From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue Feb 12 00:54:46 2013 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 D036521F8C1E; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 00:54:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.552 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.047, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 JqpOuknIHI-V; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 00:54:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C49E21F8C2C; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 00:54:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.37 Message-ID: <20130212085446.5746.93764.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 00:54:46 -0800 Cc: bfcpbis@ietf.org Subject: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-06.txt 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, 12 Feb 2013 08:54:46 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Binary Floor Control Protocol Bis Workin= g Group of the IETF. Title : Session Description Protocol (SDP) Format for Binary Flo= or Control Protocol (BFCP) Streams Author(s) : Gonzalo Camarillo Tom Kristensen Filename : draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-06.txt Pages : 15 Date : 2013-02-12 Abstract: This document specifies how to describe Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP) streams in Session Description Protocol (SDP) descriptions. User agents using the offer/answer model to establish BFCP streams use this format in their offers and answers. This document obsoletes RFC 4583. Changes from RFC 4583 are summarized in Section 12. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-06 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-06 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From tomkrist@cisco.com Tue Feb 12 01:03:32 2013 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 A955421F8AB1 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 01:03:32 -0800 (PST) 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 LuqgozlfaW-L for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 01:03:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from ams-iport-4.cisco.com (ams-iport-4.cisco.com [144.254.224.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65BC621F89E9 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 01:03:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1452; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1360659811; x=1361869411; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8TQCSvLXx499mXzdLlCQ7v9mEEhCAX2o0RcCX+FIkRs=; b=OlTd8+P9s9wKekBcbE7geM8WHHNN35TIRlO0o620clPw+iXqxY1od+/j gkLdTOZelIQEN5ARtIR8q3T2buSt88W0Ce0cmhYO22DmZsVEmpCzFrroa eq79D6KHy9VWKQGmblwDC+KgaXFrB/QRdbJ27X91VCgWTE+mmIPf1o9L9 4=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAAUEGlGQ/khM/2dsb2JhbABEwS8Wc4IfAQEBBDhAARALGAkWDwkDAgECAUUTAQUCAQGIDrAmkAqOXYMqA5YkhXGKYoMH X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,648,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="11752023" Received: from ams-core-3.cisco.com ([144.254.72.76]) by ams-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Feb 2013 09:03:19 +0000 Received: from [10.47.39.8] ([10.47.39.8]) by ams-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1C93JxU005368; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 09:03:19 GMT Message-ID: <511A0557.2060108@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 10:03:19 +0100 From: Tom Kristensen Organization: Cisco User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.15) Gecko/20101027 Fedora/3.0.10-1.fc12 Lightning/1.0b2pre Thunderbird/3.0.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bfcpbis@ietf.org References: <20130212085446.5746.93764.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20130212085446.5746.93764.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: 'Tom Kristensen' <2mkristensen@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-06.txt 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, 12 Feb 2013 09:03:32 -0000 On 02/12/2013 09:54 AM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Binary Floor Control Protocol Bis Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Session Description Protocol (SDP) Format for Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP) Streams > Author(s) : Gonzalo Camarillo > Tom Kristensen > Filename : draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-06.txt > Pages : 15 > Date : 2013-02-12 > > Abstract: > This document specifies how to describe Binary Floor Control Protocol > (BFCP) streams in Session Description Protocol (SDP) descriptions. > User agents using the offer/answer model to establish BFCP streams > use this format in their offers and answers. > > This document obsoletes RFC 4583. Changes from RFC 4583 are > summarized in Section 12. > Changed according to Alfred Heggestad's comments on list. Fixes already presented on list. Two issues discovered in the examples: - Separate floorcontrol role attributes with SP not COMMA. - Use a real port when UDP is used as underlying transport regardless of setup attribute value, not the discard port (as recommended for the peer ending up as active when TCP is used as transport). Now the draft should be ready for an SDP directorate dissection and review! -- Tom From alan.b.johnston@gmail.com Thu Feb 21 08:54:36 2013 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 25ED921F87B1 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 08:54:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 rWCSLwRiZgoZ for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 08:54:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wg0-f48.google.com (mail-wg0-f48.google.com [74.125.82.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D958621F8EA4 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 08:54:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id 16so7375828wgi.15 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 08:54:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=U38m7/EB0++mRgCzixexzKwAE29DSuKhkAgLvbR3ycc=; b=tI4yptMwuyon0yBw8dH8ZUvy1GwJhlAcoJXu1thK+ZtjrAbrYud8exBcHSmsZK7Trn 9riuQyTzbmOJyOp04YMKZuIhJc0KMX8/8s5+JWwUeLnuPBaAHdlONDeoxFkM75VY++H6 0DqSly2PM2geCOZ7w0xadD9m670u+7l2jLroAKaKTqkdlYRsC7CzOz2bW+zkq4hkXeIz y4CESMe+ghdJO/Qti+UC01u9PoH+kFN80JpBrdiazilzLvwBocRcsWgEH4zNH6R0EVC3 IygeAFI2YDVri0MNZA41uJInsZNLNBIRmVV5s8Z2xeYQ5MXAmzBvGR5XdGem/ZUXZ9UH LwhA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.108.101 with SMTP id hj5mr43070745wjb.6.1361465672503; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 08:54:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.151.67 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 08:54:32 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:54:32 -0600 Message-ID: From: Alan Johnston To: bfcpbis@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf10a36c892df04d63eed21 Subject: [bfcpbis] UDP Only 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: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:54:36 -0000 --047d7bf10a36c892df04d63eed21 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Here is a question that came up here at SIPit where we have been testing BFCP over UDP and TCP. Can an implementation only support BFCP over UDP and still be compliant? Or do endpoints need to support both UDP and TCP? - Alan - --047d7bf10a36c892df04d63eed21 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Here is a question that came up here at SIPit where we have been testing BF= CP over UDP and TCP.

Can an implementation only support = BFCP over UDP and still be compliant? =A0Or do endpoints need to support bo= th UDP and TCP?

- Alan -
--047d7bf10a36c892df04d63eed21-- From mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com Sat Feb 23 09:56:13 2013 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 8B74A21F8F09 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2013 09:56:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.574 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 aQr5Nv1MTC26 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2013 09:56:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qa0-f50.google.com (mail-qa0-f50.google.com [209.85.216.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0840E21F8F05 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2013 09:56:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id dx4so900939qab.9 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2013 09:56:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=pEZDR43OBiJ/i+/878bVKHcuip01DEr++9YffBf30JQ=; b=JH4g/JnndtUqLEA2mT+yh4Tqf4rxxg9TbtXQp5+q9g3Lflx189B/l6KMSnJIOZuO0J Yoa/HSZ5dczW8fn6uDX6bL1cS2yWI2qvjGcoF/9HQUf+9bu6aRAUfKU4PI7f5B90ctS5 2k2aMws85dWmJ9PV+v+lfshAlYXX8TwbdpNEygQ3zMcAXChr/XCLFp6Nk70GD+S8eN62 HcJxvYl+PMQBJ6w6YL1x2cXZ5P9X9dAqDMdgA0f6PUY5bsR1cis3lGYP2TQcRCIf8n0I tew23zr5H4Ag20G/wzDB9lvTKzlKQvMSSbxs32dhT1km4YzmwlxBCdUMJKTUVLcOvgL9 79dw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.49.29.135 with SMTP id k7mr3816893qeh.39.1361642172510; Sat, 23 Feb 2013 09:56:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.49.131.199 with HTTP; Sat, 23 Feb 2013 09:56:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 11:56:12 -0600 Message-ID: From: Mary Barnes To: Alan Johnston Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] UDP Only 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, 23 Feb 2013 17:56:13 -0000 Since no one else has responded, my understanding is that one could be considered compliant if they support UDP only. Mary. On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Alan Johnston wrote: > Here is a question that came up here at SIPit where we have been testing > BFCP over UDP and TCP. > > Can an implementation only support BFCP over UDP and still be compliant? Or > do endpoints need to support both UDP and TCP? > > - Alan - > > _______________________________________________ > bfcpbis mailing list > bfcpbis@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis > From eckelcu@cisco.com Tue Feb 26 12:37:29 2013 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 4F20321F8A53 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:37:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, 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 xl1zaCzTWKNl for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:37:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B226421F8A51 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:37:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1321; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1361911048; x=1363120648; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=eidEeCVWrXcbmK/Ie+dZOlgOP79nBD9Odmg8d7ySj8c=; b=iHsdKOUDdk0OrCcHA67lHckpHQTqv5NzCNfsHig62ptgt7gUeA5yCpov D/nvqyWew4Y2yhG4IpbwNzUQVuoFm6yMbr4dV9MQFNGySJYYmY8KBXKqp is/ZY7FSLmpgXEJIVDZ5JHJqJBlbJ4tIPIzdPoQ6W14G03tDGMeXDiZ7v w=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFAO8bLVGtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABFwXV/FnOCHwEBAQQBAQE3NAsMBAIBCBEEAQEBChQJByEGCxQJCAIEAQ0FCId5Aw4BDLAAhioNiVQEjDyCJyYLBwaCWWEDlGONLoUXgwiCJw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,743,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="181463644" Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Feb 2013 20:37:28 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com [173.37.183.88]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1QKbSO6023183 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:37:28 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com ([169.254.3.144]) by xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([173.37.183.88]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 14:37:28 -0600 From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" To: Mary Barnes , Alan Johnston Thread-Topic: [bfcpbis] UDP Only Thread-Index: AQHOEFQnnTWCtsUkb0atd8yQ3N8HWJiIIg4AgAR+0sA= Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:37:27 +0000 Message-ID: <92B7E61ADAC1BB4F941F943788C08828047BE0E2@xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [171.68.20.28] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] UDP Only 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, 26 Feb 2013 20:37:29 -0000 As an individual, my take on this is the same as Mary's. Section 6 of draft= -ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-08 specifies both TCP and UDP as available transpo= rt protocols, and it says either may be used depending on the environment. Cheers, Charles > -----Original Message----- > From: bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Mary Barnes > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 9:56 AM > To: Alan Johnston > Cc: bfcpbis@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] UDP Only >=20 > Since no one else has responded, my understanding is that one could be > considered compliant if they support UDP only. >=20 > Mary. >=20 > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Alan Johnston > wrote: > > Here is a question that came up here at SIPit where we have been testin= g > > BFCP over UDP and TCP. > > > > Can an implementation only support BFCP over UDP and still be > compliant? Or > > do endpoints need to support both UDP and TCP? > > > > - Alan - > > > > _______________________________________________ > > bfcpbis mailing list > > bfcpbis@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis > > > _______________________________________________ > bfcpbis mailing list > bfcpbis@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis From alan.b.johnston@gmail.com Tue Feb 26 12:54:26 2013 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 3292D21F886E for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:54:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.203 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, 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 ebBemCP8JhV6 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:54:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-oa0-f48.google.com (mail-oa0-f48.google.com [209.85.219.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79ADA21F8870 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:54:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-oa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id j1so6199037oag.35 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:54:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:x-mailer:from:subject:date :to; bh=+uo6IGcWQltyr63dLsj9U/WU9mfHlaeVKRgoNuKEPgY=; b=UQN2VdA70vdDqJ3xvfbkg4CrzWHIfZG3+gixnPb+zPsPwDQDifRa5obiujLBbf/RRK 0rGT9uSAW5ByR0TSxX9jEixmLgaq0+nyUQGZPuikKzeSjaxYcGPTFNnoMTxv2WnxczYu rY7AoccF7PNQqtlHJcZd9abyog0t23hDk1GNHpVIF1qmhSb655+S+pAVkLRII21LQstE EK30qxVldqz2ChlmAwp8hnhssXbW8bAglf0LA6FqXpJksRUvKITk1Z+L18ePx0sfRrTC 4UWkdQ4Pqd5IEWvZLnSoNW3Liljoy/YQtXbkUg31kOB4GTr4iQUjIrMA8aHIJFumdcYp RNCg== X-Received: by 10.60.12.69 with SMTP id w5mr2847440oeb.127.1361912059361; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:54:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.109.188.126] ([166.147.97.3]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ri1sm3413578obc.12.2013.02.26.12.54.16 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:54:18 -0800 (PST) References: <92B7E61ADAC1BB4F941F943788C08828047BE0E2@xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <92B7E61ADAC1BB4F941F943788C08828047BE0E2@xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (9B206) From: Alan Johnston Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 14:54:10 -0600 To: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" Cc: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" , Mary Barnes Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] UDP Only 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, 26 Feb 2013 20:54:26 -0000 Great. Thanks for the responses.=20 - Alan - On Feb 26, 2013, at 2:37 PM, "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" w= rote: > As an individual, my take on this is the same as Mary's. Section 6 of draf= t-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-08 specifies both TCP and UDP as available transpo= rt protocols, and it says either may be used depending on the environment. >=20 > Cheers, > Charles >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of Mary Barnes >> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 9:56 AM >> To: Alan Johnston >> Cc: bfcpbis@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] UDP Only >>=20 >> Since no one else has responded, my understanding is that one could be >> considered compliant if they support UDP only. >>=20 >> Mary. >>=20 >> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Alan Johnston >> wrote: >>> Here is a question that came up here at SIPit where we have been testing= >>> BFCP over UDP and TCP. >>>=20 >>> Can an implementation only support BFCP over UDP and still be >> compliant? Or >>> do endpoints need to support both UDP and TCP? >>>=20 >>> - Alan - >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> bfcpbis mailing list >>> bfcpbis@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis >>>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> bfcpbis mailing list >> bfcpbis@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis From keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com Tue Feb 26 18:35:30 2013 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 41BE221F8630 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 18:35:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.227 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.227 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.022, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 p8Kbx0rAiDOZ for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 18:35:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from smail6.alcatel.fr (smail6.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EF7D21F863F for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 18:35:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.64]) by smail6.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id r1R2ZRx2000755 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 27 Feb 2013 03:35:27 +0100 Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.46]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.64]) with mapi; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 03:35:27 +0100 From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" To: Alan Johnston , "bfcpbis@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 03:35:26 +0100 Thread-Topic: [bfcpbis] UDP Only Thread-Index: AQHOEFQnnTWCtsUkb0atd8yQ3N8HWJiIIg4AgAR+0sCAAGQzEA== Message-ID: References: <92B7E61ADAC1BB4F941F943788C08828047BE0E2@xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <92B7E61ADAC1BB4F941F943788C08828047BE0E2@xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.84 Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] UDP Only 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: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 02:35:30 -0000 This part of text apparently talks only about use, not support. Reinterpreting what it says the other way round, it says you should use TCP= in all cases where it works, and UDP only where you have problems. (as another individual) Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org] On Behal= f > Of Charles Eckel (eckelcu) > Sent: 26 February 2013 20:37 > To: Mary Barnes; Alan Johnston > Cc: bfcpbis@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] UDP Only >=20 > As an individual, my take on this is the same as Mary's. Section 6 of > draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-08 specifies both TCP and UDP as available > transport protocols, and it says either may be used depending on the > environment. >=20 > Cheers, > Charles >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org] On > > Behalf Of Mary Barnes > > Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 9:56 AM > > To: Alan Johnston > > Cc: bfcpbis@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] UDP Only > > > > Since no one else has responded, my understanding is that one could be > > considered compliant if they support UDP only. > > > > Mary. > > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Alan Johnston > > wrote: > > > Here is a question that came up here at SIPit where we have been > testing > > > BFCP over UDP and TCP. > > > > > > Can an implementation only support BFCP over UDP and still be > > compliant? Or > > > do endpoints need to support both UDP and TCP? > > > > > > - Alan - > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > bfcpbis mailing list > > > bfcpbis@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > bfcpbis mailing list > > bfcpbis@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis > _______________________________________________ > bfcpbis mailing list > bfcpbis@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis From alanford@cisco.com Wed Feb 27 04:09:31 2013 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 C97E321F854D for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 04:09:31 -0800 (PST) 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 OgbaU0KzXtWt for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 04:09:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1894C21F8484 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 04:09:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1325; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1361966971; x=1363176571; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=LcSu63wRBGbfsMHVGL9MO9fhFw6MKsKDCGxwA35lzQQ=; b=dh2Gw09/mzlt+QWjgfH8SHa0nMzoRIFcocQaQ3+LXlvPajR0Cp1Wy66p P9oc/0GxbGob02nyEheAH0dm08eNY03VVGUCsux53Wcbb7rwn2IZ5n6NE q2giVCsHpV1L7RgMf2lzDn3RiO9Yf9IuhnOhV2uw+qy2QLDpeM/KcWJm/ g=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAK/2LVGtJXHA/2dsb2JhbABEwhZ5FnOCIQEEOlEBKhRCJwQbiAudMKEDjmODF2EDpyuDCIIn X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,747,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="181765779" Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Feb 2013 12:09:30 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com [173.37.183.80]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1RC9UYL011670 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:09:30 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x08.cisco.com ([169.254.8.192]) by xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([173.37.183.80]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 06:09:30 -0600 From: "Alan Ford (alanford)" To: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Version Negotiation Thread-Index: AQHOFONLpaHXxZhH30ueQXkyHk5lCQ== Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:09:29 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.10.0.110310 x-originating-ip: [10.147.93.94] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <8340A795A6C79E4FB0EFEEDEC26F3494@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [bfcpbis] Version Negotiation 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: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:09:31 -0000 Hi all, Some recent interop testing and discussions has raised concerns over how we determine the BFCP version to use, for both now and for future versions. At the moment, we don't say much about this in the drafts. We define an "Unsupported Version" error, but that's about it. The implication therefore is that a UA would try sending BFCP version=3D2, and if no response is received, it would try again with version=3D1 if it supported it. This is unreliable and slow. It would seem much better to declare supported versions in an SDP attribute. I propose something in 4583bis that specifies an attribute like this: bfcp-version-attribute =3D "a=3Dbfcpver:" bfcp-version *(SP bfcp-version) bfcp-version =3D token Which can then be responded to in the answer, much like RTP payload types. (At the moment that's not restricted to numeric values only, so we don't restrict future things here.) Essentially by declaring support for a version in the SDP, a sender is saying they are willing to speak this version if it is received. I also think we also need to tighten the text in the drafts slightly. In S13.7 of 4582bis, we should say that a HelloAck MUST echo the version presented in a Hello message (otherwise Unsupported Version MUST be sent). Thoughts? Regards, Alan From mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com Thu Feb 28 08:53:29 2013 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 207D621F8C11; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:53:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.581 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.581 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 SCh4ar+2vjCP; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:53:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qa0-f48.google.com (mail-qa0-f48.google.com [209.85.216.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9200E21F8BD4; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:53:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id j8so1509517qah.14 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:53:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=nuu7zvgMwUH2UDNh8XFyqk74qQ9CkXvbSqqIqd5qHo8=; b=KTSUGdIbmIfCoPM6bqtzloqiVH8q5jxOv6/W4vmNgDOgyDXE22+mxZzqRO62lJ8hsu HwhGgvZKUlS93HhdBDMTNjwDqFzr7QISAAIcc0Qk+BVaSgX+UxOeaSYWbo5VuyhlKhmJ Hhqz5MK5H6o+ujD9fuLACxcUZY7abz9T0Yz7ACxyk64ZQFFwP42j230XyuDDIFvQHz+w sOFExHCxiWNoC0giz+qw05QbypKPzbK11yQv6anBWPoH6U5NlZVEYIrt+F6+OpQmAXdM PSayOTh67xq0FZT3wiksjrx528Y8EYYDr/2YAhLzvS0ep1Lg37poCrgvVDAtbGyg8kFc XAog== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.224.193.200 with SMTP id dv8mr7273935qab.85.1362070399115; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:53:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.49.24.130 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:53:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 10:53:19 -0600 Message-ID: From: Mary Barnes To: DISPATCH Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Cullen Jennings , Richard Barnes , "bfcpbis@ietf.org" , "rai-ads@tools.ietf.org" , "draft-pascual-dispatch-bfcp-websocket@tools.ietf.org" Subject: [bfcpbis] DISPATCHING BFCP over websockets 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: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:53:29 -0000 Just in case you missed this, the following is noted under the "Topics that are proposed to be dispatched to other WGs:" http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg04590.html 2) BFCP over websockets (BFCPBIS WG): http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg04578.html (Note that any concerns about this decision should be discussed on the DISPATCH WG mailing list. The related updates to the BFCPbis WG charter and the decision as to whether the document is to be accepted as a WG document are to be discussed on the BFCPBIS WG mailing list.) Comments/concerns are requested no later than March 8th, 2013. Note, that while the BFCPbis WG is not meeting in Orlando, if folks are okay with this proposal, discussion of the solution can start on the BFCPbis WG mailing list. Regards, Mary.