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 |