Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfcp-udp-02

[Tom Kristensen <[e-mail]>]

That's correct, Roni.

The thread starting with a list of issues in addition to the UDP/BFCP
extension is available in the list archives here:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xcon/current/msg02231.html

-- Tom


2010/6/24 Roni Even <[e-mail]>:
> Mary,
> I think that in the discussion in the past, Gonzalo suggested to do a bis
> draft to RFC 4582. I think he mentioned other issues he wanted to update.
> Roni Even
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>> Mary Barnes
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 7:26 PM
>> To: Richard L. Barnes
>> Cc: Tom Kristensen; DRAGE, Keith (Keith); [e-mail]; Mark Thompson;
>> Alan Johnston
>> Subject: Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfcp-udp-02
>>
>> I have reviewed the draft in question and while I agree that this
>> could be viewed as a workaround for some more general problems that
>> need to be solved, there is a current industry need for the solution
>> in this draft.   If the general problems described go to DISPATCH
>> (which is the appropriate thing to do rather than bringing this
>> specific document), the timeframe for getting agreement on the problem
>> to be solved and for the solutions to be agreed would be far longer
>> IMHO than if this document were progressed. If XCON would prefer to
>> close the WG without progressing this document (in this form or as a
>> -bis to RFC  4582), my suggestion would be to do as was done for the
>> remaining SIP and SIPPING documents and progress this item as an
>> individual AD sponsored.
>>
>> Mary.
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Richard L. Barnes <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> > <hat type="individual"/>
>> >
>> > I tend to agree with Lorenzo that DISPATCH would be a better place to
>> have
>> > these discussions, especially given that, as far as I can tell from
>> this
>> > thread, the problem seems to be a general one of NAT traversal for
>> TCP.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Jun 10, 2010, at 7:00 AM, Lorenzo Miniero wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> with respect to this topic, I think there are many issues
>> implementers
>> >> have to face when bringing IETF solutions to the real world. We
>> found
>> >> ourselves many times in a situation in which some kind of work-
>> around
>> >> had to be devised in order to let things work properly. Just to cite
>> a
>> >> couple of examples, with BFCP we had to find a way to let it work in
>> a
>> >> distributed conferencing scenario (which is far from easy, given the
>> >> intrinsic centralized model behind such protocol). In such case, we
>> >> decided to encapsulate BFCP messages in the body of XMPP
>> >> server-to-server packets (see the XCON-DCON Synchronization Protocol
>> in
>> >> draft-romano-dcon-xdsp-reqs-06 for the details) and then even
>> devised
>> >> a BFCP-XMPP gateway for such a purpose. With respect to the NAT
>> >> traversal issue, we also implemented an HTTP encapsulation. Moving
>> >> further we even conceived a DTMF-based frontend to BFCP ;) and also
>> >> almost thought about a BFCP-over-RTP approach.
>> >>
>> >> That said, I nevertheless agree with Keith on the discussion. Those
>> >> problems may be common to other TCP-based protocols as well, and as
>> such
>> >> a generic solution (generic TCP over UDP, for instance, or anything
>> >> else) may be a much better approach than doing a protocol specific
>> >> patch. Besides, whatever the solution, it should also take care of
>> how
>> >> the negotiation of such channels would be affected (as is the
>> >> case of RFC4583 for BFCP, which the proposed draft actually does).
>> >>
>> >> As Keith already suggested, DISPATCH may be a much better place to
>> >> discuss this issue: DISPATCH is where we'll also propose the above
>> >> mentioned DCON work.
>> >>
>> >> Lorenzo
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:22:55 +0300
>> >> "Roni Even" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hi  Keith,
>> >>>
>> >>> I think that the IETF is trying to design protocols that will work
>> over
>> >>> the
>> >>> Internet and also to enable interoperability between independent
>> >>> implementations.
>> >>>
>> >>> In the BFCP case the shipping implementations support TCP as the
>> >>> transport
>> >>> protocol but they encountered issues when running over the Internet
>> due
>> >>> to
>> >>> devices like SBCs and due to lack of support for TCP media relay or
>> >>> ICE-TCP
>> >>> [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-tcp].
>> >>> When implementations looked at how to address the issue, the
>> >>> interoperability went away since there is no fall back solution for
>> this
>> >>> real life case. Some did a fall back to HTTP and some did to UDP
>> but not
>> >>> in
>> >>> an interoperable way.
>> >>>
>> >>> In order to achieve interoperability, this draft is trying to
>> extend the
>> >>> current BFCP. It is not suggesting to replace TCP but to keep TCP
>> as the
>> >>> mandatory transport and use UDP as fallback if unable to establish
>> TCP
>> >>> connection.
>> >>>
>> >>> As for security, if the topic will be adopted the solution will be
>> >>> updated
>> >>> to use DTLS as the transport for BFCP.
>> >>>
>> >>> I hope that people will read the draft and look at the objectives
>> and the
>> >>> proposed solution.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> BTW: This is a problem for client to client media connections over
>> TCP
>> >>> and
>> >>> my understanding is that RTSP offers to use both TCP and UDP since
>> both
>> >>> are
>> >>> specified. Since BFCP is not a payload but is running in parallel
>> to the
>> >>> RTP
>> >>> payload (for the point to point calls or MCU based multipoint) it
>> needs
>> >>> similar transport options.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks
>> >>> Roni Even
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>>> From: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> >>>> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 1:54 AM
>> >>>> To: Roni Even; 'Richard L. Barnes'; 'Tom Kristensen'
>> >>>> Cc: 'Mark Thompson'; 'Alan Johnston'; 'Tom Kristensen';
>> [e-mail]
>> >>>> Subject: RE: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfcp-udp-02
>> >>>>
>> >>>> What you are essentially saying is that all protocols in the
>> future
>> >>>> that need reliable transport, as BFCP does, have to design in
>> their own
>> >>>> reliable transport element so they can use UDP. This is not a BFCP
>> >>>> specific issue.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I find that an unacceptable direction for IETF to be heading in.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I would also note that you are also asking for adoption of a
>> document
>> >>>> that cannot in its current form meet the security requirements of
>> the
>> >>>> original RFC.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> regards
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Keith
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>>>> From: Roni Even [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 1:40 PM
>> >>>>> To: 'Richard L. Barnes'; 'Tom Kristensen'
>> >>>>> Cc: 'Mark Thompson'; DRAGE, Keith (Keith); 'Alan Johnston';
>> >>>>> 'Tom Kristensen'; [e-mail]
>> >>>>> Subject: RE: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfcp-udp-
>> 02
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Richard,
>> >>>>> The BFCP I used as a presentation token for video
>> >>>>> conferencing. What the implementers found out that TCP does
>> >>>>> not work in real networks due to Session border controllers
>> >>>>> not supporting TCP as used in BFCP.
>> >>>>> This is why in products they try to establish TCP connection
>> >>>>> and if fails tries UDP.
>> >>>>> The video conferencing vendors participating in the IMTC sip
>> >>>>> parity activity group defined an interoperability profile
>> >>>>> that references this option Roni Even
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>>>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Behalf
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Of Richard L. Barnes
>> >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 3:34 PM
>> >>>>>> To: Tom Kristensen
>> >>>>>> Cc: Mark Thompson; DRAGE, Keith (Keith); Alan Johnston; Tom
>> >>>>>> Kristensen; [e-mail]
>> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [XCON] WG Adoption? draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfcp-udp-
>> 02
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Tom and others who are interested in this draft:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> For those who are relatively new here: Could you summarize why
>> you
>> >>>>>> think this draft is needed?  What requirement does it meet
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> that BFCP
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> doesn't right now?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Thanks,
>> >>>>>> --Richard
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Jun 9, 2010, at 7:37 AM, Tom Kristensen wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> The UDP/BFCP draft has been presented and discussed in
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> two or three
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> IETF XCON sessions. No objection to the work being
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> carried on, just
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> that adoption as WG item was postponed until the draft was more
>> >>>>>>> complete. (This has been delayed of various reasons, but
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> the authors
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> believe the -02 version in question here should be ready for
>> >>>>>>> adoption).
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> The "current status of consensus" might be valid for some, but
>> >>>>>>> participants in the XCON sessions and the minutes of meeting
>> show
>> >>>>>>> progress away from that initial consensus.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I believe Ott's concerns are either dealt with or at
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> least mentioned
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> in the draft. Arrest me if I'm wrong.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> -- Tom
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On 9 June 2010 13:20, DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
>> >>>>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> We made an explicit decision in the original draft that
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> UDP was not
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> required, not that we would do it later. That as far as I am
>> >>>>>>>> concerned represents the current status of consensus.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> This was done on the basis that we had all seen how UDP
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> support had
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> complicated SIP, and we did not want to repeat that issue.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> So this is not continuing the work. The status is an
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> author draft
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> which goes against a WG consensus position.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> I believe Georg Ott also expressed some concerns which I did
>> not
>> >>>>>>>> see answered on list at all.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> regards
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Keith
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>>>>>>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>> >>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Roni Even
>> >>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 7:35 PM
>> >>>>>>>>> To: 'Alan Johnston'; 'Tom Kristensen'
>> >>>>>>>>> Cc: 'Mark Thompson'; [e-mail]
>> >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [XCON] WG Adoption?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfcp-udp-02
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Alan,
>> >>>>>>>>> I support this work and think it is urgent to finish it.
>> >>>>>>>>> I think that updating BFCP with UDP support is very
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> important. I
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> would like to mention that BFCP is being used in video
>> >>>>>>>>> conferencing application and since the implementers
>> encountered
>> >>>>>>>>> problems with TCP they use a fall back to UDP.
>> >>>>>>>>> We discussed this work in previous IETF meeting and
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Gonzalo as far
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> as I remember suggested to add it to a BFCP bis draft.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks
>> >>>>>>>>> Roni Even
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>>>>>>>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Behalf
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Of Alan Johnston
>> >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 7:44 PM
>> >>>>>>>>>> To: Tom Kristensen
>> >>>>>>>>>> Cc: Mark Thompson; [e-mail]
>> >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [XCON] WG Adoption?
>> >>>>>>>>>> draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfcp-udp-02
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Tom,
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Apologies for the delay in replying.  As you know, the
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> working group
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> is in the process of completing its final milestones.
>> >>>>>>>>>> Publication requests will be issued in the next few
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> days for the
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> data
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> model, CCMP,
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> and the Examples drafts.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Taking on any new milestones for the working group
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> would require:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. Strong support and interest from working group
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> participants 2.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Approval of our ADs.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> I haven't seen evidence of either of these at this stage.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> A possible option is to take this work to DISPATCH, get an
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> indication
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> of interests, and get feedback on the best way to move
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> this work
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> forward.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> - Alan -
>> >>>>>>>>>> co-chair XCON
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/10 8:22 AM, Tom Kristensen wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> The draft draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfcp-udp-02 was submitted
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> early in
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> March. No comments received since.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> We'd like guidance on the next steps. First we ask for
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> adoption as
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> WG item. Next step would include the merging process with
>> bis
>> >>>>>>>>>>> versions
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> of
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> RFC 4582 and RFC 4583.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> We'd like to point out that interested parties for this
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> work indeed
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> exist.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> (For the record: Questions was sent to XCON chairs in
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> April and May.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> See
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> below. No response given. Therefore, this request on
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> the list.)
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- Tom
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 10:43 +0200, Tom Kristensen wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Chairs,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Any thoughts or decision on this matter?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- Tom
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 11:58 +0200, Tom Kristensen wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> XCON chairs,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We submitted draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfcp-udp-02
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> early in March
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> well in
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> advance of IETF-77.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sandbakken-xcon-bfcp-
>> >>>>
>> >>>> udp
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No comments received. Neither on XCON WG list, nor
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> directly to the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> authors. Therefore, we ask for adoption of this draft
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> as an XCON
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> WG item.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Tom
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>>>>>> XCON mailing list
>> >>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>>>>> XCON mailing list
>> >>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>>>> XCON mailing list
>> >>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>> >>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>> # TANDBERG R&D
>> >>>>>>> ## http://www.tandberg.com
>> >>>>>>> ### http://folk.uio.no/tomkri/
>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>>> XCON mailing list
>> >>>>>>> [e-mail]
>> >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>> XCON mailing list
>> >>>>>> [e-mail]
>> >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> =
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> XCON mailing list
>> >>> [e-mail]
>> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Lorenzo Miniero
>> >> Meetecho s.r.l.
>> >> http://www.meetecho.com/
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > XCON mailing list
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> XCON mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon
>
> _______________________________________________
> XCON mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon
>



-- 
# TANDBERG R&D
## http://www.tandberg.com
### http://folk.uio.no/tomkri/