--- 1/draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-13.txt 2016-06-07 06:15:55.347401830 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-14.txt 2016-06-07 06:15:55.383402714 -0700 @@ -1,18 +1,18 @@ Network Working Group H. Alvestrand Internet-Draft Google -Intended status: Standards Track June 6, 2016 -Expires: December 8, 2016 +Intended status: Standards Track June 7, 2016 +Expires: December 9, 2016 Transports for WebRTC - draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-13 + draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-14 Abstract This document describes the data transport protocols used by WebRTC, including the protocols used for interaction with intermediate boxes such as firewalls, relays and NAT boxes. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the @@ -21,21 +21,21 @@ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on December 8, 2016. + This Internet-Draft will expire on December 9, 2016. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents @@ -51,40 +51,41 @@ 2. Requirements language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Transport and Middlebox specification . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. System-provided interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.2. Ability to use IPv4 and IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.3. Usage of temporary IPv6 addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.4. Middle box related functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.5. Transport protocols implemented . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Media Prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. Local prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. Usage of Quality of Service - DSCP and Multiplexing . . . 8 - 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Appendix A. Change log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A.1. Changes from -00 to -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A.2. Changes from -01 to -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - A.3. Changes from -02 to -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + A.3. Changes from -02 to -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 A.4. Changes from -03 to -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 A.5. Changes from -04 to -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - A.6. Changes from -05 to -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + A.6. Changes from -05 to -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 A.7. Changes from -06 to -07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 A.8. Changes from -07 to -08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 A.9. Changes from -08 to -09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 A.10. Changes from -09 to -10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - A.11. Changes from -10 to -11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - A.12. Changes from -11 to -12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + A.11. Changes from -10 to -11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + A.12. Changes from -11 to -12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A.13. Changes from -12 to -13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + A.14. Changes from -13 to -14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1. Introduction WebRTC is a protocol suite aimed at real time multimedia exchange between browsers, and between browsers and other entities. WebRTC is described in the WebRTC overview document, [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview], which also defines terminology used in this document, including the terms "WebRTC device" and "WebRTC @@ -276,20 +277,24 @@ In this context, a "flow" is used for the units that are given a specific priority through the WebRTC API. For media, a "media flow", which can be an "audio flow" or a "video flow", is what [RFC7656] calls a "media source", which results in a "source RTP stream" and one or more "redundancy RTP streams". This specification does not describe prioritization between the RTP streams that come from a single "media source". + All media flows in WebRTC are assumed to be interactive, as defined + in [RFC4594]; there is no browser API support for indicating whether + media is interactive or non-interactive. + A "data flow" is the outgoing data on a single WebRTC data channel. The priority associated with a media flow or data flow is classified as "very-low", "low", "medium or "high". There are only four priority levels at the API. The priority settings affect two pieces of behavior: Packet send sequence decisions and packet markings. Each is described in its own section below. @@ -589,20 +594,25 @@ [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview] Alvestrand, H., "Overview: Real Time Protocols for Browser-based Applications", draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-15 (work in progress), January 2016. [RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, DOI 10.17487/ RFC3484, February 2003, . + [RFC4594] Babiarz, J., Chan, K., and F. Baker, "Configuration + Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 4594, DOI + 10.17487/RFC4594, August 2006, + . + [RFC5014] Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and J. Laganier, "IPv6 Socket API for Source Address Selection", RFC 5014, DOI 10.17487/RFC5014, September 2007, . [RFC5128] Srisuresh, P., Ford, B., and D. Kegel, "State of Peer-to- Peer (P2P) Communication across Network Address Translators (NATs)", RFC 5128, DOI 10.17487/RFC5128, March 2008, . @@ -761,16 +772,21 @@ addresses. o Updated draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp reference to RFC 7657 A.13. Changes from -12 to -13 o Clarify that the ALPN header needs to be sent. o Mentioned that RFC 7657 also talks about congestion control +A.14. Changes from -13 to -14 + + o Add note about non-support for marking flows as interactive or + non-interactive. + Author's Address Harald Alvestrand Google Email: harald@alvestrand.no