From nobody Fri Aug 29 09:09:38 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B79561A0664 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:09:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.169 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TFtfYRNfIQzd for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:09:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 316421A067F for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:09:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=540; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409328547; x=1410538147; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=ocDe7hDH+6x1RDBcjOm+i+62PiQadVKQb02F1a/YKRk=; b=LLkL8QLTe3XIzkMhSplLCcA/E6D38R7iKWdeO43izIGLcg+qrjXNpQWW h9Z03LBeTGMIjUPoLz8qF7JTpM3QixSg5p94x4YYMGeuzqIrUnraDwa/+ 4TsG4HG/qwif1g7GJ4eOMj4/HWGm3kA/1pJDEqy9SOdvnz+t8j8yfqe8B I=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag8FAGqlAFStJV2c/2dsb2JhbABbgw1TW8duiF4Wd4QKgQsBgQAnBIhVDZgJo3YTBIwdAYgBBYpwhkGELoZ9lR6DYII0gQcBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,425,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="73460338" Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Aug 2014 16:09:07 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com [173.37.183.76]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7TG96EB032577 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 16:09:06 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com ([169.254.3.10]) by xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([173.37.183.76]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:09:06 -0500 From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" To: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: reminder to review draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-01 Thread-Index: AQHPw6OOD3jJ50bnRUCgpbOzvbMGfg== Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 16:09:05 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030 x-originating-ip: [10.154.176.38] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bfcpbis/XApOFUjVAJqjUN0GHfGgo-4vOv0 Subject: [bfcpbis] reminder to review draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-01 X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 16:09:37 -0000 BFCP=B9ers, We need more reviews of the websocket draft before progressing it further. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket/ Several people stated interest in the draft and the need for it at the BFCPBIS session at IETF 89. The authors have addressed all comments to date. Please review the draft and share your comments. If there are any issues, let=B9s surface those issues now. If you think the draft is in grea= t shape and is ready for WGLC, please state that as well. =20 Cheers, Charles From nobody Sat Aug 30 01:57:32 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93CF31A88E1 for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 01:57:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2vXLHHEvoMbg for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 01:57:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sessmg23.ericsson.net (sessmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DD841A88DF for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 01:57:29 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-f793d6d000005356-60-540191f732a9 Received: from ESESSHC014.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sessmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id D2.23.21334.7F191045; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 10:57:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.136]) by ESESSHC014.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.60]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 10:57:27 +0200 From: Christer Holmberg To: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" , "bfcpbis@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: reminder to review draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-01 Thread-Index: AQHPw6OOD3jJ50bnRUCgpbOzvbMGfpvn3Xom Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 08:57:26 +0000 Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D433CBF@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.17] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrHLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje6PiYwhBhc2cVr8W3eUyWLTrC9s DkweU35vZPVYsuQnUwBTFJdNSmpOZllqkb5dAlfGwbPdjAUX+SvWn1nA3sDYx9PFyMkhIWAi 8eLAHFYIW0ziwr31bF2MXBxCAkcZJZbfPsIK4SxhlLg3bwZTFyMHB5uAhUT3P20QU0QgSmLj NiGQXmEBF4k7Z3oYQWwRAVeJW1eOMkHYRhLLFvWB2SwCqhIvPp1hB7F5BXwltu3pYAMZIySg J7GpLwMkzCmgL/Hn62tmEJsR6Jzvp9aAtTILiEvcejKfCeJMAYkle84zQ9iiEi8f/2MFGSMh oCixvF8OolxHYsHuT2wQtrbEsoUQI3kFBCVOznzCMoFRdBaSqbOQtMxC0jILScsCRpZVjKLF qcXFuelGxnqpRZnJxcX5eXp5qSWbGIERcnDLb90djKtfOx5iFOBgVOLhffCdIUSINbGsuDL3 EKM0B4uSOO+ic/OChQTSE0tSs1NTC1KL4otKc1KLDzEycXBKNTBmNv9ftdfe+a3QVf53QSeN 70yuEZp8UHtHoLyqHw+zeqb9nFWT1Gc0xv5t2auz8OCkvJ2/1Lp/Fe47fLZrIcd87kqZpXua cr9/tfXTXnrnkVZ6VvXyfT/+Bh0UO+NxTMgzzODq+ZA7f1R6OGJ/ZoXvqtxinvLtsXa8SsAR 6aiwW4H9LWvmXryvxFKckWioxVxUnAgA5RF/MnECAAA= Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bfcpbis/JKfW7w_xHeZgHXcK1XwOEqbf0P8 Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] reminder to review draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-01 X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 08:57:31 -0000 Hi, Below are my comments. I appologise for not providing them earlier, as prom= issed. They are mostly editorial, but would still require some work if acce= pted. --------------- Section 1 (Introduction): ------------------------------ Q1_1: I don't understand the need for the last paragraph, talking about the= draft not preventing the usage of other transport mechanisms. Why does the= draft need to say that?. IF that needs to be said, it should be said in th= e base BFCP spec. Section 3: ------------ Q3_1: Why is this section needed? The draft is not a teach-yourself-websock= et document, is it? :) In my opinion the draft should reference the WebSocket RFC for g= eneral information about WebSocket, and the draft then describes the BFCP s= pecifics - ie what is described in section 4. Otherwise, if some details of WebSocket change in the future, yo= u may have to update this RFC also - even if the change does not affect the= BFCP usage of WebSocket. Section 4: ------------ Q4_1: I'd suggest to change "through" to "over", "using", or something simi= lar. Section 5: ------------ Q5_1: I'd suggest to change the section name to "Transport reliability" Section 6: ------------ Q6_1: I'd suggest to change the section name to "SDP Considerations", with = separate subsections for the new transport value, the new SDP attribute etc= . Q6_2: Is the new SDP ws-uri attribute BFCP specific? If not, should it be i= n a separate draft? Q6_3: I think it would be good to have a reference to a document which talk= s more about the URI matching requirement. Something like: "As defined in section YYYY of RFC XXXX, when us= ing Secure Websockets the CNAME of the SSL certificate must match the WebSo= cket connection URI host..." Q6_4: As you define a new SDP attribute, you should have a "SDP Offer/Answe= r Proceudures" section. Thanks! Regards, Christer=