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

Versions: (RFC 4566) 00 01

Network Working Group                                           A. Begen
Internet-Draft                                                     Cisco
Intended status: Standards Track                        January 10, 2015
Expires: July 14, 2015


                 IANA Registry Updates for RFC 4566bis
             draft-begen-mmusic-rfc4566bis-iana-updates-01

Abstract

   The Session Description Protocol (SDP) specification is currently
   being revised.  There are a number of issues that have been
   identified in the IANA registries related to the SDP protocol (These
   are tracked in the issue tracker).  This document has the goal of
   addressing these issues by making the necessary changes in the IANA
   registries and registration procedures.

   The changes and updates listed in this draft are submitted in this
   individual draft rather than the 4566bis draft because (i) the
   4566bis draft has seen quite a number of changes recently, which
   require a detailed review and further revisions would make the review
   process difficult, and (ii) the changes and updates listed in this
   draft are all IANA related matters.  If this draft gets published
   separately, it will update RFC 4566 or the RFC resulting from the
   4566bis draft.  An alternative option is to include the whole text in
   the 4566bis draft once the changes and updates are agreed.

Status of This Memo

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

   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 July 14, 2015.

Copyright Notice





Begen                    Expires July 14, 2015                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft          IANA Updates for 4566bis            January 2015


   Copyright (c) 2015 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
   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Glossary of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Proposed Changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     3.1.  Dependency between "nettype" and "addrtype" Registries  .   2
     3.2.  New Network Type and Address Type Registrations . . . . .   3
     3.3.  Format of the "att-field" Registry  . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

1.  Introduction

   The Session Description Protocol (SDP) specification is currently
   being revised [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis].  There are a number of
   issues that have been identified in the IANA registries related to
   the SDP protocol.  This document has the goal of addressing these
   issues by proposing changes in the IANA registries and registration
   procedures.

2.  Glossary of Terms

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

3.  Proposed Changes

3.1.  Dependency between "nettype" and "addrtype" Registries




Begen                    Expires July 14, 2015                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft          IANA Updates for 4566bis            January 2015


   The "nettype" registry resides at

   http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters/sdp-parameters.xhtml
   #sdp-parameters-4

   and the "addrtype" registry resides at

   http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters/sdp-parameters.xhtml
   #sdp-parameters-5.

   While there have been multiple network and address types have been
   registered so far, not all address types are usable with every
   network type.  In other words, there exists a dependency between the
   network and address types.  This dependency should be reflected in
   the registry.

   Solution:

   We add a new column in the "nettype" registry with the title "Usable
   addrtype Values" and update the "nettype" registry as follows:

   --------------------------------------------------------------------
   |Type      | SDP Name | Usable addrtype Values | Reference         |
   --------------------------------------------------------------------
   |nettype   | IN       | IP4, IP6               | [RFC4566]         |
   |nettype   | TN       | RFC2543                | [RFC2848]         |
   |nettype   | ATM      | NSAP, GWID, E164       | [RFC3108]         |
   |nettype   | PSTN     | E164                   | [RFC7195]         |
   --------------------------------------------------------------------


   Both [RFC7195] and [RFC3108] registered "E164" as an address type,
   although [RFC7195] mentions that the "E164" address type has a
   different context for ATM and PSTN networks.

   In the case of a new addrtype registration, the author has to check
   whether the new address type is usable with the existing network
   types.  If yes, the "nettype" registry MUST be updated accordingly.
   In the case of a new nettype registration, the author MUST specify
   the usable address type(s).

3.2.  New Network Type and Address Type Registrations

   New network and address types MUST be registered with IANA.  These
   registrations are subject to the RFC Required - RFC publication
   policy of [RFC5226].





Begen                    Expires July 14, 2015                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft          IANA Updates for 4566bis            January 2015


3.3.  Format of the "att-field" Registry

   Section 6 of [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis] defines several attribute
   names.  However, the IANA registration (Section 8.2.4) does not
   specify the format of the table.  There are different usage levels
   for SDP attributes and the usage level(s) for each attribute MUST be
   reflected in the registry.

   Solution:

   We combine all the five "att-field" registries into one registry
   called "att-field" registry, and update the columns to reflect the
   name, usage level(s), charset dependency and reference.  That is, we
   use the following columns:

   Name | Usage Level | Dependent on charset? | Reference


   The "Name" column reflects the attribute name (as it will appear in
   the SDP).  The "Usage Level" column MUST indicate one or more of the
   following: session, media, source.  The "Dependent on charset?"
   column MUST indicate "Yes" or "No" depending on whether the attribute
   value is subject to the charset attribute.  Finally, the "Reference"
   column indicates the specification(s) where the attribute is defined.

4.  Security Considerations

   There are no security considerations.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document proposes several changes in the IANA registries related
   to the SDP protocol.  These changes are listed in Section 3.

   Editor's note: While it is not a common practice to use normative
   language for the IANA considerations, it should be noted that the
   normative language in this document applies to the registration
   procedures (which may eventually move to
   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis]).

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

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





Begen                    Expires July 14, 2015                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft          IANA Updates for 4566bis            January 2015


   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

   [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis]
              Handley, M., Jacobson, V., Perkins, C., and A. Begen,
              "SDP: Session Description Protocol", draft-ietf-mmusic-
              rfc4566bis-12 (work in progress), September 2014.

6.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3108]  Kumar, R. and M. Mostafa, "Conventions for the use of the
              Session Description Protocol (SDP) for ATM Bearer
              Connections", RFC 3108, May 2001.

   [RFC7195]  Garcia-Martin, M. and S. Veikkolainen, "Session
              Description Protocol (SDP) Extension for Setting Audio and
              Video Media Streams over Circuit-Switched Bearers in the
              Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)", RFC 7195, May
              2014.

Author's Address

   Ali Begen
   Cisco
   181 Bay Street
   Toronto, ON  M5J 2T3
   Canada

   EMail: abegen@cisco.com




















Begen                    Expires July 14, 2015                  [Page 5]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/