[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-petithuguenin-behave-turn-uri) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 RFC 5928

Network Working Group                                  M. Petit-Huguenin
Internet-Draft                                            (Unaffiliated)
Intended status: Standards Track                         August 19, 2009
Expires: February 20, 2010


 Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Uniform Resource Identifiers
                     draft-ietf-behave-turn-uri-03

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on February 20, 2010.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.

Abstract

   This document defines two URI schemes and the resolution mechanism to
   generate a list of server transport addresses that can be tried to
   create a Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) allocation.



Petit-Huguenin          Expires February 20, 2010               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                  TURN URIs                    August 2009


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Syntax of a TURN or TURNS URI  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   4.  TURN or TURNS URI Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   5.  Example  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     7.1.  TURN URI Registration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     7.2.  TURNS URI Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     7.3.  RELAY Application Service Tag Registration . . . . . . . .  9
     7.4.  turn.udp Application Protocol Tag Registration . . . . . .  9
     7.5.  turn.tcp Application Protocol Tag Registration . . . . . . 10
     7.6.  turn.tls Application Protocol Tag Registration . . . . . . 10
   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Appendix A.  Release notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     A.1.  Modifications between ietf-03 and ietf-02  . . . . . . . . 11
     A.2.  Modifications between ietf-02 and ietf-01  . . . . . . . . 12
     A.3.  Modifications between ietf-01 and ietf-00  . . . . . . . . 12
     A.4.  Modifications between petithuguenin-03 and ietf-00 . . . . 12
     A.5.  Modifications between petithuguenin-03 and
           petithuguenin-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     A.6.  Modifications between petithuguenin-02 and
           petithuguenin-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     A.7.  Modifications between petithuguenin-01 and
           petithuguenin-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     A.8.  Design Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     A.9.  Running Code Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     A.10. TODO List  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

















Petit-Huguenin          Expires February 20, 2010               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                  TURN URIs                    August 2009


1.  Introduction

   The TURN specification [I-D.ietf-behave-turn] defines a process for a
   TURN client to find TURN servers by using DNS SRV resource records,
   but this process does not let the TURN server administrators
   provision the preferred TURN transport protocol between the client
   and the server and for the TURN client to discover this preference.
   This document defines a S-NAPTR application [RFC3958] for this
   purpose.  This application defines "RELAY" as an application service
   tag and "turn.udp", "turn.tcp", and "turn.tls" as application
   protocol tags.

   To simplify the provisioning of TURN clients, this document also
   defines a TURN and a TURNS URI scheme and a resolution mechanism to
   convert these URIs into a list of IP addresses, ports and TURN
   transport protocols.

   Another usage of the resolution mechanism described in this document
   would be Remote Hosting as described in [RFC3958] section 4.4.  For
   example a VoIP provider who does not want to deploy TURN servers
   could use the servers deployed by another company but could still
   want to provide configuration parameters to its customers without
   explicitly showing this relationship.  The mechanism permits one to
   implement this indirection, without preventing the company hosting
   the TURN servers from managing them as it see fit.


2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].


3.  Syntax of a TURN or TURNS URI

   A TURN/TURNS URI has the following ABNF syntax [RFC5234]:

   turnURI   = scheme ":" host [ ":" port ] [ "?transport=" transport ]
   scheme    = "turn" / "turns"
   transport = "udp" / "tcp" / transport-ext
   transport-ext = 1*unreserved

   <host>, <port> and <unreserved> are specified in [RFC3986].







Petit-Huguenin          Expires February 20, 2010               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                  TURN URIs                    August 2009


4.  TURN or TURNS URI Resolution

   The URI resolution mechanism is used only to create an allocation.
   All other transactions use the IP address, transport and port used
   for a successful allocation creation.

   The URI resolution algorithm uses <scheme>, <host>, <port> and
   <transport> as input.  It also uses as input a list ordered by
   preference of TURN transports (UDP, TCP, TLS) supported by the
   application using the TURN client.  The output of the algorithm is a
   list of {IP address, transport, port} tuples that a TURN client can
   try in order to create an allocation on a TURN server.

   An Allocate error response as specified in section 6.4 of
   [I-D.ietf-behave-turn] is processed as a failure as specified by
   [RFC3958] section 2.2.4.  The resolution stops when a TURN client
   gets a successful Allocate response from a TURN server.  After an
   allocation succeeds or all the allocations fail, the resolution
   context MUST be discarded and the URI resolution algorithm MUST be
   restarted from the beginning for any subsequent allocation.  Servers
   blacklisted as described in section 6.4 of [I-D.ietf-behave-turn]
   should not be used for the specified duration even if returned by a
   subsequent resolution.

   First the resolution algorithm checks that the URI can be resolved
   with the list of TURN transports supported by the application:

   o  If <scheme> is defined as "turn" and <transport> is defined as
      "udp" but the list of TURN transports supported by the application
      does not contain UDP then the resolution MUST stop with an error.
   o  If <scheme> is defined as "turn" and <transport> is defined as
      "tcp" but the list of TURN transports supported by the application
      does not contain TCP then the resolution MUST stop with an error.
   o  If <scheme> is defined as "turns" and <transport> is defined as
      "udp" then the algorithm MUST stop with an error.
   o  If <scheme> is defined as "turns" and <transport> is defined as
      "tcp" but the list of TURN transports supported by the application
      does not contain TLS then the resolution MUST stop with an error.
   o  If <scheme> is defined as "turns" and <transport> is not defined
      but the list of TURN transports supported by the application does
      not contain TLS then the resolution MUST stop with an error.
   o  If <transport> is defined but unknown then the resolution MUST
      stop with an error.

   After verifying the validity of the URI elements, the algorithm
   applies the steps described below.  Note that in some steps, <scheme>
   and <transport> have to be converted to a TURN transport.  If
   <scheme> is defined as "turn" and <transport> is defined as "udp"



Petit-Huguenin          Expires February 20, 2010               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                  TURN URIs                    August 2009


   then the TURN UDP transport is used.  If <scheme> is defined as
   "turn" and <transport> is defined as "tcp" then the TURN TCP
   transport is used.  If <scheme> is defined as "turns" and <transport>
   is defined as "tcp" then the TURN TLS transport is used.  This is
   summarized in Table 1.

                +----------+-------------+----------------+
                | <scheme> | <transport> | TURN Transport |
                +----------+-------------+----------------+
                | "turn"   | "udp"       | UDP            |
                | "turn"   | "tcp"       | TCP            |
                | "turns"  | "tcp"       | TLS            |
                +----------+-------------+----------------+

                                  Table 1

   1.  If <host> is an IP address then it indicates the specific IP
       address to be used.  If <port> is not defined, the default port
       declared in [I-D.ietf-behave-turn] for the SRV service name
       defined in <scheme> is used.  If <transport> is defined then
       <scheme> and <transport> are converted to a TURN transport as
       specified in Table 1.  If <transport> is not defined, the TURN
       transports supported by the application are tried by preference
       order.  If the TURN client cannot contact a TURN server with this
       IP address and port on any of the transports supported by the
       application then the resolution MUST stop with an error.

   2.  If <host> is a domain name and <port> is defined, then <host> is
       resolved to a list of IP addresses via DNS A and AAAA queries.
       If <transport> is defined, then <scheme> and <transport> are
       converted to a TURN transport as specified in Table 1.  If
       <transport> is not defined, the TURN transports supported by the
       application are tried in preference order.  If the TURN client
       cannot contact a TURN server with this port and any combination
       of transports supported by the application and resolved IP
       addresses then the resolution MUST stop with an error.  The TURN
       client can choose the order to contact the resolved IP addresses
       in any implementation-specific way.

   3.  If <host> is a domain name and <port> is not defined but
       <transport> is defined, then <host> is converted to a list of IP
       address and port tuples via a DNS SRV query as defined in
       [I-D.ietf-behave-turn] section 6.1. <scheme> is used for the
       service name and <transport> is used for the protocol name in the
       SRV algorithm [RFC2782].  If the TURN client cannot contact a
       TURN server at any of the IP address, port and transport tuples
       returned by the SRV algorithm then the resolution MUST stop with
       an error.  The SRV algorithm recommends doing an A query if the



Petit-Huguenin          Expires February 20, 2010               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                  TURN URIs                    August 2009


       SRV query returns an error or no SRV RR.  In this case the
       default port declared in [I-D.ietf-behave-turn] for the SRV
       service name defined in <scheme> must be used for contacting the
       TURN server.  Also in this case, this specification modifies the
       SRV algorithm by recommending an A and AAAA query.

   4.  If <host> is a domain name and <port> and <transport> are not
       defined, then <host> is converted to an ordered list of IP
       address, port and transport tuples via the S-NAPTR algorithm
       defined in [RFC3958] with a "RELAY" Application Service Tag. The
       TURN transports supported by the application are converted in
       Application Protocol Tags by using "turn.udp" if the TURN
       transport is UDP, "turn.tcp" if the TURN transport is TCP and
       "turn.tls" if the TURN transport is TLS.  The order to try the
       protocol tags is provided by the ranking of the first set of
       NAPTR records.  If multiple protocol tags have the same ranking,
       the preferred order set by the application is used.  If the TURN
       client cannot contact a TURN server with any of the IP address,
       port and transport tuples returned by the S-NAPTR algorithm, then
       the resolution MUST stop with an error.  If the first NAPTR SRV
       query does not return any result then <host> is converted to a
       list of IP address and port tuples by using the algorithm
       specified in step 3 for each of the TURN transports supported by
       the application in order of preference.


5.  Example

   With the DNS RRs in Figure 1 and an ordered TURN transport list of
   {TLS, TCP, UDP}, the resolution algorithm will convert the "turn:
   example.com" URI to the list of IP addresses, port and protocol
   tuples in Table 2.



















Petit-Huguenin          Expires February 20, 2010               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                  TURN URIs                    August 2009


   example.com.
   IN NAPTR 100 10 "" "RELAY:turn.udp" "" datagram.example.com.
   IN NAPTR 200 10 "" "RELAY:turn.tcp:turn.tls" "" stream.example.com.

   datagram.example.com.
   IN NAPTR 100 10 "S" "RELAY:turn.udp" "" _udp._turn.example.com.

   stream.example.com.
   IN NAPTR 100 10 "S" "RELAY:turn.tcp" "" _turn._tcp.example.com.
   IN NAPTR 200 10 "A" "RELAY:turn.tls" "" a.example.com.

   _turn._udp.example.com.
   IN SRV   0   0  3478 a.example.com.

   _turn._tcp.example.com.
   IN SRV   0   0  5000 a.example.com.

   a.example.com.
   IN A     192.0.2.1


                                 Figure 1

                 +-------+----------+------------+------+
                 | Order | Protocol | IP address | Port |
                 +-------+----------+------------+------+
                 | 1     | UDP      | 192.0.2.1  | 3478 |
                 | 2     | TLS      | 192.0.2.1  | 5349 |
                 | 3     | TCP      | 192.0.2.1  | 5000 |
                 +-------+----------+------------+------+

                                  Table 2


6.  Security Considerations

   Security considerations for TURN are discussed in
   [I-D.ietf-behave-turn].

   The Application Service Tag and Application Protocol Tags defined in
   this document do not introduce any specific security issues beyond
   the security considerations discussed in [RFC3958].

   The "turn" and "turns" URI schemes do not introduce any specific
   security issues beyond the security considerations discussed in
   [RFC3986].





Petit-Huguenin          Expires February 20, 2010               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                  TURN URIs                    August 2009


7.  IANA Considerations

   This section contains the registration information for the "turn" and
   "turns" URI Schemes (in accordance with [RFC4395]), one S-NAPTR
   Application Service Tag, and three S-NAPTR Application Protocol Tags
   (in accordance with [RFC3958]).

7.1.  TURN URI Registration

   URI scheme name: turn

   Status: permanent

   URI scheme syntax: See Section 3.

   URI scheme semantics: See Section 4.

   Encoding considerations: There are no encoding considerations beyond
   those in [RFC3986].

   Applications/protocols that use this URI scheme name:

      The "turn" URI scheme is intended to be used by applications that
      might need access to a TURN server.

   Interoperability considerations: N/A

   Security considerations: See Section 6.

   Contact: Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org>

   Author/Change controller: The IESG

   References: This document.

7.2.  TURNS URI Registration

   URI scheme name: turns

   Status: permanent

   URI scheme syntax: See Section 3.

   URI scheme semantics: See Section 4.

   Encoding considerations: There are no encoding considerations beyond
   those in [RFC3986].




Petit-Huguenin          Expires February 20, 2010               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                  TURN URIs                    August 2009


   Applications/protocols that use this URI scheme name:

      The "turns" URI scheme is intended to be used by applications that
      might need access to a TURN server.

   Interoperability considerations: N/A

   Security considerations: See Section 6.

   Contact: Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org>

   Author/Change controller: The IESG

   References: This document.

7.3.  RELAY Application Service Tag Registration

   Application Protocol Tag: RELAY

   Intended usage: See Section 4.

   Interoperability considerations: N/A

   Security considerations: See Section 6.

   Relevant publications: This document.

   Contact information: Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org>

   Author/Change controller: The IESG

7.4.  turn.udp Application Protocol Tag Registration

   Application Protocol Tag: turn.udp

   Intended usage: See Section 4.

   Interoperability considerations: N/A

   Security considerations: See Section 6.

   Relevant publications: This document.

   Contact information: Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org>

   Author/Change controller: The IESG





Petit-Huguenin          Expires February 20, 2010               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                  TURN URIs                    August 2009


7.5.  turn.tcp Application Protocol Tag Registration

   Application Protocol Tag: turn.tcp

   Intended usage: See Section 4.

   Interoperability considerations:

   Security considerations: See Section 6.

   Relevant publications: This document.

   Contact information: Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org>

   Author/Change controller: The IESG

7.6.  turn.tls Application Protocol Tag Registration

   Application Protocol Tag: turn.tls

   Intended usage: See Section 4.

   Interoperability considerations: N/A

   Security considerations: See Section 6.

   Relevant publications: This document.

   Contact information: Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org>

   Author/Change controller: The IESG


8.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Dave Thaler, Alfred E. Heggestad, Eilon Yardeni, Dan Wing,
   Alfred Hoenes and Jim Kleck for their comments, suggestions and
   questions that helped to improve this document.

   This document was written with the xml2rfc tool described in
   [RFC2629].


9.  References







Petit-Huguenin          Expires February 20, 2010              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                  TURN URIs                    August 2009


9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2782]  Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
              specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
              February 2000.

   [RFC3958]  Daigle, L. and A. Newton, "Domain-Based Application
              Service Location Using SRV RRs and the Dynamic Delegation
              Discovery Service (DDDS)", RFC 3958, January 2005.

   [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
              RFC 3986, January 2005.

   [RFC5234]  Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.

   [I-D.ietf-behave-turn]
              Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., and P. Matthews, "Traversal Using
              Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to Session
              Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)",
              draft-ietf-behave-turn-16 (work in progress), July 2009.

9.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2629]  Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
              June 1999.

   [RFC4395]  Hansen, T., Hardie, T., and L. Masinter, "Guidelines and
              Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes", BCP 35,
              RFC 4395, February 2006.

URIs

   [1]  <http://www.croczilla.com/zap>

   [2]  <http://ietf.implementers.org/turn-uri-0.1.zip>


Appendix A.  Release notes

   This section must be removed before publication as an RFC.






Petit-Huguenin          Expires February 20, 2010              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                  TURN URIs                    August 2009


A.1.  Modifications between ietf-03 and ietf-02

   o  A turn:<host>?transport=TCP URI fails if the list of supported
      transports contains only TLS.  Using a TLS transport in this case
      was underspecified.
   o  Reordered paragraphes in section 4.
   o  Added table for conversion of <scheme> and <transport> to TURN
      transport.
   o  Various editorial modifications.
   o  SRV algorithm changed to "...recommending an A and AAAA query."
   o  Put back the changelog for the versions before been accepted as WG
      item.

A.2.  Modifications between ietf-02 and ietf-01

   o  Shorten the abstract so it does not overflow on the second page.
   o  Added text to explicitly say that the resolution is only to create
      an allocation.
   o  Added text about failures.
   o  Fixed the default port for TLS in the example.
   o  Changed some priority in the example for RFC3958 section 2.2.5.
   o  Fixed the service/protocol order for the SRV RR in the example.
   o  Removed reference to draft-wood-tae-specifying-uri-transports as
      it has an experimental status.

A.3.  Modifications between ietf-01 and ietf-00

   o  Fixed the contact email.
   o  Changed the IPR to trust200902.
   o  Added case for transport defined but unknown.
   o  Moved RFC 3958 to Normative References.
   o  Added study of draft-wood-tae-specifying-uri-transports in TODO
      list.

A.4.  Modifications between petithuguenin-03 and ietf-00

   o  Renamed the document to "draft-ietf-behave-turn-uri".
   o  Changed author affiliation.
   o  Fixed the text in the IANA considerations.

A.5.  Modifications between petithuguenin-03 and petithuguenin-02

   o  Added Running Code Consideration section.
   o  Added Remote Hosting example in introduction.
   o  Changed back to opaque URIs because of [RFC4395] Section 2.2.  Now
      use "?" as separator.





Petit-Huguenin          Expires February 20, 2010              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                  TURN URIs                    August 2009


   o  Added IANA considerations section.
   o  Added security considerations section.

A.6.  Modifications between petithuguenin-02 and petithuguenin-01

   o  Receiving a successful Allocate response stops the resolution
      mechanism and the resolution context must be discarded after this.
   o  Changed from opaque to hierarchical URIs because the ";" character
      is used in <reg-name>.
   o  Various nits.

A.7.  Modifications between petithuguenin-01 and petithuguenin-00

   o  Added <transport-ext> in the ABNF.
   o  Use the <rulename> and "literal" usages for free-form text defined
      by [RFC5234].
   o  Fixed various typos.
   o  Put the rule to convert <scheme> and <transport> to a TURN
      transport in a separate paragraph.
   o  Modified the SRV usage to be in line with RFC 2782.
   o  Clarified that the NAPTR protocol ranking must be used before the
      application ranking.
   o  Added an example.
   o  Added release notes.

A.8.  Design Notes

   o  The Application Service Tag is "RELAY" so other relaying
      mechanisms than TURN (e.g., TWIST) can be registered as
      Application Protocol Tags.
   o  S-NAPTR was preferred to U-NAPTR because there is no use case for
      U-NAPTR.
   o  <password> is not used in the URIs because it is deprecated.
      <username> is not used in the URIs because it is not used to guide
      the resolution mechanism.
   o  As discussed in Dublin, there is no generic parameters in the URI
      to prevent compatibity issues.
   o  Adding optional capabilities (IPv6 allocation, preserve bit,
      etc...) in the resolution process was rejected at the Dublin
      meeting.

A.9.  Running Code Considerations

   o  Zap [1].  Eilon Yardeni, 8x8 Inc. Implements version -00
   o  Reference Implementation of TURN URI parser and resolver. [2].
      Marc Petit-Huguenin.  Implements version -00 to -02





Petit-Huguenin          Expires February 20, 2010              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                  TURN URIs                    August 2009


A.10.  TODO List

   (Empty)


Author's Address

   Marc Petit-Huguenin
   (Unaffiliated)

   Email: petithug@acm.org








































Petit-Huguenin          Expires February 20, 2010              [Page 14]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/