Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-07
review-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-07-genart-lc-halpern-2016-12-23-00

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-??
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2016-12-23
IETF LC End Date: 2017-01-12
IESG Telechat date: 2017-01-19

Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC.  I
have a few minor comments that should be considered s they may improve future
understanding of the document.

Major issues: None

Minor issues:
    In reading section 4.2 and 4.3, I believe I can guess at certain intended
    behaviors, but it is not as clearly stated as I think is desirable.  There
    is also one odd statement in section 4.3

    Taking the odd statement first, the text in section 4.3 refers the active
    answerer "towards
   the IP address and port of the offerer".  But when WebSockets is used, one
   does not connect to the IP address and port, but to the URI specified.

    I believe that the intent in 4.2 and 4.3 is that whichever side will be
    "passive" is required to provide an a=ws-uri or a=wss-uri so that the other
    side can establish the connection to the URI.  But section 4.2 does not say
    that.  And the text in section4.3 that talks about providing the URI in the
    a= does not qualify whether it is required with active, passive, or both.

Nits/editorial comments:  N/A