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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-dtls

Network Working Group                                          J. Fischl
Internet-Draft                               CounterPath Solutions, Inc.
Expires: December 27, 2006                                 H. Tschofenig

                                                           June 25, 2006


  Session Description Protocol (SDP) Indicators for Datagram Transport
                         Layer Security (DTLS)
                  draft-fischl-mmusic-sdp-dtls-01.txt

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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 December 27, 2006.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

   This specification defines how to use the Session Description
   Protocol (SDP) to signal that media will be transported over Datagram
   Transport Layer Security (DTLS) or where the SRTP security context is
   established using DTLS and it defines new SDP protocol identifiers.
   It reuses the syntax and semantics for an SDP 'fingerprint' attribute
   that identifies the certificate which will be presented during the



Fischl & Tschofenig     Expires December 27, 2006               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                SDP for DTLS                     June 2006


   DTLS handshake.  This allows security provided by the existing DTLS
   specification to also be applicable to data that is transported over
   a datagram oriented transport.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  DTLS Certificates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   4.  SDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   5.  Session Description for RTP/AVP over DTLS . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   8.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     9.2.  Informational References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements  . . . . . . . . . . 8































Fischl & Tschofenig     Expires December 27, 2006               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                SDP for DTLS                     June 2006


1.  Introduction

   Session Description Protocol (SDP) RFC 2327 [4] has been used to set
   up the transport of various types of media with RTP [6] over UDP [7],
   TCP [11], and TLS [2].  DTLS [9] is a protocol for applying TLS
   security to datagram protocols such as UDP and DCCP [1].  This
   specification defines new SDP protocol identifiers that allow SDP to
   indicate that DTLS should be used to transport the media when TLS is
   used.

   The handling of TLS sessions in SDP is defined in [2] that discusses
   only TLS over TCP.  This document extends that specification to also
   deal with TLS over datagram protocols such as UDP and DCCP.


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 RFC 2119 [3].


3.  DTLS Certificates

   The two endpoints in the exchange present their identities as part of
   the DTLS handshake procedure using certificates.  This document uses
   certificates in the same style as described in Comedia over TLS in
   SDP [2].

   If self-signed certificates are used, the content of the
   subjectAltName attribute inside the certificate MAY use the uniform
   resource identifier (URI) of the user.  This is useful for debugging
   purposes only and is not required to bind the certificate to one of
   the communication endpoints.  The integrity of the certificate is
   ensured through the fingerprint attribute in the SDP.  The
   subjectAltName is not an important component of the certificate
   verification.

   If the endpoint is also able to make anonymous sessions, a distinct,
   unique, self-signed certificate SHOULD be provided for this purpose.

   The generation of public/private key pairs is relatively expensive.
   Endpoints are not required to generate certificates for each session.

   The endpoints MAY cache their certificates and reuse them across
   multiple sessions.

   [Editor's Note: Certificate lifetime issues will be discussed in a



Fischl & Tschofenig     Expires December 27, 2006               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                SDP for DTLS                     June 2006


   future draft version.]


4.  SDP

   In addition to the usual contents of an SDP [10] message, each 'm'
   line will also contain several attributes as specified in RFC 4145
   [8] and [2].

   The endpoint MUST use the setup and connection attributes defined in
   "TCP-Based Media Transport in the SDP" [8].  For the purposes of this
   specification, a setup:active endpoint will act as a DTLS client and
   a setup:passive endpoint will act as a DTLS server.  The connection
   attribute indicates whether or not to reuse an existing DTLS
   association.

   A certificate fingerprint is the output of a one-way hash function
   computed over the distinguished encoding rules (DER) form of the
   certificate.  The endpoint MUST use the certificate fingerprint
   attribute as specified in [2].

   The proto field of the "m=" line MUST be set to the appropriate
   transport protocol as defined in this specification.


5.  Session Description for RTP/AVP over DTLS

   This specification defines new tokens to describe the protocol used
   in SDP "m=" lines.  The new values defined for the proto field are:
   o  When a RTP/AVP stream is transported over DTLS with DCCP, then the
      token SHALL be DCCP/TLS/RTP/AVP.
   o  When a RTP/AVP stream is transported over DTLS with UDP, the token
      SHALL be UDP/TLS/RTP/AVP.
   o  When a RTP/AVP stream is transported over TLS with TCP, the token
      SHALL be TCP/TLS/RTP/AVP.
   o  When media is transported over DTLS with UDP, the token SHALL be
      UDP/TLS.
   o  When media is transported over DTLS with DCCP, the token SHALL be
      DCCP/TLS.

   For RTP profiles other than AVP, a new token should be defined in the
   form of DCCP/TLS/RTP/xyz, UDP/TLS/RTP/xyz and TCP/TLS/RTP/xyz where
   xyz is replaced with an appropriate token for that profile.


6.  IANA Considerations

   This specification updates the "Session Description Protocol (SDP)



Fischl & Tschofenig     Expires December 27, 2006               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                SDP for DTLS                     June 2006


   Parameters" registry as defined in Appendix B of RFC 2327 [4].
   Specifically it adds the following values to the table for the
   "proto" field.

   Type            SDP Name                     Reference
   ----            ------------------           ---------
   proto           TCP/TLS/RTP/AVP              [RFC-XXXX]
                   UDP/TLS/RTP/AVP              [RFC-XXXX]
                   DCCP/TLS/RTP/AVP             [RFC-XXXX]
                   UDP/TLS                      [RFC-XXXX]
                   DCCP/TLS                     [RFC-XXXX]

   Note to RFC Editor: Please replace RFC-XXXX with the RFC number of
   this specification.


7.  Security Considerations

   When using self signed certificates, the signalling protocol used to
   transport the SDP MUST ensure the integrity of the SDP so that the
   fingerprint attribute can not be altered.  Failure to do this would
   allow a attacker to insert themselves in the media channel as a man-
   in-the-middle.  A method of ensuring the integrity of the SDP when
   transporting over the SIP RFC 3261 [5] signalling protocol is
   described in [12]


8.  Acknowledgments

   Cullen Jennings contributed substantial text and comments to this
   document.  This document benefitted from discussions with Francois
   Audet, Nagendra Modadugu, Eric Rescorla, and Dan Wing.  Thanks also
   for useful comments by Flemming Andreasen, Rohan Mahy, David McGrew,
   and David Oran.


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [1]  Kohler, E., "Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)",
        draft-ietf-dccp-spec-13 (work in progress), December 2005.

   [2]  Lennox, J., "Connection-Oriented Media Transport over the
        Transport Layer Security (TLS)  Protocol in the Session
        Description Protocol (SDP)", draft-ietf-mmusic-comedia-tls-06
        (work in progress), March 2006.




Fischl & Tschofenig     Expires December 27, 2006               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                SDP for DTLS                     June 2006


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

   [4]  Handley, M. and V. Jacobson, "SDP: Session Description
        Protocol", RFC 2327, April 1998.

   [5]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,
        Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP:
        Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.

   [6]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. Jacobson,
        "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", STD 64,
        RFC 3550, July 2003.

   [7]  Schulzrinne, H. and S. Casner, "RTP Profile for Audio and Video
        Conferences with Minimal Control", STD 65, RFC 3551, July 2003.

   [8]  Yon, D. and G. Camarillo, "TCP-Based Media Transport in the
        Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 4145, September 2005.

   [9]  Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
        Security", RFC 4347, April 2006.

9.2.  Informational References

   [10]  Handley, M., "SDP: Session Description Protocol",
         draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-new-26 (work in progress), January 2006.

   [11]  Lazzaro, J., "Framing RTP and RTCP Packets over Connection-
         Oriented Transport", draft-ietf-avt-rtp-framing-contrans-06
         (work in progress), September 2005.

   [12]  Fischl, J., Tschofenig, H., and E. Rescorla, "Session
         Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Media Over Transport Layer
         Security (TLS)", June 2006.
















Fischl & Tschofenig     Expires December 27, 2006               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                SDP for DTLS                     June 2006


Authors' Addresses

   Jason Fischl
   CounterPath Solutions, Inc.
   8th Floor, 100 West Pender Street
   Vancouver, BC  V6B 1R8
   Canada

   Phone: +1 604 320-3340
   Email: jason@counterpath.com


   Hannes Tschofenig


   Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net



































Fischl & Tschofenig     Expires December 27, 2006               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                SDP for DTLS                     June 2006


Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.




Fischl & Tschofenig     Expires December 27, 2006               [Page 8]


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