The Session Description Protocol (SDP) WebSocket Connection URI Attribute
RFC 8124

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.

(Ben Campbell) Yes

Comment (2017-01-18 for -08)
No email
send info
How does this interact with websocket sub-protocol specifications? Is there an expectation one might take some existing media protocol and use it with this draft _without_ a sub-protocol spec? I note the examples use bfcp, which in fact has a sub-protocol spec on this same telechat. (Most of my detailed comments are related to this)

- 4.2, first paragraph: Am I correct that the "proto" field would also include the sub-protocol? (e.g. TCP/WSS/BFCP)? Would you ever have a "proto" filed value of just "TCP/WS(S)?

- 4.2, 2nd paragraph
I wonder if the guidance here (the recommendation that the offerer is the active party) doesn't vary by sub-protocol? Or if it doesn't, if it's more a matter of topology (e.g. servers with global IP addresses vs clients behind NATs) than a matter of who sends the offer?
Also, please consider citing 4145 in this paragraph. (You do in 4.3).

Alissa Cooper Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

Comment (2017-01-16 for -08)
No email
send info
This document was very clear for me. Thank you for that.

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Suresh Krishnan No Objection

Mirja Kühlewind No Objection

Comment (2017-01-15 for -08)
No email
send info
- sec 4.2. The MUST here is inappropriate (given the split of docs):
„For example, to negotiate BFCP-over-WebSocket the "proto" value in the
   "m=" line MUST be TCP/WSS/BFCP if WebSocket is over TLS, else it MUST
   be TCP/WS/BFCP.“
Should be instead:
„For example, to negotiate BFCP-over-WebSocket the "proto" value in the
   "m=" line is TCP/WSS/BFCP if WebSocket is over TLS, else it is
   TCP/WS/BFCP., as specified in [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket]“
- Also remove the following sentence in section 4.3:

„For BFCP application, the "proto" value in the "m=" line
   MUST be TCP/WSS/BFCP if WebSocket is run on TLS, else it MUST be
   TCP/WS/BFCP.“
- In section 6: „a=ws/a=wss-uri“. Maybe use „a=ws-uri/a=wss-uri“ instead?

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

Alexey Melnikov (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2017-02-06)
No email
send info
Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS. I cleared.

Is S/MIME protection with SIP actually deployed?

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Comment (2017-01-18 for -08)
No email
send info
I may have missed it, but don't see a clear reason (would expect to see it in the security considerations section) as to why TLS isn't a MUST.  RECOMMENDED is good, but having a reason to justify this would be helpful.  It seems like it is for legacy support of HTTP applications, but spelling that out might be helpful.

Alvaro Retana No Objection