draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-options-registry-02.txt   rfc6336.txt 
Network Working Group M. Westerlund Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Westerlund
Internet-Draft Ericsson Request for Comments: 6336 Ericsson
Updates: 5245 (if approved) C. Perkins Updates: 5245 C. Perkins
Intended status: Standards Track University of Glasgow Category: Standards Track University of Glasgow
Expires: November 13, 2011 May 12, 2011 ISSN: 2070-1721 July 2011
IANA Registry for Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) Options IANA Registry for Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) Options
draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-options-registry-02
Abstract Abstract
It has been identified that Interactive Connectivity Establishment It has been identified that "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE) RFC5245 is missing a registry for ICE options. This document (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for
defines this missing IANA registry and updates RFC5245. Offer/Answer Protocols" (RFC 5245) is missing a registry for ICE
options. This document defines this missing IANA registry and
Status of this Memo updates RFC 5245.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the Status of This Memo
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering This is an Internet Standards Track document.
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 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 13, 2011. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6336.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Requirements Language ...........................................2
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. IANA Considerations .............................................3
3.1. ICE Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. ICE Options ................................................3
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Security Considerations .........................................3
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Acknowledgements ................................................4
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. References ......................................................4
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6.1. Normative References .......................................4
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.2. Informative References .....................................4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
"Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network "Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network
Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for Offer/Answer" [RFC5245] Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols"
defines a concept of ICE Options. However, the ICE RFC fails to [RFC5245] defines a concept of ICE options. However, the ICE RFC
create an IANA registry for ICE options. As one ICE option is under fails to create an IANA registry for ICE options. As one ICE option
specification in [I-D.ietf-avtcore-ecn-for-rtp], there is now a need is under specification in [ECN-FOR-RTP], there is now a need to
to create the registry. create the registry.
RFC 5245 says: "ICE provides for extensibility by allowing an offer RFC 5245 says: "ICE provides for extensibility by allowing an offer
or answer to contain a series of tokens that identify the ICE or answer to contain a series of tokens that identify the ICE
extensions used by that agent. If an agent supports an ICE extensions used by that agent. If an agent supports an ICE
extension, it MUST include the token defined for that extension in extension, it MUST include the token defined for that extension in
the ice-options attribute." the ice-options attribute".
Thus, as future extensions are defined, these ICE options needs to be Thus, as future extensions are defined, these ICE options need to be
registered with IANA to ensure non-conflicting identification. The registered with IANA to ensure non-conflicting identification. The
ICE options identifiers are used in signalling between the ICE ICE option identifiers are used in signalling between the ICE
endpoints to negotiate extension support. RFC 5245 defines one endpoints to negotiate extension support. RFC 5245 defines one
method of signalling these ICE options, using SDP with Offer/Answer method of signalling these ICE options, using the Session Description
[RFC3264]. Protocol (SDP) with Offer/Answer [RFC3264].
This document updates the ICE specification [RFC5245] to define the This document updates the ICE specification [RFC5245] to define the
"Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) Options" registry. "Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) Options" registry.
2. Requirements Language 2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
3. IANA Considerations 3. IANA Considerations
This document defines a registry "Interactive Connectivity This document defines a registry "Interactive Connectivity
Establishment (ICE) Options" for ICE options that can be used in SDP Establishment (ICE) Options" for ICE options that can be used in the
"ice-options" attribute or other signalling parameters carrying the SDP "ice-options" attribute or other signalling parameters carrying
ICE options. the ICE options.
3.1. ICE Options 3.1. ICE Options
An ICE option identifier MUST fulfill the ABNF [RFC5234] syntax for An ICE option identifier MUST fulfill the ABNF [RFC5234] syntax for
"ice-option-tag" as specified in [RFC5245]. This syntax is "ice-option-tag" as specified in [RFC5245]. This syntax is
reproduced here for simplicity, but the authoritative definition is reproduced here for simplicity, but the authoritative definition is
in the ICE RFC: in the ICE RFC:
ice-option-tag = 1*ice-char ice-option-tag = 1*ice-char
ice-char = ALPHA / DIGIT / "+" / "/" ice-char = ALPHA / DIGIT / "+" / "/"
ICE options are of unlimited length by the syntax, however they are
RECOMMENDED to be no longer than 20 characters. This is to reduce ICE options are of unlimited length according to the syntax; however,
message sizes and allow for efficient parsing. they are RECOMMENDED to be no longer than 20 characters. This is to
reduce message sizes and allow for efficient parsing.
Registration of an ICE option in the "Interactive Connectivity Registration of an ICE option in the "Interactive Connectivity
Establishment (ICE) Options" registry is done using the Specification Establishment (ICE) Options" registry is done using the Specification
Required policy as defined in "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Required policy as defined in "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC5226]. Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC5226].
A registration request MUST include the following information: A registration request MUST include the following information:
o The ICE option identifier to be registered o The ICE option identifier to be registered
o Name, Email and Address of contact person for the registration o Name, Email, and Address of a contact person for the registration
o Organization or individuals having the change control o Organization or individuals having the change control
o Short description of the ICE extension to which the option relates o Short description of the ICE extension to which the option relates
o Reference(s) to the specification defining the ICE option and the o Reference(s) to the specification defining the ICE option and the
related extensions related extensions
This document registers no ICE option. This document registers no ICE option.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
As this document defines an IANA registry for an already existing As this document defines an IANA registry for an already existing
concept there are no new security considerations. concept, there are no new security considerations.
5. Acknowledgements 5. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the people having reviewed the draft The authors would like to thank the people who reviewed the document
and provided feedback, Flemming Andreasen, Mykyta Yevstifeyev, Amanda and provided feedback: Flemming Andreasen, Mykyta Yevstifeyev, Amanda
Baber and Brian Carpenter. Baber, and Brian Carpenter.
6. References 6. References
6.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008. May 2008.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax [RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed., and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008. Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
January 2008.
[RFC5245] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment [RFC5245] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT)
Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245, Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245,
April 2010. April 2010.
6.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-avtcore-ecn-for-rtp] [ECN-FOR-RTP]
Westerlund, M., Johansson, I., Perkins, C., and K. Westerlund, M., Johansson, I., Perkins, C., O'Hanlon, P.,
Carlberg, "Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) for RTP and K. Carlberg, "Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
over UDP", draft-ietf-avtcore-ecn-for-rtp-01 (work in for RTP over UDP", Work in Progress, July 2011.
progress), March 2011.
[RFC3264] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model [RFC3264] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264,
June 2002. June 2002.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Magnus Westerlund Magnus Westerlund
Ericsson Ericsson
Farogatan 6 Farogatan 6
SE-164 80 Kista SE-164 80 Kista
Sweden Sweden
Phone: +46 10 714 82 87 Phone: +46 10 714 82 87
Email: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com EMail: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
Colin Perkins Colin Perkins
University of Glasgow University of Glasgow
School of Computing Science School of Computing Science
Glasgow G12 8QQ Glasgow G12 8QQ
United Kingdom United Kingdom
Email: csp@csperkins.org EMail: csp@csperkins.org
 End of changes. 23 change blocks. 
61 lines changed or deleted 60 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/