Skip to main content

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