Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC on draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel-16

[Jose M Recio <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for your comments, Gunnar,


On 10/05/20 02:30, Gunnar Hellström wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I agree that the draft seems to be in good shape.
>
> I have the following comments/questions:
>
> 1. Should the draft say that it updates RFC 4975?
>
> The msrps scheme is also IANA-registered in RFC 4975 section 15.5.2. 
> Please check if that registration need update because of the reuse of 
> the msrps scheme.
>
Thanks for bringing this back. WG was asked for feedback about updating 
IANA registry or keeping as it is, with the argument that data channel 
uses DTLS so it would conform original “msrps” requirement, that refers 
to TLS. There was no clear outcome.

If there are no comments opposing this, I would follow your comment and 
add it to IANA updates section.

> 2. Data reception is not mentioned.
>
> Section 5.5 is about data sending and reporting. There is no section 
> about data receiving.
>
> It seems that as for sending, it would be sufficient to refer to RFC 
> 4975.
>
> I suggest that data reception is included in section 5.5.
>
I propose:
"Data sending, receiving and reporting procedures SHALL conform to RFC4975"
>
>
> 3. Channel or association failure handling should be specified
>
> There is nothing said about channel failures or SCTP association 
> failures. I assume that transmission failures are handled under 
> "reporting" in section 5.5, but that does not cover channel or 
> association failures.
>
> RFC 4975 has a section 5.4 "MSRP Connection Model" that includes 
> connection failures, and considerations for retrying a failed 
> connection. Please check if it can be sufficient to refer to that 
> section for this issue.
>
I think RFC4975 should be enough, failures detected at transport (data 
channel) level should trigger the actions specified in RFC4975. I will 
add a comment.

> Sections 4.6 and 5.3 in the draft are about session closing, requiring 
> SDP signaling for session closing. Consider adding some words about 
> that nomal closing requires SDP signaling, while connection failure 
> may result in session closing without sdp exchange.
>
What about this:

Changing "The closure of an MSRP session MUST be signaled via an SDP" -> 
"Normal closure of an MSRP session MUST be signaled via an SDP"

Adding "Connection failure may result in session closing without SDP 
exchange. If the endpoint attempts to re-create the session, procedures 
specified in RFC4975 SHALL be followed"

> Regards
>
> Gunnar
>
> Den 2020-05-06 kl. 17:20, skrev Bo Burman:
>>
>> Greetings MMUSIC ,
>>
>> This is to announce a 2 week WGLC on the draft:
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel-16 
>>
>>
>> as Proposed Standard. Please review and provide any comments you may 
>> have on the document by
>>
>> Wednesday, May 20, 2020.
>>
>> Comments should be sent to the document authors and the MMUSIC WG list.
>>
>> If you review the document but do not have any comments, please send 
>> a note to that effect as well.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> /Bo
>>
>> (MMUSIC co-chair)
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mmusic mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
> -- 
>
> + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
>
> Gunnar Hellström
> Omnitor
> [e-mail]
> [phone]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic