Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) for WebRTC
draft-ietf-rtcweb-alpn-04
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2020-12-03
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2020-11-05
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from AUTH48-DONE |
2020-07-01
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2020-05-25
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2020-03-16
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF |
2020-03-02
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to REF from RFC-EDITOR |
2020-03-01
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF |
2019-08-19
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to REF from EDIT |
2019-08-15
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
2016-07-14
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
2016-06-16
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2016-06-15
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2016-05-13
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2016-05-12
|
04 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF |
2016-05-12
|
04 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2016-05-12
|
04 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2016-05-12
|
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2016-05-12
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2016-05-12
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2016-05-12
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2016-05-12
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-05-12
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-05-05
|
04 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2016-05-05
|
04 | Martin Thomson | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2016-05-05
|
04 | Martin Thomson | New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-alpn-04.txt |
2016-05-05
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2016-05-05
|
03 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2016-05-04
|
03 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] Note: There has been no answer to Russ Housley's Gen-ART review comments yet. |
2016-05-04
|
03 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2016-05-04
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2016-05-04
|
03 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2016-05-04
|
03 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2016-05-04
|
03 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] I agree with Stephen's comments on the word confidentiality, but can't think of an alternate word. I think text describing how this is … [Ballot comment] I agree with Stephen's comments on the word confidentiality, but can't think of an alternate word. I think text describing how this is limited would be helpful in the introduction. The clearest (at least to me) description of what is meant by confidentiality doesn't appear until the security considerations section. |
2016-05-04
|
03 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2016-05-04
|
03 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - I suspect the term "confidential" as used here will turn out to mislead or confuse some folks. The meaning is clear if … [Ballot comment] - I suspect the term "confidential" as used here will turn out to mislead or confuse some folks. The meaning is clear if one reads the draft, but of course many people will just read some stackexchange answer. It's probably too late to try change that unless someone has a good term beginning with "c" to use for c-werbrtc. The potential for confusion I think will be that the other label might be assumed to not use a good confidentiality mechanism on the wire, so folks might get concerned that e.g. their DataChannel stuff can be read by a middlebox. (I just mention this in case the concern is either new or has been bubbling up in the WG, feel entirely free to ignore me if you want.) - I forget how the screen sharing issue for WebRTC was resolved. In any case, do the handling of screen sharing and c-webrtc interact? Do you need to explain that there's some non-browser "access" (origination really) of media on the screen-sharer's machine? - "clever arrangement of mirrors" - that is a nice way to explain the futility of DRM :-) |
2016-05-04
|
03 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2016-05-03
|
03 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] Should I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security-arch be a normative reference, due to the citation in section 4? |
2016-05-03
|
03 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2016-05-03
|
03 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2016-05-03
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2016-04-28
|
03 | Sabrina Tanamal | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2016-04-28
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Benjamin Kaduk. |
2016-04-28
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] Please excuse my ignorance (pointers would be appreciated, if this is explained elsewhere): do RTP intermediary need to be updated to understand this … [Ballot comment] Please excuse my ignorance (pointers would be appreciated, if this is explained elsewhere): do RTP intermediary need to be updated to understand this spec? If yes, how can you enforce requirements on "c-webrtc"? |
2016-04-28
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2016-04-26
|
03 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2016-04-21
|
03 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot has been issued |
2016-04-21
|
03 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2016-04-21
|
03 | Alissa Cooper | Created "Approve" ballot |
2016-04-21
|
03 | Alissa Cooper | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2016-04-21
|
03 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2016-04-19
|
03 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2016-04-19
|
03 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-alpn-03.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-alpn-03.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA must complete. In the Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) Protocol IDs subregistry of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-extensiontype-values/ two new ALPN Protocol IDs are to be registered as follows: Protocol: WebRTC Media and Data Identification Sequence: 0x77 0x65 0x62 0x72 0x74 0x63 ("webrtc") Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Protocol: Confidential WebRTC Media and Data Identification Sequence: 0x63 0x2d 0x77 0x65 0x62 0x72 0x74 0x63 ("c-webrtc") Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 5226) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC. IANA understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Specialist ICANN |
2016-04-18
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro. |
2016-04-12
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley |
2016-04-12
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley |
2016-04-10
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro |
2016-04-10
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro |
2016-04-07
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Benjamin Kaduk |
2016-04-07
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Benjamin Kaduk |
2016-04-07
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2016-04-07
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: draft-ietf-rtcweb-alpn@ietf.org, turners@ieca.com, alissa@cooperw.in, rtcweb-chairs@ietf.org, rtcweb@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: draft-ietf-rtcweb-alpn@ietf.org, turners@ieca.com, alissa@cooperw.in, rtcweb-chairs@ietf.org, rtcweb@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Application Layer Protocol Negotiation for Web Real-Time Communications (WebRTC)) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers WG (rtcweb) to consider the following document: - 'Application Layer Protocol Negotiation for Web Real-Time Communications (WebRTC)' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-04-21. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract Application Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) labels are defined for use in identifying Web Real-Time Communications (WebRTC) usages of Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS). Labels are provided for identifying a session that uses a combination of WebRTC compatible media and data, and for identifying a session requiring confidentiality protection from web applications. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-alpn/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-alpn/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2016-04-07
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2016-04-07
|
03 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-04-07
|
03 | Alissa Cooper | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-05-05 |
2016-04-07
|
03 | Alissa Cooper | Last call was requested |
2016-04-07
|
03 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-04-07
|
03 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot writeup was generated |
2016-04-07
|
03 | Alissa Cooper | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2016-04-07
|
03 | Alissa Cooper | Last call announcement was generated |
2016-04-06
|
03 | Martin Thomson | New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-alpn-03.txt |
2016-03-05
|
02 | Alissa Cooper | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed from AD Evaluation |
2016-03-05
|
02 | Alissa Cooper | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2016-02-26
|
02 | Sean Turner | 1. Summary This is pretty simple/short draft that defines/registers two Application Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) [RFC7301] values to enable an endpoint to positively … 1. Summary This is pretty simple/short draft that defines/registers two Application Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) [RFC7301] values to enable an endpoint to positively identify WebRTC uses and distinguish them from other DTLS uses (i.e., provide media isolation). The two values are webrtc and c-webrtc; the first identifies a session that uses a combination of WebRTC compatible media and data, and the second identifies a session requiring confidentiality protection. As far as where you should point your fingers: - Sean Turner is the document shepherd, and; - Alissa Cooper is the responsible Area Director. 2. Review and Consensus As compared with a lot of other RTCweb WG drafts, there hasn’t been a whole lot of list traffic about this draft, but this owes to the fact that it’s a very simple draft. The WG did consider other alternatives [0], but settled on and discussed the ALPN approach [1][2][3]. Note that the idea was first presented at IETF 89 [4]. [0] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/dVoCdDDk2NzXFmVSLYoUg6vNq6E [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/8hF64wtCHxjCdHEH14o_wFKpmnk [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/_8JqdXt9XETGafncPYCZrFnHA6Q [3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/Bw34RKoI9D11PqRs9BFGQWV68_E [4] https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/slides/slides-89-rtcweb-7.pdf 3. Intellectual Property All disclosed as confirmed by the author on 20160223. 4. Other Points IANA is requested to register two entries in the ALPN registry: https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-extensiontype-values/tls-extensiontype-values.xhtml#alpn-protocol-ids The registry requests use the template provided in RFC 7301. Note that I’ll forward the IETF LC to the TLS WG for information. Finally, this has been shipping in (at least) Firefox for over a year. |
2016-02-26
|
02 | Sean Turner | Responsible AD changed to Alissa Cooper |
2016-02-26
|
02 | Sean Turner | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2016-02-26
|
02 | Sean Turner | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2016-02-26
|
02 | Sean Turner | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2016-02-25
|
02 | Sean Turner | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2016-02-25
|
02 | Sean Turner | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2016-02-25
|
02 | Sean Turner | Changed document writeup |
2016-02-21
|
02 | Sean Turner | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2016-02-18
|
02 | Sean Turner | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call |
2016-01-25
|
02 | Sean Turner | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2016-01-21
|
02 | Martin Thomson | New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-alpn-02.txt |
2015-04-16
|
01 | Sean Turner | This document now replaces draft-thomson-rtcweb-alpn instead of None |
2015-02-28
|
01 | Martin Thomson | New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-alpn-01.txt |
2014-08-14
|
00 | Sean Turner | Document shepherd changed to Sean Turner |
2014-07-23
|
00 | Martin Thomson | New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-alpn-00.txt |