draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-02.txt   draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-03.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: April 21, 2016 October 19, 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-02 draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-03
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), and
Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) packets are multiplexed on a Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) 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.
skipping to change at page 1, line 38 skipping to change at page 1, line 38
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 25, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 21, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 17 skipping to change at page 2, line 17
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. Implicit Allocation of New Codepoints for TLS
ContentTypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ContentTypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Multiplexing of TURN Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.3. Multiplexing of TURN Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4. Demultiplexing Algorithm Test Order . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.4. Demultiplexing Algorithm Test Order . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. RFC 5764 Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. RFC 5764 Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. STUN Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.1. STUN Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. TLS ContentType . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.2. TLS ContentType . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.3. TURN Channel Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.3. TURN Channel Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Release notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Appendix A. Release notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
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 fixes-03 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-02 . . 12
A.2. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.2. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-
fixes-01 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-00 . . 11 fixes-02 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01 . . 12
A.3. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.3. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-
fixes-01 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-00 . . 12
A.4. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 fixes-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.4. Modifications between draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764 A.5. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 -mux-fixes-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[[TODO: Still need to come to resolution on Paul Kyzivat's comment on
testing in a particular order in the face of overlapping/non-
overlapping ranges.]]
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) [I-D.ietf-tram-stunbis] and Secure Real-time Transport (STUN) [RFC5389] and Secure Real-time Transport Protocol
Protocol (SRTP)/Secure Real-time Transport Control Protocol (SRTCP) (SRTP)/Secure Real-time Transport Control Protocol (SRTCP) [RFC3711]
[RFC3711] packets that are arriving on the RTP port. Unfortunately, packets that are arriving on the RTP port. Unfortunately, this
this demultiplexing scheme has created 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 Having overlapping ranges between different IANA registries becomes
to introduce new protocols that might require multiplexing. an issue when a new codepoint is allocated in one of these registries
without carefully anyalyzing the impact it could have on the other
registries when that codepoint is demultiplexed. Even if a codepoint
is not initially thought to be useful in an RFC 5764 implementation,
the respective IANA registry expert should at least raise a flag when
the allocated codepoint irrevocably prevents multiplexing.
These flaws in the demultiplexing scheme were unavoidably inherited The first goal of this document is to make sure that future
by other documents, such as [RFC7345] and allocations in any of the affected protocols are done with the full
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation]. These will need to be knowledge of their impact on multiplexing. This is achieved by
corrected with the updates this document provides. modifying the IANA registries with instructions for coordination
between the protocols at risk.
A second goal is to permit the addition of new protocols to the list
of existing multiplexed protocols in a manner that does not break
existing implementations.
The flaws in the demultiplexing scheme were unavoidably inherited by
other documents, such as [RFC7345] and
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation]. So in addition, these and
any other affected documents will need to be corrected with the
updates this document provides.
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 eliminating the possibility of having STUN
codepoints assigned by Designated Expert (i.e., the range 0x800 - method codepoints assigned by Designated Expert (i.e., the range
0xFFF). 0x800 - 0xFFF).
To preserve the Designated Expert range, this document allocates the To preserve the Designated Expert range, this document allocates the
value 2 and 3 to also identify STUN methods. value 2 and 3 to also identify STUN methods.
The IANA Registry for STUN methods is modified to mark the codepoints The IANA Registry for STUN methods is modified to mark the codepoints
from 0x100 to 0xFFF as Reserved. These codepoints can still be from 0x100 to 0xFFF as Reserved. These codepoints can still be
allocated, but require IETF Review with a document that will properly allocated, but require IETF Review with a document that will properly
evaluate the risk of an assignment overlapping with other registries. evaluate the risk of an assignment overlapping with other registries.
In addition, this document also updates the IANA registry such that In addition, this document also updates the IANA registry such that
skipping to change at page 4, line 21 skipping to change at page 4, line 45
0x080-0x0FF Designated Expert 0x080-0x0FF Designated Expert
0x100-0xFFF Reserved 0x100-0xFFF Reserved
1.2. Implicit Allocation of New Codepoints for TLS ContentTypes 1.2. 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. With respect to TLS
mature protocol that is already well established and widely packet identification, this document simply explicitly reserves the
implemented and thus we expect only relatively few new codepoints to
be assigned in the future. With respect to TLS packet
identification, this document simply explicitly reserves the
codepoints from 0 to 19 and from 64 to 255. These codepoints can codepoints from 0 to 19 and from 64 to 255. These codepoints can
still be allocated, but require Standards Action with a document that still be allocated, but require Standards Action with a document that
will properly evaluate the risk of an assignment overlapping with will properly evaluate the risk of an assignment overlapping with
other registries. The proposed changes to the TLS ContentTypes other registries. The proposed changes to the TLS ContentTypes
Registry are: Registry are:
OLD: OLD:
0-19 Unassigned 0-19 Unassigned
20 change_cipher_spec 20 change_cipher_spec
21 alert 21 alert
22 handshake 22 handshake
23 application_data 23 application_data
24 heartbeat 24 heartbeat
25-255 Unassigned 25-255 Unassigned
NEW: NEW:
0-19 Reserved (MUST be allocated with Standards Action) 0-19 Reserved (Requires coordination, see RFCXXXX)
20 change_cipher_spec 20 change_cipher_spec
21 alert 21 alert
22 handshake 22 handshake
23 application_data 23 application_data
24 heartbeat 24 heartbeat
25-63 Unassigned 25-63 Unassigned
64-255 Reserved (MUST be allocated with Standards Action) 64-255 Reserved (Requires coordination, see RFCXXXX)
1.3. Multiplexing of TURN Channels 1.3. 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
skipping to change at page 6, line 10 skipping to change at page 6, line 44
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 by demultiplexing algorithm to properly account for TURN channels by
allocating the values from 64 to 79 for this purpose. 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.
1.4. Demultiplexing Algorithm Test Order 1.4. Demultiplexing Algorithm Test Order
This document also changes the demultiplexing algorithm by imposing This document also changes the demultiplexing algorithm by imposing
the order in which the first byte is tested against the list of 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 existing protocol ranges. This is done in order to ensure that all
implementations fail identically in the presence of a new range. 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"
skipping to change at page 7, line 29 skipping to change at page 7, line 52
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 3 (inclusive), then the packet is STUN. Then if the in between 0 and 3 (inclusive), then the packet is STUN. Then if the
value is between 20 and 63 (inclusive), the packet is DTLS. Then if value is between 20 and 63 (inclusive), the packet is DTLS. Then if
the value is between 64 and 79 (inclusive), the packet is TURN the value is between 64 and 79 (inclusive), the packet is TURN
Channel. Then if the value is in between 128 and 191 (inclusive), Channel. Then if the value is in between 128 and 191 (inclusive),
then the packet is RTP (or RTCP, if both RTCP and RTP are being then the packet is RTP (or RTCP, if both RTCP and RTP are being
multiplexed over the same destination port). Else if the value does multiplexed over the same destination port). Else if the value does
not match any known range then the packet MUST be dropped and an 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 alert MAY be logged. This process is summarized in Figure 3. The
new values or ranges are added, they MUST be tested in ascending various range values for the first byte MUST be tested in ascending
order. order.
+----------------+ +----------------+
| [0..3] -+--> forward to STUN | [0..3] -+--> forward to STUN
| | | |
packet --> | [20..63] -+--> forward to DTLS packet --> | [20..63] -+--> forward to DTLS
| | | |
| [64..79] -+--> forward to TURN Channel | [64..79] -+--> forward to TURN Channel
| | | |
| [128..191] -+--> forward to RTP | [128..191] -+--> forward to RTP
skipping to change at page 8, line 30 skipping to change at page 9, line 7
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit". they see fit".
Note that there is currently no implementation declared in this Note that there is currently no implementation declared in this
section, but the intent is to add RFC 6982 templates here from section, but the intent is to add RFC 6982 templates here from
implementers that support the modifications in this document. implementers that support the modifications in this document.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This document simply updates existing IANA registries and does not This document updates existing IANA registries, adds a new range for
introduce any specific security considerations beyond those detailed TURN channels in the demuxing algorithm, and madates an ascending
in [RFC5764]. order for testing the ranges in the demuxing algorithm.
These modifications do not introduce any specific security
considerations beyond those detailed in [RFC5764].
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
6.1. STUN Methods 6.1. STUN Methods
This specification contains the registration information for reserved 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: 0x100-0xFFF Value: 0x100-0xFFF
Name: Reserved (MUST be allocated with IETF Review) Name: Reserved (MUST be allocated with IETF Review. For DTLS-SRTP
multiplexing collision avoidance see RFC XXXX)
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: 0x000-0x07F Range: 0x000-0x07F
Registration Procedures: IETF Review Registration Procedures: IETF Review
Range: 0x080-0x0FF 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 reserved This specification contains the registration information for reserved
TLS ContentType codepoints, as explained in Section 1.2 and in TLS ContentType codepoints, as explained in Section 1.2 and in
skipping to change at page 9, line 18 skipping to change at page 9, line 48
Registration Procedures: Designated Expert Registration Procedures: Designated Expert
6.2. TLS ContentType 6.2. TLS ContentType
This specification contains the registration information for reserved This specification contains the registration information for reserved
TLS ContentType codepoints, as explained in Section 1.2 and in TLS ContentType codepoints, as explained in Section 1.2 and in
accordance 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 (MUST be allocated with Standards Action) Description: Reserved (MUST be allocated with Standards Action.
For DTLS-SRTP multiplexing collision avoidance see RFC XXXX)
DTLS-OK: N/A DTLS-OK: N/A
Reference: RFC5764, RFCXXXX Reference: RFC5764, RFCXXXX
Value: 64-255 Value: 64-255
Description: Reserved (MUST be allocated with Standards Action) Description: Reserved (MUST be allocated with Standards Action.
For DTLS-SRTP multiplexing collision avoidance see RFC XXXX)
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 reserved 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 1.3 and in
accordance with the procedures defined in Section 18 of [RFC5766]. accordance with the procedures defined in Section 18 of [RFC5766].
Value: 0x5000-0xFFFF Value: 0x5000-0xFFFF
Name: Reserved Name: Reserved (For DTLS-SRTP multiplexing collision avoidance see
RFC XXXX)
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
skipping to change at page 10, line 15 skipping to change at page 10, line 47
Thanks to Simon Perreault, Colton Shields, Cullen Jennings, Colin Thanks to Simon Perreault, Colton Shields, Cullen Jennings, Colin
Perkins, Magnus Westerlund, Paul Jones, Jonathan Lennox, Varun Singh Perkins, Magnus Westerlund, Paul Jones, Jonathan Lennox, Varun Singh
and Justin Uberti for the comments, suggestions, and questions that and Justin Uberti for the comments, suggestions, and questions that
helped improve this document. 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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003. Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550,
July 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>.
[RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K. [RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
RFC 3711, March 2004. RFC 3711, DOI 10.17487/RFC3711, March 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3711>.
[RFC5245] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment [RFC5245] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT)
Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245, April Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245,
2010. DOI 10.17487/RFC5245, April 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5245>.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008. (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
[RFC5389] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing, [RFC5389] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing,
"Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389, "Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389,
October 2008. DOI 10.17487/RFC5389, October 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5389>.
[RFC5764] McGrew, D. and E. Rescorla, "Datagram Transport Layer [RFC5764] McGrew, D. and E. Rescorla, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for the Secure Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for the Secure
Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 5764, May 2010. Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 5764,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5764, May 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5764>.
[RFC5766] Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using [RFC5766] Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using
Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to Session Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to Session
Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5766, April 2010. Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5766,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5766, April 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5766>.
[RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer [RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, January 2012. Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
January 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[RFC6982] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running [RFC6982] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", RFC 6982, July Code: The Implementation Status Section", RFC 6982,
2013. DOI 10.17487/RFC6982, July 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6982>.
[RFC7345] Holmberg, C., Sedlacek, I., and G. Salgueiro, "UDP [RFC7345] Holmberg, C., Sedlacek, I., and G. Salgueiro, "UDP
Transport Layer (UDPTL) over Datagram Transport Layer Transport Layer (UDPTL) over Datagram Transport Layer
Security (DTLS)", RFC 7345, August 2014. Security (DTLS)", RFC 7345, DOI 10.17487/RFC7345, August
2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7345>.
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation] [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation]
Holmberg, C., Alvestrand, H., and C. Jennings, Holmberg, C., Alvestrand, H., and C. Jennings,
"Negotiating Media Multiplexing Using the Session "Negotiating Media Multiplexing Using the Session
Description Protocol (SDP)", draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle- Description Protocol (SDP)", draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-
negotiation-18 (work in progress), March 2015. negotiation-23 (work in progress), July 2015.
[I-D.ietf-tram-stunbis]
Petit-Huguenin, M., Salgueiro, G., Rosenberg, J., Wing,
D., Mahy, R., and P. Matthews, "Session Traversal
Utilities for NAT (STUN)", draft-ietf-tram-stunbis-02
(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-01 and A.1. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-03 and
draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-00 draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-02
o Revert to the RFC 5389, as the stunbis reference was needed only
for STUN over SCTP.
A.2. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-02 and
draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01
o Remove any discussion about SCTP until a consensus emerges in o Remove any discussion about SCTP until a consensus emerges in
TRAM. TRAM.
A.2. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01 and A.3. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01 and
draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-00 draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-00
o Instead of allocating the values that are common on each registry, o Instead of allocating the values that are common on each registry,
the specification now only reserves them, giving the possibility the specification now only reserves them, giving the possibility
to allocate them in case muxing is irrelevant. to allocate them in case muxing is irrelevant.
o STUN range is now 0-3m with 2-3 being Designated Expert. 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 TLS ContentType 0-19 and 64-255 are now reserved.
skipping to change at page 12, line 7 skipping to change at page 13, line 7
TURN channels packets then the whole channel numbers are TURN channels packets then the whole channel numbers are
available. available.
o If not the prefix is between 64 and 79. o If not the prefix is between 64 and 79.
o First byte test order is now by incremental values, so failure is o First byte test order is now by incremental values, so failure is
deterministic. deterministic.
o Redraw the demuxing diagram. o Redraw the demuxing diagram.
A.3. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-00 and A.4. 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.4. Modifications between draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.5. 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. 45 change blocks. 
78 lines changed or deleted 116 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/