From nobody Thu Jul 2 11:12:55 2015 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 521231A1BE9 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 11:12:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 FBWy91nhLCO4 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 11:12:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sessmg22.ericsson.net (sessmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.58]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1E2C1A1BD7 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 11:12:51 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-f79356d000006281-19-55957f210190 Received: from ESESSHC020.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sessmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id C8.B6.25217.12F75955; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 20:12:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.27]) by ESESSHC020.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.78]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 20:12:49 +0200 From: Christer Holmberg To: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-04 Thread-Index: AdC08rcStJFpZs3eTEKDBmLDmBoP2g== Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 18:12:49 +0000 Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D90592A@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.150] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D90592AESESSMB209erics_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrNLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvja5S/dRQg88neCymn/nLaPFv3VEm ByaPL09eMnksWfKTKYApissmJTUnsyy1SN8ugStj175+5oJNfhXt374wNTCec+ti5OCQEDCR OLytuouRE8gUk7hwbz0biC0kcJRRYv/P8C5GLiB7EaPEm9ZlzCD1bAIWEt3/tEFqRAQ0JTZv v8sEYjMLaEssXH4PrFdYwFzize+bLBA1NhL7epoZIWw9iTkL3rOD2CwCKhJ7tnaA1fMK+Epc nbQWrIYR6Ibvp9ZAzRSXuPVkPhPEbQISS/acZ4awRSVePv7HCmErSazYfokRoj5fondTBzvE TEGJkzOfsExgFJ6FZNQsJGWzkJRBxHUkFuz+xDYL6p1lC18zw9hnDjxmQhZfwMi+ilG0OLW4 ODfdyEgvtSgzubg4P08vL7VkEyMwdg5u+W21g/Hgc8dDjAIcjEo8vAqzp4QKsSaWFVfmHmKU 5mBREuedsTkvVEggPbEkNTs1tSC1KL6oNCe1+BAjEwenVAPjWu+lv7pl3lpP/HvurPusnHvv 1CqXxyjbL35TtKT6ucKyIz+PXP30Z5bQ+2KeaW9j+hK3ZMu0y5fv23aX/+TStWn3IkqAphwJ O9TkZ/jm867ZSxXrJvK8K5k/YQafwY+3mxTCXPfxtYo9O/i18orLjK65h9jvbGdf0e+hqd5q wrvNbzLbrk08SizFGYmGWsxFxYkAhCo29X4CAAA= Archived-At: Cc: "alissa@cooperw.in" Subject: [bfcpbis] Review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-04 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: Thu, 02 Jul 2015 18:12:54 -0000 --_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D90592AESESSMB209erics_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Below is my review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-04. In general, things look good, and my comments should be mostly editorial. A= lso, my previous comments on the draft have been addressed. Thanks for that= ! Q1: There are a few abbreviations (TLS, HTTP etc) that are not expanded on = first occurrence. I didn't check whether they are considered well known abb= reviations, but it would be good to double check. Q2: I think the last paragraph of section 1, talking about not preventing o= ther mechanisms, can be removed completely. (I think I previously had the same comment on the draft - or maybe it was a= nother WebSocket sub-protocol draft) Q3: Section one says "since WebSocket is a reliable transport". Perhaps "pr= ovides a reliable transport" would be better? Q4: Section 5 says "WebSocket [RFC6455] is a reliable protocol". I don't kn= ow what "reliable protocol" means, but I assume this text should also talk = about providing reliable transport. Q5: In section 6.1, there should be a reference for the 'setup' attribute. = Also, when talking about SDP attributes, I'd suggest to explicitly say "SDP= setup attribute", or something similar. Q6: The introduction says that the draft updates rfc4582bis and rfc4583bis.= I think it would be good to have two explicit "Updates to RFCXXXX" section= s to list exactly what those updates are. Q7: Just to check: are the new SDP m- line proto values aligned with the na= ming approach that has taken place in MMUSIC? Regards, Christer --_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D90592AESESSMB209erics_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

 

Below is my review of draft-ietf-bfcp= bis-bfcp-websocket-04.

 

In general, things look good, and my = comments should be mostly editorial. Also, my previous comments on the draf= t have been addressed. Thanks for that!

 

Q1: There are a few abbreviations (TL= S, HTTP etc) that are not expanded on first occurrence. I didn’t chec= k whether they are considered well known abbreviations, but it would be good to double check.

 

Q2: I think the last paragraph of sec= tion 1, talking about not preventing other mechanisms, can be removed compl= etely.

 

(I think I previously had the same co= mment on the draft – or maybe it was another WebSocket sub-protocol d= raft)

 

Q3: Section one says “since Web= Socket is a reliable transport”. Perhaps “provides a reliable t= ransport” would be better?

 

Q4: Section 5 says “WebSocket [= RFC6455] is a reliable protocol”. I don’t know what “reli= able protocol” means, but I assume this text should also talk about p= roviding reliable transport.

      &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;           =

Q5: In section 6.1, there should be a= reference for the ‘setup’ attribute. Also, when talking about = SDP attributes, I’d suggest to explicitly say “SDP setup attrib= ute”, or something similar.

 

Q6: The introduction says that the dr= aft updates rfc4582bis and rfc4583bis. I think it would be good to have two= explicit “Updates to RFCXXXX” sections to list exactly what those updates are.

 

Q7: Just to check: are the new SDP m-= line proto values aligned with the naming approach that has taken place in= MMUSIC?

 

Regards,

 

Christer

 

 

 

 

 =

--_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D90592AESESSMB209erics_--