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

[Patrick Luthi <[e-mail]>]

Great to hear that since I was making that point about the problem 
with TCP for videoconferencing in a previous post!

XCON seems to be the right place for this work, but if the WG closes, 
then Mary's suggestion is perfectly good. The key is to have a solution soon!

Regards,

Patrick

At 17:29 24/06/2010, stephen botzko wrote:
>BFCP is an important component in our application 
>(videoconferencing).  The inability to use BFCP when TCP cannot be 
>used is a huge problem for us today.
>
>So I would like to see this document progressed.
>
>If for some reason XCON doesn't finish it before the WG is closed, I 
>think Mary's suggestion of progressing it under individual AD 
>sponsorship is good.
>
>Stephen Botzko
>
>
>
>2010/6/24 Roni Even <<mailto:[e-mail]>[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: <mailto:[e-mail]>[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); 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>[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 
> <<mailto:[e-mail]>[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" 
> <<mailto:[e-mail]>[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';
> > <mailto:[e-mail]>[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'; <mailto:[e-mail]>[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: <mailto:[e-mail]>[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; <mailto:[e-mail]>[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)
> > >>>>>>> 
> <<mailto:[e-mail]>[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: 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>[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'; <mailto:[e-mail]>[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: 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Behalf
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Of Alan Johnston
> > >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 7:44 PM
> > >>>>>>>>>> To: Tom Kristensen
> > >>>>>>>>>> Cc: Mark Thompson; <mailto:[e-mail]>[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->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
> > >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]
> > >>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>>>>> XCON mailing list
> > >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]
> > >>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>>>> XCON mailing list
> > >>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]
> > >>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>> # TANDBERG R&D
> > >>>>>>> ## <http://www.tandberg.com>http://www.tandberg.com
> > >>>>>>> ### http://folk.uio.no/tomkri/
> > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>>> XCON mailing list
> > >>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]
> > >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>> XCON mailing list
> > >>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]
> > >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> =
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> XCON mailing list
> > >>> <mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]
> > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Lorenzo Miniero
> > >> Meetecho s.r.l.
> > >> <http://www.meetecho.com/>http://www.meetecho.com/
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > XCON mailing list
> > > <mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > XCON mailing list
> > <mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon
>
>_______________________________________________
>XCON mailing list
><mailto:[e-mail]>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>XCON mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon