[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 5898

MMUSIC Working Group                                        F. Andreason
Internet-Draft                                        Cisco System, Inc.
Expires: October 26, 2005                                   G. Camarillo
                                                                Ericsson
                                                                 D. Oran
                                                      Cisco Systems, Inc
                                                                 D. Wing
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                          April 24, 2005


   Connectivity Preconditions for Session Description Protocol Media
                                Streams
              draft-ietf-mmusic-connectivity-precon-00.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 October 26, 2005.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

Abstract

   This document defines a new connectivity precondition for the Session
   Description Protocol precondition framework described in RFC 3312



Andreason, et al.       Expires October 26, 2005                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft          Connectivity Precondition             April 2005


   (and its update, RFC4032).  A connectivity precondition can be used
   to delay session establishment or modification until media stream
   connectivity has been verified successfully.  The method of
   verification may vary depending on the type of transport used for the
   media.  For reliable connection-oriented transports such as TCP
   verification is achieved by successful connection establishment.  For
   unreliable datagram transports such as UDP, verification involves
   probing the stream with data or control packets.

   NOTE: This document is the result of a merge of two prior documents
   with overlapping scope: draft-ietf-mmusic-connectivityprecondition-02
   and draft-ietf-mmusic-connection-precon-02.  The former covered the
   case of datagram unreliable transports; the latter the case of
   connection-oriented reliable transports.  The merged version covers
   these two but also describes operations in hybrid cases of unreliable
   connection-oriented transports and reliable datagram transports.



































Andreason, et al.       Expires October 26, 2005                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft          Connectivity Precondition             April 2005


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Connectivity Precondition Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.1   Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.2   Operational semantics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.3   Status type  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.4   Direction tag  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.5   Precondition strength  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  Verifying connectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.1   Procedures for connection-oriented transports  . . . . . .  8
     4.2   Procedures for datagram transports . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   5.  Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     8.1   Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     8.2   Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 17






























Andreason, et al.       Expires October 26, 2005                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft          Connectivity Precondition             April 2005


1.  Introduction

   The concept of a Session Description Protocol (SDP) [2] precondition
   in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [SIP] is defined in RFC3312
   [4] (updated by RFC4032 [6]).  A precondition is a condition that has
   to be satisfied for a given media stream in order for session
   establishment or modification to proceed.  When the precondition is
   not met, session progress is delayed until the precondition is
   satisfied, or the session establishment fails.  For example, RFC3312
   defines the Quality of Service precondition, which is used to ensure
   availability of network resources prior to establishing (i.e.
   alerting) a call.

   SIP sessions are typically established in order to setup one or more
   media streams.  Even though a media stream may be negotiated
   successfully, through an SDP offer-answer exchange, the actual media
   stream itself may fail.  For example, when there is one or more
   Network Address Translators (NATs) or firewalls in the media path,
   the media stream may not be received by the far end.  In cases where
   the media is carried over a connection-oriented transport such as TCP
   [7], the connection-establishment procedures may fail.  The
   connectivity precondition defined in this document ensures that
   session progress is delayed until media stream connectivity has been
   verified, or the session itself is abandoned.

   The connectivity precondition type defined in this document follows
   the guidelines provided in RFC4032 [6] to extend the SIP
   preconditions framework.

2.  Terminology

   In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
   "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT
   RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as
   described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [1] and indicate requirement levels for
   compliant implementations.

3.  Connectivity Precondition Definition

3.1  Syntax

   The connectivity precondition type is defined by the string "conn"
   and hence we modify the grammar found in RFC 3312 as follows:








Andreason, et al.       Expires October 26, 2005                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft          Connectivity Precondition             April 2005


      precondition-type = "conn" | "qos" | token

   This precondition tag is registered with the IANA in Section 7.

3.2  Operational semantics

   According to RFC4032 [6], documents defining new precondition types
   need to describe the behavior of UAs from the moment session
   establishment is suspended due to a set of preconditions until is
   resumed when these preconditions are met.  An entity that wishes to
   delay session establishment or modification until media stream
   connectivity has been established uses this precondition-type in an
   offer.  When a mandatory connectivity precondition is received in an
   offer, session establishment or modification is delayed until the
   connectivity precondition has been met, i.e., media stream
   connectivity has been established in the desired direction(s).  The
   delay of session establishment defined here implies that alerting of
   the called party does not occur until the precondition has been
   satisfied.

   Packets may be both sent and received on the media streams in
   question, however such packets SHOULD be limited to packets that are
   necessary to verify connectivity between the two endpoints involved
   on the media stream, i.e. the underlying media stream SHOULD NOT be
   cut through.  For example, STUN packets [STUN], RTP No-Op packets and
   corresponding RTCP reports, as well as TCP SYN and ACK packets can be
   exchanged on media streams that support them as a way of verifying
   connectivity.

   When the media stream consists of multiple destination addresses,
   connectivity to all of them MUST be verified in order for the
   precondition to be met.  In the case of RTP-based media streams, RTCP
   connectivity however is not a requirement.

3.3  Status type

   RFC 3312 defines support for two kinds of status types, namely
   segmented and end-to-end.  The connectivity precondition-type defined
   here MUST be used with the end-to-end status type; use of the
   segmented status type is undefined.

3.4  Direction tag

   The direction attributes defined in RFC 3312 are interpreted as
   follows:






Andreason, et al.       Expires October 26, 2005                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft          Connectivity Precondition             April 2005


   o  send: The party who generated the session description (the offerer
      in an offer-answer exchange) is sending packets on the media
      stream to the other party, and the other party has received at
      least one of those packets, i.e., there is connectivity in the
      forward (sending) direction.
   o  recv: The other party (the answerer in an offer-answer exchange)
      is sending packets on the media stream to this party, and this
      party has received at least one of those packets, i.e., there is
      connectivity in the backwards (receiving) direction.
   o  sendrecv: Both the send and recv conditions hold.  In the case of
      a connection-oriented transport such as TCP, once established the
      connection would usually have an associated direction tag of
      sendrecv because it can carry data in both directions.

   Note that a "send" connectivity precondition from the offerer's point
   of view corresponds to a "recv" connectivity precondition from the
   answerer's point of view, and vice versa.  If media stream
   connectivity in both directions is required before session
   establishment or modification continues, the desired status MUST be
   set to "sendrecv".

3.5  Precondition strength

   Connectivity preconditions may have a strength-tag of either
   "mandatory" or "optional".

   When a mandatory connectivity precondition is offered, and the
   answerer cannot satisfy the connectivity precondition, e.g., because
   the offer does not include parameters that enable connectivity to be
   verified without media cut through, the offer MUST be rejected as
   described in RFC 3312.

   When an optional connectivity precondition is offered, the answerer
   MUST generate its answer SDP as soon as possible; since session
   progress is not delayed in this case, it is not known whether the
   associated media streams will have connectivity.  If the answerer
   wants to delay session progress until connectivity has been verified,
   the answerer MUST increase the strength of the connectivity
   precondition by using a strength-tag of "mandatory" in the answer.
   Note that use of a "mandatory" precondition requires the presence of
   a SIP "Require" header with the option tag "precondition": Any SIP UA
   that does not support a mandatory precondition will reject such
   requests.  To get around this issue, an optional connectivity
   precondition and the SIP "Supported" header with the option tag
   "precondition" can be used instead.  Offers with connectivity
   preconditions in re-INVITEs or UPDATEs follow the rules given in
   Section 6 of RFC 3312, i.e.:




Andreason, et al.       Expires October 26, 2005                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft          Connectivity Precondition             April 2005


      "Both user agents SHOULD continue using the old session parameters
      until all the mandatory preconditions are met.  At that moment,
      the user agents can begin using the new session parameters."

   It should be noted, that connectivity may not exist between two
   entities initially, e.g., when one or both entities are behind a
   symmetric NAT.  Subsequent packet exchanges however may create the
   necessary address bindings in the NAT(s) thereby creating
   connectivity.  The ICE [12] methodology for example ensures that such
   bindings are created following an offer/answer exchange.

4.  Verifying connectivity

   The above definitions of send and receive connectivity preconditions
   beg two questions: How does the sender of a packet know the other
   party received it, and how does the receiver of a packet know who
   sent it (in particular, the correlation between an incoming media
   packet and a particular SIP dialog may not be obvious).

   Media stream connectivity can be ascertained in a variety of ways.
   This document does not mandate any particular mechanism for doing so,
   however the appropriate machinery is likely to vary depending on the
   type of transport used for media carriage.  In order to comply with
   the intent of an endpoint requiring connectivity preconditions, the
   following general principles apply:

   o  The 3-way handshake connection establishment procedures of a
      reliable transport protocol such as TCP are usually adequate to
      demonstrate bi-directional connectivity (and hence "sendrecv"
      media capability).  Probe packets sent over the connection are
      generally not required to satisfy the precondition.
   o  A pure datagram transport such as UDP (whether carrying RTP or
      some other protocol) by itself provides no useful feedback about
      connectivity.  Hence, some sort of probe traffic is necessary to
      ascertain whether packets are being received successfully.
   o  Some connection-oriented transport protocols may allow the data
      transfer phase to operate in an unreliable mode (today there is no
      standards-track IETF protocol which exhibits this characteristic).
      In such cases the success of connection establishment may not
      definitively demonstrate connectivity in the data phase, and hence
      probe traffic MAY be necessary to ascertain if the precondition is
      met.
   o  Hybrid protocols such as DCCP [13] provide their own feedback
      channel and initialization procedures, which can serve to verify
      connectivity without the use of explicit probe traffic.

   The determination depends on the exact method being used to verify
   connectivity.



Andreason, et al.       Expires October 26, 2005                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft          Connectivity Precondition             April 2005


4.1  Procedures for connection-oriented transports

   TCP connections are bidirectional and hence there is no difference
   between send and recv connectivity preconditions.  Once the TCP
   three-way hand shake has completed (SYN, SYN-ACK, ACK), the TCP
   connection is established and data can be sent and received by either
   party, i.e. both a send and a receive connectivity precondition has
   been satisfied.  Implementations SHOULD NOT require the receipt of
   probe traffic in order to consider the precondition satisfied.

   SCTP [8] connections have similar semantics as TCP and SHOULD be
   treated the same as TCP.

4.2  Procedures for datagram transports

   Verification of connectivity on datagram transports usually entail
   the sending of probe traffic with some form of feedback to inform the
   sender whether reception was successful.  Any of the following
   techniques MAY be used.  Other techniques which meet the requirement
   of Section 4 above MAY also be used.

   o  RTP no-op [11]: The sender of an RTP No-Op payload can verify send
      connectivity by examining the RTCP report(s) being returned.  In
      particular, the source SSRC in the RTCP report block is used for
      correlation.  The RTCP report block also contains the SSRC of the
      sender of the report and the SSRC of incoming RTP No-Op packets
      identifies the sender of the RTP packet.  Thus, once send
      connectivity has been ascertained, receipt of an RTP No-Op packet
      from the same SSRC provides the necessary correlation to determine
      receive connectivity.  Alternatively, the duality of send and
      receive preconditions can be exploited, with one side confirming
      when his send precondition is satisfied, which in turn implies the
      other sides recv precondition is satisfied.
   o  STUN [2]: The STUN binding request message sent to check
      connectivity contains a transaction ID which is returned in the
      STUN binding response, thus send connectivity is verified easily.
      STUN binding requests also contain a username and a password which
      ICE [12] communicates via SIP.  When an incoming STUN message is
      received, it is therefore easy to determine the source of that
      message and hence receive connectivity can be determined that way.
      ICE presents the peer with a number of alternative candidate
      addresses for a particular media stream.  Once connectivity has
      been verified for one of those candidate addresses, connectivity
      has been verified, regardless of whether this candidate address is
      the one that ends up being used.  If a media stream consists of
      multiple destination addresses, verification of a candidate
      address for each must occur in order for the precondition to be
      satisfied.



Andreason, et al.       Expires October 26, 2005                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft          Connectivity Precondition             April 2005


   It is however RECOMMENDED that the No-Op RTP payload format be
   supported by entities that support connectivity preconditions.  This
   will ensure that all entities that require probe traffic to support
   the connectivity preconditions have at least one common way of
   ascertaining connectivity.

5.  Examples

   The first example uses the connectivity precondition with TCP in the
   context of a session involving a wireless access medium.  Both UAs
   use a radio access network that does not allow them to send any data
   (not even a TCP SYN) until a radio bearer has been setup for the
   connection.  Figure 1 shows the message flow of this example (the
   PRACK transaction has been omitted for clarity):





































Andreason, et al.       Expires October 26, 2005                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft          Connectivity Precondition             April 2005


               A                                    B
               |  INVITE                            |
               |  a=curr:conn e2e none              |
               |  a=des:conn mandatory e2e sendrecv |
               |  a=setup:holdconn                  |
               |----------------------------------->|
               |                                    |
               |  183 Session Progress              |
               |  a=curr:conn e2e none              |
               |  a=des:conn mandatory e2e sendrecv |
               |  a=setup:holdconn                  |
               |<-----------------------------------|
               |                                    |
               |  UPDATE                            |
               |  a=curr:conn e2e none              |
               |  a=des:conn mandatory e2e sendrecv |
     A's radio |  a=setup:actpass                   |
     bearer is +----------------------------------->|
     up        |                                    |
               |  200 OK                            |
               |  a=curr:conn e2e none              |
               |  a=des:conn mandatory e2e sendrecv |
               |  a=setup:active                    |
               |<-----------------------------------|
               |                                    |
               |                                    |
               |                                    |
               |                                    | B's radio
               |<---TCP Connection Establishment--->+ bearer is up
               |                                    | B sends TCP SYN
               |                                    |
               |                                    |
               |  180 Ringing                       | TCP connection
               |<-----------------------------------+ is up
               |                                    | B alerts the user
               |                                    |

          Figure 1: Message flow with two types of  preconditions

   A sends an INVITE requesting connection-establishment preconditions.
   The setup attribute in the offer is set to holdconn because A cannot
   send or receive any data before setting up a radio bearer for the
   connection.

   B agrees to use the connectivity precondition by sending a 183
   (Session Progress) response.  The setup attribute in the answer is
   also set to holdconn because B, like A, cannot send or receive any
   data before setting up a radio bearer for the connection.



Andreason, et al.       Expires October 26, 2005               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft          Connectivity Precondition             April 2005


   When A's radio bearer is ready, A sends an UPDATE to B with a setup
   attribute with a value of actpass.  This attribute indicates that A
   can perform an active or a passive TCP open.  A is letting B choose
   which endpoint will initiate the connection.

   Since B's radio bearer is not ready yet, B chooses to be the one
   initiating the connection and indicates so with a setup attribute
   with a value of active.  At a later point, when B's radio bearer is
   ready, B initiates the TCP connection towards A.

   Once the TCP connection is established successfully, B alerts the
   callee and sends a 180 (Ringing) response.

   The second example shows a basic SIP session establishment using SDP
   connectivity preconditions and RTP No-Op.  Note that not all SDP
   details are provided in the following. below shows the message flow
   for this scenario shown in Figure 2 below.


































Andreason, et al.       Expires October 26, 2005               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft          Connectivity Precondition             April 2005


                  A                                            B

                  |                                            |
                  |-------------(1) INVITE SDP1--------------->|
                  |                                            |
                  |<------(2) 183 Session Progress SDP2--------|
                  |                                            |
                  |<~~~~~ Connectivity check to A ~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
                  |                                            |
                  |----------------(3) PRACK------------------>|
                  |                                            |
                  |~~~~~ Connectivity to A OK ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>|
                  |                                            |
                  |<-----------(4) 200 OK (PRACK)--------------|
                  |                                            |
                  |~~~~~ Connectivity check to B ~~~~~~~~~~~~~>|
                  |<~~~~ Connectivity to B OK ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
                  |                                            |
                  |-------------(5) UPDATE SDP3--------------->|
                  |                                            |
                  |<--------(6) 200 OK (UPDATE) SDP4-----------|
                  |                                            |
                  |<-------------(7) 180 Ringing---------------|
                  |                                            |
                  |                                            |
                  |                                            |

            Figure 2: Connectivity precondition with RTP no-op

   SDP1: A includes a mandatory end-to-end connectivity precondition
   with a desired status of "sendrecv"; this will ensure media stream
   connectivity in both directions before continuing with the session
   setup.  Since media stream connectivity in either direction is
   unknown at this point, the current status is set to "none".  A's
   local status table (see RFC 3312) for the connectivity precondition
   is as follows:

       Direction |  Current | Desired Strength |  Confirm
      -----------+----------+------------------+----------
         send    |    no    |   mandatory      |    no
         recv    |    no    |   mandatory      |    no

   and the resulting offer SDP is:








Andreason, et al.       Expires October 26, 2005               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft          Connectivity Precondition             April 2005


   m=audio 20000 RTP/AVP 0 96
   c=IN IP4 192.0.2.1
   a=rtpmap:96 no-op/8000
   a=curr:conn e2e none
   a=des:conn mandatory e2e sendrecv

   SDP2: When B receives the offer, B sees the mandatory sendrecv
   connectivity precondition.  B can ascertain connectivity to A ("send"
   from B's point of view) by use of the RTP No-Op, however B wants A to
   inform it about connectivity in the other direction ("recv" from B's
   point of view).  B's local status table therefore looks as follows:

       Direction |  Current | Desired Strength |  Confirm
      -----------+----------+------------------+----------
         send    |    no    |   mandatory      |    no
         recv    |    no    |   mandatory      |    no

   Since B wants to ask A for confirmation about the "recv" (from B's
   point of view) connectivity precondition, the resulting answer SDP
   becomes:

     m=audio 30000 RTP/AVP 0 96
     a=rtpmap:96 no-op/8000
     c=IN IP4 192.0.2.4
     a=curr:conn e2e none
     a=des:conn mandatory e2e sendrecv
     a=conf:conn e2e recv

   Meanwhile, B performs a connectivity check to A, which succeeds and
   hence B's local status table is updated as follows:

       Direction |  Current | Desired Strength |  Confirm
      -----------+----------+------------------+----------
         send    |    yes   |   mandatory      |    no
         recv    |    no    |   mandatory      |    no

   Since the "recv" connectivity precondition (from B's point of view)
   is still not satisfied, session establishment remains suspended.
   SDP3: When A receives the answer SDP, A notes that confirmation was
   requested for B's "recv" connectivity precondition, which is the
   "send" precondition from A's point of view.  A performs a
   connectivity check to B, which succeeds, and A's local status table
   becomes:








Andreason, et al.       Expires October 26, 2005               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft          Connectivity Precondition             April 2005


       Direction |  Current | Desired Strength |  Confirm
      -----------+----------+------------------+----------
         send    |    yes   |   mandatory      |    yes
         recv    |    no    |   mandatory      |    no

   Since B asked for confirmation about the "send" connectivity (from
   A's point of view), A now sends an UPDATE (5) to B to confirm the
   connectivity from A to B:

     m=audio 20000 RTP/AVP 0 96
     a=rtpmap:96 no-op/8000
     c=IN IP4 192.0.2.1
     a=curr:conn e2e send
     a=des:conn mandatory e2e sendrecv

6.  Security Considerations

   In addition to the general security considerations for preconditions
   provided in RFC 3312, the following security issues, which are
   specific to connectivity preconditions, should be considered.

   Connectivity preconditions rely on mechanisms beyond SDP, e.g.
   TCP[7] connection establishment, RTP No-Op [11] or STUN [9], to
   establish and verify connectivity between an offerer and an answerer.
   An attacker that prevents those mechanism from succeeding can prevent
   media sessions from being established and hence it is RECOMMENDED
   that such mechanisms are adequately secured by message authentication
   and integrity protection.  Also, the mechanisms SHOULD consider how
   to prevent denial of service attacks.  Similarly, an attacker that
   can forge packets for these mechanisms can enable sessions to be
   established when there in fact is no media connectivity, which may
   lead to a poor user experience.  Authentication and integrity
   protection of such mechanisms can prevent this type of attacks and
   hence use of it is RECOMMENDED.

   It is also strongly RECOMMENDED that integrity protection be applied
   to the SDP session descriptions.  S/MIME [5] is the natural choice to
   provide such end-to-end integrity protection, as described in RFC
   3261 [3].

7.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is hereby requested to register a RFC 3312 precondition type
   called "conn" with the name "Connectivity precondition".  The
   reference for this precondition type is the current document.


8.  References



Andreason, et al.       Expires October 26, 2005               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft          Connectivity Precondition             April 2005


8.1  Normative References

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

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

   [3]  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.

   [4]  Camarillo, G., Marshall, W., and J. Rosenberg, "Integration of
        Resource Management and Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
        RFC 3312, October 2002.

   [5]  Peterson, J., "S/MIME Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)
        Requirement for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
        RFC 3853, July 2004.

   [6]  Camarillo, G. and P. Kyzivat, "Update to the Session Initiation
        Protocol (SIP) Preconditions Framework", RFC 4032, March 2005.

8.2  Informative References

   [7]   Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793,
         September 1981.

   [8]   Stone, J., Stewart, R., and D. Otis, "Stream Control
         Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Checksum Change", RFC 3309,
         September 2002.

   [9]   Rosenberg, J., Weinberger, J., Huitema, C., and R. Mahy, "STUN
         - Simple Traversal of User Datagram Protocol (UDP) Through
         Network Address Translators (NATs)", RFC 3489, March 2003.

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

   [11]  Andreasen, F., "RTP No-Op Payload Format",
         draft-wing-avt-rtp-noop-01 (work in progress), October 2004.

   [12]  Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A
         Methodology for Network  Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for
         Multimedia Session Establishment Protocols",
         draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-04 (work in progress), February 2005.

   [13]  Kohler, E., "Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)",



Andreason, et al.       Expires October 26, 2005               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft          Connectivity Precondition             April 2005


         draft-ietf-dccp-spec-11 (work in progress), March 2005.


Authors' Addresses

   Flemming Andreasen
   Cisco System, Inc.
   499 Thornall Street, 8th Floor
   Edison, NJ  08837
   USA

   Email: fandreas@cisco.com


   Gonzalo  Camarillo
   Ericsson
   Hirsalantie 11
   Jorvas  02420
   Finland

   Email: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com


   David Oran
   Cisco Systems, Inc
   7 Ladyslipper Lane
   Acton, MA  01720
   USA

   Email: oran@cisco.com


   Dan Wing
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  94301
   USA

   Email: dwing@cisco.com












Andreason, et al.       Expires October 26, 2005               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft          Connectivity Precondition             April 2005


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 (2005).  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.




Andreason, et al.       Expires October 26, 2005               [Page 17]


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