draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-16.txt		draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-17.txt
	Network Working Group H. Alvestrand		Network Working Group H. Alvestrand
	Internet-Draft Google		Internet-Draft Google
	Intended status: Standards Track October 4, 2016		Intended status: Standards Track October 26, 2016
	Expires: April 7, 2017		Expires: April 29, 2017
	Transports for WebRTC		Transports for WebRTC
	draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-16		draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-17
	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 April 7, 2017.		This Internet-Draft will expire on April 29, 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 26 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 26 ¶
	4.1. Local prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		4.1. Local prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	4.2. Usage of Quality of Service - DSCP and Multiplexing . . . 9		4.2. Usage of Quality of Service - DSCP and Multiplexing . . . 9
	5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	Appendix A. Change log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		Appendix A. Change log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	A.1. Changes from -00 to -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		A.1. Changes from -00 to -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	A.2. Changes from -01 to -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		A.2. Changes from -01 to -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	A.3. Changes from -02 to -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		A.3. Changes from -02 to -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	A.4. Changes from -03 to -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		A.4. Changes from -03 to -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	A.5. Changes from -04 to -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		A.5. Changes from -04 to -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	A.6. Changes from -05 to -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		A.6. Changes from -05 to -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	A.7. Changes from -06 to -07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		A.7. Changes from -06 to -07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	A.8. Changes from -07 to -08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		A.8. Changes from -07 to -08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	A.9. Changes from -08 to -09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		A.9. Changes from -08 to -09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	A.10. Changes from -09 to -10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		A.10. Changes from -09 to -10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	A.11. Changes from -10 to -11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		A.11. Changes from -10 to -11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	A.12. Changes from -11 to -12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		A.12. Changes from -11 to -12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	A.13. Changes from -12 to -13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		A.13. Changes from -12 to -13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	A.14. Changes from -13 to -14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		A.14. Changes from -13 to -14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	A.15. Changes from -14 to -15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		A.15. Changes from -14 to -15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	A.16. Changes from -15 to -16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20		A.16. Changes from -15 to -16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
			A.17. Changes from -16 to -17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20		Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	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 endpoint" and "WebRTC		this document, including the terms "WebRTC endpoint" and "WebRTC
	skipping to change at page 4, line 16 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 16 ¶
	access to ICMP or raw IP.		access to ICMP or raw IP.
	The following protocols may be used, but can be implemented by a		The following protocols may be used, but can be implemented by a
	WebRTC endpoint, and are therefore not defined as "system-provided		WebRTC endpoint, and are therefore not defined as "system-provided
	interfaces":		interfaces":
	o TURN - Traversal Using Relays Around NAT, [RFC5766]		o TURN - Traversal Using Relays Around NAT, [RFC5766]
	o STUN - Session Traversal Utilities for NAT, [RFC5389]		o STUN - Session Traversal Utilities for NAT, [RFC5389]
	o ICE - Interactive Connectivity Establishment, [RFC5245]		o ICE - Interactive Connectivity Establishment,
			[I-D.ietf-ice-rfc5245bis]
	o TLS - Transport Layer Security, [RFC5246]		o TLS - Transport Layer Security, [RFC5246]
	o DTLS - Datagram Transport Layer Security, [RFC6347].		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
	skipping to change at page 5, line 20 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 20 ¶
	restart, deprecated addresses that are currently in use MAY be		restart, deprecated addresses that are currently in use MAY be
	retained.		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 [I-D.ietf-ice-rfc5245bis] MUST be supported. The implementation
	ICE implementation, not ICE-Lite. A full ICE implementation allows		MUST be a full ICE implementation, not ICE-Lite. A full ICE
	interworking with both ICE and ICE-Lite implementations when they are		implementation allows interworking with both ICE and ICE-Lite
	deployed appropriately.		implementations when they are deployed appropriately.
	In order to deal with situations where both parties are behind NATs		In order to deal with situations where both parties are behind NATs
	of the type that perform endpoint-dependent mapping (as defined in		of the type that perform endpoint-dependent mapping (as defined in
	[RFC5128] section 2.4), TURN [RFC5766] MUST be supported.		[RFC5128] section 2.4), TURN [RFC5766] MUST be supported.
	WebRTC browsers MUST support configuration of STUN and TURN servers,		WebRTC browsers MUST support configuration of STUN and TURN servers,
	both from browser configuration and from an application.		both from browser configuration and from an application.
	Note that there is other work around STUN and TURN sever discovery		Note that there is other work around STUN and TURN sever discovery
	and management, including [I-D.ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery] for		and management, including [I-D.ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery] for
	skipping to change at page 7, line 6 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 6 ¶
	[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel], WebRTC endpoints MUST support SCTP		[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel], WebRTC endpoints MUST support SCTP
	over DTLS over ICE. This encapsulation is specified in		over DTLS over ICE. This encapsulation is specified in
	[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps]. Negotiation of this transport in		[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps]. Negotiation of this transport in
	SDP is defined in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp]. The SCTP extension for		SDP is defined in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp]. The SCTP extension for
	NDATA, [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-ndata], MUST be supported.		NDATA, [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-ndata], MUST be supported.
	The setup protocol for WebRTC data channels described in		The setup protocol for WebRTC data channels described in
	[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol] MUST be supported.		[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol] MUST be supported.
	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 ( [I-D.ietf-ice-rfc5245bis]). The
	specification is that all ICE candidate pairs associated with a		effect of this specification is that all ICE candidate pairs
	single component are part of the same DTLS association. Thus, there		associated with a single component are part of the same DTLS
	will only be one DTLS handshake even if there are multiple valid		association. Thus, there will only be one DTLS handshake even if
	candidate pairs.		there are multiple valid candidate pairs.
	WebRTC endpoints MUST support multiplexing of DTLS and RTP over the		WebRTC endpoints MUST support multiplexing of DTLS and RTP over the
	same port pair, as described in the DTLS-SRTP specification		same port pair, as described in the DTLS-SRTP specification
	[RFC5764], section 5.1.2, with clarifications in		[RFC5764], section 5.1.2, with clarifications in
	[I-D.ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes]. All application layer protocol		[I-D.ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes]. All application layer protocol
	payloads over this DTLS connection are SCTP packets.		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].
	skipping to change at page 9, line 33 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 33 ¶
	the communication. The sender can attempt to set the DSCP field of		the communication. The sender can attempt to set the DSCP field of
	the packet to influence these decisions.		the packet to influence these decisions.
	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. Some examples of such
			behaviors are described in [ANRW16]. The detection of these
	conditions is implementation dependent.		conditions is implementation dependent.
	A particularly hard problem is when one media transport uses multiple		A particularly hard problem is when one media transport uses multiple
	DSCP code points, where one may be blocked and another may be		DSCP code points, where one may be blocked and another may be
	allowed. This is allowed even within a single media flow for video		allowed. This is allowed even within a single media flow for video
	in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos]. Implementations need to diagnose		in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos]. Implementations need to diagnose
	this scenario; one possible implementation is to send initial ICE		this scenario; one possible implementation is to send initial ICE
	probes with DSCP 0, and send ICE probes on all the DSCP code points		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.		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		If one or more of the DSCP-marked probes fail, the sender will switch
	skipping to change at page 12, line 9 ¶		skipping to change at page 12, line 9 ¶
	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]		[I-D.ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes]
	Petit-Huguenin, M. and G. Salgueiro, "Multiplexing Scheme		Petit-Huguenin, M. and G. Salgueiro, "Multiplexing Scheme
	Updates for Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)		Updates for Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)
	Extension for Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)",		Extension for Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)",
	draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-10 (work in		draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-11 (work in
	progress), July 2016.		progress), September 2016.
	[I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers]		[I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers]
	Perkins, C. and V. Singh, "Multimedia Congestion Control:		Perkins, C. and V. Singh, "Multimedia Congestion Control:
	Circuit Breakers for Unicast RTP Sessions", draft-ietf-		Circuit Breakers for Unicast RTP Sessions", draft-ietf-
	avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-18 (work in progress), August		avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-06 (work in progress), July
	2016.		2014.
			[I-D.ietf-ice-rfc5245bis]
			Keranen, A., Holmberg, C., and J. Rosenberg, "Interactive
			Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network
			Address Translator (NAT) Traversal", draft-ietf-ice-
			rfc5245bis-04 (work in progress), June 2016.
	[I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-dualstack-fairness]		[I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-dualstack-fairness]
	Martinsen, P., Reddy, T., and P. Patil, "ICE Multihomed		Martinsen, P., Reddy, T., and P. Patil, "ICE Multihomed
	and IPv4/IPv6 Dual Stack Fairness", draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-		and IPv4/IPv6 Dual Stack Fairness", draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-
	dualstack-fairness-02 (work in progress), September 2015.		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		Loreto, S. and G. Camarillo, "Stream Control Transmission
	Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)-Based Media Transport		Protocol (SCTP)-Based Media Transport in the Session
	in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)", draft-ietf-		Description Protocol (SDP)", draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-07
	mmusic-sctp-sdp-16 (work in progress), February 2016.		(work in progress), July 2014.
	[I-D.ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements]		[I-D.ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements]
	Jesup, R. and Z. Sarker, "Congestion Control Requirements		Jesup, R., "Congestion Control Requirements For RMCAT",
	for Interactive Real-Time Media", draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-		draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements-06 (work in progress),
	requirements-09 (work in progress), December 2014.		October 2014.
	[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-00 (work in progress), July 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-13 (work in		Channels", draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-12 (work in
	progress), January 2015.		progress), September 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-09 (work in progress), January 2015.		protocol-08 (work in progress), September 2014.
	[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview]		[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview]
	Alvestrand, H., "Overview: Real Time Protocols for		Alvestrand, H., "Overview: Real Time Protocols for
	Browser-based Applications", draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-15		Browser-based Applications", draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-11
	(work in progress), January 2016.		(work in progress), August 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-26 (work in progress), March		draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-17 (work in progress), August
	2016.		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-08 (work in progress), February 2015.		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-11 (work in progress), March 2015.		rtcweb-security-arch-10 (work in progress), July 2014.
	[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos]		[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos]
	Jones, P., Dhesikan, S., Jennings, C., and D. Druta, "DSCP		Dhesikan, S., Jennings, C., Druta, D., Jones, P., and J.
	Packet Markings for WebRTC QoS", draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-		Polk, "DSCP and other packet markings for RTCWeb QoS",
	qos-17 (work in progress), May 2016.		draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-02 (work in progress), June
			2014.
	[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps]		[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps]
	Tuexen, M., Stewart, R., Jesup, R., and S. Loreto, "DTLS		Tuexen, M., Stewart, R., Jesup, R., and S. Loreto, "DTLS
	Encapsulation of SCTP Packets", draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-		Encapsulation of SCTP Packets", draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-
	dtls-encaps-09 (work in progress), January 2015.		dtls-encaps-05 (work in progress), July 2014.
	[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 a New Data Chunk for the Stream
	Stream Control Transmission Protocol", draft-ietf-tsvwg-		Control Transmission Protocol", draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-
	sctp-ndata-05 (work in progress), March 2016.		ndata-01 (work in progress), July 2014.
	[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, DOI		[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
	10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,		August 1980.
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>.
	[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC		[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
	793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,		793, September 1981.
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
	RFC2119, March 1997,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[RFC4571] Lazzaro, J., "Framing Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP)		[RFC4571] Lazzaro, J., "Framing Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP)
	and RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Packets over Connection-		and RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Packets over Connection-
	Oriented Transport", RFC 4571, DOI 10.17487/RFC4571, July		Oriented Transport", RFC 4571, July 2006.
	2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4571>.
	[RFC4594] Babiarz, J., Chan, K., and F. Baker, "Configuration		[RFC4594] Babiarz, J., Chan, K., and F. Baker, "Configuration
	Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 4594, DOI		Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 4594, August
	10.17487/RFC4594, August 2006,		2006.
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4594>.
	[RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy		[RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
	Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in		Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
	IPv6", RFC 4941, DOI 10.17487/RFC4941, September 2007,		IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007.
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4941>.
	[RFC5245] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
	(ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT)
	Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245, DOI
	10.17487/RFC5245, April 2010,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5245>.
	[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security		[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
	(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, DOI 10.17487/		(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.
	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,		October 2008.
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5389>.
	[RFC5764] McGrew, D. and E. Rescorla, "Datagram Transport Layer		[RFC5764] McGrew, D. and E. Rescorla, "Datagram Transport Layer
	Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for the Secure		Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for the Secure
	Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 5764, DOI		Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 5764, May 2010.
	10.17487/RFC5764, May 2010,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5764>.
	[RFC5766] Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using		[RFC5766] Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using
	Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to Session		Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to Session
	Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5766, DOI		Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5766, April 2010.
	10.17487/RFC5766, April 2010,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5766>.
	[RFC6062] Perreault, S., Ed. and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using		[RFC6062] Perreault, S. and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using Relays
	Relays around NAT (TURN) Extensions for TCP Allocations",		around NAT (TURN) Extensions for TCP Allocations", RFC
	RFC 6062, DOI 10.17487/RFC6062, November 2010,		6062, November 2010.
	<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, "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, April 2011.
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6156>.
	[RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer		[RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
	Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,		Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, January 2012.
	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, March 2012.
	March 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6544>.
	[RFC6724] Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,		[RFC6724] Thaler, D., 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, September 2012.
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6724>.
	[RFC7231] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer		[RFC7231] Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
	Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231, DOI		(HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231, June 2014.
	10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.
	[RFC7235] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer		[RFC7235] Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
	Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication", RFC 7235, DOI		(HTTP/1.1): Authentication", RFC 7235, June 2014.
	10.17487/RFC7235, June 2014,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7235>.
	[RFC7639] Hutton, A., Uberti, J., and M. Thomson, "The ALPN HTTP		[RFC7639] Hutton, A., Uberti, J., and M. Thomson, "The ALPN HTTP
	Header Field", RFC 7639, DOI 10.17487/RFC7639, August		Header Field", RFC 7639, DOI 10.17487/RFC7639, August
	2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7639>.		2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7639>.
	[RFC7656] Lennox, J., Gross, K., Nandakumar, S., Salgueiro, G., and		[RFC7656] Lennox, J., Gross, K., Nandakumar, S., Salgueiro, G., and
	B. Burman, Ed., "A Taxonomy of Semantics and Mechanisms		B. Burman, Ed., "A Taxonomy of Semantics and Mechanisms
	for Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Sources", RFC 7656,		for Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP) Sources", RFC 7656,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC7656, November 2015,		DOI 10.17487/RFC7656, November 2015,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7656>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7656>.
	8.2. Informative References		8.2. Informative References
			[ANRW16] Barik, R., Welzl, M., and A. Elmokashfi, "How to say that
			you're special: Can we use bits in the IPv4 header?", ACM,
			IRTF, ISOC Applied Networking Research Workshop (ANRW
			2016), Berlin , July 2016.
	[I-D.ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc]		[I-D.ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc]
	Islam, S., Welzl, M., and S. Gjessing, "Coupled congestion		Islam, S., Welzl, M., and S. Gjessing, "Coupled congestion
	control for RTP media", draft-ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc-03		control for RTP media", draft-ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc-03
	(work in progress), July 2016.		(work in progress), July 2016.
	[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-return]		[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-return]
	Schwartz, B. and J. Uberti, "Recursively Encapsulated TURN		Schwartz, B. and J. Uberti, "Recursively Encapsulated TURN
	(RETURN) for Connectivity and Privacy in WebRTC", draft-		(RETURN) for Connectivity and Privacy in WebRTC", draft-
	ietf-rtcweb-return-01 (work in progress), January 2016.		ietf-rtcweb-return-01 (work in progress), January 2016.
	[I-D.ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery]		[I-D.ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery]
	Patil, P., Reddy, T., and D. Wing, "TURN Server Auto		Patil, P., Reddy, T., and D. Wing, "TURN Server Auto
	Discovery", draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery-09 (work		Discovery", draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery-00 (work
	in progress), August 2016.		in progress), July 2014.
	[RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet		[RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet
	Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, DOI 10.17487/		Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.
	RFC3484, February 2003,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3484>.
	[RFC5014] Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and J. Laganier, "IPv6		[RFC5014] Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and J. Laganier, "IPv6
	Socket API for Source Address Selection", RFC 5014, DOI		Socket API for Source Address Selection", RFC 5014,
	10.17487/RFC5014, September 2007,		September 2007.
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5014>.
	[RFC5128] Srisuresh, P., Ford, B., and D. Kegel, "State of Peer-to-		[RFC5128] Srisuresh, P., Ford, B., and D. Kegel, "State of Peer-to-
	Peer (P2P) Communication across Network Address		Peer (P2P) Communication across Network Address
	Translators (NATs)", RFC 5128, DOI 10.17487/RFC5128, March		Translators (NATs)", RFC 5128, March 2008.
	2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5128>.
	[RFC7657] Black, D., Ed. and P. Jones, "Differentiated Services		[RFC7657] Black, D., Ed. and P. Jones, "Differentiated Services
	(Diffserv) and Real-Time Communication", RFC 7657, DOI		(Diffserv) and Real-Time Communication", RFC 7657, DOI 10
	10.17487/RFC7657, November 2015,		.17487/RFC7657, November 2015,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7657>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7657>.
	Appendix A. Change log		Appendix A. Change log
	This section should be removed before publication as an RFC.		This section should be removed before publication as an RFC.
	A.1. Changes from -00 to -01		A.1. Changes from -00 to -01
	o Clarified DSCP requirements, with reference to -qos-		o Clarified DSCP requirements, with reference to -qos-
	skipping to change at page 20, line 32 ¶		skipping to change at page 20, line 10 ¶
	#42)		#42)
	o Added a note mentioning that rtp-usage requires circut breaker and		o Added a note mentioning that rtp-usage requires circut breaker and
	congestion control (issue #43)		congestion control (issue #43)
	o Added mention of the "don't discard temporary IPv6 addresses that		o Added mention of the "don't discard temporary IPv6 addresses that
	are in use" (issue #44)		are in use" (issue #44)
	o Added a reference to draft-ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc (issue #46)		o Added a reference to draft-ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc (issue #46)
			A.17. Changes from -16 to -17
			o Added an informative reference to the "DSCP blackholing" paper
			o Changed the reference for ICE from RFC 5245 to draft-ietf-ice-
			rfc5245bis
	Author's Address		Author's Address
	Harald Alvestrand		Harald Alvestrand
	Google		Google
	Email: harald@alvestrand.no		Email: harald@alvestrand.no
End of changes. 51 change blocks.
	116 lines changed or deleted		105 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/