From eckelcu@cisco.com Fri Sep 7 07:05:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6403221E809B for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 07:05:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9xHfEgfdiqF3 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 07:05:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D40221E8051 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 07:05:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=846; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1347026756; x=1348236356; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=GWKhwzvJzBqF9VjQ79Qo6GW/KsdltYPiL7OfiLCJJCQ=; b=JpRXdbjGdWnYoJI+g35ujeQ7YFDe37r5HgaRDFZn7wckzFBoEEA9F8Ay /jvqE87EFD62oWV17nlI2K+z7yK9DmEwwpu2LFh8Ms6C94W+0vaqFGGZq mzH7tLdK9EOJCyE0IK33WpwkdJ3y67r7c/qTlAUkXtD6aDzlkS3u1w3EK w=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiYFAAv/SVCtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABFhUC1eoEHgiIBBBIBCh1RASoUQiYBBBsah24LmXCBKKBIkGZgA5ZxjSGBZ4Jk X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,387,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="119355760" Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Sep 2012 14:05:56 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com [173.36.12.75]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q87E5tJl006474 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 14:05:56 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com ([169.254.3.66]) by xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com ([173.36.12.75]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:05:55 -0500 From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" To: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis Thread-Index: Ac2NAeUBlWZWMlJIRpyXKbtffhLaTQ== Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 14:05:54 +0000 Message-ID: <92B7E61ADAC1BB4F941F943788C0882809B2F9@xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.21.117.51] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19168.005 x-tm-as-result: No--27.631700-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [bfcpbis] WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 14:05:57 -0000 (As WG co-chair) This is to announce a working group last call for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc458= 2bis, "The Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP)". http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis/ This is intended as a Standards Track RFC, obsoleting RFC 4582. Please respond to the list by September 28th 2011 (i.e. 3 weeks) with any c= omments. It is helpful to attempt to categorize your comment (e.g. technical issue v= s. editorial), and also to provide any replacement text you feel is necess= ary. If you review the document and have no comments, please tell the chairs tha= t you have reviewed it. This is always useful information in assessing the = degree of WG review and consensus behind the document. Note, another WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis will be run in paralle= l. Cheers, Charles From eckelcu@cisco.com Fri Sep 7 07:06:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B62F21E809E for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 07:06:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FhJ-xJbL6W71 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 07:06:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E591221E809B for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 07:06:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=898; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1347026779; x=1348236379; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=jPtNiq6Rqidw48r7YL6Jj+0On80eYLtOukS9II+BPlg=; b=jG38o/NLJbpk/YEcLoZrGipVyDKWdj+xJp4XgQFsfXaDIOyVSG72wXnn wnjGZNJAkXhMTaRdHjDI87VxdtMj7/lR/qGG+4Ad80K9pkZb2E8y2Tuf4 uXrDVZ/fV4CPynAaNILCxtffXcCWbzRF5Ey6IEH7RG6Pfqft5PfSB4xl2 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiYFAAv/SVCtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABFhUC1eoEHgiIBBBIBCh1RASoUQiYBBBsah24LmXCBKKBIkGZgA5ZxjSGBZ4Jk X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,387,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="119321912" Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Sep 2012 14:05:58 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com [173.36.12.80]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q87E5wRD023870 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 14:05:58 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com ([169.254.3.66]) by xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com ([173.36.12.80]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:05:58 -0500 From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" To: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis Thread-Index: Ac2NAebzBYClQBg9RDyoP1c4U2Sovw== Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 14:05:58 +0000 Message-ID: <92B7E61ADAC1BB4F941F943788C0882809B301@xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.21.117.51] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19168.005 x-tm-as-result: No--28.314500-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [bfcpbis] WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 14:06:19 -0000 (As WG co-chair) This is to announce a working group last call for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc458= 3bis, "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Format for Binary Floor Control P= rotocol (BFCP) Streams". http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis/ This is intended as a Standards Track RFC, obsoleting RFC 4583. Please respond to the list by September 28th 2011 (i.e. 3 weeks) with any c= omments. It is helpful to attempt to categorize your comment (e.g. technical issue v= s. editorial), and also to provide any replacement text you feel is necessa= ry. If you review the document and have no comments, please tell the chairs tha= t you have reviewed it. This is always useful information in assessing the = degree of WG review and consensus behind the document. Note, another WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis will be run in paralle= l. Cheers, Charles From eckelcu@cisco.com Fri Sep 21 17:36:11 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 449D321E8049 for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:36:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qwv4Oqzt9A2S for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:36:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9592621F8564 for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:36:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1312; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1348274170; x=1349483770; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=wzx8mqWYTNDWcsB288kfxuO0O5ITQGWfiS3Aytv6HCw=; b=mKGIJcutZV5gv6mpmTJKo40ybGykIbqWEVa/zjkXEp9GRBdDw9PWSmrq 7XE4BvDhPDRO1+OBtuTJayofdtAymb14i+/OTcC5jU0q5BZgFhJeaggiI xAOeSi62d6pTMWBllISXEYZKhtikKRxeWxbgmHZ+kN9AvJ76RjhtsM3hr 0=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EAFUHXVCtJXG8/2dsb2JhbABFviGBCIIgAQEBBBIBCh1LBgEIEQQBAQsUQh0JAQQTCBqHYwuXd4EooBWLHIVGYAOWeY0kgWmCZ4IX X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,465,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="124164472" Received: from rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com ([173.37.113.188]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Sep 2012 00:36:10 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com [173.37.183.82]) by rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q8M0aAcB011358 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 00:36:10 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com ([169.254.3.66]) by xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com ([173.37.183.82]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 19:36:09 -0500 From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" To: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis Thread-Index: Ac2NAeUBlWZWMlJIRpyXKbtffhLaTQLV4Yww Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 00:36:09 +0000 Message-ID: <92B7E61ADAC1BB4F941F943788C088280A5951@xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.21.79.119] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19200.001 x-tm-as-result: No--32.213300-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 00:36:11 -0000 Just a gentle reminder that we are into the last week for comments. Please = review the draft and submit your comments by the Sept 28th, 2012 deadline (= not 2011 as erroneously typed previously) Thanks, Charles (as co-chair) > -----Original Message----- > From: Charles Eckel (eckelcu) > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 7:06 AM > To: bfcpbis@ietf.org > Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis >=20 > (As WG co-chair) >=20 > This is to announce a working group last call for draft-ietf-bfcpbis- > rfc4582bis, "The Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP)". > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis/ >=20 > This is intended as a Standards Track RFC, obsoleting RFC 4582. > Please respond to the list by September 28th 2011 (i.e. 3 weeks) with any > comments. >=20 > It is helpful to attempt to categorize your comment (e.g. technical issue= vs. > editorial), and also to provide any replacement text you feel is necessa= ry. > If you review the document and have no comments, please tell the chairs > that you have reviewed it. This is always useful information in assessing= the > degree of WG review and consensus behind the document. > Note, another WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis will be run in paral= lel. >=20 > Cheers, > Charles From eckelcu@cisco.com Fri Sep 21 17:36:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 210F721F8566 for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:36:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HTGeQtGPv-ZR for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:36:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D64B21F8564 for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:36:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1364; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1348274194; x=1349483794; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Z114hcghnqyDlvW2DMK59GrZNr/sO7tpHkp+eH9BHiA=; b=MJ23gK2dFMHgw2LP8sowcmSmd2/7GlrvXvi6Gkr62a5e8UAc4g5PaHhb etfs1nDm3iTc0UL4Lb7yIImiJtpC5lSzWzxZpTepT3cYpmIfKDzx03uWo PXLozy1eFMhSe4V87WpjTqIEYTOzR+hxrJgXsDcmIIv0FNACbBTOQYXHf s=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EAFUHXVCtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABFviGBCIIgAQEBBBIBCh1LBgEIEQQBAQsUQh0JAQQTCBqHYwuXd4EooBWLHIVGYAOWeY0kgWmCZ4IX X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,465,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="124164506" Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Sep 2012 00:36:30 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com [173.37.183.83]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q8M0aUM7003564 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Sat, 22 Sep 2012 00:36:30 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com ([169.254.3.66]) by xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([173.37.183.83]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Fri, 21 Sep 2012 19:36:30 -0500 From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" To: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis Thread-Index: Ac2NAebzBYClQBg9RDyoP1c4U2SovwLWF0MQ Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 00:36:29 +0000 Message-ID: <92B7E61ADAC1BB4F941F943788C088280A595C@xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.21.79.119] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19200.001 x-tm-as-result: No--32.896100-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 00:36:35 -0000 Just a gentle reminder that we are into the last week for comments. Please = review the draft and submit your comments by the Sept 28th, 2012 deadline (= not 2011 as erroneously typed previously) Thanks, Charles (as co-chair) > -----Original Message----- > From: Charles Eckel (eckelcu) > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 7:06 AM > To: bfcpbis@ietf.org > Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis >=20 > (As WG co-chair) >=20 > This is to announce a working group last call for draft-ietf-bfcpbis- > rfc4583bis, "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Format for Binary Floor > Control Protocol (BFCP) Streams". > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis/ >=20 > This is intended as a Standards Track RFC, obsoleting RFC 4583. > Please respond to the list by September 28th 2011 (i.e. 3 weeks) with any > comments. >=20 > It is helpful to attempt to categorize your comment (e.g. technical issue= vs. > editorial), and also to provide any replacement text you feel is necessar= y. > If you review the document and have no comments, please tell the chairs > that you have reviewed it. This is always useful information in assessing= the > degree of WG review and consensus behind the document. > Note, another WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis will be run in paral= lel. >=20 > Cheers, > Charles From mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com Mon Sep 24 14:14:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52C3321F8820 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:14:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.315 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.315 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.283, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SATlr19PZ5LW for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:14:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00D5521F880C for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:14:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lbok13 with SMTP id k13so1679533lbo.31 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:14:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=roXXwDfQmlXb0+TLIZt/R+sDuXXVTUS2Aw+NSR8gQO4=; b=fuLd7zs7IttifO35r6crHDz6Zp0z3SgX71NF7AL42/y8OAKCbzmYDUN8ktXGxWT7UP u7ZOjqsw/wS0+0wnkqU2YJT5BJ0kM9oNaQmQq4ueggqvBdHCEmjdhyssHHBzUhYELKkH jH4kQVC8kQM0jB4vz7ECtz1HdVcx675gTEWhgENiBFTCw/qtTEMYnpie9RaQ986W499w UUTRIQdZjzvdU3ntFa4/i5/NMj9HD3f97ALJmVoJ7iE2LRo2PhC5wjIf6GEyTYMSN+gJ 9PRx+NPlerpZWBwTH7VYZkU6leJf0N87dUqNmyRQnFtaptpnSCRwmoKXpX45rK9oZ0bp TxxA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.132.202 with SMTP id ow10mr11420648lab.51.1348521239825; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:13:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.4.130 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:13:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <92B7E61ADAC1BB4F941F943788C088280A5951@xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com> References: <92B7E61ADAC1BB4F941F943788C088280A5951@xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com> Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:13:59 -0500 Message-ID: From: Mary Barnes To: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0430880a78cdf504ca791101 Cc: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 21:14:02 -0000 --f46d0430880a78cdf504ca791101 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I have reviewed the document and it looks pretty much ready. I do have a couple of questions for clarification: - Section 5.1 - Payload Length: states that "receiving server MAY send an Error message" but I would think that the client should know about the error. Is there a specific reason this is a MAY versus a SHOULD or even a MUST? Why would the error message matter if it's not required? - Section 5.2 - "M" after Table 2 - I have a similar question about the 'M' bit. RFC 4582 states that message is rejected if there is an unrecognized M bit, whereas this document states that an error message MAY be sent. Certainly, 4582 lacked appropriate normative language, but if the error message is just a MAY, then why bother? There are also a few nits that should be fixed/clarified before progressing. Section 5.2.6 - Note under table 5: "intended being used" -> "intended to be used" Section 6.1.: "e.g.," was changed to "e.g.". The former is correct. Section 9.1: You lost some indented paragraphs in this section - i.e., they got shifted to align with the other paragraphs in that section. I'm not sure if that was intentional. Section 16: - New Primitives. The text says five were added, but only 4 are listed and that's all that's all that's defined per Figure 1. - New error codes. The text says that 3 are aded, but it looks there's really 5 that have been added. - Typo. Referring to section 12.4.2 states that the change was from SUPPORTED-PRIMITIVES to SUPPORTED-PRIMITVIES but the latter is really the typo. Regards, Mary On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) wrote: > Just a gentle reminder that we are into the last week for comments. Please > review the draft and submit your comments by the Sept 28th, 2012 deadline > (not 2011 as erroneously typed previously) > > Thanks, > Charles (as co-chair) > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Charles Eckel (eckelcu) > > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 7:06 AM > > To: bfcpbis@ietf.org > > Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis > > > > (As WG co-chair) > > > > This is to announce a working group last call for draft-ietf-bfcpbis- > > rfc4582bis, "The Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP)". > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis/ > > > > This is intended as a Standards Track RFC, obsoleting RFC 4582. > > Please respond to the list by September 28th 2011 (i.e. 3 weeks) with any > > comments. > > > > It is helpful to attempt to categorize your comment (e.g. technical > issue vs. > > editorial), and also to provide any replacement text you feel is > necessary. > > If you review the document and have no comments, please tell the chairs > > that you have reviewed it. This is always useful information in > assessing the > > degree of WG review and consensus behind the document. > > Note, another WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis will be run in > parallel. > > > > Cheers, > > Charles > _______________________________________________ > bfcpbis mailing list > bfcpbis@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis > --f46d0430880a78cdf504ca791101 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have reviewed the document and it looks pretty much ready. =A0

I do have a couple of questions for clarification:
- Section 5= .1 - Payload Length: states that receiving server M= AY send an Error message"
but I would think that the client should know about the error. = Is there a specific reason this is a MAY versus a SHOULD or even a MUST? = Why would the error message matter if it's not required?=A0

- Section 5.2 - "M"= after Table 2 - I have a similar question about the 'M' bit. RFC = 4582 states that message is rejected if there is an unrecognized M bit, whe= reas this document states that an error message MAY be sent. Certainly, 45= 82 lacked appropriate normative language, but if the error message is just = a MAY, then why bother?=A0

There are also a few nits that= should be fixed/clarified before progressing.

Section 5.2.6 - Note under table 5: =A0 =A0"intended be= ing used" -> "intended to be used"

Section 6.1.: "e.g.," =A0was changed to "e.g.". =A0 = The former is correct.=A0

Section 9.1: You lost some indented paragraphs in this = section - i.e., they got shifted to align with the other paragraphs in that= section. =A0I'm not sure if that was intentional.=A0

Section 16:
- New Primitives. =A0The text says five wer= e added, but only 4 are listed and that's all that's all that's= defined per Figure 1.=A0
- New error codes. =A0The text says tha= t 3 are aded, but it looks there's really 5 that have been added.=A0
- Typo. =A0Referring to section 12.4.2 states that the change was from= =A0SUPPORTED-PRIMITIVES to=A0SUPPORTED-PRIMITVIES but the l= atter is really the typo.=A0

Regards,
Mary

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <eckelcu@cisco= .com> wrote:
Just a gentle reminder that we are into the = last week for comments. Please review the draft and submit your comments by= the Sept 28th, 2012 deadline (not 2011 as erroneously typed previously)
Thanks,
Charles (as co-chair)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 7:06 AM
> To: bfcpbis@ietf= .org
> Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis
>
> (As WG co-chair)
>
> This is to announce a working group last call for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-<= br> > rfc4582bis, "The Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP)".
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-r= fc4582bis/
>
> This is intended as a Standards Track RFC, obsoleting RFC 4582.
> Please respond to the list by September 28th 2011 (i.e. 3 weeks) with = any
> comments.
>
> It is helpful to attempt to categorize your comment (e.g. technical is= sue vs.
> editorial), and also =A0to provide any replacement text you feel is ne= cessary.
> If you review the document and have no comments, please tell the chair= s
> that you have reviewed it. This is always useful information in assess= ing the
> degree of WG review and consensus behind the document.
> Note, another WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis will be run in pa= rallel.
>
> Cheers,
> Charles
_______________________________________________
bfcpbis mailing list
bfcpbis@ietf.org<= br> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis

--f46d0430880a78cdf504ca791101-- From eckelcu@cisco.com Mon Sep 24 15:18:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B898421F85B1 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 15:18:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KPD+GYMWuN9W for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 15:18:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00D4821F858F for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 15:18:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5188; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1348525091; x=1349734691; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=ES5upjWLQkk7G6BBCdEYUbYSGbGQDJpC9UuzwJyL3kE=; b=Gd8inxs8C7ZOXg50XJeclVjAXOqiLPfIWoH9Kc8rwGHOmYFNnDnAvq8X C/CHHrZzM6xtmjlluIt2NykFWrhFFgX5M5+ktDayLx/MJVp286otKotcw sPIrF0CwL4VqNtlSsgbGN3xxZwPYXn0HJV8t7JB4XAbwwKXlpXzUXBf/c g=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EADvbYFCtJXHA/2dsb2JhbABFvluBCIIgAQEBBAEBAQ8BCh0tBxcEAgEIEQQBAQsLCQkHJwsUCQgBAQQTCBqHYgELmFygIosbgxZTgXlgA5Z6jSWBaYJaDYIX X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,477,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="124871302" Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Sep 2012 22:18:10 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com [173.36.12.82]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q8OMIATb003249 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 22:18:10 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com ([169.254.3.66]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([173.36.12.82]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 17:18:09 -0500 From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" To: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis Thread-Index: Ac2NAeUBlWZWMlJIRpyXKbtffhLaTQLV4YwwAJIvu8A= Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 22:18:09 +0000 Message-ID: <92B7E61ADAC1BB4F941F943788C088280A8B97@xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com> References: <92B7E61ADAC1BB4F941F943788C088280A5951@xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <92B7E61ADAC1BB4F941F943788C088280A5951@xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [171.68.122.22] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19206.004 x-tm-as-result: No--59.255600-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 22:18:12 -0000 (as an individual) I have reviewed the draft and I think that overall it is in very good shape= . The only comment I would consider major is one dealing with section 4's d= escription of server-initiated transactions: Section 4 reads as follows: There are two types of transaction in BFCP: client-initiated transactions and server-initiated transactions. Client-initiated transactions consist of a message from a client to the floor control server and a response from the floor control server to the client. Correspondingly, server-initiated transactions consist of a message from the floor control server to a client and the associated acknowledgement message from the client to the floor control server. Both messages can be related because they carry the same Transaction ID value in their common headers. This is accurate when using UDP as the transport, but does not account for = the case of using TCP as the transport. A more detailed and accurate descri= ption is provided in Section 8, which reads as follows: In BFCP, there are two types of transactions: client-initiated transactions and server-initiated transactions (notifications). Client-initiated transactions consist of a request from a client to a floor control server and a response from the floor control server to the client. The request carries a Transaction ID in its common header, which the floor control server copies into the response. Clients use Transaction ID values to match responses with previously issued requests. Server-initiated transactions consist of a single message from a floor control server to a client. Since they do not trigger any response, their Transaction ID is set to 0 when used over reliable transports, but must be non-zero and unique in the context of outstanding transactions over unreliable transports. I suggest replacing the section 4 text with the following introductory leve= l text, that currently exists in section 8 . In BFCP, there are two types of transactions: client-initiated transactions and server-initiated transactions (notifications). The rest of the details currently in section 4 can replaced with a referen= ce to section 8. I also have the following minor comments. 1) Section 5.2.6, note after table 5 r/is intended being used/is intended to be used 2) Section 5.3.14 current reads as follows: Floor participants and chairs acknowledge the receipt of a subsequent FloorRequestStatus message from the floor control server when communicating over unreliable transport. I suggest the following rewording: When communicating over unreliable transport, floor participants and cha= irs=20 acknowledge the receipt of a subsequent FloorRequestStatus message from= =20 the floor control server by sending an FloorRequestStatusAck. 3) Similar change for section 5.3.15. 4) Section 6.2, currently contains the following fragment: =20 Only allowing exactly one BFCP message or message segment per UDP datagram. =20 This is covered previously in the paragraph, so this fragment can be remove= d. 5) Section 6.2, r/Entities MUST only have at most one/Entities MUST have at most one 6) Section 6.2.1 r/attempt, this is identical/attempt. This is identical Cheers, Charles > -----Original Message----- > From: bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Charles Eckel (eckelcu) > Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 5:36 PM > To: bfcpbis@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis >=20 > Just a gentle reminder that we are into the last week for comments. Pleas= e > review the draft and submit your comments by the Sept 28th, 2012 deadline > (not 2011 as erroneously typed previously) >=20 > Thanks, > Charles (as co-chair) >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Charles Eckel (eckelcu) > > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 7:06 AM > > To: bfcpbis@ietf.org > > Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis > > > > (As WG co-chair) > > > > This is to announce a working group last call for draft-ietf-bfcpbis- > > rfc4582bis, "The Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP)". > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis/ > > > > This is intended as a Standards Track RFC, obsoleting RFC 4582. > > Please respond to the list by September 28th 2011 (i.e. 3 weeks) with a= ny > > comments. > > > > It is helpful to attempt to categorize your comment (e.g. technical iss= ue vs. > > editorial), and also to provide any replacement text you feel is neces= sary. > > If you review the document and have no comments, please tell the chairs > > that you have reviewed it. This is always useful information in assessi= ng > the > > degree of WG review and consensus behind the document. > > Note, another WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis will be run in > parallel. > > > > Cheers, > > Charles > _______________________________________________ > bfcpbis mailing list > bfcpbis@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis From ernst.horvath@siemens-enterprise.com Tue Sep 25 03:28:41 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 358CF21F883C for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 03:28:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hd7f4UPZUfD5 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 03:28:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com [62.134.46.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F9AB21F8834 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 03:28:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MCHP01HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.234]) by senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (Server) with ESMTP id 0AF001EB8429; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:28:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from MCHP03MSX.global-ad.net ([169.254.2.238]) by MCHP01HTC.global-ad.net ([172.29.42.234]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:28:38 +0200 From: "Horvath, Ernst" To: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" , "bfcpbis@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis Thread-Index: Ac2NAeUBlWZWMlJIRpyXKbtffhLaTQLV4YwwAKtpOOA= Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:28:37 +0000 Message-ID: References: <92B7E61ADAC1BB4F941F943788C088280A5951@xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <92B7E61ADAC1BB4F941F943788C088280A5951@xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com> Accept-Language: de-AT, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.29.42.225] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:28:41 -0000 Currently 6.3.2 "NAT Traversal" is a subsection of 6.3 "Large Message Consi= derations". Is this really the intention, or should NAT Traversal better be= renumbered as section 6.4? Regards, Ernst > -----Original Message----- > From: bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org=20 > [mailto:bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Charles Eckel (eckelcu) > Sent: Samstag, 22. September 2012 02:36 > To: bfcpbis@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis >=20 > Just a gentle reminder that we are into the last week for=20 > comments. Please review the draft and submit your comments by=20 > the Sept 28th, 2012 deadline (not 2011 as erroneously typed=20 > previously) >=20 > Thanks, > Charles (as co-chair) >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Charles Eckel (eckelcu) > > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 7:06 AM > > To: bfcpbis@ietf.org > > Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis > >=20 > > (As WG co-chair) > >=20 > > This is to announce a working group last call for=20 > draft-ietf-bfcpbis- > > rfc4582bis, "The Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP)". > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis/ > >=20 > > This is intended as a Standards Track RFC, obsoleting RFC 4582. > > Please respond to the list by September 28th 2011 (i.e. 3=20 > weeks) with any > > comments. > >=20 > > It is helpful to attempt to categorize your comment (e.g.=20 > technical issue vs. > > editorial), and also to provide any replacement text you=20 > feel is necessary. > > If you review the document and have no comments, please=20 > tell the chairs > > that you have reviewed it. This is always useful=20 > information in assessing the > > degree of WG review and consensus behind the document. > > Note, another WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis will=20 > be run in parallel. > >=20 > > Cheers, > > Charles > _______________________________________________ > bfcpbis mailing list > bfcpbis@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis > =