draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-09.txt   draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-10.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: December 17, 2016 June 15, 2016 Expires: January 6, 2017 July 5, 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-09 draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-10
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), Traversal Using Relays
Relays around NAT (TURN) packets are multiplexed on a single around NAT (TURN), and ZRTP packets are multiplexed on a single
receiving socket. It overrides the guidance from SRTP Extension for receiving socket. It overrides the guidance from RFC 5764 ("SRTP
DTLS [RFC5764], which suffered from three issues described and fixed Extension for DTLS"), which suffered from four issues described and
in this document. fixed in this document.
This document updates RFC 5764.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
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 December 17, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 6, 2017.
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
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.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
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. Multiplexing of ZRTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Multiplexing of ZRTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Implicit Allocation of New Codepoints for TLS ContentTypes . 5 5. Implicit Allocation of New Codepoints for TLS ContentTypes . 5
6. Multiplexing of TURN Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Multiplexing of TURN Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. RFC 5764 Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. RFC 5764 Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.1. STUN Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.1. STUN Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.2. TLS ContentType . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.2. TLS ContentType . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.3. Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Channel Numbers 10
10.3. TURN Channel Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Appendix A. Release notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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-09 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-08 . . 13 fixes-10 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-09 . . 12
A.2. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.2. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-
fixes-08 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-07 . . 13 fixes-09 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-08 . . 13
A.3. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.3. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-
fixes-07 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-06 . . 13 fixes-08 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-07 . . 13
A.4. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.4. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-
fixes-06 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-05 . . 13 fixes-07 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-06 . . 13
A.5. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.5. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-
fixes-05 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-04 . . 13 fixes-06 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-05 . . 13
A.6. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.6. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-
fixes-04 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-03 . . 13 fixes-05 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-04 . . 13
A.7. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.7. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-
fixes-03 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-02 . . 13 fixes-04 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-03 . . 13
A.8. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.8. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-
fixes-02 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01 . . 14 fixes-03 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-02 . . 13
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 fixes-02 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01 . . 13
A.10. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.10. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-
fixes-01 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-00 . . 14
A.11. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 fixes-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.11. Modifications between draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764 A.12. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 -mux-fixes-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 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
skipping to change at page 4, line 4 skipping to change at page 4, line 18
organizationally and socially undesirable. However, RFC 5764 has organizationally and socially undesirable. However, RFC 5764 has
been widely deployed so there must be an awareness of this issue and 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 how it must be dealt with. Thus, even if a codepoint is not
initially thought to be useful, the respective IANA registry expert initially thought to be useful, the respective IANA registry expert
should at least raise a flag when the allocated codepoint irrevocably should at least raise a flag when the allocated codepoint irrevocably
prevents multiplexing. 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 updating [RFC5764], which includes modifying the IANA registries with
between the protocols at risk. instructions for coordination 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.
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. Terminology 2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] when "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
they appear in ALL CAPS. When these words are not in ALL CAPS (such document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
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 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
skipping to change at page 7, line 42 skipping to change at page 7, line 42
received over a TURN channel since these packets will start with a received over a TURN channel since these packets will start with a
first byte whose value will be between 64 and 127 (inclusive). If first byte whose value will be between 64 and 127 (inclusive). If
the TURN server was instructed to send data over a TURN channel, then the TURN server was instructed to send data over a TURN channel, then
the current RFC 5764 demultiplexing scheme will reject these packets. the current RFC 5764 demultiplexing scheme will reject these packets.
Current implementations violate RFC 5764 for values 64 to 127 Current implementations violate RFC 5764 for values 64 to 127
(inclusive) and they instead parse packets with such values as TURN. (inclusive) and they instead parse packets with such values as TURN.
In order to prevent future documents from assigning values from the In order to prevent future documents from assigning values from the
unused range to a new protocol, this document modifies the RFC 5764 unused range to a new protocol, this document modifies the RFC 5764
demultiplexing algorithm to properly account for TURN channels 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. This
modification restricts the TURN channel space to a more limited set
of possible channels when the TURN client does the channel binding
request in combination with the demultiplexing scheme described in
[RFC5764].
7. 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 9, line 7 skipping to change at page 9, line 21
| | | |
| [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
8. Implementation Status 8. Security Considerations
[[Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section and the reference to
[RFC6982] before publication.]]
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC6982].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.
According to [RFC6982], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit".
Note that there is currently no implementation declared in this
section, but the intent is to add RFC 6982 templates here from
implementers that support the modifications in this document.
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].
10. IANA Considerations 9. IANA Considerations
10.1. 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 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 10, line 17 skipping to change at page 10, line 4
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
10.2. 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 5 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
skipping to change at page 10, line 42 skipping to change at page 10, line 28
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
10.3. TURN Channel Numbers 9.3. Traversal Using Relays around NAT (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 6 and in Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Channel Numbers codepoints,
accordance with the procedures defined in Section 18 of [RFC5766]. as explained in Section 6 and in 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.]
11. 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, Joseph Salowey, Martin Thomson, Ben Campbell, Stephen Justin Uberti, Joseph Salowey, Martin Thomson, Ben Campbell, Stephen
Farrell, Alan Johnston and Paul Kyzivat for the comments, Farrell, Alan Johnston and Paul Kyzivat for the comments,
suggestions, and questions that helped improve this document. suggestions, and questions that helped improve this document.
12. References 11. References
12.1. 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>.
skipping to change at page 12, line 31 skipping to change at page 12, line 21
[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>.
12.2. Informative References 11.2. Informative References
[RFC6189] Zimmermann, P., Johnston, A., Ed., and J. Callas, "ZRTP: [RFC6189] Zimmermann, P., Johnston, A., Ed., and J. Callas, "ZRTP:
Media Path Key Agreement for Unicast Secure RTP", Media Path Key Agreement for Unicast Secure RTP",
RFC 6189, DOI 10.17487/RFC6189, April 2011, RFC 6189, DOI 10.17487/RFC6189, April 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6189>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6189>.
[RFC6982] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", RFC 6982,
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, 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>.
[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-31 (work in progress), June 2016.
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-09 and A.1. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-10 and
draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-09
o Removed Implementation Status section.
o Updated based on Magnus Westerlund's LC review comments.
A.2. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-09 and
draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-08 draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-08
o Added ZRTP awareness to demultiplexing logic. o Added ZRTP awareness to demultiplexing logic.
A.2. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-08 and A.3. 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.3. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-07 and A.4. 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.4. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-06 and A.5. 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.5. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-05 and A.6. 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.6. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-04 and A.7. 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.7. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-03 and A.8. 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.8. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-02 and A.9. 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.9. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01 and A.10. 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.
o Add SCTP over UDP value. o Add SCTP over UDP value.
skipping to change at page 14, line 35 skipping to change at page 14, 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.10. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-00 and A.11. 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.11. Modifications between draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- A.12. 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. 46 change blocks. 
97 lines changed or deleted 90 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/