draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-08.txt   draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-09.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: November 26, 2016 May 25, 2016 Expires: December 17, 2016 June 15, 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-08 draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-09
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 November 26, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 17, 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 14 skipping to change at page 2, line 14
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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. Multiplexing of ZRTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Multiplexing of TURN Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Implicit Allocation of New Codepoints for TLS ContentTypes . 5
6. RFC 5764 Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Multiplexing of TURN Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. RFC 5764 Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.1. STUN Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.2. TLS ContentType . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10.1. STUN Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.3. TURN Channel Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10.2. TLS ContentType . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10.3. TURN Channel Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Release notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Release notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.1. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.1. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-
fixes-08 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-07 . . 12 fixes-09 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-08 . . 13
A.2. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.2. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-
fixes-07 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-06 . . 12 fixes-08 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-07 . . 13
A.3. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.3. 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 . . 13
A.4. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.4. 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 . . 13
A.5. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.5. 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 . . 13
A.6. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.6. 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 . . 13
A.7. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.7. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-
fixes-02 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01 . . 13 fixes-03 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-02 . . 13
A.8. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.8. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-
fixes-01 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-00 . . 13 fixes-02 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01 . . 14
A.9. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.9. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-
fixes-01 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-00 . . 14
A.10. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.10. Modifications between draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764 A.11. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
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 RTP Control Protocol (SRTCP) [RFC3711] packets that are (SRTP)/Secure RTP Control Protocol (SRTCP) [RFC3711] packets that are
arriving on the RTP port. Unfortunately, this demultiplexing scheme arriving on the RTP port. Unfortunately, this demultiplexing scheme
has created problematic issues: 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 did not take into account the fact that ZRTP [RFC6189] also
needs to be demultiplexed with the other packet types explicitly
mentioned in Section 5.1.2 of RFC 5764.
3. 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 4. 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 analyzing 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. Among other registries when that codepoint is demultiplexed. Among other
downsides of the bad design of the demultiplexing algorithm detailed downsides of the bad design of the demultiplexing algorithm detailed
in [RFC5764], it creates a requirement for coordination between in [RFC5764], it creates a requirement for coordination between
skipping to change at page 5, line 9 skipping to change at page 5, line 16
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
4. Implicit Allocation of New Codepoints for TLS ContentTypes 4. Multiplexing of ZRTP
ZRTP [RFC6189] is a protocol for media path Diffie-Hellman exchange
to agree on a session key and parameters for establishing unicast
Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) sessions for Voice over IP
(VoIP) applications. The ZRTP protocol is media path keying because
it is multiplexed on the same port as RTP and does not require
support in the signaling protocol.
In order to prevent future documents from assigning values from the
unused range to a new protocol, this document modifies the [RFC5764]
demultiplexing algorithm to properly account for ZRTP [RFC6189] by
allocating the values from 16 to 19 for this purpose.
5. 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. For DTLS 1.0 [RFC4347] and DTLS 1.2 [RFC6347] identified to be DTLS. For DTLS 1.0 [RFC4347] and DTLS 1.2 [RFC6347]
that first byte corresponds to the TLS ContentType field. that first byte corresponds to the TLS ContentType field.
Considerations must be taken into account when assigning additional Considerations must be taken into account when assigning additional
ContentTypes in the code point ranges 0 to 19 and 64 to 255 so this ContentTypes in the code point ranges 0 to 19 and 64 to 255 so this
does not prevent demultiplexing when this functionality is desirable. does not prevent demultiplexing when this functionality is desirable.
Note that [RFC5764] describes a narrow use of DTLS that works as long Note that [RFC5764] describes a narrow use of DTLS that works as long
as the specific DTLS version used abides by the restrictions on the as the specific DTLS version used abides by the restrictions on the
skipping to change at page 6, line 5 skipping to change at page 6, line 26
0-19 Unassigned (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 Unassigned (Requires coordination, see RFCXXXX) 64-255 Unassigned (Requires coordination, see RFCXXXX)
5. Multiplexing of TURN Channels 6. 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 7, line 10 skipping to change at page 7, 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.
6. RFC 5764 Updates 7. 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 43 skipping to change at page 8, line 30
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. If the in between 0 and 3 (inclusive), then the packet is STUN. If the
value is between 20 and 63 (inclusive), then the packet is DTLS. If value is between 16 and 19 (inclusive), then the packet is ZRTP. If
the value is between 64 and 79 (inclusive), then the packet is TURN the value is between 20 and 63 (inclusive), then the packet is DTLS.
Channel. If the value is in between 128 and 191 (inclusive), then If the value is between 64 and 79 (inclusive), then the packet is
the packet is RTP (or RTCP, if both RTCP and RTP are being TURN Channel. If the value is in between 128 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 value does not multiplexed over the same destination port). If the value does not
match any known range then the packet MUST be dropped and an alert match any known range then the packet MUST be dropped and an 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
| | | |
| [16..19] -+--> forward to ZRTP
| |
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/RTCP | [128..191] -+--> forward to RTP/RTCP
+----------------+ +----------------+
Figure 3: The DTLS-SRTP receiver's packet demultiplexing algorithm. Figure 3: The DTLS-SRTP receiver's packet demultiplexing algorithm.
END NEW TEXT END NEW TEXT
7. Implementation Status 8. 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
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
skipping to change at page 8, line 48 skipping to change at page 9, line 36
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
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.
8. Security Considerations 9. Security Considerations
This document updates existing IANA registries and adds a new range This document updates existing IANA registries and adds a new range
for TURN channels in the demuxing algorithm. for TURN channels 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 10. IANA Considerations
9.1. STUN Methods 10.1. 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 3 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 34 skipping to change at page 10, line 20
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
9.2. TLS ContentType 10.2. 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 5 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: Unassigned (Requires coordination, see RFCXXXX) Description: Unassigned (Requires coordination, see RFCXXXX)
DTLS-OK: N/A DTLS-OK: N/A
Reference: RFC5764, RFCXXXX Reference: RFC5764, RFCXXXX
skipping to change at page 10, line 4 skipping to change at page 10, line 39
DTLS-OK: N/A DTLS-OK: N/A
Reference: RFC5764, RFCXXXX Reference: RFC5764, RFCXXXX
Value: 64-255 Value: 64-255
Description: Unassigned (Requires coordination, see RFCXXXX)) Description: Unassigned (Requires coordination, see RFCXXXX))
DTLS-OK: N/A DTLS-OK: N/A
Reference: RFC5764, RFCXXXX Reference: RFC5764, RFCXXXX
9.3. TURN Channel Numbers 10.3. 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 6 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 11. 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, Joseph Salowey, Martin Thomson, Ben Campbell, Stephen Justin Uberti, Joseph Salowey, Martin Thomson, Ben Campbell, Stephen
Farrell and Paul Kyzivat for the comments, suggestions, and questions Farrell, Alan Johnston and Paul Kyzivat for the comments,
that helped improve this document. suggestions, and questions that helped improve this document.
11. References 12. References
11.1. Normative References 12.1. 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>.
skipping to change at page 11, line 41 skipping to change at page 12, line 31
[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, Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5766,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5766, April 2010, DOI 10.17487/RFC5766, April 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5766>. <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, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347, Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
January 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>. January 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>.
11.2. Informative References 12.2. Informative References
[RFC6189] Zimmermann, P., Johnston, A., Ed., and J. Callas, "ZRTP:
Media Path Key Agreement for Unicast Secure RTP",
RFC 6189, DOI 10.17487/RFC6189, April 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6189>.
[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, Code: The Implementation Status Section", RFC 6982,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6982, July 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6982, July 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6982>. <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, DOI 10.17487/RFC7345, August Security (DTLS)", RFC 7345, DOI 10.17487/RFC7345, August
2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7345>. 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7345>.
skipping to change at page 12, line 15 skipping to change at page 13, line 9
[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-08 and A.1. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-09 and
draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-08
o Added ZRTP awareness to demultiplexing logic.
A.2. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-08 and
draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-07 draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-07
o Minor update to Security Considerations section. o Minor update to Security Considerations section.
A.2. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-07 and A.3. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-07 and
draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-06 draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-06
o Addresses Martin Thomson, Ben Campbell and Stephen Farrell's o Addresses Martin Thomson, Ben Campbell and Stephen Farrell's
review comments about TLS ContentType registrations. review comments about TLS ContentType registrations.
A.3. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-06 and A.4. 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.4. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-05 and A.5. 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.5. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-04 and A.6. 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.6. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-03 and A.7. 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.7. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-02 and A.8. 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.8. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01 and A.9. 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 35 skipping to change at page 14, line 35
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.9. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-00 and A.10. 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.10. Modifications between draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.11. 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. 48 change blocks. 
65 lines changed or deleted 98 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/