draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-11.txt   draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-12.txt 
Network Working Group H. Alvestrand Network Working Group H. Alvestrand
Internet-Draft Google Internet-Draft Google
Intended status: Standards Track January 28, 2016 Intended status: Standards Track March 21, 2016
Expires: July 31, 2016 Expires: September 22, 2016
Transports for WebRTC Transports for WebRTC
draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-11 draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-12
Abstract Abstract
This document describes the data transport protocols used by WebRTC, This document describes the data transport protocols used by WebRTC,
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 31, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 22, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 23 skipping to change at page 2, line 23
3.4. Middle box related functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.4. Middle box related functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.5. Transport protocols implemented . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.5. Transport protocols implemented . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Media Prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Media Prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Local prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. Local prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Usage of Quality of Service - DSCP and Multiplexing . . . 8 4.2. Usage of Quality of Service - DSCP and Multiplexing . . . 8
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Change log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Appendix A. Change log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.1. Changes from -00 to -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 A.1. Changes from -00 to -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.2. Changes from -01 to -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 A.2. Changes from -01 to -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.3. Changes from -02 to -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A.3. Changes from -02 to -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.4. Changes from -03 to -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A.4. Changes from -03 to -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.5. Changes from -04 to -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A.5. Changes from -04 to -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.6. Changes from -05 to -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 A.6. Changes from -05 to -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.7. Changes from -06 to -07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 A.7. Changes from -06 to -07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.8. Changes from -07 to -08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 A.8. Changes from -07 to -08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.9. Changes from -08 to -09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 A.9. Changes from -08 to -09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.10. Changes from -09 to -10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 A.10. Changes from -09 to -10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.11. Changes from -10 to -11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 A.11. Changes from -10 to -11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 A.12. Changes from -11 to -12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
WebRTC is a protocol suite aimed at real time multimedia exchange WebRTC is a protocol suite aimed at real time multimedia exchange
between browsers, and between browsers and other entities. between browsers, and between browsers and other entities.
WebRTC is described in the WebRTC overview document, WebRTC is described in the WebRTC overview document,
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview], which also defines terminology used in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview], which also defines terminology used in
this document, including the terms "WebRTC device" and "WebRTC this document, including the terms "WebRTC device" and "WebRTC
browser". browser".
skipping to change at page 4, line 34 skipping to change at page 4, line 34
by the IPV6_PREFER_SRC_TMP preference flag specified in [RFC5014]. by the IPV6_PREFER_SRC_TMP preference flag specified in [RFC5014].
However, this rule is not completely obvious in the ICE scope. This However, this rule is not completely obvious in the ICE scope. This
is therefore clarified as follows: is therefore clarified as follows:
When a client gathers all IPv6 addresses on a host, and both When a client gathers all IPv6 addresses on a host, and both
temporary addresses and permanent addresses of the same scope are temporary addresses and permanent addresses of the same scope are
present, the client SHOULD discard the permanent addresses before present, the client SHOULD discard the permanent addresses before
exposing addresses to the application or using them in ICE. This is exposing addresses to the application or using them in ICE. This is
consistent with the default policy described in [RFC6724]. consistent with the default policy described in [RFC6724].
If some of the temporary IPv6 addresses, but not all, are marked
deprecated, the client SHOULD discard the deprecated addresses.
3.4. Middle box related functions 3.4. 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 is in traffic from the inside, but only from the outside if it is 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. A full ICE implementation allows ICE implementation, not ICE-Lite. A full ICE implementation allows
interworking with both ICE and ICE-Lite implementations when they are interworking with both ICE and ICE-Lite implementations when they are
skipping to change at page 8, line 48 skipping to change at page 8, line 48
data channels MUST use a single DSCP code point. The code point used data channels MUST use a single DSCP code point. The code point used
SHOULD be that recommended by [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos] for the SHOULD be that recommended by [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos] for the
highest priority data channel carried. Note that this means that all highest priority data channel carried. Note that this means that all
data packets, no matter what their relative priority is, will be data packets, no matter what their relative priority is, will be
treated the same by the network. treated the same by the network.
All packets on one TCP connection, no matter what it carries, MUST All packets on one TCP connection, no matter what it carries, MUST
use a single DSCP code point. use a single DSCP code point.
More advice on the use of DSCP code points with RTP is given in More advice on the use of DSCP code points with RTP is given in
[I-D.ietf-dart-dscp-rtp]. [RFC7657].
There exist a number of schemes for achieving quality of service that There exist a number of schemes for achieving quality of service that
do not depend solely on DSCP code points. Some of these schemes do not depend solely on DSCP code points. Some of these schemes
depend on classifying the traffic into flows based on 5-tuple (source depend on classifying the traffic into flows based on 5-tuple (source
address, source port, protocol, destination address, destination address, source port, protocol, destination address, destination
port) or 6-tuple (5-tuple + DSCP code point). Under differing port) or 6-tuple (5-tuple + DSCP code point). Under differing
conditions, it may therefore make sense for a sending application to conditions, it may therefore make sense for a sending application to
choose any of the configurations: choose any of the configurations:
o Each media stream carried on its own 5-tuple o Each media stream carried on its own 5-tuple
skipping to change at page 10, line 27 skipping to change at page 10, line 27
contributions from Andrew Hutton also deserve special mention. contributions from Andrew Hutton also deserve special mention.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp] [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp]
Holmberg, C., Loreto, S., and G. Camarillo, "Stream Holmberg, C., Loreto, S., and G. Camarillo, "Stream
Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)-Based Media Transport Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)-Based Media Transport
in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)", draft-ietf- in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)", draft-ietf-
mmusic-sctp-sdp-12 (work in progress), January 2015. mmusic-sctp-sdp-16 (work in progress), February 2016.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-alpn] [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-alpn]
Thomson, M., "Application Layer Protocol Negotiation for Thomson, M., "Application Layer Protocol Negotiation for
Web Real-Time Communications (WebRTC)", draft-ietf-rtcweb- Web Real-Time Communications (WebRTC)", draft-ietf-rtcweb-
alpn-00 (work in progress), July 2014. alpn-02 (work in progress), January 2016.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel] [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel]
Jesup, R., Loreto, S., and M. Tuexen, "WebRTC Data Jesup, R., Loreto, S., and M. Tuexen, "WebRTC Data
Channels", draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-13 (work in Channels", draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-13 (work in
progress), January 2015. progress), January 2015.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol] [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol]
Jesup, R., Loreto, S., and M. Tuexen, "WebRTC Data Channel Jesup, R., Loreto, S., and M. Tuexen, "WebRTC Data Channel
Establishment Protocol", draft-ietf-rtcweb-data- Establishment Protocol", draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-
protocol-09 (work in progress), January 2015. protocol-09 (work in progress), January 2015.
[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-22 (work in progress), draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-26 (work in progress), March
February 2015. 2016.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security] [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security]
Rescorla, E., "Security Considerations for WebRTC", draft- Rescorla, E., "Security Considerations for WebRTC", draft-
ietf-rtcweb-security-07 (work in progress), July 2014. ietf-rtcweb-security-08 (work in progress), February 2015.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security-arch] [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security-arch]
Rescorla, E., "WebRTC Security Architecture", draft-ietf- Rescorla, E., "WebRTC Security Architecture", draft-ietf-
rtcweb-security-arch-10 (work in progress), July 2014. rtcweb-security-arch-11 (work in progress), March 2015.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos] [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos]
Dhesikan, S., Jennings, C., Druta, D., Jones, P., and J. Jones, P., Dhesikan, S., Jennings, C., and D. Druta, "DSCP
Polk, "DSCP and other packet markings for RTCWeb QoS", and other packet markings for WebRTC QoS", draft-ietf-
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-03 (work in progress), tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-15 (work in progress), March 2016.
November 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", draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp- Encapsulation of SCTP Packets", draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-
dtls-encaps-09 (work in progress), January 2015. dtls-encaps-09 (work in progress), January 2015.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-ndata] [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-ndata]
Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., Loreto, S., and R. Seggelmann, Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., Loreto, S., and R. Seggelmann,
"Stream Schedulers and a New Data Chunk for the Stream "Stream Schedulers and User Message Interleaving for the
Control Transmission Protocol", draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp- Stream Control Transmission Protocol", draft-ietf-tsvwg-
ndata-02 (work in progress), January 2015. sctp-ndata-05 (work in progress), March 2016.
[I-D.martinsen-mmusic-ice-dualstack-fairness] [I-D.martinsen-mmusic-ice-dualstack-fairness]
Martinsen, P., Reddy, T., and P. Patil, "ICE IPv4/IPv6 Martinsen, P., Reddy, T., and P. Patil, "ICE IPv4/IPv6
Dual Stack Fairness", draft-martinsen-mmusic-ice- Dual Stack Fairness", draft-martinsen-mmusic-ice-
dualstack-fairness-02 (work in progress), February 2015. dualstack-fairness-02 (work in progress), February 2015.
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, DOI
August 1980. 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>.
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC [RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
793, September 1981. 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/
RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4571] Lazzaro, J., "Framing Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) [RFC4571] Lazzaro, J., "Framing Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP)
and RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Packets over Connection- and RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Packets over Connection-
Oriented Transport", RFC 4571, July 2006. Oriented Transport", RFC 4571, DOI 10.17487/RFC4571, July
2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4571>.
[RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy [RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007. IPv6", RFC 4941, DOI 10.17487/RFC4941, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4941>.
[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, April Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245, DOI
2010. 10.17487/RFC5245, April 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5245>.
[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. DOI 10.17487/RFC5389, October 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5389>.
[RFC5764] McGrew, D. and E. Rescorla, "Datagram Transport Layer [RFC5764] McGrew, D. and E. Rescorla, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for the Secure Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for the Secure
Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 5764, May 2010. Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 5764, DOI
10.17487/RFC5764, May 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5764>.
[RFC5766] Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using [RFC5766] Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using
Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to Session Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to Session
Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5766, April 2010. Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5766, DOI
10.17487/RFC5766, April 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5766>.
[RFC6062] Perreault, S. and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using Relays [RFC6062] Perreault, S., Ed. and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using
around NAT (TURN) Extensions for TCP Allocations", RFC Relays around NAT (TURN) Extensions for TCP Allocations",
6062, November 2010. RFC 6062, DOI 10.17487/RFC6062, November 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6062>.
[RFC6156] Camarillo, G., Novo, O., and S. Perreault, "Traversal [RFC6156] Camarillo, G., Novo, O., and S. Perreault, Ed., "Traversal
Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Extension for IPv6", RFC Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Extension for IPv6", RFC
6156, April 2011. 6156, DOI 10.17487/RFC6156, April 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6156>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC6544,
March 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6544>.
[RFC6724] Thaler, D., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown, [RFC6724] Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
"Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6 "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6)", RFC 6724, September 2012. (IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6724>.
[RFC7231] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer [RFC7231] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231, DOI Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231, DOI
10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014, 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.
[RFC7235] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer [RFC7235] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication", RFC 7235, DOI Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication", RFC 7235, DOI
10.17487/RFC7235, June 2014, 10.17487/RFC7235, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7235>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7235>.
[RFC7639] Hutton, A., Uberti, J., and M. Thomson, "The ALPN HTTP [RFC7639] Hutton, A., Uberti, J., and M. Thomson, "The ALPN HTTP
Header Field", RFC 7639, DOI 10.17487/RFC7639, August Header Field", RFC 7639, DOI 10.17487/RFC7639, August
2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7639>. 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7639>.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-dart-dscp-rtp]
Black, D. and P. Jones, "Differentiated Services
(DiffServ) and Real-time Communication", draft-ietf-dart-
dscp-rtp-10 (work in progress), November 2014.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview] [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview]
Alvestrand, H., "Overview: Real Time Protocols for Alvestrand, H., "Overview: Real Time Protocols for
Browser-based Applications", draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-13 Browser-based Applications", draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-15
(work in progress), November 2014. (work in progress), January 2016.
[RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet [RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet
Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003. Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, DOI 10.17487/
RFC3484, February 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3484>.
[RFC5014] Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and J. Laganier, "IPv6 [RFC5014] Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and J. Laganier, "IPv6
Socket API for Source Address Selection", RFC 5014, Socket API for Source Address Selection", RFC 5014, DOI
September 2007. 10.17487/RFC5014, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5014>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC5128, March
2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5128>.
[RFC7656] Lennox, J., Gross, K., Nandakumar, S., Salgueiro, G., and [RFC7656] Lennox, J., Gross, K., Nandakumar, S., Salgueiro, G., and
B. Burman, Ed., "A Taxonomy of Semantics and Mechanisms B. Burman, Ed., "A Taxonomy of Semantics and Mechanisms
for Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Sources", RFC 7656, for Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Sources", RFC 7656,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7656, November 2015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7656, November 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7656>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7656>.
[RFC7657] Black, D., Ed. and P. Jones, "Differentiated Services
(Diffserv) and Real-Time Communication", RFC 7657, DOI
10.17487/RFC7657, November 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7657>.
Appendix A. Change log Appendix A. Change log
This section should be removed before publication as an RFC. This section should be removed before publication as an RFC.
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-
o Clarified "symmetric NAT" -> "NATs which perform endpoint- o Clarified "symmetric NAT" -> "NATs which perform endpoint-
dependent mapping" dependent mapping"
skipping to change at page 16, line 24 skipping to change at page 16, line 44
(Bug #6) (Bug #6)
A.11. Changes from -10 to -11 A.11. Changes from -10 to -11
o Added a definition of the term "flow" used in the prioritization o Added a definition of the term "flow" used in the prioritization
chapter chapter
o Changed the names of the four priority levels to conform to other o Changed the names of the four priority levels to conform to other
specs. specs.
A.12. Changes from -11 to -12
o Added a SHOULD NOT about using deprecated temporary IPv6
addresses.
o Updated draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp reference to RFC 7657
Author's Address Author's Address
Harald Alvestrand Harald Alvestrand
Google Google
Email: harald@alvestrand.no Email: harald@alvestrand.no
 End of changes. 39 change blocks. 
57 lines changed or deleted 87 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.44. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/