draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-04.txt   draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-05.txt 
Network Working Group S. Dhesikan Network Working Group S. Dhesikan
Internet-Draft C. Jennings Internet-Draft C. Jennings
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Expires: January 07, 2016 D. Druta, Ed. Expires: April 18, 2016 D. Druta, Ed.
AT&T AT&T
P. Jones P. Jones
J. Polk
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
July 06, 2015 October 16, 2015
DSCP and other packet markings for RTCWeb QoS DSCP and other packet markings for WebRTC QoS
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-04 draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-05
Abstract Abstract
Many networks, such as service provider and enterprise networks, can Many networks, such as service provider and enterprise networks, can
provide treatment for individual packets based on Differentiated provide treatment for individual packets based on Differentiated
Services Code Point (DSCP) values on a per-hop basis. This document Services Code Point (DSCP) values on a per-hop basis. This document
provides the recommended DSCP values for browsers to use for various provides the recommended DSCP values for browsers to use for various
classes of traffic. classes of traffic.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 39 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 January 07, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 18, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 17 skipping to change at page 2, line 16
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Relation to Other Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Relation to Other Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. DSCP Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. DSCP Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Downward References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Downward References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 10. Dedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 11. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Differentiated Services Code Points (DSCP) [RFC2474] style packet Differentiated Services Code Points (DSCP) [RFC2474] style packet
marking can help provide QoS in some environments. There are many marking can help provide QoS in some environments. There are many
use cases where such marking does not help, but it seldom makes use cases where such marking does not help, but it seldom makes
things worse if packets are marked appropriately. In other words, if things worse if packets are marked appropriately. In other words, if
too many packets, say all audio or all audio and video, are marked too many packets, say all audio or all audio and video, are marked
for a given network condition then it can prevent desirable results. for a given network condition then it can prevent desirable results.
Either too much other traffic will be starved, or there is not enough Either too much other traffic will be starved, or there is not enough
skipping to change at page 3, line 11 skipping to change at page 3, line 11
2. Residential Networks. If the congested link is the broadband 2. Residential Networks. If the congested link is the broadband
uplink in a cable or DSL scenario, often residential routers/NAT uplink in a cable or DSL scenario, often residential routers/NAT
support preferential treatment based on DSCP. support preferential treatment based on DSCP.
3. Wireless Networks. If the congested link is a local wireless 3. Wireless Networks. If the congested link is a local wireless
network, marking may help. network, marking may help.
Traditionally DSCP values have been thought of as being site Traditionally DSCP values have been thought of as being site
specific, with each site selecting its own code points for specific, with each site selecting its own code points for
controlling per-hop-behavior to influence the QoS for transport controlling per-hop-behavior to influence the QoS for transport
flows. However in the RTCWeb use cases, the browsers need to set flows. However in the WebRTC use cases, the browsers need to set
them to something when there is no site specific information. In them to something when there is no site specific information. In
this document, "browsers" is used synonymously with "Interactive User this document, "browsers" is used synonymously with "Interactive User
Agent" as defined in the HTML specification, Agent" as defined in the HTML specification,
[W3C.REC-html5-20141028]. This document describes a subset of DSCP [W3C.REC-html5-20141028]. This document describes a subset of DSCP
code point values drawn from existing RFCs and common usage for use code point values drawn from existing RFCs and common usage for use
with WebRTC applications. These code points are solely defaults. with WebRTC applications. These code points are solely defaults.
This specification defines some inputs that the browser in a WebRTC This specification defines some inputs that the browser in a WebRTC
application can consider to aid in determining how to set the various application can consider to aid in determining how to set the various
packet markings and defines the mapping from abstract QoS policies packet markings and defines the mapping from abstract QoS policies
skipping to change at page 3, line 38 skipping to change at page 3, line 38
communications. It covers the implications of using various DSCP communications. It covers the implications of using various DSCP
values, particularly focusing on Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) values, particularly focusing on Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP)
[RFC3550] streams that are multiplexed onto a single transport-layer [RFC3550] streams that are multiplexed onto a single transport-layer
flow. flow.
There are a number of guidelines specified in There are a number of guidelines specified in
[I-D.ietf-dart-dscp-rtp] that should be followed when marking traffic [I-D.ietf-dart-dscp-rtp] that should be followed when marking traffic
sent by WebRTC applications, as it is common for multiple RTP streams sent by WebRTC applications, as it is common for multiple RTP streams
to be multiplexed on the same transport flow. Generally, the RTP to be multiplexed on the same transport flow. Generally, the RTP
streams would be marked with a value as appropriate from Table 1. A streams would be marked with a value as appropriate from Table 1. A
WebRTC application might multiplex data channel traffic over the same WebRTC application might also multiplex data channel
5-tuple as RTP streams, which would also be marked as per that table. [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel] traffic over the same 5-tuple as RTP
The guidance in [I-D.ietf-dart-dscp-rtp] indicates that all data streams, which would also be marked as per that table. The guidance
channel traffic would be marked with a single value that is different in [I-D.ietf-dart-dscp-rtp] says that all data channel traffic would
than the value(s) used for RTP streams multiplexed with the data be marked with a single value that is typically different than the
channel traffic over the same 5-tuple, assuming RTP streams are value(s) used for RTP streams multiplexed with the data channel
marked with a value other than default forwarding (DF). traffic over the same 5-tuple, assuming RTP streams are marked with a
value other than default forwarding (DF). This is expanded upon
In the event that RTP streams are carried over a reliable transport further in the next section.
(e.g., TCP), all such packets, even there are multiple RTP streams
that would be marked differently if sent via an unreliable transport,
must be marked with a single DSCP value.
This specification does not change or override the advice in any This specification does not change or override the advice in any
other standards about setting packet markings. It simply selects a other standards about setting packet markings. It simply selects a
subset of DSCP values that is relevant in the RTCWeb context. In subset of DSCP values that is relevant in the WebRTC context. This
some cases, such as DSCP where the normative RFC leaves open multiple document also specifies the inputs that are needed by the browser to
options from which to choose, this clarifies which values should be provide to the media engine.
used in the RTCWeb context. This document also specifies the inputs
that are needed by the browser to provide to the media engine.
The DSCP value set by the endpoint is not always trusted by the The DSCP value set by the endpoint is not always trusted by the
network. Therefore, the DSCP value may be remarked at any place in network. Therefore, the DSCP value may be remarked at any place in
the network for a variety of reasons to any other DSCP value, the network for a variety of reasons to any other DSCP value,
including default forwarding (DF) value to provide basic best effort including default forwarding (DF) value to provide basic best effort
service. The mitigation for such action is through an authorization service. The mitigation for such action is through an authorization
mechanism. Such authorization mechanism is outside the scope of this mechanism. Such authorization mechanism is outside the scope of this
document. There is benefit in marking traffic even if it only document. There is benefit in marking traffic even if it only
benefits the first few hops. benefits the first few hops.
3. Terminology 3. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", and "MAY" The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
4. Inputs 4. Inputs
The below uses the concept of a media flow, however this is usually The below uses the concept of a media flow, however this is usually
not equivalent to a transport flow defined by a 5-tuple (source not equivalent to a transport flow defined by a 5-tuple (source
address, destination address, source port, destination port, and address, destination address, source port, destination port, and
protocol). Instead each media flow contains all the packets protocol). Instead each media flow contains all the packets
associated with an independent media entity within one 5-tuple. associated with an independent media entity within one 5-tuple.
There may be multiple media flows within the same 5-tuple. These There may be multiple media flows within the same 5-tuple. These
media flows might consist of different media types and have different media flows might consist of different media types and have different
skipping to change at page 5, line 15 skipping to change at page 5, line 10
As an example of different media flows that might be multiplexed over As an example of different media flows that might be multiplexed over
the same transport flow, packets related to one RTP stream (e.g., an the same transport flow, packets related to one RTP stream (e.g., an
audio flow) carried over UDP might be one media flow, packets related audio flow) carried over UDP might be one media flow, packets related
to a second RTP stream (e.g., presentation video) carried over UDP to a second RTP stream (e.g., presentation video) carried over UDP
might be a second media flow, and finally data channel packets might be a second media flow, and finally data channel packets
carried via SCTP over DTLS might be third media flow. carried via SCTP over DTLS might be third media flow.
5. DSCP Mappings 5. DSCP Mappings
Below is a table of DSCP markings for each data type of interest to Below is a table of DSCP markings for each data type of interest to
RTCWeb. These DSCP values for each data type listed are a reasonable WebRTC. These DSCP values for each data type listed are a reasonable
subset of code point values taken from [RFC4594]. A web browser subset of code point values taken from [RFC4594]. A web browser
SHOULD use these values to mark the appropriate media packets. More SHOULD use these values to mark the appropriate media packets. More
information on EF can be found in [RFC3246]. More information on AF information on EF can be found in [RFC3246]. More information on AF
can be found in [RFC2597]. DF is default forwarding which provides can be found in [RFC2597]. DF is default forwarding which provides
the basic best effort service. the basic best effort service.
+---------------------------+-------+------+------------+-----------+ +------------------------+-------+------+-------------+-------------+
| Data Type | Very | Low | Medium | High | | Data Type | Very | Low | Medium | High |
| | Low | | | | | | Low | | | |
+---------------------------+-------+------+------------+-----------+ +------------------------+-------+------+-------------+-------------+
| Audio | CS1 | DF | EF (46) | EF (46) | | Audio | CS1 | DF | EF (46) | EF (46) |
| | (8) | (0) | | | | | (8) | (0) | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| Interactive Video with or | CS1 | DF | AF42, AF43 | AF41, | | Interactive Video with | CS1 | DF | AF42, AF43 | AF41, AF42 |
| without audio | (8) | (0) | (36, 38) | AF42 (34, | | or without audio | (8) | (0) | (36, 38) | (34, 36) |
| | | | | 36) | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Non-Interactive Video | CS1 | DF | AF32, AF33 | AF31, AF32 |
| Non-Interactive Video | CS1 | DF | AF32, AF33 | AF31, | | with or without audio | (8) | (0) | (28, 30) | (26, 28) |
| with or without audio | (8) | (0) | (28, 30) | AF32 (26, | | | | | | |
| | | | | 28) | | Data | CS1 | DF | AF11 | AF21 |
| | | | | | | | (8) | (0) | | |
| Data | CS1 | DF | AF1x (10, | AF2x (18, | +------------------------+-------+------+-------------+-------------+
| | (8) | (0) | 12, 14) | 20, 22) |
+---------------------------+-------+------+------------+-----------+
Table 1 Table 1: Recommended DSCP Values for WebRTC Applications
The columns "very low", "low", "Medium" and "high" signify the The columns "very low", "low", "Medium" and "high" signify the
relative importance of the media flow within the application and is relative importance of the media flow within the application and is
an input that the browser receives to assist it in selecting the DSCP an input that the browser receives to assist it in selecting the DSCP
value. These are referred to as application priority in this value. These are referred to as application priority in this
document. Application priority does not refer to priority in the document. Application priority does not refer to priority in the
network transport. network transport.
The above table assumes that packets marked with CS1 are treated as
"less than best effort". However, the treatment of CS1 is
implementation dependent. If an implementation treats CS1 as other
than "less than best effort", then the actual priority (or, more
precisely, the per-hop-behavior) of the packets may be changed from
what is intended. It is common for CS1 to be treated the same as DF
so anyone using CS1 cannot assume that CS1 will be treated
differently than DF. Implementers should also note that the excess
EF traffic is dropped. This could mean that a packet marked as EF
may not get through as opposed to a packet marked with a different
DSCP value.
The browser SHOULD first select the data type of the media flow. The browser SHOULD first select the data type of the media flow.
Within the data type, the relative importance of the media flow Within the data type, the relative importance of the media flow
SHOULD be used to select the appropriate DSCP value. All packets SHOULD be used to select the appropriate DSCP value.
within a media flow SHOULD have the same application priority. In
some cases, the selected cell may have multiple DSCP values, such as
AF41 and AF42. These offer different drop precedences. One may
select difference drop precedences for the different packets in the
same media flow. Therefore, all packets in the media flow SHOULD be
marked with the same application priority, but can have difference
drop precedences.
The combination of data type and application priority provides The combination of data type and application priority provides
specificity and helps in selecting the right DSCP value for the media specificity and helps in selecting the right DSCP value for the media
flow. In some cases, the different drop precedence values provides flow. In some cases, the different drop precedence values provides
additional granularity in classifying packets within a media flow. additional granularity in classifying packets within a media flow.
For example, in a video conference, the video media flow may have For example, in a video conference, the video media flow may have
medium application priority. If so, either AF42 or AF43 may be medium application priority. If so, either AF42 or AF43 may be
selected. If the I-frames in the stream are more important than the selected. If the I-frames in the stream are more important than the
P-frames, then the I-frames can be marked with AF42 and the P-frames P-frames, then the I-frames can be marked with AF42 and the P-frames
marked with AF43. marked with AF43.
All packets within a media flow SHOULD have the same application
priority. In some cases, the selected cell may have multiple DSCP
values, such as AF41 and AF42. These offer different drop
precedences. With the exception of data channel traffic, one may
select different drop precedences for the different packets in the
same media flow. Therefore, all packets in the media flow SHOULD be
marked with the same application priority, but can have different
drop precedences.
For reasons discussed in Section 6 of [I-D.ietf-dart-dscp-rtp], if
multiple media flows are multiplexed using a reliable transport
(e.g., TCP) then all of the packets for all media flows multiplexed
over that transport flow MUST be marked using the same DSCP value.
Likewise, all WebRTC data channel packets transmitted over an SCTP
association MUST be marked using the same DSCP value, regardless of
how many data channels (streams) exist or what kind of traffic is
carried over the various SCTP streams. In the event that the browser
wishes to change the DSCP value in use for an SCTP association, it
MUST reset the SCTP congestion controller after changing values.
Frequent changes in the DSCP value used for an SCTP association are
discouraged, though, as this would defeat any attempts at effectively
managing congestion. It should also be noted that any change in DSCP
value that results in a reset of the congestion controller puts the
SCTP association back into slow start, which may have undesirable
effects on application performance.
For the data channel traffic multiplexed over an SCTP association, it
is RECOMMENDED that the DSCP value selected be the one associated
with the highest priority requested for all data channels multiplexed
over the SCTP association. Likewise, when multiplexing multiple
media flows over a TCP connection, the DCSP value selected should be
the one associated with the highest priority requested for all
multiplexed flows.
If a packet enters a QoS domain that has no support for the above If a packet enters a QoS domain that has no support for the above
defined data types/application priority (service class), then the defined data types/application priority (service class), then the
network node at the edge will remark the DSCP value based on network node at the edge will remark the DSCP value based on
policies. This could result in the media flow not getting the policies. This could result in the media flow not getting the
network treatment it expects based on the original DSCP value in the network treatment it expects based on the original DSCP value in the
packet. Subsequently, if the packet enters a QoS domain that packet. Subsequently, if the packet enters a QoS domain that
supports a larger number of service classes, there may not be supports a larger number of service classes, there may not be
sufficient information in the packet to restore the original sufficient information in the packet to restore the original
markings. Mechanisms for restoring such original DSCP is outside the markings. Mechanisms for restoring such original DSCP is outside the
scope of this document. scope of this document.
The above table assumes that packets marked with CS1 are treated as
"less than best effort". However, the treatment of CS1 is
implementation dependent. If an implementation treats CS1 as other
than "less than best effort", then the actual priority (or, more
precisely, the per-hop-behavior) of the packets may be changed from
what is intended. Implementers should also note that the excess EF
traffic is dropped. This could mean that a packet marked as EF may
not get through as opposed to a packet marked with a different DSCP
value.
In summary, there are no guarantees or promised level of service with In summary, there are no guarantees or promised level of service with
the use of DSCP. The service provided to a packet is dependent upon the use of DSCP. The service provided to a packet is dependent upon
the network design along the path, as well as the congestion levels the network design along the path, as well as the congestion levels
at every hop. at every hop.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
This specification does not add any additional security implication This specification does not add any additional security implication
other than the normal application use of DSCP. For security other than the normal application use of DSCP. For security
implications on use of DSCP, please refer to Section 6 of RFC 4594. implications on use of DSCP, please refer to Section 6 of RFC 4594.
skipping to change at page 7, line 21 skipping to change at page 7, line 44
8. Downward References 8. Downward References
This specification contains a downwards reference to [RFC4594]. This specification contains a downwards reference to [RFC4594].
However, the parts of that RFC used by this specification are However, the parts of that RFC used by this specification are
sufficiently stable for this downward reference. sufficiently stable for this downward reference.
9. Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgements
Thanks To David Black, Magnus Westerland, Paolo Severini, Jim Thanks To David Black, Magnus Westerland, Paolo Severini, Jim
Hasselbrook, Joe Marcus, and Erik Nordmark for their help. Hasselbrook, Joe Marcus, Erik Nordmark, and Michael Tuexen for their
help.
10. Document History 10. Dedication
This document is dedicated to the memory of James Polk, a long-time
friend and colleague. James made important contributions to this
specification, including being one of its primary authors. The IETF
global community mourns his loss and he will be missed dearly.
11. Document History
Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section. Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section.
This document was originally an individual submission in RTCWeb WG. This document was originally an individual submission in RTCWeb WG.
The RTCWeb working group selected it to be become a WG document. The RTCWeb working group selected it to be become a WG document.
Later the transport ADs requested that this be moved to the TSVWG WG Later the transport ADs requested that this be moved to the TSVWG WG
as that seemed to be a better match. This document is now being as that seemed to be a better match. This document is now being
submitted as individual submission to the TSVWG with the hope that WG submitted as individual submission to the TSVWG with the hope that WG
will select it as a WG draft and move it forward to an RFC. will select it as a WG draft and move it forward to an RFC.
11. References 12. References
11.1. Normative References 12.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-dart-dscp-rtp] [I-D.ietf-dart-dscp-rtp]
Black, D. and P. Jones, "Differentiated Services Black, D. and P. Jones, "Differentiated Services
(DiffServ) and Real-time Communication", draft-ietf-dart- (DiffServ) and Real-time Communication", draft-ietf-dart-
dscp-rtp-10 (work in progress), November 2014. dscp-rtp-10 (work in progress), November 2014.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel]
Jesup, R., Loreto, S., and M. Tuexen, "WebRTC Data
Channels", draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-13 (work in
progress), January 2015.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security] [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security]
Rescorla, E., "Security Considerations for WebRTC", draft- Rescorla, E., "Security Considerations for WebRTC", draft-
ietf-rtcweb-security-07 (work in progress), July 2014. ietf-rtcweb-security-08 (work in progress), February 2015.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-transports] [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-transports]
Alvestrand, H., "Transports for WebRTC", draft-ietf- Alvestrand, H., "Transports for WebRTC", draft-ietf-
rtcweb-transports-08 (work in progress), February 2015. rtcweb-transports-09 (work in progress), July 2015.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4594] Babiarz, J., Chan, K., and F. Baker, "Configuration [RFC4594] Babiarz, J., Chan, K., and F. Baker, "Configuration
Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 4594, August Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 4594, August
2006. 2006.
11.2. Informative References 12.2. Informative References
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black, [RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, December Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, December
1998. 1998.
[RFC2597] Heinanen, J., Baker, F., Weiss, W., and J. Wroclawski, [RFC2597] Heinanen, J., Baker, F., Weiss, W., and J. Wroclawski,
"Assured Forwarding PHB Group", RFC 2597, June 1999. "Assured Forwarding PHB Group", RFC 2597, June 1999.
[RFC3246] Davie, B., Charny, A., Bennet, J., Benson, K., Le Boudec, [RFC3246] Davie, B., Charny, A., Bennet, J., Benson, K., Le Boudec,
J., Courtney, W., Davari, S., Firoiu, V., and D. J., Courtney, W., Davari, S., Firoiu, V., and D.
Stiliadis, "An Expedited Forwarding PHB (Per-Hop Stiliadis, "An Expedited Forwarding PHB (Per-Hop
Behavior)", RFC 3246, March 2002. Behavior)", RFC 3246, March 2002.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003. Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550,
July 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>.
[W3C.REC-html5-20141028] [W3C.REC-html5-20141028]
Hickson, I., Berjon, R., Faulkner, S., Leithead, T., Hickson, I., Berjon, R., Faulkner, S., Leithead, T.,
Navara, E., O&#039;Connor, E., and S. Pfeiffer, "HTML5", Navara, E., O&#039;Connor, E., and S. Pfeiffer, "HTML5",
World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC- World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-
html5-20141028, October 2014, html5-20141028, October 2014,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-html5-20141028>. <http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-html5-20141028>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
skipping to change at page 9, line 4 skipping to change at page 9, line 41
Subha Dhesikan Subha Dhesikan
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Email: sdhesika@cisco.com Email: sdhesika@cisco.com
Cullen Jennings Cullen Jennings
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Email: fluffy@cisco.com Email: fluffy@cisco.com
Dan Druta (editor) Dan Druta (editor)
AT&T AT&T
Email: dd5826@att.com Email: dd5826@att.com
Paul E. Jones Paul E. Jones
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Email: paulej@packetizer.com Email: paulej@packetizer.com
James Polk
Cisco Systems
Email: jmpolk@cisco.com
 End of changes. 30 change blocks. 
79 lines changed or deleted 116 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/