Skip to main content

Multiplexing Scheme Updates for Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) Extension for Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)
draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-11

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2016-09-28
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2016-09-22
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2016-09-14
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2016-09-14
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2016-09-14
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from IANA
2016-09-14
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2016-09-13
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2016-09-13
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2016-09-12
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2016-09-08
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to IANA from EDIT
2016-09-06
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2016-09-02
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2016-09-02
11 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2016-09-02
11 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2016-09-02
11 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2016-09-02
11 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2016-09-02
11 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2016-09-02
11 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2016-09-02
11 Ben Campbell IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2016-09-02
11 Ben Campbell Ballot approval text was generated
2016-09-01
11 Gonzalo Salgueiro IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2016-09-01
11 Gonzalo Salgueiro New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-11.txt
2016-09-01
10 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation
2016-09-01
10 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2016-08-31
10 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot comment]
Ersue, Mehmet (Nokia - DE/Munich)  provided the opsdir review
2016-08-31
10 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2016-08-31
10 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2016-08-31
10 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2016-08-31
10 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2016-08-30
10 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2016-08-30
10 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2016-08-30
10 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2016-08-30
10 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2016-08-30
10 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2016-08-30
10 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2016-08-29
10 Spencer Dawkins
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for doing this update. You're helping avoid problems later.

This specification was pretty dense and difficult for me to understand (there's …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for doing this update. You're helping avoid problems later.

This specification was pretty dense and difficult for me to understand (there's quite a bit going on), until I got to the OLD TEXT/NEW TEXT in Section 7, which made everything much clearer. You might consider moving Section 7 forward, so that the organization of the document becomes "here is the new multiplexing scheme", followed by "here's why the changes are needed".

In these list entries:

  1.  It implicitly allocated codepoints for new STUN methods without
      an IANA registry reflecting these new allocations.
     
and

  3.  It implicitly allocated codepoints for new Transport Layer
      Security (TLS) ContentTypes without an IANA registry reflecting
      these new allocations.
     
is it correct to say "without entries in an IANA registry reflecting these new allocations"? I was reading the text as saying there were no registries for STUN methods or TLS ContentTypes, but that's not what you meant, is it?
2016-08-29
10 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2016-08-29
10 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2016-08-24
10 Ben Campbell Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-09-01
2016-08-24
10 Ben Campbell IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2016-08-24
10 Ben Campbell Ballot has been issued
2016-08-24
10 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2016-08-24
10 Ben Campbell Created "Approve" ballot
2016-08-24
10 Ben Campbell IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from Waiting for Writeup
2016-08-24
10 Ben Campbell Ballot writeup was changed
2016-08-24
10 Ben Campbell Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2016-08-24
10 Ben Campbell Ballot approval text was generated
2016-08-19
10 Matthew Miller Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Matthew Miller.
2016-08-08
10 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Mehmet Ersue.
2016-08-06
10 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2016-08-04
10 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2016-08-04
10 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-10.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-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-10.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are four actions which IANA must complete.

First, in the STUN Methods subregistry of the Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/stun-parameters/

the values:

Value: 0x100-0xFFF

Will be marked as follows:

Name: Reserved (MUST be allocated with IETF Review. For DTLS-SRTP multiplexing collision avoidance see [ RFC-to-be ])
Reference: RFC5764, [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, also in the STUN Methods subregistry of the Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/stun-parameters

the registration rules for the range 0x000-0x07F are to be changed to IETF Review as defined by RFC 5226. The registration rules for the range 0x080-0x0FF are to be changed to Designated Expert as defined in RFC 5226.

Third, in the TLS ContentType Registry in the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters/

changes are made to two of the ranges of values in the registry as follows:

Value: 0-19
Description: Unassigned (Requires coordination, see [ RFC-to-be ])
DTLS-OK: N/A
Reference: RFC5764, [ RFC-to-be ]

and

Value: 64-255
Description: Unassigned (Requires coordination, see [ RFC-to-be ])
DTLS-OK: N/A
Reference: RFC5764, [ RFC-to-be ]

Fourth, in the Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Channel Numbers subregistry of the Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/stun-parameters

a single change is made to the registration rules for a range of values in the registry as follows:

Value: 0x5000-0xFFFF
Name: Reserved (For DTLS-SRTP multiplexing collision avoidance see [ RFC-to-be ])
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that the four actions above are the only ones 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
2016-07-25
10 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Mehmet Ersue
2016-07-25
10 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Mehmet Ersue
2016-07-21
10 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern
2016-07-21
10 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern
2016-07-21
10 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Matthew Miller
2016-07-21
10 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Matthew Miller
2016-07-17
10 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2016-07-17
10 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: avtcore-chairs@ietf.org, ben@nostrum.com, draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes@ietf.org, avt@ietf.org, magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: avtcore-chairs@ietf.org, ben@nostrum.com, draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes@ietf.org, avt@ietf.org, magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Multiplexing Scheme Updates for Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) Extension for Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Audio/Video Transport Core
Maintenance WG (avtcore) to consider the following document:
- 'Multiplexing Scheme Updates for Secure Real-time Transport Protocol
  (SRTP) Extension for Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)'
  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 2016-08-06.  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


  This document defines how Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS),
  Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP), RTP Control Protocol (RTCP),
  Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN), Traversal Using Relays
  around NAT (TURN), and ZRTP packets are multiplexed on a single
  receiving socket.  It overrides the guidance from RFC 5764 ("SRTP
  Extension for DTLS"), which suffered from four issues described and
  fixed in this document.

  This document updates RFC 5764.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes/ballot/

The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2644/





2016-07-17
10 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2016-07-16
10 Ben Campbell Last call was requested
2016-07-16
10 Ben Campbell Ballot approval text was generated
2016-07-16
10 Ben Campbell Ballot writeup was generated
2016-07-16
10 Ben Campbell IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2016-07-16
10 Ben Campbell Last call announcement was changed
2016-07-16
10 Ben Campbell Last call announcement was generated
2016-07-16
10 Ben Campbell Last call announcement was generated
2016-07-15
10 Ben Campbell IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2016-07-06
10 Magnus Westerlund
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated …
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

This is the writeup for Multiplexing Scheme Updates for Secure Real-time
Transport Protocol (SRTP) Extension for Datagram Transport Layer
Security (DTLS) (draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-10) by
Magnus Westerlund (WG chair)

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

The document is requested to be published as Proposed Standard. The
document updates a standards track RFC as well as modifies some IANA
registries. 

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  This document defines how Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS),
  Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP), RTP Control Protocol (RTCP),
  Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN), Traversal Using Relays
  around NAT (TURN), and ZRTP packets are multiplexed on a single
  receiving socket.  It overrides the guidance from RFC 5764 ("SRTP
  Extension for DTLS"), which suffered from four issues described and
  fixed in this document.

Working Group Summary

  There has been good consensus in the AVTCORE WG. However, due
  to potential impact on the other protocols (TLS and STUN/TURN),
  this document was also last called in TLS and TRAM WG. This
  resulted in some changes to ensure the solution was mutually
  acceptable.

Document Quality

  There are not yet any known implementations of this fix. The
  document has been well reviewed and last called in several WG
  to ensure that the protocol impacts was acceptable by the
  different main responsible WGs.

Personnel

  Magnus Westerlund is the Document Shepherd. Ben Campbell is the
  Responsible Area Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

The Shepherd has reviewed the document several times during the
development of the document. The last full review was on the -09 version
during for which the latest last call was done on. 


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No, it has been well reviewed with sufficient cross review.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

No.


(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

No concerns. The main issue has been to ensure sufficient review from the
WG's which are impacted by this update.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

There was one filed, but that has been retracted by the submitter prior
to the WG last calls.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

It is a solid consensus from a number of individuals in AVTCORE. With
some additional supporters from other WGs in which last call has been
held.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

Yes. There is one ID-nit noted and explained here.

One is reference to DTLS 1.0 (RFC4347), which is needed as both DTLS 1.0 and
DTLS 1.2 (RFC 6347) are being discussed.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No formal reviews needed.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes. 

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

No

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

Yes, this updates one RFC. It is listed.


(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

The updated IANA sections is one of the main purposes of these documents.
So in general the review have been focused on this. The shepherd has verified
that the IANA section correctly identifies the relevant registries.


(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

No new registries, only updates of existing ones.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

No formal language present.
2016-07-06
10 Magnus Westerlund Responsible AD changed to Ben Campbell
2016-07-06
10 Magnus Westerlund IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2016-07-06
10 Magnus Westerlund IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2016-07-06
10 Magnus Westerlund IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2016-07-06
10 Magnus Westerlund Writeup submitted and document revised to address all raised issues.
2016-07-06
10 Magnus Westerlund Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG cleared.
2016-07-06
10 Magnus Westerlund IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead
2016-07-06
10 Magnus Westerlund Changed document writeup
2016-07-05
10 Gonzalo Salgueiro New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-10.txt
2016-06-15
09 Gonzalo Salgueiro New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-09.txt
2016-05-25
08 Gonzalo Salgueiro New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-08.txt
2016-05-10
07 Gonzalo Salgueiro New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-07.txt
2016-04-04
06 Magnus Westerlund
After some more discussion with the TLS WG around this document. It appears that there are need for some modification in relation to the TLS …
After some more discussion with the TLS WG around this document. It appears that there are need for some modification in relation to the TLS registry.
2016-04-04
06 Magnus Westerlund Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG set.
2016-04-04
06 Magnus Westerlund IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2016-03-02
06 Magnus Westerlund
The comment in TLS WG has been responded and given more than a week time for reaction. As WG chair I judge there are consensus …
The comment in TLS WG has been responded and given more than a week time for reaction. As WG chair I judge there are consensus in AVTCORE WG to publish this document.
2016-03-02
06 Magnus Westerlund IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2016-03-02
06 Gonzalo Salgueiro New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-06.txt
2016-01-27
05 Magnus Westerlund Joint WG last call with TLS WG started on the 160127, ending on the 10th of February 2016.
2016-01-27
05 Magnus Westerlund IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2016-01-26
05 Gonzalo Salgueiro New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-05.txt
2016-01-26
04 Gonzalo Salgueiro New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-04.txt
2015-10-19
03 Gonzalo Salgueiro New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-03.txt
2015-10-14
02 (System) Notify list changed from "Magnus Westerlund"  to (None)
2015-08-26
Naveen Khan Removed related IPR disclosure: EvolutionX's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes and local
2015-06-23
02 Magnus Westerlund Notification list changed to "Magnus Westerlund" <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
2015-06-23
02 Magnus Westerlund Document shepherd changed to Magnus Westerlund
2015-03-24
02 Gonzalo Salgueiro New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-02.txt
2015-03-24
01 Magnus Westerlund This document now replaces draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes instead of None
2015-03-24
01 Magnus Westerlund Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2015-03-24
01 Gonzalo Salgueiro New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01.txt
2015-03-24
00 Gonzalo Salgueiro New version available: draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-00.txt