draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-00.txt   draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01.txt 
AVTCORE M. Petit-Huguenin AVTCORE M. Petit-Huguenin
Internet-Draft Impedance Mismatch Internet-Draft Impedance Mismatch
Updates: 5764 (if approved) G. Salgueiro Updates: 5764 (if approved) G. Salgueiro
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Expires: September 25, 2015 March 24, 2015 Expires: September 25, 2015 March 24, 2015
Multiplexing Scheme Updates for Secure Real-time Transport Protocol Multiplexing Scheme Updates for Secure Real-time Transport Protocol
(SRTP) Extension for Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) (SRTP) Extension for Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)
draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-00 draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01
Abstract Abstract
This document defines how Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS), This document defines how Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS),
Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP), Real-time Transport Control Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP), Real-time Transport Control
Protocol (RTCP), Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN), and Protocol (RTCP), Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN),
Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) packets are multiplexed on a Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN), and Stream Control
Transmission Protocol (SCTP) over UDP packets are multiplexed on a
single receiving socket. It overrides the guidance from SRTP single receiving socket. It overrides the guidance from SRTP
Extension for DTLS [RFC5764], which suffered from three issues Extension for DTLS [RFC5764], which suffered from three issues
described and fixed in this document. described and fixed in this document.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
skipping to change at page 2, line 13 skipping to change at page 2, line 14
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Implicit Allocation of Codepoints for New STUN Methods . 3 1.1. Implicit Allocation of Codepoints for New STUN Methods . 3
1.2. Implicit Allocation of New Codepoints for TLS 1.2. Multiplexing Byte Allocation for SCTP over UDP . . . . . 4
1.3. Implicit Allocation of New Codepoints for TLS
ContentTypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ContentTypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Multiplexing of TURN Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.4. Multiplexing of TURN Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.5. Demultiplexing Algorithm Test Order . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. RFC 5764 Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. RFC 5764 Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. STUN Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.1. STUN Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. TLS ContentType . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.2. TLS ContentType . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.3. TURN Channel Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.3. TURN Channel Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Release notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Appendix A. Release notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
A.1. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.1. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-
fixes-01 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-00 . . 11
A.2. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-
fixes-00 and draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- fixes-00 and draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-
fixes-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 fixes-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A.2. Modifications between draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764 A.3. Modifications between draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764
-mux-fixes-00 and draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764 -mux-fixes-00 and draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764
-mux-fixes-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 -mux-fixes-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Section 5.1.2 of Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) Extension Section 5.1.2 of Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) Extension
for DTLS [RFC5764] defines a scheme for a Real-time Transport for DTLS [RFC5764] defines a scheme for a Real-time Transport
Protocol (RTP) [RFC3550] receiver to demultiplex Datagram Transport Protocol (RTP) [RFC3550] receiver to demultiplex Datagram Transport
Layer Security (DTLS) [RFC6347], Session Traversal Utilities for NAT Layer Security (DTLS) [RFC6347], Session Traversal Utilities for NAT
(STUN) [RFC5389] and Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (STUN) [RFC5389] and Secure Real-time Transport Protocol
(SRTP)/Secure Real-time Transport Control Protocol (SRTCP) [RFC3711] (SRTP)/Secure Real-time Transport Control Protocol (SRTCP) [RFC3711]
packets that are arriving on the RTP port. Unfortunately, this packets that are arriving on the RTP port. Unfortunately, this
demultiplexing scheme has created three problematic issues: demultiplexing scheme has created problematic issues:
1. It implicitly allocated codepoints for new STUN methods without 1. It implicitly allocated codepoints for new STUN methods without
an IANA registry reflecting these new allocations. an IANA registry reflecting these new allocations.
2. It implicitly allocated codepoints for new Transport Layer 2. It implicitly allocated codepoints for new Transport Layer
Security (TLS) ContentTypes without an IANA registry reflecting Security (TLS) ContentTypes without an IANA registry reflecting
these new allocations. these new allocations.
3. It did not take into account the fact that the Traversal Using 3. It did not take into account the fact that the Traversal Using
Relays around NAT (TURN) usage of STUN can create TURN channels Relays around NAT (TURN) usage of STUN can create TURN channels
that also need to be demultiplexed with the other packet types that also need to be demultiplexed with the other packet types
explicitly mentioned in Section 5.1.2 of RFC 5764. explicitly mentioned in Section 5.1.2 of RFC 5764.
4. The current ranges are not efficiently allocated making it harder
to introduce new protocols that might require multiplexing.
These flaws in the demultiplexing scheme were unavoidably inherited These flaws in the demultiplexing scheme were unavoidably inherited
by other documents, such as [RFC7345] and by other documents, such as [RFC7345] and
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation]. These will need to be [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation]. These will need to be
corrected with the updates this document provides when it become corrected with the updates this document provides.
normative.
1.1. Implicit Allocation of Codepoints for New STUN Methods 1.1. Implicit Allocation of Codepoints for New STUN Methods
The demultiplexing scheme in [RFC5764] states that the receiver can The demultiplexing scheme in [RFC5764] states that the receiver can
identify the packet type by looking at the first byte. If the value identify the packet type by looking at the first byte. If the value
of this first byte is 0 or 1, the packet is identified to be STUN. of this first byte is 0 or 1, the packet is identified to be STUN.
The problem that arises as a result of this implicit allocation is The problem that arises as a result of this implicit allocation is
that this restricts the codepoints for STUN methods (as described in that this restricts the codepoints for STUN methods (as described in
Section 18.1 of [RFC5389]) to values between 0x000 and 0x07F, which Section 18.1 of [RFC5389]) to values between 0x000 and 0x07F, which
in turn reduces the number of possible STUN method codepoints in turn reduces the number of possible STUN method codepoints
assigned by IETF Review (i.e., the range from (0x000 - 0x7FF) from assigned by IETF Review (i.e., the range from (0x000 - 0x7FF) from
2048 to only 128 and entirely obliterating those STUN method 2048 to only 128 and entirely obliterating those STUN method
codepoints assigned by Designated Expert (i.e., the range 0x800 - codepoints assigned by Designated Expert (i.e., the range 0x800 -
0xFFF). In fact, RFC 5764 implicitly (and needlessly) allocated a 0xFFF).
very large range of STUN methods, but at a minimum the IANA STUN
Methods registry should properly reflect this.
There are only a few STUN method codepoints currently allocated. For To preserve the Designated Expert range, this document allocates the
this reason, simply marking the implicit allocations made by RFC 5764 value 2 and 3 to also identify STUN methods.
in the STUN Method registry may create a shortage of codepoints at a
time when interest in STUN and STUN Usages (especially TURN) is
growing rapidly. Consequently, this document also changes the RFC
5764 packet identification algorithm to expand the range assigned to
the STUN protocol from 0 - 1 to 0 - 19, as the values 2-19 are
unused.
In addition to explicitly allocating STUN methods codepoints from The IANA Registry for STUN methods is modified to mark the codepoints
0x500 to 0xFFF as Reserved values, this document also updates the from 0x100 to 0xFFF as Reserved. These codepoints can still be
IANA registry such that the STUN method codepoints assigned via IETF allocated, but require IETF Review with a document that will properly
Review are in the 0x000-0x27F range and those assigned via Designated evaluate the risk of an assignment overlapping with other registries.
Expert are in the 0x280-0x4FF range. The proposed changes to the
STUN Method Registry is: In addition, this document also updates the IANA registry such that
the STUN method codepoints assigned in the 0x080-0x0FF range are also
assigned via Designated Expert. The proposed changes to the STUN
Method Registry are:
OLD: OLD:
0x000-0x7FF IETF Review 0x000-0x7FF IETF Review
0x800-0xFFF Designated Expert 0x800-0xFFF Designated Expert
NEW: NEW:
0x000-0x27F IETF Review 0x000-0x07F IETF Review
0x280-0x4FF Designated Expert 0x080-0x0FF Designated Expert
0x500-0xFFF Reserved 0x100-0xFFF Reserved
1.2. Implicit Allocation of New Codepoints for TLS ContentTypes 1.2. Multiplexing Byte Allocation for SCTP over UDP
[I-D.ietf-tram-stunbis] defines two new transports for STUN, SCTP
over UDP and SCTP over DTLS over UDP. This document allocates the
value 5 as to multiplex SCTP over STUN. This value restricts the
source and destination port numbers that can be used by SCTP over
UDP.
1.3. Implicit Allocation of New Codepoints for TLS ContentTypes
The demultiplexing scheme in [RFC5764] dictates that if the value of The demultiplexing scheme in [RFC5764] dictates that if the value of
the first byte is between 20 and 63 (inclusive), then the packet is the first byte is between 20 and 63 (inclusive), then the packet is
identified to be DTLS. The problem that arises is that this identified to be DTLS. The problem that arises is that this
restricts the TLS ContentType codepoints (as defined in Section 12 of restricts the TLS ContentType codepoints (as defined in Section 12 of
[RFC5246]) to this range, and by extension implicitly allocates [RFC5246]) to this range, and by extension implicitly allocates
ContentType codepoints 0 to 19 and 64 to 255. Unlike STUN, TLS is a ContentType codepoints 0 to 19 and 64 to 255. Unlike STUN, TLS is a
mature protocol that is already well established and widely mature protocol that is already well established and widely
implemented and thus we expect only relatively few new codepoints to implemented and thus we expect only relatively few new codepoints to
be assigned in the future. With respect to TLS packet be assigned in the future. With respect to TLS packet
identification, this document simply explicitly reserves the identification, this document simply explicitly reserves the
codepoints from 0 to 19 and from 64 to 255 so they are not codepoints from 0 to 19 and from 64 to 255. These codepoints can
inadvertently assigned in the future. still be allocated, but require Standards Action with a document that
will properly evaluate the risk of an assignment overlapping with
other registries. The proposed changes to the TLS ContentTypes
Registry are:
1.3. Multiplexing of TURN Channels OLD:
0-19 Unassigned
20 change_cipher_spec
21 alert
22 handshake
23 application_data
24 heartbeat
25-255 Unassigned
NEW:
0-19 Reserved (MUST be allocated with Standards Action)
20 change_cipher_spec
21 alert
22 handshake
23 application_data
24 heartbeat
25-63 Unassigned
64-255 Reserved (MUST be allocated with Standards Action)
1.4. Multiplexing of TURN Channels
When used with ICE [RFC5245], an RFC 5764 implementation can receive When used with ICE [RFC5245], an RFC 5764 implementation can receive
packets on the same socket from three different paths, as shown in packets on the same socket from three different paths, as shown in
Figure 1: Figure 1:
1. Directly from the source 1. Directly from the source
2. Through a NAT 2. Through a NAT
3. Relayed by a TURN server 3. Relayed by a TURN server
skipping to change at page 5, line 38 skipping to change at page 6, line 11
TURN channels are an optimization where data packets are exchanged TURN channels are an optimization where data packets are exchanged
with a 4-byte prefix, instead of the standard 36-byte STUN overhead with a 4-byte prefix, instead of the standard 36-byte STUN overhead
(see Section 2.5 of [RFC5766]). The problem is that the RFC 5764 (see Section 2.5 of [RFC5766]). The problem is that the RFC 5764
demultiplexing scheme does not define what to do with packets demultiplexing scheme does not define what to do with packets
received over a TURN channel since these packets will start with a received over a TURN channel since these packets will start with a
first byte whose value will be between 64 and 127 (inclusive). If first byte whose value will be between 64 and 127 (inclusive). If
the TURN server was instructed to send data over a TURN channel, then the TURN server was instructed to send data over a TURN channel, then
the current RFC 5764 demultiplexing scheme will reject these packets. the current RFC 5764 demultiplexing scheme will reject these packets.
Current implementations violate RFC 5764 for values 64 to 127 Current implementations violate RFC 5764 for values 64 to 127
(inclusive) and they instead parse packets with such values as TURN. (inclusive) and they instead parse packets with such values as TURN.
In order to prevent future documents from assigning values from the In order to prevent future documents from assigning values from the
unused range to a new protocol, this document modifies the RFC 5764 unused range to a new protocol, this document modifies the RFC 5764
demultiplexing algorithm to properly account for TURN channels. demultiplexing algorithm to properly account for TURN channels by
allocating the values from 64 to 79 for this purpose.
An implementation that uses the source IP address and port to
identify TURN channel messages MAY not need to restrict the channel
numbers to the above range.
1.5. Demultiplexing Algorithm Test Order
This document also changes the demultiplexing algorithm by imposing
the order in which the first byte is tested against the list of
existing protocol ranges. This is done in order to ensure that all
implementations fail identically in the presence of a new range.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL"
in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] when in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] when
they appear in ALL CAPS. When these words are not in ALL CAPS (such they appear in ALL CAPS. When these words are not in ALL CAPS (such
as "must" or "Must"), they have their usual English meanings, and are as "must" or "Must"), they have their usual English meanings, and are
not to be interpreted as RFC 2119 key words. not to be interpreted as RFC 2119 key words.
3. RFC 5764 Updates 3. RFC 5764 Updates
skipping to change at page 6, line 37 skipping to change at page 7, line 22
Figure 3: The DTLS-SRTP receiver's packet demultiplexing algorithm. Figure 3: The DTLS-SRTP receiver's packet demultiplexing algorithm.
Here the field B denotes the leading byte of the packet. Here the field B denotes the leading byte of the packet.
END OLD TEXT END OLD TEXT
NEW TEXT NEW TEXT
The process for demultiplexing a packet is as follows. The receiver The process for demultiplexing a packet is as follows. The receiver
looks at the first byte of the packet. If the value of this byte is looks at the first byte of the packet. If the value of this byte is
in between 0 and 19 (inclusive), then the packet is STUN. If the in between 0 and 3 (inclusive), then the packet is STUN. Then if the
value is in between 128 and 191 (inclusive), then the packet is RTP value is 5, then the packet is SCTP. Then if the value is between 20
(or RTCP, if both RTCP and RTP are being multiplexed over the same and 63 (inclusive), the packet is DTLS. Then if the value is between
destination port). If the value is between 20 and 63 (inclusive), 64 and 79 (inclusive), the packet is TURN Channel. Then if the value
the packet is DTLS. If the value is between 64 and 127 (inclusive), is in between 128 and 191 (inclusive), then the packet is RTP (or
the packet is TURN Channel. This process is summarized in Figure 3. RTCP, if both RTCP and RTP are being multiplexed over the same
destination port). Else if the value does not match any known range
then the packet MUST be dropped and an alert MAY be logged. This
process is summarized in Figure 3. When new values or ranges are
added, they MUST be tested in ascending order.
+----------------+ +----------------+
| 127 < B < 192 -+--> forward to RTP | [0..3] -+--> forward to STUN
| | | |
| 63 < B < 128 -+--> forward to TURN Channel | 5 -+--> forward to SCTP
packet --> | |
| 19 < B < 64 -+--> forward to DTLS
| | | |
| B < 20 -+--> forward to STUN packet --> | [20..63] -+--> forward to DTLS
| |
| [64..79] -+--> forward to TURN Channel
| |
| [128..191] -+--> forward to RTP
+----------------+ +----------------+
Figure 3: The DTLS-SRTP receiver's packet demultiplexing algorithm. Figure 3: The DTLS-SRTP receiver's packet demultiplexing algorithm.
Here the field B denotes the leading byte of the packet.
END NEW TEXT END NEW TEXT
[[Note: we may want to use "<=" instead of "<" to make it easier on
implementers.]]
4. Implementation Status 4. Implementation Status
[[Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section and the reference to [[Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section and the reference to
[RFC6982] before publication.]] [RFC6982] before publication.]]
This section records the status of known implementations of the This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC6982]. Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC6982].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
skipping to change at page 8, line 15 skipping to change at page 8, line 44
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This document simply updates existing IANA registries and does not This document simply updates existing IANA registries and does not
introduce any specific security considerations beyond those detailed introduce any specific security considerations beyond those detailed
in [RFC5764]. in [RFC5764].
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
6.1. STUN Methods 6.1. STUN Methods
This specification contains the registration information for 2816 This specification contains the registration information for reserved
STUN Methods codepoints, as explained in Section 1.1 and in STUN Methods codepoints, as explained in Section 1.1 and in
accordance with the procedures defined in Section 18.1 of [RFC5389]. accordance with the procedures defined in Section 18.1 of [RFC5389].
Value: 0x500-0xFFF Value: 0x100-0xFFF
Name: Reserved Name: Reserved (MUST be allocated with IETF Review)
Reference: RFC5764, RFCXXXX Reference: RFC5764, RFCXXXX
This specification also reassigns the ranges in the STUN Methods This specification also reassigns the ranges in the STUN Methods
Registry as follow: Registry as follow:
Range: 0x000-0x27F Range: 0x000-0x07F
Registration Procedures: IETF Review Registration Procedures: IETF Review
Range: 0x280-0x4FF Range: 0x080-0x0FF
Registration Procedures: Designated Expert Registration Procedures: Designated Expert
6.2. TLS ContentType 6.2. TLS ContentType
This specification contains the registration information for 212 TLS This specification contains the registration information for reserved
ContentType codepoints, as explained in Section 1.2 and in accordance TLS ContentType codepoints, as explained in Section 1.3 and in
with the procedures defined in Section 12 of [RFC5246]. accordance with the procedures defined in Section 12 of [RFC5246].
Value: 0-19 Value: 0-19
Description: Reserved Description: Reserved (MUST be allocated with Standards Action)
DTLS-OK: N/A DTLS-OK: N/A
Reference: RFC5764, RFCXXXX Reference: RFC5764, RFCXXXX
Value: 64-255 Value: 64-255
Description: Reserved Description: Reserved (MUST be allocated with Standards Action)
DTLS-OK: N/A DTLS-OK: N/A
Reference: RFC5764, RFCXXXX Reference: RFC5764, RFCXXXX
6.3. TURN Channel Numbers 6.3. TURN Channel Numbers
This specification contains the registration information for 32768 This specification contains the registration information for reserved
TURN Channel Numbers codepoints, as explained in Section 1.3 and in TURN Channel Numbers codepoints, as explained in Section 1.4 and in
accordance with the procedures defined in Section 18 of [RFC5766]. accordance with the procedures defined in Section 18 of [RFC5766].
Value: 0x8000-0xFFFF Value: 0x5000-0xFFFF
Name: Reserved Name: Reserved
Reference: RFCXXXX Reference: RFCXXXX
[RFC EDITOR NOTE: Please replace RFCXXXX with the RFC number of this [RFC EDITOR NOTE: Please replace RFCXXXX with the RFC number of this
document.] document.]
7. Acknowledgements 7. Acknowledgements
The implicit STUN Method codepoint allocations problem was first The implicit STUN Method codepoint allocations problem was first
reported by Martin Thomson in the RTCWEB mailing-list and discussed reported by Martin Thomson in the RTCWEB mailing-list and discussed
further with Magnus Westerlund. further with Magnus Westerlund.
Thanks to Simon Perreault, Colton Shields and Cullen Jennings for the Thanks to Simon Perreault, Colton Shields, Cullen Jennings, Colin
comments, suggestions, and questions that helped improve this Perkins, Magnus Westerlund, Paul Jones, Jonathan Lennox, Varun Singh
document. and Justin Uberti for the comments, suggestions, and questions that
helped improve this document.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
skipping to change at page 11, line 5 skipping to change at page 11, line 31
[I-D.ietf-tram-stunbis] [I-D.ietf-tram-stunbis]
Petit-Huguenin, M., Salgueiro, G., Rosenberg, J., Wing, Petit-Huguenin, M., Salgueiro, G., Rosenberg, J., Wing,
D., Mahy, R., and P. Matthews, "Session Traversal D., Mahy, R., and P. Matthews, "Session Traversal
Utilities for NAT (STUN)", draft-ietf-tram-stunbis-02 Utilities for NAT (STUN)", draft-ietf-tram-stunbis-02
(work in progress), March 2015. (work in progress), March 2015.
Appendix A. Release notes Appendix A. Release notes
This section must be removed before publication as an RFC. This section must be removed before publication as an RFC.
A.1. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-00 and A.1. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01 and
draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-00
o Instead of allocating the values that are common on each registry,
the specification now only reserves them, giving the possibility
to allocate them in case muxing is irrelevant.
o STUN range is now 0-3m with 2-3 being Designated Expert.
o TLS ContentType 0-19 and 64-255 are now reserved.
o Add SCTP over UDP value.
o If an implementation uses the source IP address/port to separate
TURN channels packets then the whole channel numbers are
available.
o If not the prefix is between 64 and 79.
o First byte test order is now by incremental values, so failure is
deterministic.
o Redraw the demuxing diagram.
A.2. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-00 and
draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-02 draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-02
o Adoption by WG. o Adoption by WG.
o Add reference to STUNbis. o Add reference to STUNbis.
A.2. Modifications between draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.3. Modifications between draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-
fixes-00 and draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01 fixes-00 and draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01
o Change affiliation. o Change affiliation.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Marc Petit-Huguenin Marc Petit-Huguenin
Impedance Mismatch Impedance Mismatch
Email: marc@petit-huguenin.org Email: marc@petit-huguenin.org
 End of changes. 42 change blocks. 
79 lines changed or deleted 153 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/