draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-04.txt   draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-05.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: July 29, 2016 January 26, 2016 Expires: July 29, 2016 January 26, 2016
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-04 draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-05
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 2, line 12 skipping to change at page 2, line 12
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
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
2. Implicit Allocation of Codepoints for New STUN Methods . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Implicit Allocation of New Codepoints for TLS ContentTypes . 4 3. Implicit Allocation of Codepoints for New STUN Methods . . . 4
4. Multiplexing of TURN Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Implicit Allocation of New Codepoints for TLS ContentTypes . 4
5. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Multiplexing of TURN Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. RFC 5764 Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. RFC 5764 Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. STUN Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9.1. STUN Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.2. TLS ContentType . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.2. TLS ContentType . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.3. TURN Channel Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.3. TURN Channel Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Release notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Appendix A. Release notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
A.1. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.1. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-
fixes-04 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-03 . . 11 fixes-05 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-04 . . 12
A.2. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.2. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-
fixes-03 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-02 . . 12 fixes-04 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-03 . . 12
A.3. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.3. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-
fixes-02 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01 . . 12 fixes-03 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-02 . . 12
A.4. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.4. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-
fixes-01 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-00 . . 12 fixes-02 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01 . . 12
A.5. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.5. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-
fixes-01 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-00 . . 12
A.6. 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.6. Modifications between draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764 A.7. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 -mux-fixes-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
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
skipping to change at page 3, line 43 skipping to change at page 3, line 45
A second goal is to permit the addition of new protocols to the list 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 of existing multiplexed protocols in a manner that does not break
existing implementations. existing implementations.
The flaws in the demultiplexing scheme were unavoidably inherited by The flaws in the demultiplexing scheme were unavoidably inherited by
other documents, such as [RFC7345] and other documents, such as [RFC7345] and
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation]. So in addition, these and [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation]. So in addition, these and
any other affected documents will need to be corrected with the any other affected documents will need to be corrected with the
updates this document provides. updates this document provides.
2. Implicit Allocation of Codepoints for New STUN Methods 2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL"
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
as "must" or "Must"), they have their usual English meanings, and are
not to be interpreted as RFC 2119 key words.
3. 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 eliminating the possibility of having STUN 2048 to only 128 and eliminating the possibility of having STUN
skipping to change at page 4, line 33 skipping to change at page 4, line 43
0x000-0x7FF IETF Review 0x000-0x7FF IETF Review
0x800-0xFFF Designated Expert 0x800-0xFFF Designated Expert
NEW: NEW:
0x000-0x07F IETF Review 0x000-0x07F IETF Review
0x080-0x0FF Designated Expert 0x080-0x0FF Designated Expert
0x100-0xFFF Reserved 0x100-0xFFF Reserved
3. Implicit Allocation of New Codepoints for TLS ContentTypes 4. 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. With respect to TLS ContentType codepoints 0 to 19 and 64 to 255. With respect to TLS
packet identification, this document simply explicitly reserves the 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
skipping to change at page 5, line 24 skipping to change at page 5, line 30
0-19 Reserved (Requires coordination, see RFCXXXX) 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 (Requires coordination, see RFCXXXX) 64-255 Reserved (Requires coordination, see RFCXXXX)
4. Multiplexing of TURN Channels 5. 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 6, line 28 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.
5. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL"
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
as "must" or "Must"), they have their usual English meanings, and are
not to be interpreted as RFC 2119 key words.
6. RFC 5764 Updates 6. RFC 5764 Updates
This document updates the text in Section 5.1.2 of [RFC5764] as This document updates the text in Section 5.1.2 of [RFC5764] as
follows: follows:
OLD TEXT OLD 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
0 or 1, then the packet is STUN. If the value is in between 128 and 0 or 1, then the packet is STUN. If the value is in between 128 and
191 (inclusive), then the packet is RTP (or RTCP, if both RTCP and 191 (inclusive), then the packet is RTP (or RTCP, if both RTCP and
RTP are being multiplexed over the same destination port). If the RTP are being multiplexed over the same destination port). If the
value is between 20 and 63 (inclusive), the packet is DTLS. This value is between 20 and 63 (inclusive), the packet is DTLS. This
process is summarized in Figure 3. process is summarized in Figure 3.
+----------------+ +----------------+
| 127 < B < 192 -+--> forward to RTP | 127 < B < 192 -+--> forward to RTP
skipping to change at page 7, line 22 skipping to change at page 7, line 29
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 3 (inclusive), then the packet is STUN. Then if the in between 0 and 3 (inclusive), then the packet is STUN. If the
value is between 20 and 63 (inclusive), the packet is DTLS. Then if value is between 20 and 63 (inclusive), then the packet is DTLS. If
the value is between 64 and 79 (inclusive), the packet is TURN the value is between 64 and 79 (inclusive), then the packet is TURN
Channel. Then if the value is in between 128 and 191 (inclusive), Channel. If the value is in between 128 and 191 (inclusive), then
then the packet is RTP (or RTCP, if both RTCP and RTP are being 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). If the value does not
not match any known range then the packet MUST be dropped and an match any known range then the packet MUST be dropped and an alert
alert MAY be logged. This process is summarized in Figure 3. MAY be logged. This process is summarized in Figure 3.
+----------------+ +----------------+
| [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 40 skipping to change at page 8, line 48
order for testing the ranges in the demuxing algorithm. order for testing the ranges in the demuxing algorithm.
These modifications do not introduce any specific security These modifications do not introduce any specific security
considerations beyond those detailed in [RFC5764]. considerations beyond those detailed in [RFC5764].
9. IANA Considerations 9. IANA Considerations
9.1. STUN Methods 9.1. 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 2 and in accordance STUN Methods codepoints, as explained in Section 3 and in accordance
with the procedures defined in Section 18.1 of [RFC5389]. with the procedures defined in Section 18.1 of [RFC5389].
Value: 0x100-0xFFF Value: 0x100-0xFFF
Name: Reserved (MUST be allocated with IETF Review. For DTLS-SRTP Name: Reserved (MUST be allocated with IETF Review. For DTLS-SRTP
multiplexing collision avoidance see RFC XXXX) 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
skipping to change at page 9, line 16 skipping to change at page 9, line 23
Registration Procedures: IETF Review Registration Procedures: IETF Review
Range: 0x080-0x0FF Range: 0x080-0x0FF
Registration Procedures: Designated Expert Registration Procedures: Designated Expert
9.2. TLS ContentType 9.2. 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 3 and in TLS ContentType codepoints, as explained in Section 4 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) For DTLS-SRTP multiplexing collision avoidance see RFC XXXX)
DTLS-OK: N/A DTLS-OK: N/A
Reference: RFC5764, RFCXXXX Reference: RFC5764, RFCXXXX
skipping to change at page 9, line 40 skipping to change at page 9, line 47
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) For DTLS-SRTP multiplexing collision avoidance see RFC XXXX)
DTLS-OK: N/A DTLS-OK: N/A
Reference: RFC5764, RFCXXXX Reference: RFC5764, RFCXXXX
9.3. TURN Channel Numbers 9.3. 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 4 and in TURN Channel Numbers codepoints, as explained in Section 5 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 (For DTLS-SRTP multiplexing collision avoidance see Name: Reserved (For DTLS-SRTP multiplexing collision avoidance see
RFC XXXX) 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.]
10. Acknowledgements 10. Acknowledgements
skipping to change at page 10, line 12 skipping to change at page 10, line 19
[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.]
10. Acknowledgements 10. 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, 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 Justin Uberti and Paul Kyzivat for the comments, suggestions, and
helped improve this document. questions that helped improve this document.
11. References 11. References
11.1. Normative References 11.1. 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, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
skipping to change at page 11, line 43 skipping to change at page 12, line 5
[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-23 (work in progress), July 2015. negotiation-23 (work in progress), July 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-04 and A.1. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-05 and
draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-04
o Removed some remnants of the ordering from Section 6
o Moved Terminology from Section 5 to Section 2
A.2. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-04 and
draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-03 draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-03
o Removed Section on "Demultiplexing Algorithm Test Order" o Removed Section on "Demultiplexing Algorithm Test Order"
o Split the Introduction into separate sections o Split the Introduction into separate sections
A.2. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-03 and A.3. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-03 and
draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-02 draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-02
o Revert to the RFC 5389, as the stunbis reference was needed only o Revert to the RFC 5389, as the stunbis reference was needed only
for STUN over SCTP. for STUN over SCTP.
A.3. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-02 and A.4. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-02 and
draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01 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.4. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01 and A.5. 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 41 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.5. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-00 and A.6. 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.6. Modifications between draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.7. 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. 27 change blocks. 
46 lines changed or deleted 52 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/