotocol attribute semantic is
> not known for the data channel transport case”, consider a case where the
> sub-protocol attribute is known but the value is invalid.  Is that case a sub-set
> of what is meant by the “attribute semantic is not known”?
> [RE] yes, this is what semantics means

Understood.  Thanks for the clarity.

Roman

> 
> 
>