Protocol for Controlling Multiple Streams for Telepresence (CLUE)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 17 and is now closed.
(Ben Campbell) Discuss
Discuss (2018-11-19 for -17)
Thanks for all the work on this over the years. I have a few concerns that I think require discussion prior to publication: §5.7: Is the "description" field expected to be human readable? If so, are there internationalization issues to consider? §6.2, 5th paragraph: This says that if you get an error back for a configure message, you send a new configure message. This seems likely to cause an infinite loop unless some guidance is given about escaping the loop when the endpoints cannot agree on a configuration. §7: I’m confused by the versioning mechanisms. This section requires an endpoint to ignore unknown elements, but it also requires the peer to downgrade to the highest shared version. These requirements seem to be at cross purposes. If the peer downgrades, one should only see unknown elements in the case of implementation errors. The requirement to ignore unknown elements does not come for free; nor does the requirement to downgrade. §5.1 and §8: The use of the options message to negotiate extensions seems underspecified. How does an endpoint compare extensionType elements? Is a spec required or expected? Is the extension spec expected to register the URI for schemaRef somewhere? Does this need to be in IANA?
Comment (2018-11-19 for -17)
I've got a number of additional comments that do not seem to rise to the level of a DISCUSS: *** Substantive Comments *** I support Benjamin Kaduk's DISCUSS. Additionally, I think there's some missing sub-transaction states, at least in the state machine in Figure 10. When an endpoint sends a message and is waiting for a response, shouldn't there be a separate waiting state (for example, when waiting for optionsResponse)? The MP and MC state machines include this sort of thing but the initial state machine does not. Also, I wonder if there are some unhandled cases where a configure and advertise message cross on the wire. - §1 ( also §2, definition of "endpoint"): I'd like to see a few more words about the relationship between this, the framework draft, the datachannel draft, and SIP. Am I correct to understand that is the only environment the protocol is ever expected to operate in? That is, is there room for different signaling protocols, different transports, etc? This also impacts the security considerations. For example if this depends on the security properties of datachannels (over SCTP and DTLS), then it's worth some language to the effect that it MUST not be used on other transports, or that if it is used on other transports they must have similar security properties. §2, definition of endpoint: Please cite RFC3261 for SIP. (I have mixed feelings whether this needs to be normative or informational.) §4: - "a lack of interoperability between the protocol implementations. In order to correctly establish a CLUE dialogue, the involved CPs MUST have in common a major version number" That seems like a statement of fact. I suggest reserving the normative keywords for the actual procedures that require this. §5: - ClueID: Is this truly optional in the sence of never required under any circumstances? - sequenceNr: Is the language about incrementing intended to use normative keywords? (e.g MUST)? Why do implementations need to send errors for unexpected sequence numbers when using a reliable protocol? That would only happen in the case of implementation errors, right? Why is it optional to start with a random sequence number? Is there a concern about fingerprinting if people choose otherwise? (I guess as the security considerations mention, there's a lot of other things to fingerprint.) - Protocol field: Do you envision non-CLUE messages will ever occur on the same SCTP association? if not, then why require this? If so, then what should an endpoint do if it gets a message with something other than "clue" here? §5.1: "since minor versions are defined to be both backwards and forwards compatible," Please see related DISCUSS comment. §5.7: - What is the reason for defining meaning the "100" response code range if no codes in that range are defined? Why is this different from the 500-900 ranges that are merely reserved for future use? (I gather there was an intent to be consistent with SIP error codes, but why not leave that to the first spec that defines a 1XX code, assuming that ever happens? - "message. Implementations can (and are encouraged to) include more specific descriptions of the error condition, if possible." Am I correct to assume that implementations should not expect any particular description text for a given error code? (That used to be a common interop problem for SIP.) §6: - "When the CLUE data channel set up starts ("start channel"), the CP moves from the IDLE state to the CHANNEL SETUP state." What does "set up starts" mean? Is this trigged by SDP signaling? SCTP connection? Is it different for the SCTP client and server? (I suspect the data-channel draft answers this, but it should at least be cited here.) §6.1: - "Finally, if there are changes in the MP’s telepresence settings ("changed telepresence settings"), the MP switches to the ADV state." If I understand correctly, the MC can send new configure messages at any time. What happens if one arrives in the ADV state but before sending the advertise? 6.2, 2nd paragraph: - Is the MC forbidden from sending a configure without the ack field set prior to sending an ack? - Is the response code limited to 200, are or other 2XX codes allowed if defined? §12.3: The mime type isn’t mentioned anywhere else in the doc? Why is it registered here? What is it used for? §12.4.1: Why is it necessary to both register these directly in IANA and define them in a (presumably registered) schema? Am I correct to assume new message types must also be defined in a schema? *** Editorial Comments *** - General: -- Please proofread for "which" vs "that" usage. -- Please proofread for null words, especially "obviously" and similar terms, which some readers might read as condescending. - Abstract: Is CLUE an acronym? If so, what is its expansion? (If the title is the expansion, it's very obscure.). If not, why all-caps? §2: Please expand MCU on first mention. §4: - "The subset of the extensions that are allowed within the CLUE session is also determined in the initiation phase, such subset being the one including only the extensions that are supported by both parties" Convoluted sentence, can it be simplified? - "Hence in a call between two CPs, A and B, there would be two separate dialogs, as follows:" Please define the meaning of "dialog" as used in this document. In particular, that it is not related to SIP's usage of the term. §5: "While the ’options’ and ’optionsResponse’ messages are exchanged in the initiation phase between the CPs, the other messages are involved in MP-MC dialogues." This also needs a definition of "dialog" for the meaning to be clear. §5.5: - "The MC can send a ’configure’ after the reception of an ’advertisement’ or each time it wants to request other captures that have been previously advertised by the MP." The use of "can" makes this seem optional. I gather from the state machine this is not the case. - "It indicates that the ’configure’ message also acknowledges with success the referred advertisement (’configure’ + ’ack’ message), by applying in that way a piggybacking mechanism for simultaneously acknowledging and replying to the ’advertisement’ message." Convoluted sentence. 5.7: - "200, 300 and 400 codes are considered catch-alls." Please elaborate on what "catch-all" means in context. - "Further response codes can be either defined in future versions of the protocol (by adding them to the related IANA registry)..." The parenthetical phrase is redundant to the next sentence. §6: - First Paragraph: The first and last sentences are redundant with earlier text in the draft. Should "MC process" and "MP process" be "MC role" and "MP role"? §6.1, 3rd paragrap: The first sentence seems out of place, given that much of the previous paragraph was about what happens in the WAIT FOR CONF state. - 5th paragraph: "If there are changes in the MP’s telepresence settings ("changed telepresence settings"), the MP moves back to the ADV state." Redundant to previous paragraph. §8.1, 2nd paragraph: The second sentence is redundant to similar text in §8.
Adam Roach Yes
Ignas Bagdonas No Objection
Deborah Brungard No Objection
Alissa Cooper No Objection
Comment (2018-11-20 for -17)
Please address the Gen-ART review comments. Section 5.7: I don't understand why the 100-199 range is reserved for a specific purpose for a future major version rather than having codes in that range defined now. That is, if it is discovered that delay or incompleteness is useful to signal, why would establishing support for that necessarily require some other backwards-incompatible change to the protocol? Section 8: In addition to Benjamin's question about the version I don't understand how the schemaRef having minOccurs=0 makes sense. Doesn't it need to be included?
(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection
Benjamin Kaduk (was Discuss) No Objection
I'm balloting No Objection, as the concerns noted in my previous Discuss ballot position are not necessarily blocking issues for an Experimental document, and in fact further experience might be helpful to reveal the appropriate values and behaviors to use for timeouts and loop-avoidance. My previous ballot position is preserved below; I note that some of the "substantial comments that do not rise to Discuss level" seem to still be present in the -19. DISCUSS Thanks for the generally clear and well-written document! I would like to discuss whether there needs to be more prominent coverage of timers/timeouts, especially as relating to the state machines. (I'd be happy to learn that this is well-covered elsewhere in the document set; I just haven't run into it yet.) In a similar vein, do we want to have any treatment of avoiding infinite loops (e.g., when a 'configure' or 'advertisement' is rejected in expectation of modification but the sending implementation continues to generate an identical message)? It is not clear to me that any change to the document text is needed in either case, but I don't know to what extent the topics have already been discussed. COMMENT I also have some substantial comments that do not rise to Discuss-level. How do I know which endpoint is the channel initiator and which is the channel receiver? draft-ietf-clue-signaling suggests that the DTLS client is the channel initiator, but even that is not explicit about it -- the protocol could be considered under-specified if there is insufficient clarity. Section 2 The MCU definition doesn't actually expand the acronym, which seems a little reader-unfriendly. Section 5.1 There are perhaps more XML extension points in here than is reasonable for some of these elements (e.g., <versionsListType>). Section 5.2 If the responseCode is between 200 and 299 inclusive, the response MUST also include <mediaProvider>, <mediaConsumer>, <version> and <commonExtensions> elements; Maybe re-mention that MP and MC are booleans here. Finally, the commonly supported extensions are copied in the <commonExtensions> field. Does this need to say that only extensions that are applicable to the negotiated protocol version are included? (Also, how does one handle an extension that exists for multiple major versions -- are there two <extension> elments for it in the <options> message?) Upon reception of the 'optionsResponse' the version to be used is the one provided in the <version> tag of the message. The following CLUE messages MUST use such a version number in the "v" attribute. The allowed extensions in the CLUE dialogue are those indicated in the <commonExtensions> of the 'optionsResponse' message. Couldn't this restriction on the "v" value apply even to the 'optionsResponse' message? Section 5.3 The 'advertisement' message is used by the MP to advertise the available media captures and related information to the MC. [...] I'd consider avoiding the definite article "the" to refer to MP/MC roles, since in many caess there will be 2+ of each, and we don't want to confuse the reader into thinking that there is an MP/CR equivalence or something like that. So, perhaps "each MP" and "the corresponding MC". Section 5.4 As it can be seen from the message schema provided in the following excerpt (Figure 6), the 'ack' contains a response code and a reason string for describing the processing result of the 'advertisement'. [...] [the reason string is part of the base clueResponseType] The text quoted here could be read as implying that the reason string is required in the 'ack' message, a stronger requirement than of the base clueResponseType where it has minOccurs=0. Some greater clarity in the text here is probably called for, especially since when the 'ack' is piggybacked on a 'configure' message, there is no provision for a reason string at all. Section 5.5 The <ack> element MUST NOT be present if an 'ack' message has been already sent back to the MP. I think you need to clarify that this is scoped to the current advSequenceNr. Section 5.6 It contains (Figure 8) a response code with a reason string indicating either the success or the failure (along with failure details) of a 'configure' request processing. [...] [Same comment about reason string as for 'ack'] Section 5.7 Such new response codes MUST NOT overwrite the ones here defined and they MUST respect the semantics of the first code digit. nit: is this "overwrite" or "override"? This document does not define response codes starting with "1", and such response codes are not allowed to appear in major version 1 of the CLUE protocol. The range from 100 to 199 inclusive is reserved for future major versions of the protocol to define response codes for delayed or incomplete operations if necessary. Response codes starting with "5" through "9" are reserved for future major versions of the protocol to define new classes of response, and are not allowed in major version 1 of the CLUE protocol. Response codes starting with "0" are not allowed. This text seems to also preclude extensions to major version '1' from defining 1xx or [5-9]xx reason codes; is that the intent? Section 6 When the CLUE data channel set up starts ("start channel"), the CP moves from the IDLE state to the CHANNEL SETUP state. nit: only one of "sets up" and "starts" is needed. When in the ACTIVE state, the CP starts the envisioned sub-state machines (i.e., the MP state machine and the MC state machine) according to the roles it plays in the telepresence sessions. Such roles have been previously declared in the 'options' and 'optionsResponse' messages involved in the initiation phase (see OPTIONS sections Section 5.1 and Section 5.2 for the details). [...] My reading of the initiation phase is that each CP sends only a boolean indication of whether it supports the MP/MC roles, and so each party has to determine on its own whether it will act as a MP and/or MC; is that correct? If so, do we need to say anything about how the boolean matrix translates to activating the respective sub-state machines? Section 6.1 'configure+ack' messages referring to out-of- date (i.e., having a sequence number equal to or less than the highest seen so far) advertisements MUST be ignored, i.e., they do not trigger any state transition. [...] Is this really less than or equal or just less than? Also, is "seen" the right verb, since IIUC these are sequence numbers that the MP has *generated* in its advertisements? Section 7 In other words, in this example, the MP MUST use version 1.4 and downgrade to the lower version. [...] nit: does the phrase "and downgrade to the lower version" add any value here? The word "downgrade" can have negative connotations in some other contexts, so if it's not adding value I'd suggest avoiding it. Section 8 As reported in Figure 13, the values of the fields of the <extension> element (either new information or new messages) take the following values: [...] o the major standard version of the protocol that the extension refers to. The XSL includes a full version (including minor), even though the semantics basically only use the major version. That said, why is the 'version' element minOccurs="0" -- what are the semantics when it is absent? Section 8.1 The CLUE data model document ([I-D.ietf-clue-data-model-schema]) envisions the possibility of adding this kind of "extra" information in the description of a video capture by keeping the compatibility with the CLUE data model schema. [...] nit: I don't think this is grammatical; maybe just "keeping compatibility". Section 10 This claims to be a "call flow" example, but the described flows only contain a single unidirectional media flow, which is not really consistent with the normal usage of the word "call". Buried in the body text there is a disclaimer: [...] For the sake of simplicity, the following call flow focuses only on the dialogue between MP CP1 and MC CP2. I would suggest making the presence of this simplification much clearer from the start, perhaps "CLUE protocol messages exchanged in the following call flow are detailed; only one direction of media is shown for simplicity, as the other direction is precisely symmetric". CP2 acknowledges the second 'advertisement' message with an 'ack' message (Section 10.7). In a second moment, CP2 changes the requested media streams from CP1 by sending to CP1 a 'configure' message replacing the previously selected video streams with the new composed media streams advertised by CP1 (Section 10.8). This might be an appropriate place to indicate that media from the previous configuration continue to flow during the reconfiguration process. It might also be worth noting again somewhere in here (or a subsection) that there are three (well, two, since we only show one direction of media) distinct sequence number spaces per sender, and that the discontinuity between Section 10.2 and 10.3's numbers is correct. Section 11 Thanks for the well-thought-through security considerations; in combination with the linked documents (particularly the framework), they cover all the considerations (especially privacy considerations) that I had in mind. Section 14.2 We appear to be citing both 5117 and 7667, whereas the latter obsoletes the former.
Suresh Krishnan No Objection
Comment (2018-11-19 for -17)
I found the document to be well written and easy to read. I just had a concern about the response codes. I did not find text either in this on in draft-ietf-clue-signaling that describes the behavior that results in a specific response code. e.g. 402 and 404 seem to have some overlap but there is no text for when a 404 will be sent to disambiguate it from 402. Likewise for the other response codes. I did not find any prescriptive behavior that results in these codes.
Warren Kumari No Objection
Comment (2018-11-19 for -17)
I'd like to thank Benjamin for his detailed review! Also, Zitao Wang for the OpsDir review - it contains some useful nits, and I'd encourage the authors to address them.
Mirja Kühlewind (was Discuss) No Objection
Comment (2018-10-31 for -17)
Update: Revising my discuss, as I missed the pointer to draft-ietf-clue-signaling. Sorry for that! Two minor editorial commets: 1) In the terminology section: What does MCU actually stand for? 2) sec 4: "CLUE protocol version numbers are characterized by a major version number (single digit) and a minor version number (single digit)..." However, later on the text says that the numbers can also consist of multiple digits...
(Terry Manderson) No Objection
Alexey Melnikov No Objection
Comment (2018-11-20 for -17)
I support Ben's DISCUSS. A couple of extra nits, which I think need addressing: XML and XML Schema need to be a Normative References. 12.4.1. CLUE Message Types +-------------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+ | Message | Description | Reference | +-------------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+ | options | Sent by the CI to the CR in the | RFCXXXX | | | initiation phase to specify the | | | | roles played by the CI, the | | | | supported versions and the | | | | supported extensions. | | | optionsResponse | Sent by the CI to the CR in reply | RFCXXXX | Should the above be: "Sent by the CR to the CI ..." | | to an 'options' message to | | | | finally estabilsh the version and | | Typo: establish | | the extensions to be used in the | | | | following CLUE messages exchange. | | Examples in Section 10 contain URI "http://wpage.unina.it/spromano/clue-protocol-17-schema-file.xsd". Maybe they shouldn't.
(Eric Rescorla) No Objection
Comment (2018-11-19 for -17)
Rich version of this review at: https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D3717 I have noted a number of points where I think this is not fully specified. I am not marking this DISCUSS because I believe they are easy to fix and assume the AD will take care of them. IMPORTANT S 5.1. > detailed in Section 5.7 > > 5.1. options > > The 'options' message is sent by the CLUE Participant which is the > Channel Initiator to the CLUE Participant which is the Channel How do I know who is the CI and CR S 6. > moves from the IDLE state to the CHANNEL SETUP state. > > If the CLUE data channel is successfully set up ("channel > established"), the CP moves from the CHANNEL SETUP state to the > OPTIONS state. Otherwise if "channel error", it moves back to the > IDLE state. The same transition happens if the CLUE-enabled Is it possible to re-start the setup phase? If not, perhaps you want an ERROR state. If so, maybe describe how S 6.1. > MP moves to the WAIT FOR CONF state. If a NACK arrives (i.e., an > 'ack' message with an error response code), the MP moves back to the > ADV state for preparing a new 'advertisement'. When in the WAIT FOR > ACK state, if a 'configure' message with the <ack> element set to > TRUE arrives ("configure+ack received"), the MP goes directly to the > CONF RESPONSE state. 'configure+ack' messages referring to out-of- What about a configure without an ACK? S 6.1. > date (i.e., having a sequence number equal to or less than the > highest seen so far) advertisements MUST be ignored, i.e., they do > not trigger any state transition. If the telepresence settings of > the MP change while in the WAIT FOR ACK state ("changed telepresence > settings"), the MP switches from the WAIT FOR ACK state to the ADV > state to create a new 'advertisement'. What happens if I receive configure while in ADV? S 7. > the lower version. This said, and coherently with the general IETF > "protocol robustness principle" stating that "an implementation must > be conservative in its sending behavior, and liberal in its receiving > behavior" [RFC1122], CLUE Participants MUST ignore unknown elements > or attributes that are not envisioned in the negotiated protocol > version and related extensions. This seems to mean that if you speak X.Y, then you need to minimally have a map of all features in [0..Y-1]. Is that correct? COMMENTS S 5.1. > <xs:anyAttribute namespace="##other" processContents="lax"/> > </xs:complexType> > Figure 3: Structure of CLUE 'options' message > > <supportedVersions> contains the list of the versions that are > supported by the CI, each one represented in a child <version> Are these ordered? S 5.1. > misinterpreting the contents of messages. The minor version is > obviously less useful in this context, since minor versions are > defined to be both backwards and forwards compatible, but it is more > useful to know the highest minor version supported than some random > minor version, as it indicates the full feature set that is > supported. The reason why it is less useful is that the value can in I'm not quite following the juxtaposition of "full feature set" and "backwards and forwards compatible". Can you spell out the guarantees more precisely S 5.2. > inclusive, the response MUST also include <mediaProvider>, > <mediaConsumer>, <version> and <commonExtensions> elements; it MAY > include them for any other response code. <mediaProvider> and > <mediaConsumer> elements are associated with the supported roles (in > terms of, respectively MP and MC), similarly to what the CI does in > the 'options' message. The <version> field indicates the highest What does it mean to provide these for other codes? S 5.2. > > Figure 4: Structure of CLUE 'optionsResponse' message > > Upon reception of the 'optionsResponse' the version to be used is the > one provided in the <version> tag of the message. The following CLUE > messages MUST use such a version number in the "v" attribute. The What goes in the "v" attribute for this message? S 5.5. > </xs:complexType> > > Figure 7: Structure of CLUE 'configure' message > > The <advSequenceNr> element contains the sequence number of the > 'advertisement' message the 'configure' refers to. It would be useful to mention here how out of date configures are handled. S 6. > herein discuss the state machines associated, respectively, with the > CLUE Participant (Figure 10), with the MC process (Figure 11) and > with the MP process (Figure 12). Endpoints often wish to both send > and receive media, i.e., act as both MP and MC. As such there will > often be two sets of messages flowing in opposite directions; the > state machines of these two flows do not interact with each other. This point would have been useful to make earlier. S 6.2. > successfully agreed on the media streams to be shared. Then, the MC > can move to the ESTABLISHED state. On the other hand, if an error > response is received ("error configureResponse received"), the MC > moves back to the CONF state to prepare a new 'configure' request. > If a new 'advertisement' is received in the WAIT FOR CONF RESPONSE > state, the MC switches to the ADV PROCESSING state. I agree with what others have said here. It seems like only certain errors merit this. S 10. > </xs:schema> > > Figure 16: Schema defining CLUE messages > > 10. Call flow example > This would be vastly more useful earlier.