Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg

Christian Groves <Christian.Groves@nteczone.com> Thu, 26 November 2015 00:39 UTC

Return-Path: <Christian.Groves@nteczone.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A96CB1B333B for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:39:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, MANGLED_LIST=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=no
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 UAK-_Hwr7Y7R for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:39:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cserver5.myshophosting.com (cserver5.myshophosting.com [175.107.161.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAF5C1ABD3D for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:39:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppp118-209-108-173.lns20.mel4.internode.on.net ([118.209.108.173]:50660 helo=[192.168.1.22]) by cserver5.myshophosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from <Christian.Groves@nteczone.com>) id 1a1kau-003VvE-1B; Thu, 26 Nov 2015 11:39:28 +1100
To: mmusic@ietf.org, "Stoetzer-Bradler, Juergen (Juergen)" <juergen.stoetzer-bradler@alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22E88D533@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se>
From: Christian Groves <Christian.Groves@nteczone.com>
Message-ID: <565654BA.3050802@nteczone.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 11:39:22 +1100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22E88D533@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - cserver5.myshophosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - nteczone.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: cserver5.myshophosting.com: authenticated_id: christian.groves@nteczone.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: cserver5.myshophosting.com: christian.groves@nteczone.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/GhpT9NgKagDuWumKex-ErQ8Cmss>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] WGLC for draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 26 Nov 2015 00:39:32 -0000

Hello Juergen, all,

I have reviewed the document and I don't think there are any major 
issues preventing it from going forward. My comments below:

General: Double check acronyms are spelled out on first use, e.g. SCTP, SDP
General: Sometimes "subprotocol" is used, sometimes "sub-protocol" I 
guess we should be consistent.

Sect.1: The 2nd sentence seems confusing. I propose to reword "RTCWeb 
allows applications to use data channels. It RTCWeb defines an in-band 
DCEP however other in-band or out-of-band protocols may be used for 
establishing datachannels.

Sect.5.1.1: (defined in Section 4 ), this should probably be section 3?

Sect.5.1.1 1st para last sentence: Reliability is now two parameters: 
max-retr & max-time

Sect.5.1.1 1st para last sentence: Priority is not defined by the syntax 
however its part of DCEP. Do we need to add this?

Sect.5.1.1.1: "maxretr-value" should we actually add an ABNF value for 
this? The referred to draft doesn't have ABNF. Its a 2 byte integer

Sect.5.1.1.1: "maxtime-value" should we actually add an ABNF value for 
this? The referred to draft doesn't have ABNF. Its a 2 byte integer

Sect.5.1.1.1: The example for a=dcmap:4, wouldn't this be invalid as it 
contains both the max-time and max-retr parameters?

Sect.5.2.3, pg.14, 7th bullet: "Closes any created data channels for 
which the expected "a=dcmap:" and "a=dcsa:" attributes  are not present 
in the SDP answer." Should this also refer to section 5.2.4 on closure?

Sect.5.2.5: The miscellaneous section doesn't explicitly cover the case 
when a=dcmap is missing but a=dsca is included. I take it that its an 
error. Should we add this?

Sect.6 1st para under fig.2: "So, the offerer should  close the ..." is 
this really a "MUST close"? There is text about reusing a data channel 
but does it apply in this case when no previous data channel has been 
extablished?

Sect.6 bottom pg.18: "Continuing on the earlier example in Figure 1" Is 
this a continuation of figure 2? The text below figure 3 indicates that 
MSRP SCTP stream ID 2 is removed. This is example 2.

Sect.8.2.2: DCSA appropriate values. Now defined in sect. 5.1.2.1

Sect.11.2: There are no usages of RFCs 4975, 4976, 5547, 6135 and 6714 
in the document. These can be deleted.

Sect.11.2: There are no usages of RFC6455 and I-D.ietf-rtcweb-jsep the 
document other than in the changes section. These can be deleted.

Minor editorials: Sent offline to author.

Regards, Christian

On 25/11/2015 8:52 PM, Bo Burman wrote:
>
> This is to announce a 4 week Working Group Last Call for
>
> draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-06
>
> as proposed standard.
>
> Please review and provide any comments you may have on the document by 
> Wednesday, December 23, 2015. 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.
>
> Please also forward this WGLC call to any other interested parties who 
> may be able to review the draft, asking them to also direct their 
> comments to the authors and the list as above.
>
> Thank you!
>
>         Bo Burman (MMUSIC co-chair)
>
> Draft information:
>
> This draft is a work item of the Multiparty Multimedia Session Control 
> Working Group of the IETF.
>
>         Title           : SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation
>
> Authors : Keith Drage
>
> Maridi R. Makaraju (Raju)
>
> Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler
>
> Richard Ejzak
>
>                           Jerome Marcon
>
>                 Filename        : 
> draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-06.txt
>
>                 Pages           : 37
>
>                 Date            : 2015-10-19
>
> Abstract:
>
>    The Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers (RTCWeb) working group is
>
>    charged to provide protocols to support direct interactive rich
>
>    communications using audio, video, and data between two peers' web-
>
>    browsers.  For the support of data communication, the RTCWeb working
>
>    group has in particular defined the concept of bi-directional data
>
>    channels over SCTP, where each data channel might be used to
>
>    transport other protocols, called sub-protocols.  Data channel setup
>
>    can be done using either the in-band Data Channel Establishment
>
>    Protocol (DCEP) or using some out-of-band non-DCEP protocol.  This
>
>    document specifies how the SDP offer/answer exchange can be used to
>
>    achieve such an out-of-band non-DCEP negotiation.  Even though data
>
>    channels are designed for RTCWeb use initially they may be used by
>
>    other protocols like, but not limited to, the CLUE protocol.  This
>
>    document is intended to be used wherever data channels are used.
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg/
>
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-06
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-06
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic