Re: TSV-ART review of draft-pd-dispatch-msrp-websocket

Hi Allison,

Thanks for your review and  feedback, I will replace the text below with 
following. "impossible"->"challenging"

EXISTING:

 WebSocket clients cannot receive WebSocket connections initiated by
   other WebSocket clients or WebSocket servers.  This means that it is
   impossible for an MSRP client to communicate directly with other MSRP
   clients.  Therefore, all MSRP over WebSocket messages MUST be routed
   via an MSRP WebSocket Server.

NEW:

 WebSocket clients cannot receive WebSocket connections initiated by
   other WebSocket clients or WebSocket servers.  This means that it is
   challenging for an MSRP client to communicate directly with other MSRP
   clients.  Therefore, all MSRP over WebSocket messages MUST be routed
   via an MSRP WebSocket Server.

For the second comment, I am fine using a port in the range  Dynamic space 
(49152-65535) for the examples. Will update the draft with these and publish 
later along with other comments received.

Regards,
Ram

From: Allison Mankin 
<allison(_dot_)mankin(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com<mailto:allison(_dot_)mankin(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>>
Date: Tuesday, 2 August 2016 at 12:58 AM
To: IETF Discussion 
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>>, 
"tsv-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:tsv-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>" 
<tsv-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:tsv-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>>, 
"draft-pd-dispatch-msrp-websocket(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:draft-pd-dispatch-msrp-websocket(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>"
 
<draft-pd-dispatch-msrp-websocket(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:draft-pd-dispatch-msrp-websocket(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>>,
 Mary Barnes 
<mary(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)barnes(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com<mailto:mary(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)barnes(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>>
Cc: 
"amankin(_at_)salesforce(_dot_)com<mailto:amankin(_at_)salesforce(_dot_)com>" 
<amankin(_at_)salesforce(_dot_)com<mailto:amankin(_at_)salesforce(_dot_)com>>
Subject: TSV-ART review of draft-pd-dispatch-msrp-websocket
Resent-From: 
<alias-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:alias-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>>
Resent-To: 
<gsalguei(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com<mailto:gsalguei(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>>, 
<peter(_dot_)dunkley(_at_)xura(_dot_)com<mailto:peter(_dot_)dunkley(_at_)xura(_dot_)com>>,
 
<victor(_dot_)pascual(_dot_)avila(_at_)oracle(_dot_)com<mailto:victor(_dot_)pascual(_dot_)avila(_at_)oracle(_dot_)com>>,
 Ram Mohan Ravindranath 
<rmohanr(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com<mailto:rmohanr(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>>, 
<gavin(_dot_)llewellyn(_at_)xura(_dot_)com<mailto:gavin(_dot_)llewellyn(_at_)xura(_dot_)com>>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, 2 August 2016 at 12:58 AM

Hey, folks,

I've reviewed this draft (draft-pd-dispatch-msrp-websocket-13) as part of the 
TSV Area Review Team, paying special attention to transport-related concerns. 
Please take these as any other (belated) IETF last call comments, addressing 
them in conjunction with the present IESG review.

Summary: This draft specifies the WebSocket sub-protocol for MSRP, the 
SIP-based messaging protocol.   It is very similar to RFC 7118, WebSocket as a 
Transport for SIP, which is already a PS.  It does not appear to pose any 
transport-related danger, and is broadly ready for publication as a PS.

Although the draft looks ready to go from a transport point of view, I have a 
couple of small questions:

Section 5

Does the second sentence in the following mean "impossible for a WebSocket MSRP 
client to communicate directly with other MSRP clients"?  The paragraph is 
confusing.


   WebSocket clients cannot receive WebSocket connections initiated by
   other WebSocket clients or WebSocket servers.  This means that it is
   impossible for an MSRP client to communicate directly with other MSRP
   clients.  Therefore, all MSRP over WebSocket messages MUST be routed
   via an MSRP WebSocket Server.

Section 8

bob.example.com:8145<http://bob.example.com:8145> occurs in many of the path 
examples.  Although I notice it also occurs in the MSRP Relay RFC (4976) along 
with many other unassigned port numbers from the User Space, I wonder if it 
could be replaced with a port from the Dynamic space (49152-65535) - in this 
draft, it's the only unassigned port, and this could be one RFC that doesn't 
confuse port users IRL.

Thanks and good luck,

Allison