draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-02.txt   draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-03.txt 
Network Working Group H. Alvestrand Network Working Group H. Alvestrand
Internet-Draft Google Internet-Draft Google
Intended status: Standards Track January 22, 2014 Intended status: Standards Track March 31, 2014
Expires: July 26, 2014 Expires: October 2, 2014
Transports for RTCWEB Transports for RTCWEB
draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-02 draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-03
Abstract Abstract
This document describes the data transport protocols used by RTCWEB, This document describes the data transport protocols used by RTCWEB,
including the protocols used for interaction with intermediate boxes including the protocols used for interaction with intermediate boxes
such as firewalls, relays and NAT boxes. such as firewalls, relays and NAT boxes.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
skipping to change at page 1, line 32 skipping to change at page 1, line 32
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 26, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 2, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Requirements language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Transport and Middlebox specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Transport and Middlebox specification . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. System-provided interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. System-provided interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Usage of Quality of Service functions . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Ability to use IPv4 and IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Support for multiplexing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.3. Usage of temporary IPv6 addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.4. Middle box related functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.4. Usage of Quality of Service - DSCP and Multiplexing . . . 4
3.5. Transport protocols implemented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.5. Middle box related functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.6. Transport protocols implemented . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. Change log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
A.1. Changes from -00 to -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Appendix A. Change log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A.2. Changes from -01 to -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 A.1. Changes from -00 to -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 A.2. Changes from -01 to -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A.3. Changes from -02 to -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The IETF RTCWEB effort, part of the WebRTC effort carried out in The IETF RTCWEB effort, part of the WebRTC effort carried out in
cooperation between the IETF and the W3C, is aimed at specifying a cooperation between the IETF and the W3C, is aimed at specifying a
protocol suite that is useful for real time multimedia exchange protocol suite that is useful for real time multimedia exchange
between browsers. between browsers.
The overall effort is described in the RTCWEB overview document, The overall effort is described in the RTCWEB overview document,
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview]. This document focuses on the data [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview]. This document focuses on the data
transport protocos that are used by conforming implementations. transport protocols that are used by conforming implementations.
This protocol suite is designed for WebRTC, and intends to satisfy This protocol suite is designed for WebRTC, and intends to satisfy
the security considerations described in the WebRTC security the security considerations described in the WebRTC security
documents, [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security] and documents, [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security] and
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security-arch]. [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security-arch].
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
skipping to change at page 3, line 41 skipping to change at page 3, line 41
The protocol specifications used here assume that the following The protocol specifications used here assume that the following
protocols are available to the implementations of the RTCWEB protocols are available to the implementations of the RTCWEB
protocols: protocols:
o UDP. This is the protocol assumed by most protocol elements o UDP. This is the protocol assumed by most protocol elements
described. described.
o TCP. This is used for HTTP/WebSockets, as well as for TURN/SSL o TCP. This is used for HTTP/WebSockets, as well as for TURN/SSL
and ICE-TCP. and ICE-TCP.
For both protocols, IPv4 and IPv6 support is assumed; applications For both protocols, IPv4 and IPv6 support is assumed.
MUST be able to utilize both IPv4 and IPv6 where available.
For UDP, this specification assumes the ability to set the DSCP code For UDP, this specification assumes the ability to set the DSCP code
point of the sockets opened on a per-packet basis, in order to point of the sockets opened on a per-packet basis, in order to
achieve the prioritizations described in achieve the prioritizations described in
[I-D.dhesikan-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos] when multiple media types are [I-D.dhesikan-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos] (see Section 3.4) when multiple media
multiplexed. It does not assume that the DSCP codepoints will be types are multiplexed. It does not assume that the DSCP codepoints
honored, and does assume that they may be zeroed or changed, since will be honored, and does assume that they may be zeroed or changed,
this is a local configuration issue. since this is a local configuration issue.
Platforms that do not give access to these interfaces will not be
able to support a conforming RTCWEB implementation.
This specification does not assume that the implementation will have This specification does not assume that the implementation will have
access to ICMP or raw IP. access to ICMP or raw IP.
3.2. Usage of Quality of Service functions 3.2. Ability to use IPv4 and IPv6
Web applications running on top of the RTCWEB implementation MUST be
able to utilize both IPv4 and IPv6 where available - that is, when
two peers have only IPv4 connectivty to each other, or they have only
IPv6 connectivity to each other, applications running on top of the
RTCWEB implementation MUST be able to communicate.
When TURN is used, and the TURN server has IPv4 or IPv6 connectivity
to the peer or its TURN server, candidates of the appropriate types
MUST be supported. The "Happy Eyeballs" specification for ICE
[I-D.reddy-mmusic-ice-happy-eyeballs] SHOULD be supported.
3.3. Usage of temporary IPv6 addresses
The IPv6 default address selection specification [RFC6724] specifies
that temporary addresses [RFC4941] are to be preferred over permanent
addresses. This is a change from the rules specified by [RFC3484].
For applications that select a single address, this is usually done
by the IPV6_PREFER_SRC_TMP specified in [RFC5014]. However, this
rule is not completely obvious in the ICE scope. This is therefore
clarified as follows:
When a client gathers all IPv6 addresses on a host, and both
temporary addresses and permanent addresses of the same scope are
present, the client SHOULD discard the permanent addresses before
forming pairs. This is consistent with the default policy described
in [RFC6724].
3.4. Usage of Quality of Service - DSCP and Multiplexing
WebRTC implementations SHOULD attempt to set QoS on the packets sent, WebRTC implementations SHOULD attempt to set QoS on the packets sent,
according to the guidelines in [I-D.dhesikan-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos]. It according to the guidelines in [I-D.dhesikan-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos]. It
is appropriate to depart from this recommendation when running on is appropriate to depart from this recommendation when running on
platforms where QoS marking is not implemented. platforms where QoS marking is not implemented.
3.3. Support for multiplexing There exist a number of schemes for achieving quality of service that
do not depend solely on DSCP code points. Some of these schemes
depend on classifying the traffic into flows based on 5-tuple (source
address, source port, protocol, destination address, destination
port) or 6-tuple (same as above + DSCP code point). Under differing
conditions, it may therefore make sense for a sending application to
choose any of the configurations:
RTCWEB implementations MUST support the ability to send and receive o Each media stream carried on its own 5-tuple
multiple SSRCs on the same transport, and MUST support the ability to
send and receive multiple SSRCs on multiple simultaneous transports,
including the ability to send and receive audio and video on the same
transport. The choice of configuration is done at higher layers
(above transport), using mechanisms like BUNDLE
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation]. Further information on RTP
usage is found in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage].
When different content types according to o Media streams grouped by media type into 5-tuples (such as
[I-D.dhesikan-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos] are used on the same transport, carrying all audio on one 5-tuple)
appropriate per-packet DSCP marking SHOULD be used.
DISCUSSION: Minimizing the number of transports has advantages in o All media sent over a single 5-tuple, with or without
traversing NATs and firewalls, due to the reduced chance of differentiation into 6-tuples based on DSCP code points
negotiation failure. However, some network prioritization mechanisms
(in particular active queue management techniques and flow-
recognizing deep packet inspection boxes) will perform better when
flows with different characteristics are separated on different
5-tuples. Since the optimum for this tradeoff is unknown, and may be
variable, it is inappropriate to embed this choice in the protocol
layer, and this is therefore left to the control of the application.
3.4. Middle box related functions In each of the configurations mentioned, data channels may be carried
in its own 5-tuple, or multiplexed together with one of the media
flows.
More complex configurations, such as sending a high priority video
stream on one 5-tuple and sending all other video streams multiplexed
together over another 5-tuple, can also be envisioned.
A sending implementation MUST be able to multiplex all media and data
on a single 5-tuple (fully bundled), MUST be able to send each media
stream and data on their own 5-tuple (fully unbundled), and MAY
choose to support other configurations.
NOTE IN DRAFT: is there a need to place the "group by media type,
with data multiplexed on the video" as a MUST or SHOULD
configuration?
A receiving implementation MUST be able to receive media and data in
all these configurations.
3.5. Middle box related functions
The primary mechanism to deal with middle boxes is ICE, which is an The primary mechanism to deal with middle boxes is ICE, which is an
appropriate way to deal with NAT boxes and firewalls that accept appropriate way to deal with NAT boxes and firewalls that accept
traffic from the inside, but only from the outside if it's in traffic from the inside, but only from the outside if it's in
response to inside traffic (simple stateful firewalls). response to inside traffic (simple stateful firewalls).
ICE [RFC5245] MUST be supported. The implementation MUST be a full ICE [RFC5245] MUST be supported. The implementation MUST be a full
ICE implementation, not ICE-Lite. ICE implementation, not ICE-Lite.
In order to deal with situations where both parties are behind NATs In order to deal with situations where both parties are behind NATs
which perform endpoint-dependent mapping (as defined in [RFC5128] which perform endpoint-dependent mapping (as defined in [RFC5128]
section 2.4), TURN [RFC5766] MUST be supported. section 2.4), TURN [RFC5766] MUST be supported.
Configuration of STUN and TURN servers, both from browser
configuration and from an applicaiton, MUST be supported.
In order to deal with firewalls that block all UDP traffic, TURN In order to deal with firewalls that block all UDP traffic, TURN
using TCP between the client and the server MUST be supported, and using TCP between the client and the server MUST be supported, and
TURN using TLS between the client and the server MUST be supported. TURN using TLS over TCP between the client and the server MUST be
See [RFC5766] section 2.1 for details. supported. See [RFC5766] section 2.1 for details.
In order to deal with situations where one party is on an IPv4 In order to deal with situations where one party is on an IPv4
network and the other party is on an IPv6 network, TURN extensions network and the other party is on an IPv6 network, TURN extensions
for IPv6 [RFC6156] MUST be supported. for IPv6 [RFC6156] MUST be supported.
TURN TCP candidates [RFC6062] SHOULD be supported; this allows TURN TCP candidates [RFC6062] MAY be supported.
applications to achieve peer-to-peer communication when both parties
are behind UDP-blocking firewalls using a single TURN server. (In However, such candidates are not seen as providing any significant
this case, one can also achieve communication using two TURN servers benefit. First, use of TURN TCP would only be relevant in cases
that use TCP between the server and the client, and UDP between the which both peers are required to use TCP to establish a
TURN servers.) PeerConnection. Secondly, that use case is anyway supported by both
sides establishing UDP relay candidates using TURN over TCP to
connect to the relay server. Thirdly, using TCP only between the
endpoint and its relay may result in less issues with TCP in regards
to real-time constraints, e.g. due to head of line blocking.
ICE-TCP candidates [RFC6544] MAY be supported; this may allow ICE-TCP candidates [RFC6544] MAY be supported; this may allow
applications to communicate to peers with public IP addresses across applications to communicate to peers with public IP addresses across
UDP-blocking firewalls without using a TURN server. UDP-blocking firewalls without using a TURN server.
If TCP connections are used, RTP framing according to [RFC4571] MUST
be used, both for the RTP packets and for the DTLS packets used to
carry data channels.
The ALTERNATE-SERVER mechanism specified in [RFC5389] (STUN) section The ALTERNATE-SERVER mechanism specified in [RFC5389] (STUN) section
11 (300 Try Alternate) MUST be supported. 11 (300 Try Alternate) MUST be supported.
Further discussion of the interaction of RTCWEB with firewalls is Further discussion of the interaction of RTCWEB with firewalls is
contained in [I-D.hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations]. This contained in [I-D.hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations]. This
document makes no requirements on interacting with HTTP proxies or document makes no requirements on interacting with HTTP proxies or
HTTP proxy configuration methods. HTTP proxy configuration methods.
3.5. Transport protocols implemented NOTE IN DRAFT: This may be added.
3.6. Transport protocols implemented
For transport of media, secure RTP is used. The details of the For transport of media, secure RTP is used. The details of the
profile of RTP used are described in "RTP Usage" profile of RTP used are described in "RTP Usage"
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage]. [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage].
For data transport over the RTCWEB data channel For data transport over the RTCWEB data channel
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel], RTCWEB implementations MUST support [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel], RTCWEB implementations MUST support
SCTP over DTLS over ICE. This encapsulation is specified in SCTP over DTLS over ICE. This encapsulation is specified in
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps]. Negotiation of this transport in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps]. Negotiation of this transport in
SDP is defined in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp]. SDP is defined in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp]. The SCTP extension for
NDATA, [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-ndata], MUST be supported.
The setup protocol for RTCWEB data channels is described in The setup protocol for RTCWEB data channels is described in
[I-D.jesup-rtcweb-data-protocol]. [I-D.jesup-rtcweb-data-protocol].
RTCWEB implementations MUST support multiplexing of DTLS and RTP over RTCWEB implementations MUST support multiplexing of DTLS and RTP over
the same port pair, as described in the DTLS_SRTP specification the same port pair, as described in the DTLS_SRTP specification
[RFC5764], section 5.1.2. All application layer protocol payloads [RFC5764], section 5.1.2. All application layer protocol payloads
over this DTLS connection are SCTP packets. over this DTLS connection are SCTP packets.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
skipping to change at page 6, line 33 skipping to change at page 7, line 42
Magnus Westerlund, Markus Isomaki and Dan Wing; the contributions Magnus Westerlund, Markus Isomaki and Dan Wing; the contributions
from Andrew Hutton also deserve special mention. from Andrew Hutton also deserve special mention.
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[I-D.dhesikan-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos] [I-D.dhesikan-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos]
Dhesikan, S., Druta, D., Jones, P., and J. Polk, "DSCP and Dhesikan, S., Druta, D., Jones, P., and J. Polk, "DSCP and
other packet markings for RTCWeb QoS", other packet markings for RTCWeb QoS",
draft-dhesikan-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-03 (work in progress), draft-dhesikan-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-06 (work in progress),
December 2013. March 2014.
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp] [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp]
Loreto, S. and G. Camarillo, "Stream Control Transmission Loreto, S. and G. Camarillo, "Stream Control Transmission
Protocol (SCTP)-Based Media Transport in the Session Protocol (SCTP)-Based Media Transport in the Session
Description Protocol (SDP)", draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-05 Description Protocol (SDP)", draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-06
(work in progress), October 2013. (work in progress), February 2014.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel] [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel]
Jesup, R., Loreto, S., and M. Tuexen, "RTCWeb Data Jesup, R., Loreto, S., and M. Tuexen, "WebRTC Data
Channels", draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-06 (work in Channels", draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-07 (work in
progress), October 2013. progress), February 2014.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage] [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage]
Perkins, C., Westerlund, M., and J. Ott, "Web Real-Time Perkins, C., Westerlund, M., and J. Ott, "Web Real-Time
Communication (WebRTC): Media Transport and Use of RTP", Communication (WebRTC): Media Transport and Use of RTP",
draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-11 (work in progress), draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-12 (work in progress),
December 2013. February 2014.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security] [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security]
Rescorla, E., "Security Considerations for WebRTC", Rescorla, E., "Security Considerations for WebRTC",
draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-05 (work in progress), draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-06 (work in progress),
July 2013. January 2014.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security-arch] [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security-arch]
Rescorla, E., "WebRTC Security Architecture", Rescorla, E., "WebRTC Security Architecture",
draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch-07 (work in progress), draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch-09 (work in progress),
July 2013. February 2014.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps] [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps]
Tuexen, M., Stewart, R., Jesup, R., and S. Loreto, "DTLS Tuexen, M., Stewart, R., Jesup, R., and S. Loreto, "DTLS
Encapsulation of SCTP Packets", Encapsulation of SCTP Packets",
draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps-02 (work in progress), draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps-03 (work in progress),
October 2013. February 2014.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-ndata]
Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., Loreto, S., and R. Seggelmann, "A
New Data Chunk for Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-ndata-00 (work in progress),
February 2014.
[I-D.reddy-mmusic-ice-happy-eyeballs]
Reddy, T., Patil, P., and P. Martinsen, "Happy Eyeballs
Extension for ICE",
draft-reddy-mmusic-ice-happy-eyeballs-06 (work in
progress), February 2014.
[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.
[RFC4571] Lazzaro, J., "Framing Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP)
and RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Packets over Connection-
Oriented Transport", RFC 4571, July 2006.
[RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007.
[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.
[RFC5389] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing, [RFC5389] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing,
"Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389, "Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389,
October 2008. October 2008.
[RFC5764] McGrew, D. and E. Rescorla, "Datagram Transport Layer [RFC5764] McGrew, D. and E. Rescorla, "Datagram Transport Layer
skipping to change at page 8, line 7 skipping to change at page 9, line 38
RFC 6062, November 2010. RFC 6062, November 2010.
[RFC6156] Camarillo, G., Novo, O., and S. Perreault, "Traversal [RFC6156] Camarillo, G., Novo, O., and S. Perreault, "Traversal
Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Extension for IPv6", Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Extension for IPv6",
RFC 6156, April 2011. RFC 6156, April 2011.
[RFC6544] Rosenberg, J., Keranen, A., Lowekamp, B., and A. Roach, [RFC6544] Rosenberg, J., Keranen, A., Lowekamp, B., and A. Roach,
"TCP Candidates with Interactive Connectivity "TCP Candidates with Interactive Connectivity
Establishment (ICE)", RFC 6544, March 2012. Establishment (ICE)", RFC 6544, March 2012.
[RFC6724] Thaler, D., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
"Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6)", RFC 6724, September 2012.
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[I-D.hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations] [I-D.hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations]
Stach, T., Hutton, A., and J. Uberti, "RTCWEB Stach, T., Hutton, A., and J. Uberti, "RTCWEB
Considerations for NATs, Firewalls and HTTP proxies", Considerations for NATs, Firewalls and HTTP proxies",
draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-02 (work draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-03 (work
in progress), September 2013. in progress), January 2014.
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation]
Holmberg, C., Alvestrand, H., and C. Jennings,
"Multiplexing Negotiation Using Session Description
Protocol (SDP) Port Numbers",
draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-05 (work in
progress), October 2013.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview] [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview]
Alvestrand, H., "Overview: Real Time Protocols for Brower- Alvestrand, H., "Overview: Real Time Protocols for Brower-
based Applications", draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-08 (work based Applications", draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-09 (work
in progress), September 2013. in progress), February 2014.
[I-D.jesup-rtcweb-data-protocol] [I-D.jesup-rtcweb-data-protocol]
Jesup, R., Loreto, S., and M. Tuexen, "WebRTC Data Channel Jesup, R., Loreto, S., and M. Tuexen, "WebRTC Data Channel
Protocol", draft-jesup-rtcweb-data-protocol-04 (work in Protocol", draft-jesup-rtcweb-data-protocol-04 (work in
progress), February 2013. progress), February 2013.
[RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet
Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.
[RFC5014] Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and J. Laganier, "IPv6
Socket API for Source Address Selection", RFC 5014,
September 2007.
[RFC5128] Srisuresh, P., Ford, B., and D. Kegel, "State of Peer-to- [RFC5128] Srisuresh, P., Ford, B., and D. Kegel, "State of Peer-to-
Peer (P2P) Communication across Network Address Peer (P2P) Communication across Network Address
Translators (NATs)", RFC 5128, March 2008. Translators (NATs)", RFC 5128, March 2008.
Appendix A. Change log Appendix A. Change log
A.1. Changes from -00 to -01 A.1. Changes from -00 to -01
o Clarified DSCP requirements, with reference to -qos- o Clarified DSCP requirements, with reference to -qos-
skipping to change at page 9, line 29 skipping to change at page 11, line 17
o Required support for TURN IPv6 extensions. o Required support for TURN IPv6 extensions.
o Removed reference to the TURN URI scheme, as it was unnecessary. o Removed reference to the TURN URI scheme, as it was unnecessary.
o Made an explicit statement that multiplexing (or not) is an o Made an explicit statement that multiplexing (or not) is an
application matter. application matter.
. .
A.3. Changes from -02 to -03
o Added required support for draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-ndata
o Removed discussion of multiplexing, since this is present in rtp-
usage.
o Added RFC 4571 reference for framing RTP packets over TCP.
o Downgraded TURN TCP candidates from SHOULD to MAY, and added more
language discussing TCP usage.
o Added language on IPv6 temporary addresses.
o Added language describing multiplexing choices.
o Added a separate section detailing what it means when we say that
an RTCWEB implementation MUST support both IPv4 and IPv6.
Author's Address Author's Address
Harald Alvestrand Harald Alvestrand
Google Google
Email: harald@alvestrand.no Email: harald@alvestrand.no
 End of changes. 32 change blocks. 
88 lines changed or deleted 189 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/