draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-04.txt   draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-05.txt 
Network Working Group R. Jesup Network Working Group R. Jesup
Internet-Draft Mozilla Internet-Draft Mozilla
Intended status: Standards Track S. Loreto Intended status: Standards Track S. Loreto
Expires: August 29, 2013 Ericsson Expires: January 16, 2014 Ericsson
M. Tuexen M. Tuexen
Muenster Univ. of Appl. Sciences Muenster Univ. of Appl. Sciences
February 25, 2013 July 15, 2013
RTCWeb Data Channels RTCWeb Data Channels
draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-04.txt draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-05.txt
Abstract Abstract
The Web Real-Time Communication (WebRTC) working group is charged to The Web Real-Time Communication (WebRTC) working group is charged to
provide protocol support for direct interactive rich communication provide protocol support for direct interactive rich communication
using audio, video, and data between two peers' web-browsers. This using audio, video, and data between two peers' web-browsers. This
document specifies the non-media data transport aspects of the WebRTC document specifies the non-media data transport aspects of the WebRTC
framework. It provides an architectural overview of how the Stream framework. It provides an architectural overview of how the Stream
Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) is used in the WebRTC context as Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) is used in the WebRTC context as
a generic transport service allowing Web Browser to exchange generic a generic transport service allowing Web Browser to exchange generic
data from peer to peer. data from peer to peer.
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
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 August 29, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 16, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2013 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. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Use Cases for Unreliable Data Channels . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Use Cases for Unreliable Data Channels . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Use Cases for Reliable Data Channels . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Use Cases for Reliable Data Channels . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. SCTP over DTLS over UDP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. SCTP over DTLS over UDP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. The Usage of SCTP in the RTCWeb Context . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. The Usage of SCTP in the RTCWeb Context . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. Association Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.1. SCTP Protocol Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. SCTP Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.2. Association Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.3. Channel Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.3. SCTP Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.4. Usage of Payload Protocol Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.4. Channel Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.5. Usage of Payload Protocol Identifier . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Non-media data types in the context of RTCWeb are handled by using Non-media data types in the context of RTCWeb are handled by using
SCTP [RFC4960] encapsulated in DTLS [RFC6347]. SCTP [RFC4960] encapsulated in DTLS [RFC6347].
+----------+ +----------+
| SCTP | | SCTP |
+----------+ +----------+
| DTLS | | DTLS |
+----------+ +----------+
| ICE/UDP | | ICE/UDP |
+----------+ +----------+
Figure 1: Basic stack diagram Figure 1: Basic stack diagram
The encapsulation of SCTP over DTLS (see The encapsulation of SCTP over DTLS (see
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps]) over ICE/UDP (see [RFC5245]) [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps]) over ICE/UDP (see [RFC5245])
provides a NAT traversal solution together with confidentiality, provides a NAT traversal solution together with confidentiality,
source authentication, and integrity protected transfers. This data source authentication, and integrity protected transfers. This data
transport service operates in parallel to the media transports, and transport service operates in parallel to the media transports, and
all of them can eventually share a single transport-layer port all of them can eventually share a single transport-layer port
number. number.
skipping to change at page 4, line 8 skipping to change at page 3, line 34
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. Use Cases 3. Use Cases
This section defined use cases specific to data channels. For This section defined use cases specific to data channels. For
general use cases see [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements]. general use cases see [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements].
3.1. Use Cases for Unreliable Data Channels 3.1. Use Cases for Unreliable Data Channels
U-C 1 A real-time game where position and object state information U-C 1 A real-time game where position and object state information
is sent via one or more unreliable data channels. Note that is sent via one or more unreliable data channels. Note that at
at any time there may be no media channels, or all media any time there may be no media channels, or all media channels may
channels may be inactive, and that there may also be reliable be inactive, and that there may also be reliable data channels in
data channels in use. use.
U-C 2 Providing non-critical information to a user about the reason U-C 2 Providing non-critical information to a user about the reason
for a state update in a video chat or conference, such as Mute for a state update in a video chat or conference, such as Mute
state. state.
3.2. Use Cases for Reliable Data Channels 3.2. Use Cases for Reliable Data Channels
U-C 3 A real-time game where critical state information needs to be U-C 3 A real-time game where critical state information needs to be
transferred, such as control information. Such a game may transferred, such as control information. Such a game may have no
have no media channels, or they may be inactive at any given media channels, or they may be inactive at any given time, or may
time, or may only be added due to in-game actions. only be added due to in-game actions.
U-C 4 Non-realtime file transfers between people chatting. Note U-C 4 Non-realtime file transfers between people chatting. Note
that this may involve a large number of files to transfer that this may involve a large number of files to transfer
sequentially or in parallel, such as when sharing a folder of sequentially or in parallel, such as when sharing a folder of
images or a directory of files. images or a directory of files.
U-C 5 Realtime text chat while talking with an individual or with U-C 5 Realtime text chat while talking with an individual or with
multiple people in a conference. multiple people in a conference.
U-C 6 Renegotiation of the set of media streams in the U-C 6 Renegotiation of the set of media streams in the
PeerConnection. PeerConnection.
U-C 7 Proxy browsing, where a browser uses data channels of a U-C 7 Proxy browsing, where a browser uses data channels of a
PeerConnection to send and receive HTTP/HTTPS requests and PeerConnection to send and receive HTTP/HTTPS requests and data,
data, for example to avoid local internet filtering or for example to avoid local internet filtering or monitoring.
monitoring.
4. Requirements 4. Requirements
This section lists the requirements for P2P data channels between two This section lists the requirements for P2P data channels between two
browsers. browsers.
Req. 1 Multiple simultaneous data channels MUST be supported. Note Req. 1 Multiple simultaneous data channels MUST be supported. Note
that there may 0 or more media streams in parallel with the that there may 0 or more media streams in parallel with the data
data channels, and the number and state (active/inactive) of channels, and the number and state (active/inactive) of the media
the media streams may change at any time. streams may change at any time.
Req. 2 Both reliable and unreliable data channels MUST be Req. 2 Both reliable and unreliable data channels MUST be
supported. supported.
Req. 3 Data channels MUST be congestion controlled; either Req. 3 Data channels MUST be congestion controlled; either
individually, as a class, or in conjunction with the media individually, as a class, or in conjunction with the media
streams, to ensure that data channels don't cause congestion streams, to ensure that data channels don't cause congestion
problems for the media streams, and that the RTCWeb problems for the media streams, and that the RTCWeb PeerConnection
PeerConnection as a whole is fair with competing traffic as a whole is fair with competing traffic such as TCP.
such as TCP.
Req. 4 The application SHOULD be able to provide guidance as to the Req. 4 The application SHOULD be able to provide guidance as to the
relative priority of each data channel relative to each relative priority of each data channel relative to each other, and
other, and relative to the media streams. [ TBD: how this is relative to the media streams. [ TBD: how this is encoded and
encoded and what the impact of this is. ] This will interact what the impact of this is. ] This will interact with the
with the congestion control algorithms. congestion control algorithms.
Req. 5 Data channels MUST be secured; allowing for confidentiality, Req. 5 Data channels MUST be secured; allowing for confidentiality,
integrity and source authentication. See integrity and source authentication. See
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security] and [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security] and [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security-arch] for
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security-arch] for detailed info. detailed info.
Req. 6 Data channels MUST provide message fragmentation support Req. 6 Data channels MUST provide message fragmentation support
such that IP-layer fragmentation can be avoided no matter such that IP-layer fragmentation can be avoided no matter how
how large a message the Javascript application passes to be large a message the Javascript application passes to be sent. It
sent. It also MUST ensure that large data channel transfers also MUST ensure that large data channel transfers don't unduely
don't unduely delay traffic on other data channels. delay traffic on other data channels.
Req. 7 The data channel transport protocol MUST NOT encode local IP Req. 7 The data channel transport protocol MUST NOT encode local IP
addresses inside its protocol fields; doing so reveals addresses inside its protocol fields; doing so reveals potentially
potentially private information, and leads to failure if the private information, and leads to failure if the address is
address is depended upon. depended upon.
Req. 8 The data channel transport protocol SHOULD support Req. 8 The data channel transport protocol SHOULD support
unbounded-length "messages" (i.e., a virtual socket stream) unbounded-length "messages" (i.e., a virtual socket stream) at the
at the application layer, for such things as image-file- application layer, for such things as image-file-transfer;
transfer; Implementations might enforce a reasonable message Implementations might enforce a reasonable message size limit.
size limit.
Req. 9 The data channel transport protocol SHOULD avoid IP Req. 9 The data channel transport protocol SHOULD avoid IP
fragmentation. It MUST support PMTU discovery and MUST NOT fragmentation. It MUST support PMTU discovery and MUST NOT rely
rely on ICMP or ICMPv6 being generated or being passed back, on ICMP or ICMPv6 being generated or being passed back, especially
especially for PMTU discovery. for PMTU discovery.
Req. 10 It MUST be possible to implement the protocol stack in the Req. 10 It MUST be possible to implement the protocol stack in the
user application space. user application space.
5. SCTP over DTLS over UDP Considerations 5. SCTP over DTLS over UDP Considerations
The important features of SCTP in the RTCWeb context are: The important features of SCTP in the RTCWeb context are:
o TCP-friendly congestion control. o TCP-friendly congestion control.
o The congestion control is modifiable for integration with media o The congestion control is modifiable for integration with media
stream congestion control. stream congestion control.
skipping to change at page 7, line 5 skipping to change at page 6, line 23
Each SCTP user message contains a so called Payload Protocol Each SCTP user message contains a so called Payload Protocol
Identifier (PPID) that is passed to SCTP by its upper layer and sent Identifier (PPID) that is passed to SCTP by its upper layer and sent
to its peer. This value can be used to multiplex multiple protocols to its peer. This value can be used to multiplex multiple protocols
over a single SCTP association. The sender provides for each over a single SCTP association. The sender provides for each
protocol a specific PPID and the receiver can demultiplex the protocol a specific PPID and the receiver can demultiplex the
messages based on the received PPID. messages based on the received PPID.
The encapsulation of SCTP over DTLS, together with the SCTP features The encapsulation of SCTP over DTLS, together with the SCTP features
listed above satisfies all the requirements listed in Section 4. listed above satisfies all the requirements listed in Section 4.
The layering of protocols for WebRTC is shown in the following The layering of protocols for WebRTC is shown in the following Figure
Figure 2. 2.
+------+ +------+
|RTCWEB| |RTCWEB|
| DATA | | DATA |
+------+ +------+
| SCTP | | SCTP |
+--------------------+ +--------------------+
| STUN | SRTP | DTLS | | STUN | SRTP | DTLS |
+--------------------+ +--------------------+
| ICE | | ICE |
+--------------------+ +--------------------+
| UDP1 | UDP2 | ... | | UDP1 | UDP2 | ... |
+--------------------+ +--------------------+
Figure 2: WebRTC protocol layers Figure 2: WebRTC protocol layers
This stack (especially in contrast to DTLS over SCTP [RFC6083] in This stack (especially in contrast to DTLS over SCTP [RFC6083] in
combination with SCTP over UDP [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-udp-encaps]) has combination with SCTP over UDP [RFC6951]) has been chosen because it
been chosen because it
o supports the transmission of arbitrary large user messages. o supports the transmission of arbitrary large user messages.
o shares the DTLS connection with the media channels. o shares the DTLS connection with the media channels.
o provides privacy for the SCTP control information. o provides privacy for the SCTP control information.
Considering the protocol stack of Figure 2 the usage of DTLS over UDP Considering the protocol stack of Figure 2 the usage of DTLS over UDP
is specified in [RFC6347], while the usage of SCTP on top of DTLS is is specified in [RFC6347], while the usage of SCTP on top of DTLS is
specified in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps]. specified in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps].
skipping to change at page 9, line 7 skipping to change at page 8, line 26
channel transfer ending up with most or all the channel bandwidth. channel transfer ending up with most or all the channel bandwidth.
Since SCTP does not support the negotiation of a congestion control Since SCTP does not support the negotiation of a congestion control
algorithm, the algorithm either MUST be negotiated before algorithm, the algorithm either MUST be negotiated before
establishment of the SCTP association or MUST NOT require any establishment of the SCTP association or MUST NOT require any
negotiation because it only requires sender side behavior using negotiation because it only requires sender side behavior using
existing information carried in the association. existing information carried in the association.
6. The Usage of SCTP in the RTCWeb Context 6. The Usage of SCTP in the RTCWeb Context
6.1. Association Setup 6.1. SCTP Protocol Considerations
The DTLS encapsulation of SCTP packets as described in
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps] MUST be used. The following SCTP
protocol extensions are required:
o The stream reset extension defined in [RFC6525] MUST be supported.
It is used for closing channels.
o The dynamic address reconfiguration extension defined in [RFC5061]
MUST be used to signal the support of the stream reset extension
defined in [RFC6525], other features of [RFC5061] MUST NOT be
used.
o The partial reliability extension defined in [RFC3758] MUST be
supported. In addition to the timed reliability PR-SCTP policy
defined in [RFC3758], the limited retransmission policy defined in
[I-D.tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-prpolicies] MUST be supported.
o The message interleaving extension defined in
[I-D.stewart-tsvwg-sctp-ndata] MUST be supported.
6.2. Association Setup
The SCTP association will be set up when the two endpoints of the The SCTP association will be set up when the two endpoints of the
WebRTC PeerConnection agree on opening it, as negotiated by JSEP WebRTC PeerConnection agree on opening it, as negotiated by JSEP
(typically an exchange of SDP) [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-jsep]. Additionally, (typically an exchange of SDP) [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-jsep]. Additionally,
the negotiation SHOULD include some type of congestion control the negotiation SHOULD include some type of congestion control
selection. It will use the DTLS connection selected via SDP; selection. It will use the DTLS connection selected via SDP;
typically this will be shared via BUNDLE or equivalent with DTLS typically this will be shared via BUNDLE or equivalent with DTLS
connections used to key the DTLS-SRTP media streams. connections used to key the DTLS-SRTP media streams.
The application SHOULD indicate the initial number of streams The application SHOULD indicate the initial number of streams
required when opening the association, and if no value is supplied, required when opening the association, and if no value is supplied,
the implementation SHOULD provide an appropriate default. If more the implementation SHOULD provide an appropriate default. If more
simultaneous streams are needed, [RFC6525] allows adding additional simultaneous streams are needed, [RFC6525] allows adding additional
(but not removing) streams to an existing association. Note there (but not removing) streams to an existing association. Note there
can be up to 65536 SCTP streams per SCTP association in each can be up to 65536 SCTP streams per SCTP association in each
direction. direction.
6.2. SCTP Streams 6.3. SCTP Streams
SCTP defines a stream as an unidirectional logical channel existing SCTP defines a stream as an unidirectional logical channel existing
within an SCTP association one to another SCTP endpoint. The streams within an SCTP association one to another SCTP endpoint. The streams
are used to provide the notion of in-sequence delivery and for are used to provide the notion of in-sequence delivery and for
multiplexing. Each user message is sent on a particular stream, multiplexing. Each user message is sent on a particular stream,
either order or unordered. Ordering is preserved only for ordered either order or unordered. Ordering is preserved only for ordered
messages sent on the same stream. messages sent on the same stream.
6.3. Channel Definition 6.4. Channel Definition
The W3C has consensus on defining the application API for WebRTC The W3C has consensus on defining the application API for WebRTC
dataChannels to be bidirectional. They also consider the notions of dataChannels to be bidirectional. They also consider the notions of
in-sequence, out-of-sequence, reliable and un-reliable as properties in-sequence, out-of-sequence, reliable and un-reliable as properties
of Channels. One strong wish is for the application-level API to be of Channels. One strong wish is for the application-level API to be
close to the API for WebSockets, which implies bidirectional streams close to the API for WebSockets, which implies bidirectional streams
of data and waiting for onopen to fire before sending, a textual of data and waiting for onopen to fire before sending, a textual
label used to identify the meaning of the stream, among other things. label used to identify the meaning of the stream, among other things.
The realization of a bidirectional Data Channel is a pair of one The realization of a bidirectional Data Channel is a pair of one
skipping to change at page 10, line 15 skipping to change at page 10, line 15
Closing of a Data Channel MUST be signaled by resetting the Closing of a Data Channel MUST be signaled by resetting the
corresponding streams [RFC6525]. Resetting a stream set the Stream corresponding streams [RFC6525]. Resetting a stream set the Stream
Sequence Numbers (SSNs) of the stream back to 'zero' with a Sequence Numbers (SSNs) of the stream back to 'zero' with a
corresponding notification to the application layer that the reset corresponding notification to the application layer that the reset
has been performed. Streams are available to reuse after a reset has has been performed. Streams are available to reuse after a reset has
been performed. been performed.
[RFC6525] also guarantees that all the messages are delivered (or [RFC6525] also guarantees that all the messages are delivered (or
expired) before resetting the stream. expired) before resetting the stream.
6.4. Usage of Payload Protocol Identifier 6.5. Usage of Payload Protocol Identifier
The SCTP Payload Protocol Identifiers (PPIDs) can be used to signal The SCTP Payload Protocol Identifiers (PPIDs) can be used to signal
the interpretation of the "Payload data", like the protocol specified the interpretation of the "Payload data", like the protocol specified
in [I-D.jesup-rtcweb-data-protocol] uses them to identify a in [I-D.jesup-rtcweb-data-protocol] uses them to identify a
Javascript string, a Javascript binary data (ArrayBuffer or Blob) and Javascript string, a Javascript binary data (ArrayBuffer or Blob) and
to provide fragmentation support for large messages that may cause to provide fragmentation support for large messages that may cause
the message to monopolize the SCTP association. the message to monopolize the SCTP association.
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
skipping to change at page 11, line 13 skipping to change at page 11, line 12
Conrad, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Conrad, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
Partial Reliability Extension", RFC 3758, May 2004. Partial Reliability Extension", RFC 3758, May 2004.
[RFC4820] Tuexen, M., Stewart, R., and P. Lei, "Padding Chunk and [RFC4820] Tuexen, M., Stewart, R., and P. Lei, "Padding Chunk and
Parameter for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol Parameter for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol
(SCTP)", RFC 4820, March 2007. (SCTP)", RFC 4820, March 2007.
[RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU [RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery", RFC 4821, March 2007. Discovery", RFC 4821, March 2007.
[RFC4960] Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", [RFC4960] Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC
RFC 4960, September 2007. 4960, September 2007.
[RFC5061] Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., Maruyama, S., and M.
Kozuka, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
Dynamic Address Reconfiguration", RFC 5061, 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
April 2010. 2010.
[RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer [RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, January 2012. Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, January 2012.
[RFC6525] Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., and P. Lei, "Stream Control [RFC6525] Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., and P. Lei, "Stream Control
Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Stream Reconfiguration", Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Stream Reconfiguration", RFC
RFC 6525, February 2012. 6525, February 2012.
[I-D.stewart-tsvwg-sctp-ndata]
Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., and S. Loreto, "A New Data Chunk
for Stream Control Transmission Protocol", draft-stewart-
tsvwg-sctp-ndata-01 (work in progress), February 2013.
[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-03 (work in Protocol", draft-jesup-rtcweb-data-protocol-04 (work in
progress), September 2012. progress), February 2013.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps] [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps]
Jesup, R., Loreto, S., Stewart, R., and M. Tuexen, "DTLS Jesup, R., Loreto, S., Stewart, R., and M. Tuexen, "DTLS
Encapsulation of SCTP Packets for RTCWEB", Encapsulation of SCTP Packets for RTCWEB", draft-ietf-
draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps-00 (work in progress), tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps-00 (work in progress), February
February 2013. 2013.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security] [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security]
Rescorla, E., "Security Considerations for RTC-Web", Rescorla, E., "Security Considerations for RTC-Web",
draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-04 (work in progress), draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-04 (work in progress), January
January 2013. 2013.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security-arch] [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security-arch]
Rescorla, E., "RTCWEB Security Architecture", Rescorla, E., "RTCWEB Security Architecture", draft-ietf-
draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch-06 (work in progress), rtcweb-security-arch-06 (work in progress), January 2013.
January 2013.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-jsep] [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-jsep]
Uberti, J. and C. Jennings, "Javascript Session Uberti, J. and C. Jennings, "Javascript Session
Establishment Protocol", draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-02 (work Establishment Protocol", draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-03 (work
in progress), October 2012. in progress), February 2013.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-qos] [I-D.ietf-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-ietf-rtcweb-
draft-ietf-rtcweb-qos-00 (work in progress), October 2012. qos-00 (work in progress), October 2012.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[RFC6083] Tuexen, M., Seggelmann, R., and E. Rescorla, "Datagram [RFC6083] Tuexen, M., Seggelmann, R., and E. Rescorla, "Datagram
Transport Layer Security (DTLS) for Stream Control Transport Layer Security (DTLS) for Stream Control
Transmission Protocol (SCTP)", RFC 6083, January 2011. Transmission Protocol (SCTP)", RFC 6083, January 2011.
[RFC6951] Tuexen, M. and R. Stewart, "UDP Encapsulation of Stream
Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Packets for End-Host
to End-Host Communication", RFC 6951, May 2013.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements] [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements]
Holmberg, C., Hakansson, S., and G. Eriksson, "Web Real- Holmberg, C., Hakansson, S., and G. Eriksson, "Web Real-
Time Communication Use-cases and Requirements", Time Communication Use-cases and Requirements", draft-
draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-10 (work in ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-11 (work in
progress), December 2012. progress), June 2013.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-udp-encaps] [I-D.tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-prpolicies]
Tuexen, M. and R. Stewart, "UDP Encapsulation of SCTP Loreto, S., Seggelmann, R., Stewart, R., and M. Tuexen,
Packets for End-Host to End-Host Communication", "Additional Policies for the Partial Delivery Extension of
draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-udp-encaps-11 (work in progress), the Stream Control Transmission Protocol", draft-tuexen-
February 2013. tsvwg-sctp-prpolicies-02 (work in progress), July 2013.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Randell Jesup Randell Jesup
Mozilla Mozilla
US US
Email: randell-ietf@jesup.org Email: randell-ietf@jesup.org
Salvatore Loreto Salvatore Loreto
Ericsson Ericsson
Hirsalantie 11 Hirsalantie 11
Jorvas 02420 Jorvas 02420
FI FI
Email: salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com Email: salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com
Michael Tuexen Michael Tuexen
Muenster University of Applied Sciences Muenster University of Applied Sciences
Stegerwaldstrasse 39 Stegerwaldstrasse 39
Steinfurt 48565 Steinfurt 48565
DE DE
Email: tuexen@fh-muenster.de Email: tuexen@fh-muenster.de
 End of changes. 45 change blocks. 
128 lines changed or deleted 160 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/