draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-17.txt   rfc8835.txt 
Network Working Group H. Alvestrand Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) H. Alvestrand
Internet-Draft Google Request for Comments: 8835 Google
Intended status: Standards Track October 26, 2016 Category: Standards Track January 2021
Expires: April 29, 2017 ISSN: 2070-1721
Transports for WebRTC Transports for WebRTC
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 Web
including the protocols used for interaction with intermediate boxes Real-Time Communication (WebRTC), including the protocols used for
such as firewalls, relays and NAT boxes. interaction with intermediate 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 is an Internet Standards Track document.
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 29, 2017. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8835.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2021 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction
2. Requirements language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Requirements Language
3. Transport and Middlebox specification . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Transport and Middlebox Specification
3.1. System-provided interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. System-Provided Interfaces
3.2. Ability to use IPv4 and IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Ability to Use IPv4 and IPv6
3.3. Usage of temporary IPv6 addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.3. Usage of Temporary IPv6 Addresses
3.4. Middle box related functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.4. Middlebox-Related Functions
3.5. Transport protocols implemented . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.5. Transport Protocols Implemented
4. Media Prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Media Prioritization
4.1. Local prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1. Local Prioritization
4.2. Usage of Quality of Service - DSCP and Multiplexing . . . 9 4.2. Usage of Quality of Service -- DSCP and Multiplexing
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5. IANA Considerations
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. Security Considerations
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. References
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.1. Normative References
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.2. Informative References
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Acknowledgements
Appendix A. Change log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Author's Address
A.1. Changes from -00 to -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.2. Changes from -01 to -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.3. Changes from -02 to -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A.4. Changes from -03 to -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A.5. Changes from -04 to -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A.6. Changes from -05 to -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A.7. Changes from -06 to -07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.8. Changes from -07 to -08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.9. Changes from -08 to -09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.10. Changes from -09 to -10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.11. Changes from -10 to -11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.12. Changes from -11 to -12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.13. Changes from -12 to -13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.14. Changes from -13 to -14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.15. Changes from -14 to -15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.16. Changes from -15 to -16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.17. Changes from -16 to -17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 [RFC8825], which
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview], which also defines terminology used in also defines terminology used in this document, including the terms
this document, including the terms "WebRTC endpoint" and "WebRTC "WebRTC endpoint" and "WebRTC browser".
browser".
Terminology for RTP sources is taken from[RFC7656] . Terminology for RTP sources is taken from [RFC7656].
This document focuses on the data transport protocols that are used This document focuses on the data transport protocols that are used
by conforming implementations, including the protocols used for by conforming implementations, including the protocols used for
interaction with intermediate boxes such as firewalls, relays and NAT interaction with intermediate boxes such as firewalls, relays, and
boxes. NAT boxes.
This protocol suite intends to satisfy the security considerations This protocol suite is intended to satisfy the security
described in the WebRTC security documents, considerations described in the WebRTC security documents, [RFC8826]
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security] and [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security-arch]. and [RFC8827].
This document describes requirements that apply to all WebRTC This document describes requirements that apply to all WebRTC
endpoints. When there are requirements that apply only to WebRTC endpoints. When there are requirements that apply only to WebRTC
browsers, this is called out explicitly. browsers, this is called out explicitly.
2. Requirements language 2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Transport and Middlebox specification 3. Transport and Middlebox Specification
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 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 TCP [RFC0793]: This is used for HTTP/WebSockets, as well as TURN/TLS
TURN/TLS and ICE-TCP. 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
point of the sockets opened on a per-packet basis, in order to Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) of the sockets opened on a
achieve the prioritizations described in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos] per-packet basis, in order to achieve the prioritizations described
(see Section 4.2) when multiple media types are multiplexed. It does in [RFC8837] (see Section 4.2 of this document) when multiple media
not assume that the DSCP codepoints will be honored, and does assume types are multiplexed. It does not assume that the DSCPs will be
that they may be zeroed or changed, since this is a local honored and does assume that they may be zeroed or changed, since
configuration issue. this is a local 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 endpoint. able to support a conforming WebRTC endpoint.
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 The following protocols may be used, but they 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] TURN: Traversal Using Relays Around NAT [RFC8656]
o STUN - Session Traversal Utilities for NAT, [RFC5389] STUN: Session Traversal Utilities for NAT [RFC5389]
o ICE - Interactive Connectivity Establishment, ICE: Interactive Connectivity Establishment [RFC8445]
[I-D.ietf-ice-rfc5245bis]
o TLS - Transport Layer Security, [RFC5246] TLS: Transport Layer Security [RFC8446]
o DTLS - Datagram Transport Layer Security, [RFC6347]. 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 the peer's TURN server, candidates of the appropriate to the peer or the peer's TURN server, candidates of the appropriate
types MUST be supported. The "Happy Eyeballs" specification for ICE types MUST be supported. The "Happy Eyeballs" specification for ICE
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-dualstack-fairness] SHOULD be supported. [RFC8421] 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, which is intended to ensure that privacy-enhanced However, this rule, which is intended to ensure that privacy-enhanced
addresses are used in preference to static addresses, doesn't have addresses are used in preference to static addresses, doesn't have
the right effect in ICE, where all addresses are gathered and the right effect in ICE, where all addresses are gathered and
therefore revealed to the application. Therefore, the following rule therefore revealed to the application. Therefore, the following rule
is applied instead: is applied instead:
When a WebRTC endpoint gathers all IPv6 addresses on its host, and When a WebRTC endpoint gathers all IPv6 addresses on its host, and
both non-deprecated temporary addresses and permanent addresses of both nondeprecated temporary addresses and permanent addresses of
the same scope are present, the WebRTC endpoint SHOULD discard the the same scope are present, the WebRTC endpoint SHOULD discard the
permanent addresses before exposing addresses to the application or permanent addresses before exposing addresses to the application
using them in ICE. This is consistent with the default policy or using them in ICE. This is consistent with the default policy
described in [RFC6724]. described in [RFC6724].
If some of the temporary IPv6 addresses, but not all, are marked If some, but not all, of the temporary IPv6 addresses are marked
deprecated, the WebRTC endpoint SHOULD discard the deprecated deprecated, the WebRTC endpoint SHOULD discard the deprecated
addresses, unless they are used by an ongoing connection. In an ICE addresses, unless they are used by an ongoing connection. In an
restart, deprecated addresses that are currently in use MAY be ICE restart, deprecated addresses that are currently in use MAY be
retained. retained.
3.4. Middle box related functions 3.4. Middlebox-Related Functions
The primary mechanism to deal with middle boxes is ICE, which is an The primary mechanism for dealing with middleboxes is ICE, which is
appropriate way to deal with NAT boxes and firewalls that accept an 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 [I-D.ietf-ice-rfc5245bis] MUST be supported. The implementation ICE [RFC8445] MUST be supported. The implementation MUST be a full
MUST be a full ICE implementation, not ICE-Lite. A full ICE ICE implementation, not ICE-Lite. A full ICE implementation allows
implementation allows interworking with both ICE and ICE-Lite interworking with both ICE and ICE-Lite implementations when they are
implementations when they are deployed appropriately. 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 [RFC8656] 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. from both browser configuration and an application.
Note that there is other work around STUN and TURN sever discovery Note that other work exists around STUN and TURN server discovery and
and management, including [I-D.ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery] for management, including [RFC8155] for server discovery, as well as
server discovery, as well as [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-return]. [RETURN].
In order to deal with firewalls that block all UDP traffic, the mode In order to deal with firewalls that block all UDP traffic, the mode
of TURN that uses TCP between the WebRTC endpoint and the TURN server of TURN that uses TCP between the WebRTC endpoint and the TURN server
MUST be supported, and the mode of TURN that uses TLS over TCP MUST be supported, and the mode of TURN that uses TLS over TCP
between the WebRTC endpoint and the TURN server MUST be supported. between the WebRTC endpoint and the TURN server MUST be supported.
See [RFC5766] section 2.1 for details. See Section 3.1 of [RFC8656], for details.
In order to deal with situations where one party is on an IPv4 In order to deal with situations where one party is on an IPv4
network and the other party is on an IPv6 network, TURN extensions network and the other party is on an IPv6 network, TURN extensions
for IPv6 [RFC6156] MUST be supported. for IPv6 MUST be supported.
TURN TCP candidates, where the connection from the WebRTC endpoint's TURN TCP candidates, where the connection from the WebRTC endpoint's
TURN server to the peer is a TCP connection, [RFC6062] MAY be TURN server to the peer is a TCP connection, [RFC6062] MAY be
supported. supported.
However, such candidates are not seen as providing any significant However, such candidates are not seen as providing any significant
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 where both peers are required to use TCP to establish a connection.
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 between the WebRTC endpoint's TURN server and the Third, using TCP between the WebRTC endpoint's TURN server and the
peer may result in more performance problems than using UDP, e.g. due peer may result in more performance problems than using UDP, e.g.,
to head of line blocking. due to head 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 for all packets. This includes the RTP packets, DTLS packets be used for all packets. This includes the RTP packets, DTLS packets
used to carry data channels, and STUN connectivity check packets. 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 Section 11 of [RFC5389]
11 (300 Try Alternate) MUST be supported. (300 Try Alternate) MUST be supported.
The WebRTC endpoint MAY support accessing the Internet through an The WebRTC endpoint MAY support accessing the Internet through an
HTTP proxy. If it does so, it MUST include the "ALPN" header as 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
For transport of media, secure RTP is used. The details of the For transport of media, secure RTP is used. The details of the RTP
profile of RTP used are described in "RTP Usage" profile used are described in "Media Transport and Use of RTP in
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage], which mandates the use of a circuit WebRTC" [RFC8834], which mandates the use of a circuit breaker
breaker [I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers] and congstion control [RFC8083] and congestion control (see [RFC8836] for further
(see [I-D.ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements] for further guidance). guidance).
Key exchange MUST be done using DTLS-SRTP, as described in Key exchange MUST be done using DTLS-SRTP, as described in [RFC8827].
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security-arch].
For data transport over the WebRTC data channel For data transport over the WebRTC data channel [RFC8831], WebRTC
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel], WebRTC endpoints MUST support SCTP endpoints MUST support SCTP over DTLS over ICE. This encapsulation
over DTLS over ICE. This encapsulation is specified in is specified in [RFC8261]. Negotiation of this transport in the
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps]. Negotiation of this transport in Session Description Protocol (SDP) is defined in [RFC8841]. The SCTP
SDP is defined in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp]. The SCTP extension for extension for I-DATA [RFC8260] 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 [RFC8832]
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol] MUST be supported. MUST be supported.
Note: DTLS-SRTP as defined in [RFC5764] section 6.7.1 defines the | Note: The interaction between DTLS-SRTP as defined in [RFC5764]
interaction between DTLS and ICE ( [I-D.ietf-ice-rfc5245bis]). The | and ICE as defined in [RFC8445] is described in Section 6 of
effect of this specification is that all ICE candidate pairs | [RFC8842]. The effect of this specification is that all ICE
associated with a single component are part of the same DTLS | candidate pairs associated with a single component are part of
association. Thus, there will only be one DTLS handshake even if | the same DTLS association. Thus, there will only be one DTLS
there are multiple valid candidate pairs. | handshake, even if 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 [RFC7983]. All
[I-D.ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes]. All application layer protocol application-layer protocol payloads over this DTLS connection are
payloads over this DTLS connection are SCTP packets. 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 [RFC8833].
4. Media Prioritization 4. Media Prioritization
The WebRTC prioritization model is that the application tells the In the WebRTC prioritization model, the application tells the WebRTC
WebRTC endpoint about the priority of media and data that is endpoint about the priority of media and data that is controlled from
controlled from the API. the API.
In this context, a "flow" is used for the units that are given a In this context, a "flow" is used for the units that are given a
specific priority through the WebRTC API. specific priority through the WebRTC API.
For media, a "media flow", which can be an "audio flow" or a "video 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 flow", is what [RFC7656] calls a "media source", which results in a
"source RTP stream" and one or more "redundancy RTP streams". This "source RTP stream" and one or more "redundancy RTP streams". This
specification does not describe prioritization between the RTP specification does not describe prioritization between the RTP
streams that come from a single "media source". streams that come from a single media source.
All media flows in WebRTC are assumed to be interactive, as defined All media flows in WebRTC are assumed to be interactive, as defined
in [RFC4594]; there is no browser API support for indicating whether in [RFC4594]; there is no browser API support for indicating whether
media is interactive or non-interactive. media is interactive or noninteractive.
A "data flow" is the outgoing data on a single WebRTC data channel. 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 The priority associated with a media flow or data flow is classified
as "very-low", "low", "medium or "high". There are only four as "very-low", "low", "medium", or "high". There are only four
priority levels at the API. priority levels in the API.
The priority settings affect two pieces of behavior: Packet send The priority settings affect two pieces of behavior: packet send
sequence decisions and packet markings. Each is described in its own sequence decisions and packet markings. Each is described in its own
section below. section below.
4.1. Local prioritization 4.1. Local Prioritization
Local prioritization is applied at the local node, before the packet Local prioritization is applied at the local node, before the packet
is sent. This means that the prioritization has full access to the is sent. This means that the prioritization has full access to the
data about the individual packets, and can choose differing treatment data about the individual packets and can choose differing treatment
based on the stream a packet belongs to. based on the stream a packet belongs to.
When an WebRTC endpoint has packets to send on multiple streams that When a WebRTC endpoint has packets to send on multiple streams that
are congestion-controlled under the same congestion control regime, are congestion controlled under the same congestion control regime,
the WebRTC endpoint SHOULD cause data to be emitted in such a way the WebRTC endpoint SHOULD cause data to be emitted in such a way
that each stream at each level of priority is being given that each stream at each level of priority is being given
approximately twice the transmission capacity (measured in payload approximately twice the transmission capacity (measured in payload
bytes) of the level below. bytes) of the level below.
Thus, when congestion occurs, a "high" priority flow will have the Thus, when congestion occurs, a high-priority flow will have the
ability to send 8 times as much data as a "very-low" priority flow if ability to send 8 times as much data as a very-low-priority flow if
both have data to send. This prioritization is independent of the both have data to send. This prioritization is independent of the
media type. The details of which packet to send first are media type. The details of which packet to send first are
implementation defined. implementation defined.
For example: If there is a high priority audio flow sending 100 byte For example, if there is a high-priority audio flow sending 100-byte
packets, and a low priority video flow sending 1000 byte packets, and packets and a low-priority video flow sending 1000-byte packets, and
outgoing capacity exists for sending >5000 payload bytes, it would be outgoing capacity exists for sending > 5000 payload bytes, it would
appropriate to send 4000 bytes (40 packets) of audio and 1000 bytes be appropriate to send 4000 bytes (40 packets) of audio and 1000
(one packet) of video as the result of a single pass of sending bytes (one packet) of video as the result of a single pass of sending
decisions. decisions.
Conversely, if the audio flow is marked low priority and the video Conversely, if the audio flow is marked low priority and the video
flow is marked high priority, the scheduler may decide to send 2 flow is marked high priority, the scheduler may decide to send 2
video packets (2000 bytes) and 5 audio packets (500 bytes) when video packets (2000 bytes) and 5 audio packets (500 bytes) when
outgoing capacity exists for sending > 2500 payload bytes. outgoing capacity exists for sending > 2500 payload bytes.
If there are two high priority audio flows, each will be able to send If there are two high-priority audio flows, each will be able to send
4000 bytes in the same period where a low priority video flow is able 4000 bytes in the same period where a low-priority video flow is able
to send 1000 bytes. to send 1000 bytes.
Two example implementation strategies are: Two example implementation strategies are:
o When the available bandwidth is known from the congestion control * When the available bandwidth is known from the congestion control
algorithm, configure each codec and each data channel with a algorithm, configure each codec and each data channel with a
target send rate that is appropriate to its share of the available target send rate that is appropriate to its share of the available
bandwidth. bandwidth.
o When congestion control indicates that a specified number of * When congestion control indicates that a specified number of
packets can be sent, send packets that are available to send using packets can be sent, send packets that are available to send using
a weighted round robin scheme across the connections. a weighted round-robin scheme across the connections.
Any combination of these, or other schemes that have the same effect, Any combination of these, or other schemes that have the same effect,
is valid, as long as the distribution of transmission capacity is is valid, as long as the distribution of transmission capacity is
approximately correct. approximately correct.
For media, it is usually inappropriate to use deep queues for For media, it is usually inappropriate to use deep queues for
sending; it is more useful to, for instance, skip intermediate frames sending; it is more useful to, for instance, skip intermediate frames
that have no dependencies on them in order to achieve a lower that have no dependencies on them in order to achieve a lower
bitrate. For reliable data, queues are useful. bitrate. For reliable data, queues are useful.
Note that this specification doesn't dictate when disparate streams Note that this specification doesn't dictate when disparate streams
are to be "congestion controlled under the same congestion control are to be "congestion controlled under the same congestion control
regime". The issue of coupling congestion controllers is explored regime". The issue of coupling congestion controllers is explored
further in [I-D.ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc]. further in [RFC8699].
4.2. Usage of Quality of Service - DSCP and Multiplexing 4.2. Usage of Quality of Service -- DSCP and Multiplexing
When the packet is sent, the network will make decisions about When the packet is sent, the network will make decisions about
queueing and/or discarding the packet that can affect the quality of queueing and/or discarding the packet that can affect the quality of
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 [RFC8837]. It is appropriate to
appropriate to depart from this recommendation when running on depart from this recommendation when running on platforms where QoS
platforms where QoS marking is not implemented. 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 behavior such as priority inversion or
of packets with certain DSCP markings. Some examples of such blocking of packets with certain DSCP markings. Some examples of
behaviors are described in [ANRW16]. The detection of these 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 DSCPs, where one may be blocked and another may be allowed. This is
allowed. This is allowed even within a single media flow for video allowed even within a single media flow for video in [RFC8837].
in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos]. Implementations need to diagnose Implementations need to diagnose this scenario; one possible
this scenario; one possible implementation is to send initial ICE implementation is to send initial ICE probes with DSCP 0, and send
probes with DSCP 0, and send ICE probes on all the DSCP code points ICE probes on all the DSCPs that are intended to be used once a
that are intended to be used once a candidate pair has been selected. candidate pair has been selected. If one or more of the DSCP-marked
If one or more of the DSCP-marked probes fail, the sender will switch probes fail, the sender will switch the media type to using DSCP 0.
the media type to using DSCP 0. This can be carried out This can be carried out simultaneously with the initial media
simultaneously with the initial media traffic; on failure, the traffic; on failure, the initial data may need to be resent. This
initial data may need to be resent. This switch will of course switch will, of course, invalidate any congestion information
invalidate any congestion information gathered up to that point. gathered up to that point.
Failures can also start happening during the lifetime of the call; 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 this case is expected to be rarer and can be handled by the normal
mechanisms for transport failure, which may involve an ICE restart. mechanisms for transport failure, which may involve an ICE restart.
Note that when a DSCP code point causes non-delivery, one has to Note that when a DSCP causes nondelivery, one has to switch the whole
switch the whole media flow to DSCP 0, since all traffic for a single media flow to DSCP 0, since all traffic for a single media flow needs
media flow needs to be on the same queue for congestion control to be on the same queue for congestion control purposes. Other flows
purposes. Other flows on the same transport, using different DSCP on the same transport, using different DSCPs, don't need to change.
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. The code point used SHOULD be
SHOULD be that recommended by [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos] for the that recommended by [RFC8837] for the highest-priority data channel
highest priority data channel carried. Note that this means that all carried. Note that this means that all data packets, no matter what
data packets, no matter what their relative priority is, will be 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.
More advice on the use of DSCP code points with RTP and on the More advice on the use of DSCPs with RTP, as well as the relationship
relationship between DSCP and congestion control is given in between DSCP and congestion control, is given in [RFC7657].
[RFC7657].
There exist a number of schemes for achieving quality of service that There exist a number of schemes for achieving quality of service that
do not depend solely on DSCP code points. Some of these schemes do not depend solely on DSCPs. Some of these schemes depend on
depend on classifying the traffic into flows based on 5-tuple (source classifying the traffic into flows based on 5-tuple (source address,
address, source port, protocol, destination address, destination source port, protocol, destination address, destination port) or
port) or 6-tuple (5-tuple + DSCP code point). Under differing 6-tuple (5-tuple + DSCP). Under differing conditions, it may
conditions, it may therefore make sense for a sending application to therefore make sense for a sending application to choose any of the
choose any of the configurations: following configurations:
o Each media stream carried on its own 5-tuple * Each media stream carried on its own 5-tuple
o Media streams grouped by media type into 5-tuples (such as * Media streams grouped by media type into 5-tuples (such as
carrying all audio on one 5-tuple) carrying all audio on one 5-tuple)
o All media sent over a single 5-tuple, with or without * All media sent over a single 5-tuple, with or without
differentiation into 6-tuples based on DSCP code points differentiation into 6-tuples based on DSCPs
In each of the configurations mentioned, data channels may be carried In each of the configurations mentioned, data channels may be carried
in its own 5-tuple, or multiplexed together with one of the media in their own 5-tuple or multiplexed together with one of the media
flows. flows.
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]. [RFC8834].
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) * 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 * 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 The sending implementation MAY choose to support other
media type (audio, video or data) into its own 5-tuple (bundling by configurations, such as bundling each media type (audio, video, or
media type). data) into its own 5-tuple (bundling by media type).
Sending data channel 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 has no IANA actions.
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
RTCWEB security considerations are enumerated in WebRTC security considerations are enumerated in [RFC8826].
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security].
Security considerations pertaining to the use of DSCP are enumerated Security considerations pertaining to the use of DSCP are enumerated
in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos]. in [RFC8837].
7. Acknowledgements
This document is based on earlier versions embedded in
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview], which were the results of contributions
from many RTCWEB WG members.
Special thanks for reviews of earlier versions of this draft go to
Eduardo Gueiros, Magnus Westerlund, Markus Isomaki and Dan Wing; the
contributions from Andrew Hutton also deserve special mention.
8. 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-11 (work in
progress), September 2016.
[I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers]
Perkins, C. and V. Singh, "Multimedia Congestion Control:
Circuit Breakers for Unicast RTP Sessions", draft-ietf-
avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-06 (work in progress), July
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]
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]
Loreto, S. and G. Camarillo, "Stream Control Transmission
Protocol (SCTP)-Based Media Transport in the Session
Description Protocol (SDP)", draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-07
(work in progress), July 2014.
[I-D.ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements]
Jesup, R., "Congestion Control Requirements For RMCAT",
draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements-06 (work in progress),
October 2014.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-alpn]
Thomson, M., "Application Layer Protocol Negotiation for
Web Real-Time Communications (WebRTC)", draft-ietf-rtcweb-
alpn-00 (work in progress), July 2014.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel]
Jesup, R., Loreto, S., and M. Tuexen, "WebRTC Data
Channels", draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-12 (work in
progress), September 2014.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol]
Jesup, R., Loreto, S., and M. Tuexen, "WebRTC Data Channel
Establishment Protocol", draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-
protocol-08 (work in progress), September 2014.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-overview]
Alvestrand, H., "Overview: Real Time Protocols for
Browser-based Applications", draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-11
(work in progress), August 2014.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage]
Perkins, C., Westerlund, M., and J. Ott, "Web Real-Time
Communication (WebRTC): Media Transport and Use of RTP",
draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-17 (work in progress), August
2014.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security]
Rescorla, E., "Security Considerations for WebRTC", draft-
ietf-rtcweb-security-07 (work in progress), July 2014.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security-arch]
Rescorla, E., "WebRTC Security Architecture", draft-ietf-
rtcweb-security-arch-10 (work in progress), July 2014.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos]
Dhesikan, S., Jennings, C., Druta, D., Jones, P., and J.
Polk, "DSCP and other packet markings for RTCWeb QoS",
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-02 (work in progress), June
2014.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps] 7. References
Tuexen, M., Stewart, R., Jesup, R., and S. Loreto, "DTLS
Encapsulation of SCTP Packets", draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-
dtls-encaps-05 (work in progress), July 2014.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-ndata] 7.1. Normative References
Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., Loreto, S., and R. Seggelmann,
"Stream Schedulers and a New Data Chunk for the Stream
Control Transmission Protocol", draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-
ndata-01 (work in progress), July 2014.
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
August 1980. DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>.
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC [RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
793, September 1981. RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,
<https://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, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://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, July 2006. Oriented Transport", RFC 4571, DOI 10.17487/RFC4571, July
2006, <https://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, August Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 4594,
2006. DOI 10.17487/RFC4594, August 2006,
<https://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, September 2007. IPv6", RFC 4941, DOI 10.17487/RFC4941, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4941>.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.
[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,
October 2008. DOI 10.17487/RFC5389, October 2008,
<https://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, May 2010. Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 5764,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5764, May 2010,
[RFC5766] Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5764>.
Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to Session
Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5766, April 2010.
[RFC6062] Perreault, S. and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using Relays
around NAT (TURN) Extensions for TCP Allocations", RFC
6062, November 2010.
[RFC6156] Camarillo, G., Novo, O., and S. Perreault, "Traversal [RFC6062] Perreault, S., Ed. and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using
Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Extension for IPv6", RFC Relays around NAT (TURN) Extensions for TCP Allocations",
6156, April 2011. RFC 6062, DOI 10.17487/RFC6062, November 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6062>.
[RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer [RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, January 2012. Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
January 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>.
[RFC6544] Rosenberg, J., Keranen, A., Lowekamp, B., and A. Roach, [RFC6544] Rosenberg, J., Keranen, A., Lowekamp, B. B., and A. B.
"TCP Candidates with Interactive Connectivity Roach, "TCP Candidates with Interactive Connectivity
Establishment (ICE)", RFC 6544, March 2012. Establishment (ICE)", RFC 6544, DOI 10.17487/RFC6544,
March 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6544>.
[RFC6724] Thaler, D., 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, September 2012. (IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6724>.
[RFC7231] Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol [RFC7231] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
(HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231, June 2014. Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.
[RFC7235] Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol [RFC7235] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
(HTTP/1.1): Authentication", RFC 7235, June 2014. Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication", RFC 7235,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7235, June 2014,
<https://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, <https://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>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7656>.
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]
Islam, S., Welzl, M., and S. Gjessing, "Coupled congestion
control for RTP media", draft-ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc-03
(work in progress), July 2016.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-return]
Schwartz, B. and J. Uberti, "Recursively Encapsulated TURN
(RETURN) for Connectivity and Privacy in WebRTC", draft-
ietf-rtcweb-return-01 (work in progress), January 2016.
[I-D.ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery]
Patil, P., Reddy, T., and D. Wing, "TURN Server Auto
Discovery", draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery-00 (work
in progress), July 2014.
[RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet
Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.
[RFC5014] Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and J. Laganier, "IPv6
Socket API for Source Address Selection", RFC 5014,
September 2007.
[RFC5128] Srisuresh, P., Ford, B., and D. Kegel, "State of Peer-to-
Peer (P2P) Communication across Network Address
Translators (NATs)", RFC 5128, March 2008.
[RFC7657] Black, D., Ed. and P. Jones, "Differentiated Services
(Diffserv) and Real-Time Communication", RFC 7657, DOI 10
.17487/RFC7657, November 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7657>.
Appendix A. Change log
This section should be removed before publication as an RFC.
A.1. Changes from -00 to -01
o Clarified DSCP requirements, with reference to -qos-
o Clarified "symmetric NAT" -> "NATs which perform endpoint-
dependent mapping"
o Made support of TURN over TCP mandatory
o Made support of TURN over TLS a MAY, and added open question
o Added an informative reference to -firewalls-
o Called out that we don't make requirements on HTTP proxy
interaction (yet
A.2. Changes from -01 to -02
o Required support for 300 Alternate Server from STUN.
o Separated the ICE-TCP candidate requirement from the TURN-TCP
requirement.
o Added new sections on using QoS functions, and on multiplexing
considerations.
o Removed all mention of RTP profiles. Those are the business of
the RTP usage draft, not this one.
o Required support for TURN IPv6 extensions.
o Removed reference to the TURN URI scheme, as it was unnecessary.
o Made an explicit statement that multiplexing (or not) is an
application matter.
.
A.3. Changes from -02 to -03
o Added required support for draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-ndata
o Removed discussion of multiplexing, since this is present in rtp-
usage.
o Added RFC 4571 reference for framing RTP packets over TCP.
o Downgraded TURN TCP candidates from SHOULD to MAY, and added more
language discussing TCP usage.
o Added language on IPv6 temporary addresses.
o Added language describing multiplexing choices.
o Added a separate section detailing what it means when we say that
an WebRTC implementation MUST support both IPv4 and IPv6.
A.4. Changes from -03 to -04
o Added a section on prioritization, moved the DSCP section into it,
and added a section on local prioritization, giving a specific
algorithm for interpreting "priority" in local prioritization.
o ICE-TCP candidates was changed from MAY to MUST, in recognition of
the sense of the room at the London IETF.
A.5. Changes from -04 to -05
o Reworded introduction
o Removed all references to "WebRTC". It now uses only the term
RTCWEB.
o Addressed a number of clarity / language comments
o Rewrote the prioritization to cover data channels and to describe
multiple ways of prioritizing flows
o Made explicit reference to "MUST do DTLS-SRTP", and referred to
security-arch for details
A.6. Changes from -05 to -06
o Changed all references to "RTCWEB" to "WebRTC", except one
reference to the working group
o Added reference to the httpbis "connect" protocol (being adopted
by HTTPBIS)
o Added reference to the ALPN header (being adopted by RTCWEB)
o Added reference to the DART RTP document
o Said explicitly that SCTP for data channels has a single DSCP
codepoint
A.7. Changes from -06 to -07
o Updated references
o Removed reference to draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-
considerations
A.8. Changes from -07 to -08
o Updated references
o Deleted "bundle each media type (audio, video or data) into its
own 5-tuple (bundling by media type)" from MUST support
configuration, since JSEP does not have a means to negotiate this
configuration
A.9. Changes from -08 to -09
o Added a clarifying note about DTLS-SRTP and ICE interaction. [RFC7983] Petit-Huguenin, M. and G. Salgueiro, "Multiplexing Scheme
Updates for Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)
Extension for Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)",
RFC 7983, DOI 10.17487/RFC7983, September 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7983>.
A.10. Changes from -09 to -10 [RFC8083] Perkins, C. and V. Singh, "Multimedia Congestion Control:
Circuit Breakers for Unicast RTP Sessions", RFC 8083,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8083, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8083>.
o Re-added references to proxy authentication lost in 07-08 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
transition (Bug #5) 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
o Rearranged and rephrased text in section 4 about prioritization to [RFC8260] Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., Loreto, S., and R. Seggelmann,
reflect discussions in TSVWG. "Stream Schedulers and User Message Interleaving for the
Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 8260,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8260, November 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8260>.
o Changed the "Connect" header to "ALPN", and updated reference. [RFC8261] Tuexen, M., Stewart, R., Jesup, R., and S. Loreto,
(Bug #6) "Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Encapsulation of
SCTP Packets", RFC 8261, DOI 10.17487/RFC8261, November
2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8261>.
A.11. Changes from -10 to -11 [RFC8421] Martinsen, P., Reddy, T., and P. Patil, "Guidelines for
Multihomed and IPv4/IPv6 Dual-Stack Interactive
Connectivity Establishment (ICE)", BCP 217, RFC 8421,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8421, July 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8421>.
o Added a definition of the term "flow" used in the prioritization [RFC8445] Keranen, A., Holmberg, C., and J. Rosenberg, "Interactive
chapter Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network
Address Translator (NAT) Traversal", RFC 8445,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8445, July 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8445>.
o Changed the names of the four priority levels to conform to other [RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
specs. Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
A.12. Changes from -11 to -12 [RFC8656] Reddy, T., Ed., Johnston, A., Ed., Matthews, P., and J.
Rosenberg, "Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN):
Relay Extensions to Session Traversal Utilities for NAT
(STUN)", RFC 8656, DOI 10.17487/RFC8656, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8656>.
o Added a SHOULD NOT about using deprecated temporary IPv6 [RFC8825] Alvestrand, H., "Overview: Real-Time Protocols for
addresses. Browser-Based Applications", RFC 8825,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8825, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8825>.
o Updated draft-ietf-dart-dscp-rtp reference to RFC 7657 [RFC8826] Rescorla, E., "Security Considerations for WebRTC",
RFC 8826, DOI 10.17487/RFC8826, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8826>.
A.13. Changes from -12 to -13 [RFC8827] Rescorla, E., "WebRTC Security Architecture", RFC 8827,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8827, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8827>.
o Clarify that the ALPN header needs to be sent. [RFC8831] Jesup, R., Loreto, S., and M. Tüxen, "WebRTC Data
Channels", RFC 8831, DOI 10.17487/RFC8831, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8831>.
o Mentioned that RFC 7657 also talks about congestion control [RFC8832] Jesup, R., Loreto, S., and M. Tüxen, "WebRTC Data Channel
Establishment Protocol", RFC 8832, DOI 10.17487/RFC8832,
January 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8832>.
A.14. Changes from -13 to -14 [RFC8833] Thomson, M., "Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation
(ALPN) for WebRTC", RFC 8833, DOI 10.17487/RFC8833,
January 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8833>.
o Add note about non-support for marking flows as interactive or [RFC8834] Perkins, C., Westerlund, M., and J. Ott, "Media Transport
non-interactive. and Use of RTP in WebRTC", RFC 8834, DOI 10.17487/RFC8834,
January 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8834>.
A.15. Changes from -14 to -15 [RFC8836] Jesup, R. and Z. Sarker, Ed., "Congestion Control
Requirements for Interactive Real-Time Media", RFC 8836,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8836, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8836>.
o Various text clarifications based on comments in Last Call and [RFC8837] Jones, P., Dhesikan, S., Jennings, C., and D. Druta,
IESG review "Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) Packet Markings
for WebRTC QoS", RFC 8837, DOI 10.17487/RFC8837, January
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8837>.
o Clarified that only non-deprecated IPv6 addresses are used [RFC8841] Holmberg, C., Shpount, R., Loreto, S., and G. Camarillo,
"Session Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answer
Procedures for Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
over Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Transport",
RFC 8841, DOI 10.17487/RFC8841, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8841>.
o Described handling of downgrading of DSCP markings when blackholes [RFC8842] Holmberg, C. and R. Shpount, "Session Description Protocol
are detected (SDP) Offer/Answer Considerations for Datagram Transport
Layer Security (DTLS) and Transport Layer Security (TLS)",
RFC 8842, DOI 10.17487/RFC8842, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8842>.
o Expanded acronyms in a new protocol list 7.2. Informative References
A.16. Changes from -15 to -16 [ANRW16] Barik, R., Welzl, M., and A. Elmokashfi, "How to say that
you're special: Can we use bits in the IPv4 header?", ANRW
'16: Proceedings of the 2016 Applied Networking Research
Workshop, pages 68-70, DOI 10.1145/2959424.2959442, July
2016, <https://irtf.org/anrw/2016/anrw16-final17.pdf>.
These changes are done post IESG approval, and address IESG comments [RETURN] Schwartz, B. and J. Uberti, "Recursively Encapsulated TURN
and other late comments. Issue numbers refer to https://github.com/ (RETURN) for Connectivity and Privacy in WebRTC", Work in
rtcweb-wg/rtcweb-transport/issues. Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rtcweb-return-02, 27
March 2017,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-return-02>.
o Moved RFC 4594, 7656 and -overview to normative (issue #28) [RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet
Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3484, February 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3484>.
o Changed the terms "client", "WebRTC implementation" and "WebRTC [RFC5014] Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and J. Laganier, "IPv6
device" to consistently be "WebRTC endpoint", as defined in Socket API for Source Address Selection", RFC 5014,
-overview. (issue #40) DOI 10.17487/RFC5014, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5014>.
o Added a note mentioning TURN service discovery and RETURN (issue [RFC5128] Srisuresh, P., Ford, B., and D. Kegel, "State of Peer-to-
#42) Peer (P2P) Communication across Network Address
Translators (NATs)", RFC 5128, DOI 10.17487/RFC5128, March
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5128>.
o Added a note mentioning that rtp-usage requires circut breaker and [RFC7657] Black, D., Ed. and P. Jones, "Differentiated Services
congestion control (issue #43) (Diffserv) and Real-Time Communication", RFC 7657,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7657, November 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7657>.
o Added mention of the "don't discard temporary IPv6 addresses that [RFC8155] Patil, P., Reddy, T., and D. Wing, "Traversal Using Relays
are in use" (issue #44) around NAT (TURN) Server Auto Discovery", RFC 8155,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8155, April 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8155>.
o Added a reference to draft-ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc (issue #46) [RFC8699] Islam, S., Welzl, M., and S. Gjessing, "Coupled Congestion
Control for RTP Media", RFC 8699, DOI 10.17487/RFC8699,
January 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8699>.
A.17. Changes from -16 to -17 Acknowledgements
o Added an informative reference to the "DSCP blackholing" paper This document is based on earlier draft versions embedded in
[RFC8825], which were the result of contributions from many RTCWEB
Working Group members.
o Changed the reference for ICE from RFC 5245 to draft-ietf-ice- Special thanks for reviews of earlier draft versions of this document
rfc5245bis go to Eduardo Gueiros, Magnus Westerlund, Markus Isomaki, and Dan
Wing; the contributions from Andrew Hutton also deserve special
mention.
Author's Address Author's Address
Harald Alvestrand Harald Alvestrand
Google Google
Email: harald@alvestrand.no Email: harald@alvestrand.no
 End of changes. 140 change blocks. 
575 lines changed or deleted 372 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/