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

["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