draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-14.txt   draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-15.txt 
Network Working Group H. Alvestrand Network Working Group H. Alvestrand
Internet-Draft Google Internet-Draft Google
Intended status: Standards Track June 7, 2016 Intended status: Standards Track August 4, 2016
Expires: December 9, 2016 Expires: February 5, 2017
Transports for WebRTC Transports for WebRTC
draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-14 draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-15
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 December 9, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 5, 2017.
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 13 skipping to change at page 2, line 13
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Requirements language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Transport and Middlebox specification . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Transport and Middlebox specification . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. System-provided interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. System-provided interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Ability to use IPv4 and IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Ability to use IPv4 and IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Usage of temporary IPv6 addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.3. Usage of temporary IPv6 addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.4. Middle box related functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.4. Middle box related functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.5. Transport protocols implemented . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.5. Transport protocols implemented . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Media Prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Media Prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A. Change log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Appendix A. Change log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.1. Changes from -00 to -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A.1. Changes from -00 to -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.2. Changes from -01 to -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A.2. Changes from -01 to -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.3. Changes from -02 to -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 A.3. Changes from -02 to -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.4. Changes from -03 to -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 A.4. Changes from -03 to -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.5. Changes from -04 to -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 A.5. Changes from -04 to -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A.6. Changes from -05 to -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 A.6. Changes from -05 to -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A.7. Changes from -06 to -07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 A.7. Changes from -06 to -07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A.8. Changes from -07 to -08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 A.8. Changes from -07 to -08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A.9. Changes from -08 to -09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 A.9. Changes from -08 to -09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.10. Changes from -09 to -10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 A.10. Changes from -09 to -10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.11. Changes from -10 to -11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A.11. Changes from -10 to -11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.12. Changes from -11 to -12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A.12. Changes from -11 to -12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.13. Changes from -12 to -13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A.13. Changes from -12 to -13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.14. Changes from -13 to -14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A.14. Changes from -13 to -14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A.15. Changes from -14 to -15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
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 3, line 36 skipping to change at page 3, line 36
3.1. System-provided interfaces 3.1. System-provided interfaces
The protocol specifications used here assume that the following The protocol specifications used here assume that the following
protocols are available to the implementations of the WebRTC protocols are available to the implementations of the WebRTC
protocols: protocols:
o UDP [RFC0768]. This is the protocol assumed by most protocol o UDP [RFC0768]. This is the protocol assumed by most protocol
elements described. elements described.
o TCP [RFC0793]. This is used for HTTP/WebSockets, as well as for o TCP [RFC0793]. This is used for HTTP/WebSockets, as well as for
TURN/SSL and ICE-TCP. TURN/TLS and ICE-TCP.
For both protocols, IPv4 and IPv6 support is assumed. For both protocols, IPv4 and IPv6 support is assumed.
For UDP, this specification assumes the ability to set the DSCP code For UDP, this specification assumes the ability to set the DSCP code
point of the sockets opened on a per-packet basis, in order to point of the sockets opened on a per-packet basis, in order to
achieve the prioritizations described in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos] achieve the prioritizations described in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos]
(see Section 4.2) when multiple media types are multiplexed. It does (see Section 4.2) when multiple media types are multiplexed. It does
not assume that the DSCP codepoints will be honored, and does assume not assume that the DSCP codepoints will be honored, and does assume
that they may be zeroed or changed, since this is a local that they may be zeroed or changed, since this is a local
configuration issue. configuration issue.
Platforms that do not give access to these interfaces will not be Platforms that do not give access to these interfaces will not be
able to support a conforming WebRTC implementation. able to support a conforming WebRTC implementation.
This specification does not assume that the implementation will have This specification does not assume that the implementation will have
access to ICMP or raw IP. access to ICMP or raw IP.
The following protocols may be used, but can be implemented by a
WebRTC endpoint, and are therefore not defined as "system-provided
interfaces":
o TURN - Traversal Using Relays Around NAT, [RFC5766]
o STUN - Session Traversal Utilities for NAT, [RFC5389]
o ICE - Interactive Connectivity Establishment, [RFC5245]
o TLS - Transport Layer Security, [RFC5246]
o DTLS - Datagram Transport Layer Security, [RFC6347].
3.2. Ability to use IPv4 and IPv6 3.2. Ability to use IPv4 and IPv6
Web applications running in a WebRTC browser MUST be able to utilize Web applications running in a WebRTC browser MUST be able to utilize
both IPv4 and IPv6 where available - that is, when two peers have both IPv4 and IPv6 where available - that is, when two peers have
only IPv4 connectivity to each other, or they have only IPv6 only IPv4 connectivity to each other, or they have only IPv6
connectivity to each other, applications running in the WebRTC connectivity to each other, applications running in the WebRTC
browser MUST be able to communicate. browser MUST be able to communicate.
When TURN is used, and the TURN server has IPv4 or IPv6 connectivity When TURN is used, and the TURN server has IPv4 or IPv6 connectivity
to the peer or its TURN server, candidates of the appropriate types to the peer or the peer's TURN server, candidates of the appropriate
MUST be supported. The "Happy Eyeballs" specification for ICE types MUST be supported. The "Happy Eyeballs" specification for ICE
[I-D.martinsen-mmusic-ice-dualstack-fairness] SHOULD be supported. [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-dualstack-fairness] SHOULD be supported.
3.3. Usage of temporary IPv6 addresses 3.3. Usage of temporary IPv6 addresses
The IPv6 default address selection specification [RFC6724] specifies The IPv6 default address selection specification [RFC6724] specifies
that temporary addresses [RFC4941] are to be preferred over permanent that temporary addresses [RFC4941] are to be preferred over permanent
addresses. This is a change from the rules specified by [RFC3484]. addresses. This is a change from the rules specified by [RFC3484].
For applications that select a single address, this is usually done For applications that select a single address, this is usually done
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, which is intended to ensure that privacy-enhanced
is therefore clarified as follows: addresses are used in preference to static addresses, doesn't have
the right effect in ICE, where all addresses are gathered and
therefore revealed to the application. Therefore, the following rule
is applied instead:
When a client gathers all IPv6 addresses on a host, and both When a client gathers all IPv6 addresses on a host, and both non-
temporary addresses and permanent addresses of the same scope are deprecated temporary addresses and permanent addresses of the same
present, the client SHOULD discard the permanent addresses before scope are present, the client SHOULD discard the permanent addresses
exposing addresses to the application or using them in ICE. This is before exposing addresses to the application or using them in ICE.
consistent with the default policy described in [RFC6724]. This is consistent with the default policy described in [RFC6724].
If some of the temporary IPv6 addresses, but not all, are marked If some of the temporary IPv6 addresses, but not all, are marked
deprecated, the client SHOULD discard the deprecated addresses. deprecated, the client SHOULD discard the deprecated addresses. In
an ICE restart, deprecated addresses that are currently in use MAY be
retained.
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
skipping to change at page 5, line 32 skipping to change at page 6, line 5
benefit, for the following reasons. benefit, for the following reasons.
First, use of TURN TCP candidates would only be relevant in cases First, use of TURN TCP candidates would only be relevant in cases
which both peers are required to use TCP to establish a which both peers are required to use TCP to establish a
PeerConnection. PeerConnection.
Second, that use case is supported in a different way by both sides Second, that use case is supported in a different way by both sides
establishing UDP relay candidates using TURN over TCP to connect to establishing UDP relay candidates using TURN over TCP to connect to
their respective relay servers. their respective relay servers.
Third, using TCP only between the endpoint and its relay may result Third, using TCP between the client's TURN server and the peer may
in less issues with TCP in regards to real-time constraints, e.g. due result in more performance problems than using UDP, e.g. due to head
to head of line blocking. of line blocking.
ICE-TCP candidates [RFC6544] MUST be supported; this may allow ICE-TCP candidates [RFC6544] MUST be supported; this may allow
applications to communicate to peers with public IP addresses across applications to communicate to peers with public IP addresses across
UDP-blocking firewalls without using a TURN server. UDP-blocking firewalls without using a TURN server.
If TCP connections are used, RTP framing according to [RFC4571] MUST If TCP connections are used, RTP framing according to [RFC4571] MUST
be used, both for the RTP packets and for the DTLS packets used to be used for all packets. This includes the RTP packets, DTLS packets
carry data channels. used to carry data channels, and STUN connectivity check packets.
The ALTERNATE-SERVER mechanism specified in [RFC5389] (STUN) section The ALTERNATE-SERVER mechanism specified in [RFC5389] (STUN) section
11 (300 Try Alternate) MUST be supported. 11 (300 Try Alternate) MUST be supported.
The WebRTC implementation MAY support accessing the Internet through The WebRTC implementation MAY support accessing the Internet through
an HTTP proxy. If it does so, it MUST include the "ALPN" header as an HTTP proxy. If it does so, it MUST include the "ALPN" header as
specified in [RFC7639], and proxy authentication as described in specified in [RFC7639], and proxy authentication as described in
Section 4.3.6 of [RFC7231] and [RFC7235] MUST also be supported. Section 4.3.6 of [RFC7231] and [RFC7235] MUST also be supported.
3.5. Transport protocols implemented 3.5. Transport protocols implemented
skipping to change at page 6, line 31 skipping to change at page 6, line 51
Note: DTLS-SRTP as defined in [RFC5764] section 6.7.1 defines the Note: DTLS-SRTP as defined in [RFC5764] section 6.7.1 defines the
interaction between DTLS and ICE ( [RFC5245]). The effect of this interaction between DTLS and ICE ( [RFC5245]). The effect of this
specification is that all ICE candidate pairs associated with a specification is that all ICE candidate pairs associated with a
single component are part of the same DTLS association. Thus, there single component are part of the same DTLS association. Thus, there
will only be one DTLS handshake even if there are multiple valid will only be one DTLS handshake even if there are multiple valid
candidate pairs. candidate pairs.
WebRTC implementations MUST support multiplexing of DTLS and RTP over WebRTC implementations MUST support multiplexing of DTLS and RTP over
the same port pair, as described in the DTLS-SRTP specification the same port pair, as described in the DTLS-SRTP specification
[RFC5764], section 5.1.2. All application layer protocol payloads [RFC5764], section 5.1.2, with clarifications in
over this DTLS connection are SCTP packets.
[I-D.ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes]. All application layer protocol
payloads over this DTLS connection are SCTP packets.
Protocol identification MUST be supplied as part of the DTLS Protocol identification MUST be supplied as part of the DTLS
handshake, as specified in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-alpn]. handshake, as specified in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-alpn].
4. Media Prioritization 4. Media Prioritization
The WebRTC prioritization model is that the application tells the The WebRTC prioritization model is that the application tells the
WebRTC implementation about the priority of media and data that is WebRTC implementation about the priority of media and data that is
controlled from the API. controlled from the API.
skipping to change at page 8, line 46 skipping to change at page 9, line 15
Implementations SHOULD attempt to set QoS on the packets sent, Implementations SHOULD attempt to set QoS on the packets sent,
according to the guidelines in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos]. It is according to the guidelines in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos]. It is
appropriate to depart from this recommendation when running on appropriate to depart from this recommendation when running on
platforms where QoS marking is not implemented. platforms where QoS marking is not implemented.
The implementation MAY turn off use of DSCP markings if it detects The implementation MAY turn off use of DSCP markings if it detects
symptoms of unexpected behaviour like priority inversion or blocking symptoms of unexpected behaviour like priority inversion or blocking
of packets with certain DSCP markings. The detection of these of packets with certain DSCP markings. The detection of these
conditions is implementation dependent. conditions is implementation dependent.
A particularly hard problem is when one media transport uses multiple
DSCP code points, where one may be blocked and another may be
allowed. This is allowed even within a single media flow for video
in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos]. Implementations need to diagnose
this scenario; one possible implementation is to send initial ICE
probes with DSCP 0, and send ICE probes on all the DSCP code points
that are intended to be used once a candidate pair has been selected.
If one or more of the DSCP-marked probes fail, the sender will switch
the media type to using DSCP 0. This can be carried out
simultaneously with the initial media traffic; on failure, the
initial data may need to be resent. This switch will of course
invalidate any congestion information gathered up to that point.
Failures can also start happening during the lifetime of the call;
this case is expected to be rarer, and can be handled by the normal
mechanisms for transport failure, which may involve an ICE restart.
Note that when a DSCP code point causes non-delivery, one has to
switch the whole media flow to DSCP 0, since all traffic for a single
media flow needs to be on the same queue for congestion control
purposes. Other flows on the same transport, using different DSCP
code points, don't need to change.
All packets carrying data from the SCTP association supporting the All packets carrying data from the SCTP association supporting the
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.
skipping to change at page 9, line 41 skipping to change at page 10, line 34
More complex configurations, such as sending a high priority video More complex configurations, such as sending a high priority video
stream on one 5-tuple and sending all other video streams multiplexed stream on one 5-tuple and sending all other video streams multiplexed
together over another 5-tuple, can also be envisioned. More together over another 5-tuple, can also be envisioned. More
information on mapping media flows to 5-tuples can be found in information on mapping media flows to 5-tuples can be found in
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage]. [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage].
A sending implementation MUST be able to support the following A sending implementation MUST be able to support the following
configurations: configurations:
o multiplex all media and data on a single 5-tuple (fully bundled) o Multiplex all media and data on a single 5-tuple (fully bundled)
o send each media stream on its own 5-tuple and data on its own o Send each media stream on its own 5-tuple and data on its own
5-tuple (fully unbundled) 5-tuple (fully unbundled)
It MAY choose to support other configurations, such as bundling each It MAY choose to support other configurations, such as bundling each
media type (audio, video or data) into its own 5-tuple (bundling by media type (audio, video or data) into its own 5-tuple (bundling by
media type). media type).
Sending data over multiple 5-tuples is not supported. Sending data channel data over multiple 5-tuples is not supported.
A receiving implementation MUST be able to receive media and data in A receiving implementation MUST be able to receive media and data in
all these configurations. all these configurations.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA. This document makes no request of IANA.
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC. RFC.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
Security considerations are enumerated in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security]. RTCWEB security considerations are enumerated in
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security].
Security considerations pertaining to the use of DSCP are enumerated
in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos].
7. Acknowledgements 7. Acknowledgements
This document is based on earlier versions embedded in This document is based on earlier versions embedded in
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview], which were the results of contributions [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview], which were the results of contributions
from many RTCWEB WG members. from many RTCWEB WG members.
Special thanks for reviews of earlier versions of this draft go to Special thanks for reviews of earlier versions of this draft go to
Eduardo Gueiros, Magnus Westerlund, Markus Isomaki and Dan Wing; the Eduardo Gueiros, Magnus Westerlund, Markus Isomaki and Dan Wing; the
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-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes]
Petit-Huguenin, M. and G. Salgueiro, "Multiplexing Scheme
Updates for Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)
Extension for Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)",
draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-10 (work in
progress), July 2016.
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-dualstack-fairness]
Martinsen, P., Reddy, T., and P. Patil, "ICE Multihomed
and IPv4/IPv6 Dual Stack Fairness", draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-
dualstack-fairness-02 (work in progress), September 2015.
[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-16 (work in progress), February 2016. 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-04 (work in progress), May 2016. alpn-04 (work in progress), May 2016.
skipping to change at page 11, line 35 skipping to change at page 12, line 45
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 User Message Interleaving for the "Stream Schedulers and User Message Interleaving for the
Stream Control Transmission Protocol", draft-ietf-tsvwg- Stream Control Transmission Protocol", draft-ietf-tsvwg-
sctp-ndata-05 (work in progress), March 2016. sctp-ndata-05 (work in progress), March 2016.
[I-D.martinsen-mmusic-ice-dualstack-fairness]
Martinsen, P., Reddy, T., and P. Patil, "ICE IPv4/IPv6
Dual Stack Fairness", draft-martinsen-mmusic-ice-
dualstack-fairness-02 (work in progress), February 2015.
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, DOI [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, DOI
10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980, 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>. <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, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981, 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>. <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, DOI 10.17487/ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
skipping to change at page 12, line 21 skipping to change at page 13, line 26
Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
IPv6", RFC 4941, DOI 10.17487/RFC4941, September 2007, IPv6", RFC 4941, DOI 10.17487/RFC4941, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4941>. <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, DOI Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245, DOI
10.17487/RFC5245, April 2010, 10.17487/RFC5245, April 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5245>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5245>.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, DOI 10.17487/
RFC5246, August 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
[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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5389, October 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5389, October 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5389>. <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, DOI Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 5764, DOI
10.17487/RFC5764, May 2010, 10.17487/RFC5764, May 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5764>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5764>.
skipping to change at page 12, line 48 skipping to change at page 14, line 10
[RFC6062] Perreault, S., Ed. and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using [RFC6062] Perreault, S., Ed. and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using
Relays around NAT (TURN) Extensions for TCP Allocations", Relays around NAT (TURN) Extensions for TCP Allocations",
RFC 6062, DOI 10.17487/RFC6062, November 2010, RFC 6062, DOI 10.17487/RFC6062, November 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6062>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6062>.
[RFC6156] Camarillo, G., Novo, O., and S. Perreault, Ed., "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, DOI 10.17487/RFC6156, April 2011, 6156, DOI 10.17487/RFC6156, April 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6156>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6156>.
[RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
January 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC6544, Establishment (ICE)", RFC 6544, DOI 10.17487/RFC6544,
March 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6544>. March 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6544>.
[RFC6724] Thaler, D., Ed., 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, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012, (IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6724>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6724>.
skipping to change at page 17, line 31 skipping to change at page 18, line 46
o Clarify that the ALPN header needs to be sent. o Clarify that the ALPN header needs to be sent.
o Mentioned that RFC 7657 also talks about congestion control o Mentioned that RFC 7657 also talks about congestion control
A.14. Changes from -13 to -14 A.14. Changes from -13 to -14
o Add note about non-support for marking flows as interactive or o Add note about non-support for marking flows as interactive or
non-interactive. non-interactive.
A.15. Changes from -14 to -15
o Various text clarifications based on comments in Last Call and
IESG review
o Clarified that only non-deprecated IPv6 addresses are used
o Described handling of downgrading of DSCP markings when blackholes
are detected
o Expanded acronyms in a new protocol list
Author's Address Author's Address
Harald Alvestrand Harald Alvestrand
Google Google
Email: harald@alvestrand.no Email: harald@alvestrand.no
 End of changes. 25 change blocks. 
55 lines changed or deleted 131 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/