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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 RFC 7064

RTCWEB                                                     S. Nandakumar
Internet-Draft                                              G. Salgueiro
Intended status: Standards Track                                P. Jones
Expires: September 13, 2012                                Cisco Systems
                                                       M. Petit-Huguenin
                                                            Unaffiliated
                                                          March 12, 2012


   URI Scheme for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Protocol
                  draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-01

Abstract

   This document is the specification of the syntax and semantics of the
   Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) scheme for the Session Traversal
   Utilities for NAT (STUN) protocol.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.  This document may not be modified,
   and derivative works of it may not be created, except to format it
   for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 13, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect



Nandakumar, et al.     Expires September 13, 2012               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                  STUN URI                      March 2012


   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  Syntax of a STUN or STUNS URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     3.1.  URI Scheme Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     3.2.  URI Scheme Semantics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     5.1.  STUN URI Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     5.2.  STUNS URI Registration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   Appendix A.  Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8




























Nandakumar, et al.     Expires September 13, 2012               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                  STUN URI                      March 2012


1.  Introduction

   This document specifies the syntax and semantics of the Uniform
   Resource Identifier (URI) scheme for the Session Traversal Utilities
   for NAT (STUN) protocol.

   STUN is a protocol that serves as a tool for other protocols in
   dealing with Network Address Translator (NAT) traversal.  It can be
   used by an endpoint to determine the IP address and port allocated to
   it by a NAT, to perform connectivity checks between two endpoints,
   and used as a keepalive protocol to maintain NAT bindings.  RFC 5389
   [RFC5389] defines the specifics of the STUN protocol.

   The 'stun/stuns' URI scheme is used to designate a standalone STUN
   server or any Internet host performing the operations of a STUN
   server in the context of STUN usages (Section 14 RFC 5389 [RFC5389]).
   With the advent of standards such as WEBRTC [WEBRTC], we anticipate a
   plethora of endpoints and web applications to be able to identify and
   communicate with such a STUN server to carry out the STUN protocol.
   This also implies those endpoints and/or applications to be
   provisioned with appropriate configuration required to identify the
   STUN server.  Having an inconsistent syntax has its drawbacks and can
   result in non-interoperable solutions.  It can result in solutions
   that are ambiguous and have implementation limitations on the
   different aspects of the syntax and alike.  The 'stun/stuns' URI
   scheme helps alleviate most of these issues by providing a consistent
   way to describe, configure and exchange the information identifying a
   STUN server.  This would also prevent the shortcomings inherent with
   encoding similar information in non-uniform syntaxes such as the ones
   proposed in the WEBRTC Standards [WEBRTC], for example.

   A reference implementation [REF-IMPL] is available.


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].

   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", and "NOT RECOMMENDED" are
   appropriate when valid exceptions to a general requirement are known
   to exist or appear to exist, and it is infeasible or impractical to
   enumerate all of them.  However, they should not be interpreted as
   permitting implementors to fail to implement the general requirement
   when such failure would result in interoperability failure.





Nandakumar, et al.     Expires September 13, 2012               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                  STUN URI                      March 2012


3.  Syntax of a STUN or STUNS URI

3.1.  URI Scheme Syntax

   The "stun" URI takes the following form (the example below is non-
   normative):

      stun:<stun-host>:<stun-port>
      stuns:<stun-host>:<stun-port>

   Note that the <port> part and the preceding ":" (colon) character, is
   OPTIONAL.

   A STUN/STUNS URI has the following formal ABNF syntax [RFC5234]:

   stunURI       = scheme ":" stun-host [ ":" stun-port ]
   scheme        = "stun" / "stuns"
   stun-host     = IP-literal / IPv4address / reg-name
   stun-port     = *DIGIT
   IP-literal    = "[" ( IPv6address / IPvFuture  ) "]"
   IPvFuture     = "v" 1*HEXDIG "." 1*( unreserved / sub-delims / ":" )
   IPv6address   =                              6( h16 ":" ) ls32
                   /                       "::" 5( h16 ":" ) ls32
                   / [               h16 ] "::" 4( h16 ":" ) ls32
                   / [ *1( h16 ":" ) h16 ] "::" 3( h16 ":" ) ls32
                   / [ *2( h16 ":" ) h16 ] "::" 2( h16 ":" ) ls32
                   / [ *3( h16 ":" ) h16 ] "::"    h16 ":"   ls32
                   / [ *4( h16 ":" ) h16 ] "::"              ls32
                   / [ *5( h16 ":" ) h16 ] "::"              h16
                   / [ *6( h16 ":" ) h16 ] "::"
   h16           = 1*4HEXDIG
   ls32          = ( h16 ":" h16 ) / IPv4address
   IPv4address   = dec-octet "." dec-octet "." dec-octet "." dec-octet
   dec-octet     = DIGIT                 ; 0-9
                   / %x31-39 DIGIT       ; 10-99
                   / "1" 2DIGIT          ; 100-199
                   / "2" %x30-34 DIGIT   ; 200-249
                   / "25" %x30-35        ; 250-255
   reg-name      = *( unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims )

   <unreserved>, <sub-delims>, and <pct-encoded> are specified in
   [RFC3986].  The core rules <DIGIT> and <HEXDIGIT> are used as
   described in Appendix B of RFC 5234 [RFC5234].

3.2.  URI Scheme Semantics

   The STUN protocol supports sending messages over UDP, TCP or TLS-
   over-TCP.  The "stuns" URI scheme SHALL be used when STUN is run over



Nandakumar, et al.     Expires September 13, 2012               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                  STUN URI                      March 2012


   TLS-over-TCP (or in the future DTLS-over-UDP) and the "stun" scheme
   SHALL be used otherwise.

   The required <stun-host> part of the "stun" URI denotes the STUN
   server host.

   For the optional DNS Discovery procedure mentioned in the Section 9
   of RFC5389, "stun" URI scheme implies UDP as the transport protocol
   for SRV lookup and "stuns" URI scheme indicates TCP as the transport
   protocol.

   The <stun-port> part, if present, denotes the port on which the STUN
   server is awaiting connection requests.  If it is absent, the default
   port is 3478 for both UDP and TCP and 5349 for STUN over TLS as per
   Section 9 of RFC 5389 [RFC5389].


4.  Security Considerations

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


5.  IANA Considerations

   This section contains the registration information for the "stun" and
   "stuns" URI Schemes (in accordance with [RFC4395]).

5.1.  STUN URI Registration

   URI scheme name: stun

   Status: permanent

   URI scheme syntax: See Section 3.1.

   URI scheme semantics: See Section 3.2.

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

   Applications/protocols that use this URI scheme name:

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

   Interoperability considerations: N/A



Nandakumar, et al.     Expires September 13, 2012               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                  STUN URI                      March 2012


   Security considerations: See Section 4.

   Contact: Suhas Nandakumar <snandaku@cisco.com>

   Author/Change controller: The IESG

   References: RFCXXXX

   [[NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: Please change XXXX to the number assigned to
   this specification, and remove this paragraph on publication.]]

5.2.  STUNS URI Registration

   URI scheme name: stuns

   Status: permanent

   URI scheme syntax: See Section 3.1.

   URI scheme semantics: See Section 3.2.

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

   Applications/protocols that use this URI scheme name:

      The "stuns" URI scheme is intended to be used by applications that
      might need access to a STUN server over a secure connection.

   Interoperability considerations: N/A

   Security considerations: See Section 4.

   Contact: Suhas Nandakumar <snandaku@cisco.com>

   Author/Change controller: The IESG

   References: RFCXXXX

   [[NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: Please change XXXX to the number assigned to
   this specification, and remove this paragraph on publication.]]


6.  Acknowledgements

   Many thanks to Cullen Jennings for his detailed review and thoughtful
   comments on this document.




Nandakumar, et al.     Expires September 13, 2012               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                  STUN URI                      March 2012


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


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

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

   [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.

7.2.  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.

   [RFC5389]  Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing,
              "Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389,
              October 2008.

   [WEBRTC]   W3C, "WebRTC 1.0: Real-time Communication Between
              Browsers".

              <http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/webrtc.html>.

   [REF-IMPL]
              Petit-Huguenin, MPH., "Reference Implementation of STUN
              URI parser".

              <http://debian.implementers.org/stable/source/
              stunuri.tar.gz>.


Appendix A.  Examples

   Table 1 shows examples for 'stun/stuns'uri scheme.  For all these
   examples, the <host> component is populated with "example.org".



Nandakumar, et al.     Expires September 13, 2012               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                  STUN URI                      March 2012


                         +-----------------------+
                         | URI                   |
                         +-----------------------+
                         | stun:example.org      |
                         | stuns:example.org     |
                         | stun:example.org:8000 |
                         +-----------------------+

                                  Table 1


Authors' Addresses

   Suhas Nandakumar
   Cisco Systems
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   US

   Email: snandaku@cisco.com


   Gonzalo Salgueiro
   Cisco Systems
   7200-12 Kit Creek Road
   Research Triangle Park, NC  27709
   US

   Email: gsalguei@cisco.com


   Paul E. Jones
   Cisco Systems
   7025 Kit Creek Road
   Research Triangle Park, NC  27709
   US

   Email: paulej@packetizer.com


   Marc Petit-Huguenin
   Unaffiliated

   Email: petithug@acm.org







Nandakumar, et al.     Expires September 13, 2012               [Page 8]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/