Minutes for BFCPBIS at interim-2012-bfcpbis-1
Binary Floor Control Protocol Bis
||Minutes for BFCPBIS at interim-2012-bfcpbis-1
BFCPBIS interim meeting call
Tuesday, February 21, 2012, from 8-10am PST
Chairs: Keith Drage, Charles Eckel
Charles Eckel, Robert Sparks, Keith Drage, Paul Hoffman, Dan Romascanu,
Jonathan Lennox, James Watson, Nivedita Melinkeri, Tom Kristensen, Ernst
Horvath, Alan Ford, Andy Hutton
[See agenda slides]
Editor is to be Tom Kristensen.
Keith asks the editor to poll the mailing list to have discussion on proposed
changes before a new draft is submitted.
[See document structure slides]
1st question proposed by slides gave 4 options:
1) rely on the difference tools at tools.ietf.org and ensure that any WG
output produces a true difference to the existing RFC. 2) carry forward
any differences to the existing RFC in an annex or appendix (with the main body
being the full text). 3) keep the document solely as a difference
document. 4) ignoring identifying any differences at all.
After discussion. Clarified that option 1 would still include a minimal
appendix identifying changes from the existing RFC,
Question - Has anybody a problem with Option 1 of the document structure
Answers - There were no objections to going with option 1.
Question - When should we move to a complete bis document rather than the
current diff type document.
Answers - Provisional decision to move to a bis document asap and use the tools
to track differences.
For RFC 4583:
Question - Should MMUSIC do the update to this or can it be done in bfcpbis.
Answers - Robert: changes can be done in BFCPBIS WG and be reviewed by the new
Agreed that BFCP will progress this, after checking with the MMUSIC chairs and
chairs will then ask for creation of new milestone,
Similar structuring questions were asked for the structure of 4583bis and it
was identified a similar approach would be adopted.
[See ietf-bfcpbis-udpbfcp-wgstatus_interim-2012-02-21 slides]
Keith - asked for clarification on the version negotiation. Response is that
the version negotiation is outside of BFCP itself and within SDP for example.
The version will be 1 when using TCP a reliable transport as at present and 2
when using an unreliable transport and therefore no new extensions.
Needs to be clarified that the fragment offset refers only to the payload and
not to the header.
Keith - Should there be an explicit ack to existing responses which carry data.
C.Eckel does not believe there is data in the responses that the sender needs
to know the remote party received before continuing with it's BFCP state
machine so does not believe explicit ack's are needed and can rely on the
re-transmission of the request.
Charles - The version numbering allows for differentiation between BFCP and
STUN packets when using BFCP over UDP (Version=2) and Charles asked whether
this should be explicitly indicated in the draft. J.Lennox - It cannot harm so
yes it should be in the draft.
Tom - Asked if people could review section 9 on transport.
Keith: the current draft proposes using the Goodbye for TCP. Tom - this needs
to be removed because of the version numbering decision.
There was a request for examples showing DTLS operation as well as TCP.
Documentation decisions will be sent to the list.
Many thanks to Andy for taking notes during the session