[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00

RTCWEB                                                        M. Thomson
Internet-Draft                                                 Microsoft
Intended status: Standards Track                       February 18, 2013
Expires: August 22, 2013


                        Data Channels for RTCWEB
                      draft-thomson-rtcweb-data-00

Abstract

   RTCWEB have selected SCTP over DTLS over UDP with ICE for peer-to-
   peer data channels.  There is some debate over the best way to
   negotiate channels.  This proposal is a nose-to-tail description of
   an alternative to existing proposals.

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 August 22, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 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.




Thomson                  Expires August 22, 2013                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft              Web Data Channels              February 2013


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Overview of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  (In)consistent Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     3.1.  Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     3.2.  Dealing with Mismatched Properties  . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   4.  Available Data Channel Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   5.  SDP Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   6.  Payload Protocol Identifiers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   9.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
     10.1. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
     10.2. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

































Thomson                  Expires August 22, 2013                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft              Web Data Channels              February 2013


1.  Introduction

   RTCWEB [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview] has defined the use of the Stream
   Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) [RFC4960] over Datagram
   Transport Layer Security (DTLS) [RFC6347] over UDP with Interactive
   Connectivity Establishment (ICE) [RFC5245] for peer-to-peer data
   channels.

   This document describes a proposal for how this protocol stack is
   used.  The proposal attempts to reconcile the following basic
   requirements:

   o  the ability to have data channels used interchangeably with
      websockets, after establishment

   o  the ability to use as many SCTP features as possible

   Like other proposals, this proposal uses an API that is largely
   interchangeable with the WebSockets API [REF:TBD].  Of course, that
   alone is insufficient because the way that data channels are created
   is completely different to websockets [RFC6455].  Only the general
   usage of the API follows the WebSockets API, channel establishment
   requires a very different process.

   Furthermore, not every application will care for compatibility with
   the WebSockets API.  For those applications, additional properties
   are exposed to enable valuable SCTP features.

   In these aspects, all data channel proposals are the same.  The
   details differ.  For example, this one doesn't need an in-band
   protocol.  It even avoids the need for negotiation, except where it
   is needed.  If not for the fact that the WebSockets API designers -
   in their infinite wisdom - decided to distinguish text from binary,
   it wouldn't even need to use a PPID to identify textual messages.

1.1.  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 [RFC2119] and indicate requirement
   levels for compliant implementations.


2.  Overview of Operation

   A data channel is a bidirectional communication medium between WebRTC
   peers.



Thomson                  Expires August 22, 2013                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft              Web Data Channels              February 2013


   Every data channel is bound to a specific SCTP stream number.  The
   same SCTP stream identifier is used for both directions of the data
   channel.  Though SCTP streams are unidirectional, and this concept
   doesn't hold any particular meaning for SCTP, this simplification
   ensures that channels can be created with minimal overhead.

   Each data channel has a set of properties that governs how it sends
   messages.  Unlike other SCTP APIs where properties like reliability
   settings are set on a per-message basis, this API places these
   properties on the data channel.  This allows the API to behave
   exactly like the WebSockets API when sending messages.  Details of
   the available data channel properties are included in Section 4.

   There are three ways that a data channel can be created.  All three
   result in an object representing the data channel being provided to
   the application.  Each differs in the manner of delivery and how
   properties are selected for the data channel.

   1.  The application can request the creation of a new data channel
       directly.  The browser selects appropriate properties for the
       channel, using any values provided by the application and
       providing defaults for others.

       This triggers a notification to the application that indicates
       that it needs to renegotiate the session.

   2.  Offer/answer negotiation can trigger the creation of a new data
       channel.  In this case, the session description provided in an
       offer or answer describes the properties of the channel.

   3.  Messages can arrive on an SCTP stream that does not have a data
       channel allocated.  If messages arrive on a stream, the browser
       provides default values for all stream properties.

   Channel creation can fail if there are an insufficient number of
   available SCTP streams.  This is based on either a local
   unwillingness to receive more streams, or based on knowledge of the
   unwillingness of the peer to receive more streams.

   Creation can also fail if the application specifies a stream ID that
   is already in use.  These should trigger the appropriate error
   mechanisms (exceptions or something).

   Channels are closed by sending a RE-CONFIG chunk that includes
   Incoming and Outgoing SSN Reset Request parameters, as defined in
   [RFC6525].  Closing a channel doesn't permit the sending of a code
   and message as exposed in the WebSockets API, any values that are
   provided by the application are discarded.



Thomson                  Expires August 22, 2013                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft              Web Data Channels              February 2013


3.  (In)consistent Properties

   The creation of the first data channel will require offer/answer
   negotiation.  This is necessary to ensure that the SCTP association
   is created, including ICE, the DTLS handshake, plus any
   authentication that might be required.

   Once an SCTP association is live, data channels can be used to
   exchange messages immediately after they are created.  The drawback
   is that messages arrive at the peer without any information about
   what properties the sender attaches to the corresponding data
   channel.

   How much property consistency matters to the application will depend
   on the application.  If the application is performing SS7 signaling
   using M3UA [RFC4666], this is unlikely to matter, but some
   applications could rely on having consistent data channel properties.

3.1.  Negotiation

   The safest (and slowest) way to establish new channels with
   consistent properties is to negotiate them.  This is performed using
   an offer/answer exchange.  The application is able to choose where
   and when this negotiation occurs.  If there is an existing data
   channel, then this provides a low latency path for performing this
   negotiation.

   The negotiation includes a description for every SCTP stream that a
   peer is sending that includes all of the data channel properties (see
   Section 4), so that the receiver can create a data channel with the
   same properties.  The browser creates a data channel with the
   described properties and provides that to the application.  If the
   data channel description appears in an offer, the answer describes
   the data channel that is used on the same stream number.

   An offer or answer that includes a description for a data channel
   that already exists, then the properties of that data channel are not
   modified.  An answer MUST include the properties of the existent data
   channel, not the channel that the offer describes.

3.2.  Dealing with Mismatched Properties

   An application that chooses to send on data channels prior to
   negotiation will cause the receiving peer to create a data channel
   with a default configuration.  Applications can handle this in a
   number of ways:





Thomson                  Expires August 22, 2013                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft              Web Data Channels              February 2013


   o  The application on the receiving peer can create data channels in
      the same order as the sender to ensure consistent properties.
      This is possible because stream identifiers are assigned in the
      same way by both peers.

   o  The application on the receiving peer might apply application-
      specific default values for all non-negotiated channels.

   o  The application on the receiving peer might not care about having
      consistent data channel properties.  Note that data channel
      properties only apply to the sending of messages.

   Note: It is possible to provide an application with information about
   the values that are in use by a peer.  This would in most cases be
   possible after negotiation, though some properties are revealed when
   new messages arrive.  Of course, this is a lot of effort after the
   application has already effectively declared that it doesn't care.
   Given that the application could exchange this information using the
   data channel(s) it has convenient, adding new APIs seem of very low
   value.

   [[Irrelevant API Note: Adding a data channel triggers a notification
   to the application that it should renegotiate the session.  Normally,
   the 'negotiation needed' state is cleared when the negotiation
   commences (or completes?).  If the application decides to send
   packets, then the damage is done and there is no point negotiating.
   That being the case, a data channel could removed from the set of
   unnegotiated things upon sending a packet.  Negotiation from this
   point isn't going to change anything.]]


4.  Available Data Channel Properties

   The following properties are exposed to the application.  All of
   these properties can be set during the creation of a data channel.
   Once the channel object is created, these properties are mutable,
   with the exception of "streamId".

   streamId  The SCTP stream ID to use for the channel.  If not provided
      by the application, the lowest valued stream ID that is not
      already in use by a data channel is selected.  If the channel is
      created as a result of negotiation or packet arrival, the stream
      ID has already been chosen.

   binaryPPID  The SCTP payload protocol identifier (PPID) that is used
      for binary messages.  Textual messages are always sent using a
      PPID that indicates textual content, so this value only determines
      the PPID that is attached to binary messages.  This field is a 32-



Thomson                  Expires August 22, 2013                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft              Web Data Channels              February 2013


      bit number.

      Unless otherwise specified, channels use the PPID for WebRTC
      binary data channels.  Channels created in response to the receipt
      of a message use the PPID from the received message, unless the
      message uses the PPID for WebRTC textual data channels, which
      causes the binary PPID to be selected instead.  Details on the
      newly defined PPIDs are included in Section 6.

   reliabilityTime  The amount of time (in milliseconds) that the
      browser will attempt to retransmit messages for reliable delivery.
      Together with reliabilityRetransmissions, this enables unreliable
      or partially reliable transmission of data.  The default value for
      this property is the largest number available (e.g.,
      Number.POSITIVE_INFINITY).

   reliabilityRetransmissions  The numer of retransmissions that the
      browser will make for any packet reliable delivery.  Together with
      reliabilityTime, this enables unreliable or partially reliable
      transmission of data.  The default value for this property is the
      largest number available (e.g., Number.POSITIVE_INFINITY).

   label  The label to assign to the data channel.  A default value is
      selected by the receiving browser.

   protocol  A protocol label that identifies the protocol used on the
      data channel.  This property is undefined unless set by the
      application.

   binaryType  The BinaryType defined in The WebSockets API determines
      whether binary data is provided to the application as Blob or
      ArrayBuffer objects.  The default value is "blob".  Note that
      changing this might not have an immediate effect if messages have
      started to arrive prior to the change.

   All these properties are specific to each message that is sent.
   Changes to mutable properties take effect for the next message that
   is sent on the channel.

   This isn't a W3C WebRTC document, so specifics of the API aren't
   really relevant, but it is imagined that these properties could be
   passed in a dictionary to the method that creates a new data channel
   and exposed as attributes on the data channel object.


5.  SDP Format

   The properties described above appear in SDP.  All properties are



Thomson                  Expires August 22, 2013                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft              Web Data Channels              February 2013


   declarative.  Though the specifics of the syntax doesn't matter much,
   the following example could indicate something that would work:

   m=application 12345 SCTP/DTLS 0 1 2 5
   c=IN IP6 ::1
   a=fmtp:0 binaryPPID=177;label=control
   a=fmtp:1 label=chat
   a=fmtp:2 label=characters;reliabilityTime=2000;protocol=lrudfb
   a=fmtp:5 label=bullets;reliabilityTime=5000

   [[Formal SDP grammar TBD]]

   This assumes that the SCTP port number (inside the DTLS
   encapsulation) is fixed, so that this doesn't need to be indicated
   anywhere.  I'm not sure whether asking IANA for a port allocation
   makes sense though.


6.  Payload Protocol Identifiers

   Two SCTP payload protocol identifiers are defined for WebRTC data
   channels.

   The WebRTC textual data channel PPID (number TBD) is used for all
   messages that are identified as being textual.  The payload of
   messages marked with this PPID MUST be UTF-8 encoded text.

   The WebRTC binary data channel PPID (number TBD) is used as the
   default PPID for new data channels.


7.  IANA Considerations

   This document probably should register the PPIDs, but I don't really
   have time to do that right now.


8.  Security Considerations

   I thought about this, and I can't think of any specific security
   considerations.  I could blather on about willingness to accept
   streams and large volumes of data, but that's pretty lame.

   I'm sure something will turn up eventually.







Thomson                  Expires August 22, 2013                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft              Web Data Channels              February 2013


9.  Acknowledgments

   This document is a rush job.  If it survives for any longer than a
   couple of weeks, no doubt this section will come in handy.


10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

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

   [RFC4566]  Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
              Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.

   [RFC4960]  Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
              RFC 4960, September 2007.

   [RFC6525]  Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., and P. Lei, "Stream Control
              Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Stream Reconfiguration",
              RFC 6525, February 2012.

10.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview]
              Alvestrand, H., "Overview: Real Time Protocols for Brower-
              based Applications", draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-05 (work
              in progress), December 2012.

   [RFC4666]  Morneault, K. and J. Pastor-Balbas, "Signaling System 7
              (SS7) Message Transfer Part 3 (MTP3) - User Adaptation
              Layer (M3UA)", RFC 4666, September 2006.

   [RFC5245]  Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
              (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT)
              Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245,
              April 2010.

   [RFC6347]  Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
              Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, January 2012.

   [RFC6455]  Fette, I. and A. Melnikov, "The WebSocket Protocol",
              RFC 6455, December 2011.







Thomson                  Expires August 22, 2013                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft              Web Data Channels              February 2013


Author's Address

   Martin Thomson
   Microsoft
   3210 Porter Drive
   Palo Alto, CA  94304
   US

   Phone: +1 650-353-1925
   Email: martin.thomson@skype.net









































Thomson                  Expires August 22, 2013               [Page 10]


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