Negotiation Data Channels Using the Session Description Protocol (SDP)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 25 and is now closed.

Benjamin Kaduk No Objection

Comment (2019-04-10 for -25)
Section 4

   The mechanism in this document only applies to the Session
   Description Protocol (SDP) [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis] when used
   together with the SDP offer/answer mechanism [RFC3264].  Declarative
   usage of SDP is out of scope of this document, and is thus undefined.

nit: this text doesn't actually scope itself to "this mechanism" or the
RTCWeb data channel, and seems to be saying that all declarative SDP is
undefined, globally.

Section 5.1.7

                                The ordered parameter is optional and
   takes two values: "true" for ordered and "false" for unordered
   delivery with "true" as the default value.  Any other value is
   ignored and default "ordered=true" is assumed.  [...]

This seems to be saying that offers or answers that do not conform to
the ABNF will be special-cased as being ignored (instead of rejected)
when they appear where ordering-value should appear.  It's not clear to
me why we need a special case here, since in Section 8 we explicitly say
that peers MUST close the relevant data channel when such error cases

Section 5.1.8

If we chase links to draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel we find that larger
values indicate higher priority.  Do we want to short-circuit that and
say so explicitly here?

Section 5.2

   of these attributes is represented by one new attribute line, and it
   includes the contents of a media-level SDP attribute already defined
   for use with this (sub)protocol in another IETF (Internet Engineering
   Task Force) document.  [...]

Do we need to limit the data-channel subprotocols to those specified by
the IETF?  Or is it just the media-level SDP attributes that we are
trying to maintain change control over?

   The detailed offer/answer procedures for the dcsa attribute are
   dependent on the associated sub-protocol.  If no offer/answer
   procedures exist for the sub-protocol when used outside of the dcsa
   attribute, no specification is needed for use with dcsa.  The IANA
   registration procedures for the WebSocket Subprotocol Name Registry
   (Section 9.1) do not strictly require a specification of the offer/
   answer procedures for the sub-protocol when used with dcsa.  If the
   sub-protocol has defined offer/answer procedures when used outside of
   dcsa, such a specification is encouraged to ensure interoperability.
   If the sub-protocol has defined offer/answer procedures when used
   outside of dcsa, but no specification exists for the offer/answer
   procedures for the sub-protocol when used with dcsa, implementations
   SHOULD assume the use of the default values for all otherwise-
   negotiable and applicable sub-protocol parameters.

I'm not entirely sure I understand what this paragraph is trying to say.
The first sentence is clear, but the second sentence seems to be saying
that if there are no O/A procedures for a given subprotocol outside
the datachannel, it's just a free for all and I can use it in the data
channel and make up my own procedures for using the dcsa attribute.
I understand that IANA doesn't require a specification for the
subprotocol when allocating the subprotocol name, but that just means
that there may not be a specification available whether or not I want to
use it with dcsa -- the IANA registry doesn't care directly about use
with dcsa.  If a subprotocol has defined O/A procedures outside of dcsa,
doesn't that basically mean there's a specification?  Why do we need to
go out of our way to encourage a specification in that case (and is it a
specification of the O/A semantics when the subprotocol is used outside
dcsa or with dcsa)?  In the last sentence, I think we're talking about
using defaults for parameters that are not explicitly negotiated using
dcsa, but we don't actually say that.

Section 5.2.1

                                               Note however that not all
   SDP attributes are suitable as a "a=dcsa:" parameter.  IANA SDP
   parameters contains the lists of IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers
   Authority) registered session and media level or media level only SDP

Am I supposed to infer that these are the attributes that are suitable
for a=dcsa: parameters?

   As opposed to the data channel "a=dcmap:" attribute parameters, these
   parameters are subject to offer/answer negotiation following the
   procedures defined in the subprotocol specific documents.

I am not sure where we really say that the a=dcmap: parameters are not
subject to O/A negotiation.

Section 6.1

   SCTP stream identifiers associated with data channels that have been
   negotiated using DCEP MUST NOT be included in SDP offers and answers.

This sentence appears as a dedicated paragraph and is duplicated at the
end of the previous paragraph; presumably we only need one copy

Section 6.2

                                         If an SDP answer contains both
   of these parameters then the offerer MUST treat the associated SDP
   offer/answer failed.

nit: "as failed", I think.

Section 6.4

We only mention that the dcmap-stream-id, max-retr, and max-time values
need to match the offer, leaving the ordering/subprotocol/label/priority
to be omitted because they are conveyed at the SCTP layer?  Perhaps we
should state explicitly that they need to be absent...

Section 6.6

Do we want to say anything about the appropriate response to receiving
changed values for the SDP attributes/attribute values is to close the
corresponding data channel?

Section 6.6.1

It seems like the second bullet point only makes sense after the first
has completed, as the tsvart reviewer noted?  Specifically, the "; or"
at the end of the first bullet point doesn't seem to make much sense.

Section 9.3

               If existing media attributes are used in a datachannel
   subprotocol specific way (Section 5.2.1), then a new dcsa usage level
   MUST be defined for the existing media attribute.  [...]

I'm not entirely sure that I understand what this means, though I'm not
really an expert in SDP.

Appendix A.1

I'm not sure that I know what "glare situations" are; is there a
reasonable reference to include?

   Which set of stream identifiers is owned by which endpoint is
   determined by convention or other means.

(specific to the application?)

      Note:For data channels negotiated via different protocol from
      DCEP, no convention is defined by default.

That seems a bit misleading, since Section 6.1 says that the even/odd
split applies to the SDP O/A negotiation case.

Martin Vigoureux No Objection

Roman Danyliw (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2019-04-25 for -26)
No email
send info
Thank you for addressing my DISCUSSes and comments.

Warren Kumari No Objection

Comment (2019-04-08 for -25)
No email
send info
I agree with the other comments on Labels, but will let others carry the positions....

(Adam Roach; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -25)
No email
send info

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2019-04-06 for -25)
No email
send info
I agree with Magnus about UTF-8 in quoted strings for labels.

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2019-04-08 for -25)
In Section 2, please use the exact boilerplate from RFC 8174.

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2019-04-07 for -25)
I agree with Magnus’s DISCUSS.

Please use the full BCP 14 boilerplate from RFC 8174, rather than abridging it.

— Section 5.1.1 —

   Within an 'a=dcmap:' attribute line's 'dcmap-opt' value only one
   'maxretr-opt' parameter or one 'maxtime-opt' parameter MAY be
   present.  Both MUST NOT be present.

Lower case “may” here, please.  The MUST NOT is the normative bit.

— Section 9 subsections —

Instances of “IESG Chairs” should just say “IESG”.

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -25)
No email
send info

(Ignas Bagdonas; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2019-04-08 for -25)
A couple of nits: 

s7: are examples for SDP offer correct? c= addrtype IP6 is listed twice there.

s9.2.1, s9.2.2: s/IESG Chairs/IESG

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2019-05-08 for -27)
Thanks for addressing my issues.

(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2019-04-05 for -25)
Thanks for quickly addressing the comments from the TSV-ART review regarding interactions with SCTP (and thanks Micheal T. for the review!)!

One minor, more editorial comment on max-time parameter: draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol says "This life-time starts when providing the user message to the protocol stack.". While a reference to draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol is given respectively, I would recommend to also clarify in this draft which time frame is meant given this time frame includes and end-to-end delays.

As a side note: not sure it is necessary to expand IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) (see sec 5.2) in an IETF RFC but the RFC editor might tell you...

(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -25)
No email
send info