draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-06.txt   draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-07.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 3, 2016 March 2, 2016 Expires: November 11, 2016 May 10, 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-06 draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-07
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), RTP Control Protocol (RTCP), Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP), RTP Control Protocol (RTCP),
Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN), and Traversal Using Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN), and Traversal Using
Relays around NAT (TURN) packets are multiplexed on a single Relays around NAT (TURN) packets are multiplexed on a single
receiving socket. It overrides the guidance from SRTP Extension for receiving socket. It overrides the guidance from SRTP Extension for
DTLS [RFC5764], which suffered from three issues described and fixed DTLS [RFC5764], which suffered from three issues described and fixed
in this document. 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 3, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 11, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 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 15 skipping to change at page 2, line 15
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Implicit Allocation of Codepoints for New STUN Methods . . . 4 3. Implicit Allocation of Codepoints for New STUN Methods . . . 4
4. Implicit Allocation of New Codepoints for TLS ContentTypes . 5 4. Implicit Allocation of New Codepoints for TLS ContentTypes . 5
5. Multiplexing of TURN Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Multiplexing of TURN Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. RFC 5764 Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. RFC 5764 Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.1. STUN Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9.1. STUN Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.2. TLS ContentType . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.2. TLS ContentType . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.3. TURN Channel Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.3. TURN Channel Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A.1. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.1. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-
fixes-06 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-05 . . 12 fixes-07 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-06 . . 12
A.2. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.2. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-
fixes-05 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-04 . . 12 fixes-06 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-05 . . 12
A.3. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.3. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-
fixes-04 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-03 . . 12 fixes-05 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-04 . . 12
A.4. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.4. 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.5. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.5. 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.6. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.6. 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.7. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.7. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-
fixes-01 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-00 . . 13
A.8. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 fixes-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.8. Modifications between draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764 A.9. 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 30 skipping to change at page 3, line 30
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.
Having overlapping ranges between different IANA registries becomes Having overlapping ranges between different IANA registries becomes
an issue when a new codepoint is allocated in one of these registries an issue when a new codepoint is allocated in one of these registries
without carefully anyalyzing the impact it could have on the other without carefully analyzing the impact it could have on the other
registries when that codepoint is demultiplexed. Even if a codepoint registries when that codepoint is demultiplexed. Among other
is not initially thought to be useful in an RFC 5764 implementation, downsides of the bad design of the demultiplexing algorithm detailed
the respective IANA registry expert should at least raise a flag when in [RFC5764], it creates a requirement for coordination between
the allocated codepoint irrevocably prevents multiplexing. codepoint assignments where none should exist, and that is
organizationally and socially undesirable. However, RFC 5764 has
been widely deployed so there must be an awareness of this issue and
how it must be dealt with. Thus, even if a codepoint is not
initially thought to be useful, the respective IANA registry expert
should at least raise a flag when the allocated codepoint irrevocably
prevents multiplexing.
The first goal of this document is to make sure that future The first goal of this document is to make sure that future
allocations in any of the affected protocols are done with the full allocations in any of the affected protocols are done with the full
knowledge of their impact on multiplexing. This is achieved by knowledge of their impact on multiplexing. This is achieved by
modifying the IANA registries with instructions for coordination modifying the IANA registries with instructions for coordination
between the protocols at risk. between the protocols at risk.
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.
skipping to change at page 5, line 9 skipping to change at page 5, line 13
NEW: NEW:
0x000-0x07F IETF Review 0x000-0x07F IETF Review
0x080-0x0FF Designated Expert 0x080-0x0FF Designated Expert
0x100-0xFFF Reserved 0x100-0xFFF Reserved
4. 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. For DTLS 1.0 [RFC4347] and DTLS 1.2 [RFC6347]
restricts the TLS ContentType codepoints (as defined in Section 12 of that first byte corresponds to the TLS ContentType field.
[RFC5246]) to this range, and by extension implicitly allocates Considerations must be taken into account when assigning additional
ContentType codepoints 0 to 19 and 64 to 255. With respect to TLS ContentTypes in the code point ranges 0 to 19 and 64 to 255 so this
packet identification, this document simply explicitly reserves the does not prevent demultiplexing when this functionality is desirable.
codepoints from 0 to 19 and from 64 to 255. These codepoints can Note that [RFC5764] describes a narrow use of DTLS that works as long
still be allocated, but require Standards Action with a document that as the specific DTLS version used abides by the restrictions on the
will properly evaluate the risk of an assignment overlapping with demultiplexing byte (the ones that this document imposes on the TLS
other registries. The proposed changes to the TLS ContentTypes ContentType Registry). Any extension or revision to DTLS that causes
Registry are: it to no longer meet these constraints should consider what values
may occur in the first byte of the DTLS message and what impact it
would have on the multiplexing that [RFC5764] describes.
With respect to TLS packet identification, this document explicitly
adds a warning to the codepoints from 0 to 19 and from 64 to 255
indicating that allocations in these ranges require coordination, as
described in this document. The proposed changes to the TLS
ContentType 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 (Requires coordination, see RFCXXXX) 0-19 Unassigned (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 Unassigned (Requires coordination, see RFCXXXX)
5. 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
skipping to change at page 9, line 28 skipping to change at page 9, line 42
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 4 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: Unassigned (Requires coordination, see RFCXXXX)
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: Unassigned (Requires coordination, see RFCXXXX))
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 5 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 20 skipping to change at page 10, line 30
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,
Justin Uberti and Paul Kyzivat for the comments, suggestions, and Justin Uberti, Joseph Salowey, Martin Thomson, Ben Campbell, Stephen
questions that helped improve this document. Farrell and Paul Kyzivat for the comments, suggestions, and 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>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550, Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550,
July 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/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, DOI 10.17487/RFC3711, March 2004, RFC 3711, DOI 10.17487/RFC3711, March 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3711>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3711>.
[RFC4347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security", RFC 4347, DOI 10.17487/RFC4347, April 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4347>.
[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, Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5245, April 2010, DOI 10.17487/RFC5245, April 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5245>. <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, (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
skipping to change at page 12, line 5 skipping to change at page 12, line 15
[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-06 and A.1. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-07 and
draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-06
o Addresses Martin Thomson, Ben Campbell and Stephen Farrell's
review comments about TLS ContentType registrations.
A.2. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-06 and
draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-05 draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-05
o Addresses Colin's WGLC review comments o Addresses Colin's WGLC review comments
A.2. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-05 and A.3. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-05 and
draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-04 draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-04
o Removed some remnants of the ordering from Section 6 o Removed some remnants of the ordering from Section 6
o Moved Terminology from Section 5 to Section 2 o Moved Terminology from Section 5 to Section 2
A.3. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-04 and A.4. 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.4. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-03 and A.5. 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.5. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-02 and A.6. 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.6. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01 and A.7. 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 13, line 12 skipping to change at page 13, line 29
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.7. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-00 and A.8. 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.8. Modifications between draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.9. 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. 33 change blocks. 
48 lines changed or deleted 73 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/