draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-10.txt   draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-11.txt 
Network Working Group H. Alvestrand Network Working Group H. Alvestrand
Internet-Draft Google Internet-Draft Google
Intended status: Standards Track June 17, 2014 Intended status: Standards Track August 18, 2014
Expires: December 19, 2014 Expires: February 19, 2015
Overview: Real Time Protocols for Browser-based Applications Overview: Real Time Protocols for Browser-based Applications
draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-10 draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-11
Abstract Abstract
This document gives an overview and context of a protocol suite This document gives an overview and context of a protocol suite
intended for use with real-time applications that can be deployed in intended for use with real-time applications that can be deployed in
browsers - "real time communication on the Web". browsers - "real time communication on the Web".
It intends to serve as a starting and coordination point to make sure It intends to serve as a starting and coordination point to make sure
all the parts that are needed to achieve this goal are findable, and all the parts that are needed to achieve this goal are findable, and
that the parts that belong in the Internet protocol suite are fully that the parts that belong in the Internet protocol suite are fully
skipping to change at page 1, line 43 skipping to change at page 1, line 43
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 December 19, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 19, 2015.
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
skipping to change at page 2, line 24 skipping to change at page 2, line 24
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Principles and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Principles and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Goals of this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Goals of this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Relationship between API and protocol . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Relationship between API and protocol . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. On interoperability and innovation . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3. On interoperability and innovation . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.4. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Architecture and Functionality groups . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Architecture and Functionality groups . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Data transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4. Data transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Data framing and securing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5. Data framing and securing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Data formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. Data formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Connection management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. Connection management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Presentation and control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8. Presentation and control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. Local system support functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9. Local system support functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendix A. Change log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Appendix A. Change log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.1. Changes from draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-datagram-00 A.1. Changes from draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-datagram-00
to -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 to -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.2. Changes from draft-alvestrand-dispatch-01 to draft- A.2. Changes from draft-alvestrand-dispatch-01 to draft-
alvestrand-rtcweb-overview-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 alvestrand-rtcweb-overview-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.3. Changes from draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-00 to -01 . . . . . 18 A.3. Changes from draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-00 to -01 . . . . . 19
A.4. Changes from draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-overview-01 to A.4. Changes from draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-overview-01 to
draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.5. Changes from -00 to -01 of draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview . . 18 A.5. Changes from -00 to -01 of draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview . . 19
A.6. Changes from -01 to -02 of draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview . . 18 A.6. Changes from -01 to -02 of draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview . . 20
A.7. Changes from -02 to -03 of draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview . . 19 A.7. Changes from -02 to -03 of draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview . . 20
A.8. Changes from -03 to -04 of draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview . . 19 A.8. Changes from -03 to -04 of draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview . . 20
A.9. Changes from -04 to -05 of draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview . . 19 A.9. Changes from -04 to -05 of draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview . . 20
A.10. Changes from -05 to -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 A.10. Changes from -05 to -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A.11. Changes from -06 to -07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 A.11. Changes from -06 to -07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
A.12. Changes from -07 to -08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 A.12. Changes from -07 to -08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
A.13. Changes from -08 to -09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 A.13. Changes from -08 to -09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
A.14. Changes from -09 to -10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 A.14. Changes from -09 to -10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 A.15. Changes from -10 to -11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Internet was, from very early in its lifetime, considered a The Internet was, from very early in its lifetime, considered a
possible vehicle for the deployment of real-time, interactive possible vehicle for the deployment of real-time, interactive
applications - with the most easily imaginable being audio applications - with the most easily imaginable being audio
conversations (aka "Internet telephony") and video conferencing. conversations (aka "Internet telephony") and video conferencing.
The first attempts to build this were dependent on special networks, The first attempts to build this were dependent on special networks,
special hardware and custom-built software, often at very high prices special hardware and custom-built software, often at very high prices
or at low quality, placing great demands on the infrastructure. or at low quality, placing great demands on the infrastructure.
As the available bandwidth has increased, and as processors and other As the available bandwidth has increased, and as processors an other
hardware has become ever faster, the barriers to participation have hardware has become ever faster, the barriers to participation have
decreased, and it has become possible to deliver a satisfactory decreased, and it has become possible to deliver a satisfactory
experience on commonly available computing hardware. experience on commonly available computing hardware.
Still, there are a number of barriers to the ability to communicate Still, there are a number of barriers to the ability to communicate
universally - one of these is that there is, as of yet, no single set universally - one of these is that there is, as of yet, no single set
of communication protocols that all agree should be made available of communication protocols that all agree should be made available
for communication; another is the sheer lack of universal for communication; another is the sheer lack of universal
identification systems (such as is served by telephone numbers or identification systems (such as is served by telephone numbers or
email addresses in other communications systems). email addresses in other communications systems).
skipping to change at page 5, line 18 skipping to change at page 5, line 18
is a browser or another device implementing this specification. is a browser or another device implementing this specification.
The goal of cooperation between the protocol specification and the The goal of cooperation between the protocol specification and the
API specification is that for all options and features of the API specification is that for all options and features of the
protocol specification, it should be clear which API calls to make to protocol specification, it should be clear which API calls to make to
exercise that option or feature; similarly, for any sequence of API exercise that option or feature; similarly, for any sequence of API
calls, it should be clear which protocol options and features will be calls, it should be clear which protocol options and features will be
invoked. Both subject to constraints of the implementation, of invoked. Both subject to constraints of the implementation, of
course. course.
For the purpose of this document, two classes of things that can For the purpose of this document, three classes of things that can
claim conformance are defined: claim conformance are defined:
o A WebRTC browser is something that conforms to both the protocol o A WebRTC browser is something that conforms to both the protocol
specification and the Javascript API defined above. specification and the Javascript API defined above.
o A WebRTC device is something that conforms to the protocol o A WebRTC device is something that conforms to the protocol
specification, but does not claim to implement the Javascript API. specification, but does not claim to implement the Javascript API.
o A WebRTC gateway is something that mediates media traffic to non-
WebRTC entities. It is like a device, but has certain
restrictiions on where it can operate, which means that some of
the requirements can be relaxed.
All WebRTC browsers are WebRTC devices, so any requirement on a All WebRTC browsers are WebRTC devices, so any requirement on a
WebRTC device also applies to a WebRTC browser. WebRTC device also applies to a WebRTC browser.
WebRTC gateways are described in a separate document,
[I-D.alvestrand-rtcweb-gateways].
2.3. On interoperability and innovation 2.3. On interoperability and innovation
The "Mission statement of the IETF" [RFC3935] states that "The The "Mission statement of the IETF" [RFC3935] states that "The
benefit of a standard to the Internet is in interoperability - that benefit of a standard to the Internet is in interoperability - that
multiple products implementing a standard are able to work together multiple products implementing a standard are able to work together
in order to deliver valuable functions to the Internet's users." in order to deliver valuable functions to the Internet's users."
Communication on the Internet frequently occurs in two phases: Communication on the Internet frequently occurs in two phases:
o Two parties communicate, through some mechanism, what o Two parties communicate, through some mechanism, what
skipping to change at page 7, line 5 skipping to change at page 7, line 12
Interactive: Communication between multiple parties, where the Interactive: Communication between multiple parties, where the
expectation is that an action from one party can cause a reaction expectation is that an action from one party can cause a reaction
by another party, and the reaction can be observed by the first by another party, and the reaction can be observed by the first
party, with the total time required for the action/reaction/ party, with the total time required for the action/reaction/
observation is on the order of no more than hundreds of observation is on the order of no more than hundreds of
milliseconds. milliseconds.
Media: Audio and video content. Not to be confused with Media: Audio and video content. Not to be confused with
"transmission media" such as wires. "transmission media" such as wires.
Media path: The path that media data follows from one browser to Media path: The path that media data follows from one WebRTC device
another. to another.
Protocol: A specification of a set of data units, their Protocol: A specification of a set of data units, their
representation, and rules for their transmission, with their representation, and rules for their transmission, with their
defined semantics. A protocol is usually thought of as going defined semantics. A protocol is usually thought of as going
between systems. between systems.
Real-time media: Media where generation of content and display of Real-time media: Media where generation of content and display of
content are intended to occur closely together in time (on the content are intended to occur closely together in time (on the
order of no more than hundreds of milliseconds). Real-time media order of no more than hundreds of milliseconds). Real-time media
can be used to support interactive communication. can be used to support interactive communication.
skipping to change at page 7, line 28 skipping to change at page 7, line 35
SDP Agent: The protocol implementation involved in the SDP offer/ SDP Agent: The protocol implementation involved in the SDP offer/
answer exchange, as defined in [RFC3264] section 3. answer exchange, as defined in [RFC3264] section 3.
Signaling: Communication that happens in order to establish, manage Signaling: Communication that happens in order to establish, manage
and control media paths. and control media paths.
Signaling Path: The communication channels used between entities Signaling Path: The communication channels used between entities
participating in signaling to transfer signaling. There may be participating in signaling to transfer signaling. There may be
more entities in the signaling path than in the media path. more entities in the signaling path than in the media path.
WebRTC Browser: Browser that conforms to the WebRTC protocol
specifications and offer the WebRTC Javascript APIs.
WebRTC Device: An unit (software, hardware or combinations) that
conforms to the WebRTC protocol specifications, but does not offer
the WebRTC Javascript APIs.
NOTE: Where common definitions exist for these terms, those NOTE: Where common definitions exist for these terms, those
definitions should be used to the greatest extent possible. definitions should be used to the greatest extent possible.
3. Architecture and Functionality groups 3. Architecture and Functionality groups
The model of real-time support for browser-based applications does The model of real-time support for browser-based applications does
not assume that the browser will contain all the functions that need not assume that the browser will contain all the functions that need
to be performed in order to have a function such as a telephone or a to be performed in order to have a function such as a telephone or a
video conferencing unit; the vision is that the browser will have the video conferencing unit; the vision is that the browser will have the
functions that are needed for a Web application, working in functions that are needed for a Web application, working in
skipping to change at page 12, line 7 skipping to change at page 13, line 7
SRTP [RFC3711] is REQUIRED for all implementations. SRTP [RFC3711] is REQUIRED for all implementations.
The detailed considerations for usage of functions from RTP and SRTP The detailed considerations for usage of functions from RTP and SRTP
are given in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage]. The security are given in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage]. The security
considerations for the RTCWEB use case are in considerations for the RTCWEB use case are in
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security], and the resulting security functions are [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security], and the resulting security functions are
described in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security-arch]. described in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security-arch].
Considerations for the transfer of data that is not in RTP format is Considerations for the transfer of data that is not in RTP format is
described in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel], and a supporting described in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel], and a supporting
protocol is described in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol]. Webrtc protocol for establishing individual data channels is described in
devices MUST implement these two specifications. [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol]. Webrtc devices MUST implement these
two specifications.
WebRTC devices MUST implement [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage], WebRTC devices MUST implement [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage],
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security], [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security-arch], and the [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security], [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security-arch], and the
requirements they include. requirements they include.
6. Data formats 6. Data formats
The intent of this specification is to allow each communications The intent of this specification is to allow each communications
event to use the data formats that are best suited for that event to use the data formats that are best suited for that
particular instance, where a format is supported by both sides of the particular instance, where a format is supported by both sides of the
skipping to change at page 13, line 18 skipping to change at page 14, line 18
written before the codecs were specified should automatically be written before the codecs were specified should automatically be
able to use the new codecs where appropriate with no changes to able to use the new codecs where appropriate with no changes to
the JS applications. the JS applications.
The particular choices made for RTCWEB, and their implications for The particular choices made for RTCWEB, and their implications for
the API offered by a browser implementing RTCWEB, are described in the API offered by a browser implementing RTCWEB, are described in
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-jsep]. [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-jsep].
WebRTC browsers MUST implement [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-jsep]. WebRTC browsers MUST implement [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-jsep].
NOTE IN DRAFT: Is there any part of -jsep that WebRTC devices need to WebRTC devices MUST implement the functions described in that
be required to implement, and are not also required via other paths? document that relate to the network layer (for example Bundle, RTCP-
mux and Trickle ICE), but do not need to support the API
functionality described there.
8. Presentation and control 8. Presentation and control
The most important part of control is the user's control over the The most important part of control is the user's control over the
browser's interaction with input/output devices and communications browser's interaction with input/output devices and communications
channels. It is important that the user have some way of figuring channels. It is important that the user have some way of figuring
out where his audio, video or texting is being sent, for what out where his audio, video or texting is being sent, for what
purported reason, and what guarantees are made by the parties that purported reason, and what guarantees are made by the parties that
form part of this control channel. This is largely a local function form part of this control channel. This is largely a local function
between the browser, the underlying operating system and the user between the browser, the underlying operating system and the user
skipping to change at page 15, line 40 skipping to change at page 16, line 45
13.1. Normative References 13.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-audio] [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-audio]
Valin, J. and C. Bran, "WebRTC Audio Codec and Processing Valin, J. and C. Bran, "WebRTC Audio Codec and Processing
Requirements", draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-05 (work in Requirements", draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-05 (work in
progress), February 2014. progress), February 2014.
[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-10 (work in Channels", draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-11 (work in
progress), June 2014. progress), July 2014.
[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-06 (work in progress), June 2014. protocol-07 (work in progress), July 2014.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-jsep] [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-jsep]
Uberti, J. and C. Jennings, "Javascript Session Uberti, J., Jennings, C., and E. Rescorla, "Javascript
Establishment Protocol", draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-06 (work Session Establishment Protocol", draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-07
in progress), February 2014. (work in progress), July 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-15 (work in progress), May draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-16 (work in progress), July
2014. 2014.
[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-06 (work in progress), January 2014. ietf-rtcweb-security-07 (work in progress), July 2014.
[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-09 (work in progress), February 2014. rtcweb-security-arch-10 (work in progress), July 2014.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-transports] [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-transports]
Alvestrand, H., "Transports for RTCWEB", draft-ietf- Alvestrand, H., "Transports for WebRTC", draft-ietf-
rtcweb-transports-05 (work in progress), June 2014. rtcweb-transports-06 (work in progress), August 2014.
[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, June with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, June
2002. 2002.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003. Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.
[RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K. [RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
skipping to change at page 17, line 7 skipping to change at page 18, line 14
[W3C.WD-webrtc-20120209] [W3C.WD-webrtc-20120209]
Bergkvist, A., Burnett, D., Jennings, C., and A. Bergkvist, A., Burnett, D., Jennings, C., and A.
Narayanan, "WebRTC 1.0: Real-time Communication Between Narayanan, "WebRTC 1.0: Real-time Communication Between
Browsers", World Wide Web Consortium WD WD-webrtc- Browsers", World Wide Web Consortium WD WD-webrtc-
20120209, February 2012, 20120209, February 2012,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-webrtc-20120209>. <http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-webrtc-20120209>.
13.2. Informative References 13.2. Informative References
[I-D.alvestrand-rtcweb-gateways]
Alvestrand, H., "WebRTC Gateways", draft-alvestrand-
rtcweb-gateways-00 (work in progress), August 2014.
[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", draft- Time Communication Use-cases and Requirements", draft-
ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-14 (work in ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-14 (work in
progress), February 2014. progress), February 2014.
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
June 2002. June 2002.
skipping to change at page 20, line 35 skipping to change at page 21, line 42
Deleted references to -unified-plan Deleted references to -unified-plan
Deleted reference to -generic-idp (draft expired) Deleted reference to -generic-idp (draft expired)
Added notes on which referenced documents WebRTC browsers or devices Added notes on which referenced documents WebRTC browsers or devices
MUST conform to. MUST conform to.
Added pointer to the security section of the API drafts. Added pointer to the security section of the API drafts.
A.15. Changes from -10 to -11
Added "WebRTC Gateway" as a third class of device, and referenced the
doc describing them.
Made a number of text clarifications in response to document reviews.
Author's Address Author's Address
Harald T. Alvestrand Harald T. Alvestrand
Google Google
Kungsbron 2 Kungsbron 2
Stockholm 11122 Stockholm 11122
Sweden Sweden
Email: harald@alvestrand.no Email: harald@alvestrand.no
 End of changes. 24 change blocks. 
51 lines changed or deleted 81 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/