Subject: [bfcpbis] WGLC on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-06

From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 16:55:01 +0000

This is to announce a 2 week WGLC on the draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-06

Please review and provide any comments by Monday, March 28, 2016.
Comments should be sent to the authors and the BFCPBIS WG list.
If you review the draft but do not have any comments, please send a note to that effect as well.

Thanks,
Charles

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:38:41 -0400

Generally in good shape. A couple of comments:

* Section 4.1:

I see you are using "bfcp" for the subprotocol name.
IMO it would be better to use "BFCP" for consistency with what is used 
in the m-line proto field.

(I've been querying for information about case-sensitivity of the 
sub-protocol field. I have not gotten a definitive answer, but the 
prudent path is to assume it is case-sensitive.)

* Section 7.1 says:

    An endpoint (i.e., both the offerer and the answerer) MUST create an
    SDP media description ("m=" line) for each BFCP-over-WebSocket media
    stream and MUST assign a TCP/WSS/BFCP value to the "proto" field of
    the "m=" line.  Furthermore, the SDP answerer (Server) MUST add an
    "a=ws-uri" or "a=wss-uri" attribute in the "m=" line of each BFCP-
    over-WebSocket media stream depending on whether it is WS or WSS.

This says to use TCP/WSS/BFCP even when using "a=ws-uri". I presume that 
is wrong.

Also, see my comment on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-01 
(http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bfcpbis/_y_FxCOw5pI_YeRQXGvMLpKGZY0) 
regarding the case where the offer is generated by the server. They 
apply here equally. The text needs some reworking to address that case.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 3/13/16 12:55 PM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> bfcpbis mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
>