idnits 2.17.1 draft-begen-mmusic-rfc4566bis-iana-updates-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (January 10, 2015) is 3394 days in the past. Is this intentional? -- Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code sections in the document, please surround them with '' and '' lines. Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'RFC4566' is mentioned on line 118, but not defined ** Obsolete undefined reference: RFC 4566 (Obsoleted by RFC 8866) == Missing Reference: 'RFC2848' is mentioned on line 119, but not defined ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) == Outdated reference: A later version (-37) exists of draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-12 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group A. Begen 3 Internet-Draft Cisco 4 Intended status: Standards Track January 10, 2015 5 Expires: July 14, 2015 7 IANA Registry Updates for RFC 4566bis 8 draft-begen-mmusic-rfc4566bis-iana-updates-01 10 Abstract 12 The Session Description Protocol (SDP) specification is currently 13 being revised. There are a number of issues that have been 14 identified in the IANA registries related to the SDP protocol (These 15 are tracked in the issue tracker). This document has the goal of 16 addressing these issues by making the necessary changes in the IANA 17 registries and registration procedures. 19 The changes and updates listed in this draft are submitted in this 20 individual draft rather than the 4566bis draft because (i) the 21 4566bis draft has seen quite a number of changes recently, which 22 require a detailed review and further revisions would make the review 23 process difficult, and (ii) the changes and updates listed in this 24 draft are all IANA related matters. If this draft gets published 25 separately, it will update RFC 4566 or the RFC resulting from the 26 4566bis draft. An alternative option is to include the whole text in 27 the 4566bis draft once the changes and updates are agreed. 29 Status of This Memo 31 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 32 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 34 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 35 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 36 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 37 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 39 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 40 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 41 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 42 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 44 This Internet-Draft will expire on July 14, 2015. 46 Copyright Notice 47 Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 48 document authors. All rights reserved. 50 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 51 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 52 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 53 publication of this document. Please review these documents 54 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 55 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 56 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 57 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 58 described in the Simplified BSD License. 60 Table of Contents 62 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 63 2. Glossary of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 64 3. Proposed Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 65 3.1. Dependency between "nettype" and "addrtype" Registries . 2 66 3.2. New Network Type and Address Type Registrations . . . . . 3 67 3.3. Format of the "att-field" Registry . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 71 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 72 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 73 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 75 1. Introduction 77 The Session Description Protocol (SDP) specification is currently 78 being revised [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis]. There are a number of 79 issues that have been identified in the IANA registries related to 80 the SDP protocol. This document has the goal of addressing these 81 issues by proposing changes in the IANA registries and registration 82 procedures. 84 2. Glossary of Terms 86 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 87 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 88 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in 89 [RFC2119]. 91 3. Proposed Changes 93 3.1. Dependency between "nettype" and "addrtype" Registries 94 The "nettype" registry resides at 96 http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters/sdp-parameters.xhtml 97 #sdp-parameters-4 99 and the "addrtype" registry resides at 101 http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters/sdp-parameters.xhtml 102 #sdp-parameters-5. 104 While there have been multiple network and address types have been 105 registered so far, not all address types are usable with every 106 network type. In other words, there exists a dependency between the 107 network and address types. This dependency should be reflected in 108 the registry. 110 Solution: 112 We add a new column in the "nettype" registry with the title "Usable 113 addrtype Values" and update the "nettype" registry as follows: 115 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 116 |Type | SDP Name | Usable addrtype Values | Reference | 117 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 118 |nettype | IN | IP4, IP6 | [RFC4566] | 119 |nettype | TN | RFC2543 | [RFC2848] | 120 |nettype | ATM | NSAP, GWID, E164 | [RFC3108] | 121 |nettype | PSTN | E164 | [RFC7195] | 122 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 124 Both [RFC7195] and [RFC3108] registered "E164" as an address type, 125 although [RFC7195] mentions that the "E164" address type has a 126 different context for ATM and PSTN networks. 128 In the case of a new addrtype registration, the author has to check 129 whether the new address type is usable with the existing network 130 types. If yes, the "nettype" registry MUST be updated accordingly. 131 In the case of a new nettype registration, the author MUST specify 132 the usable address type(s). 134 3.2. New Network Type and Address Type Registrations 136 New network and address types MUST be registered with IANA. These 137 registrations are subject to the RFC Required - RFC publication 138 policy of [RFC5226]. 140 3.3. Format of the "att-field" Registry 142 Section 6 of [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis] defines several attribute 143 names. However, the IANA registration (Section 8.2.4) does not 144 specify the format of the table. There are different usage levels 145 for SDP attributes and the usage level(s) for each attribute MUST be 146 reflected in the registry. 148 Solution: 150 We combine all the five "att-field" registries into one registry 151 called "att-field" registry, and update the columns to reflect the 152 name, usage level(s), charset dependency and reference. That is, we 153 use the following columns: 155 Name | Usage Level | Dependent on charset? | Reference 157 The "Name" column reflects the attribute name (as it will appear in 158 the SDP). The "Usage Level" column MUST indicate one or more of the 159 following: session, media, source. The "Dependent on charset?" 160 column MUST indicate "Yes" or "No" depending on whether the attribute 161 value is subject to the charset attribute. Finally, the "Reference" 162 column indicates the specification(s) where the attribute is defined. 164 4. Security Considerations 166 There are no security considerations. 168 5. IANA Considerations 170 This document proposes several changes in the IANA registries related 171 to the SDP protocol. These changes are listed in Section 3. 173 Editor's note: While it is not a common practice to use normative 174 language for the IANA considerations, it should be noted that the 175 normative language in this document applies to the registration 176 procedures (which may eventually move to 177 [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis]). 179 6. References 181 6.1. Normative References 183 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 184 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 186 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 187 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 188 May 2008. 190 [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis] 191 Handley, M., Jacobson, V., Perkins, C., and A. Begen, 192 "SDP: Session Description Protocol", draft-ietf-mmusic- 193 rfc4566bis-12 (work in progress), September 2014. 195 6.2. Informative References 197 [RFC3108] Kumar, R. and M. Mostafa, "Conventions for the use of the 198 Session Description Protocol (SDP) for ATM Bearer 199 Connections", RFC 3108, May 2001. 201 [RFC7195] Garcia-Martin, M. and S. Veikkolainen, "Session 202 Description Protocol (SDP) Extension for Setting Audio and 203 Video Media Streams over Circuit-Switched Bearers in the 204 Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)", RFC 7195, May 205 2014. 207 Author's Address 209 Ali Begen 210 Cisco 211 181 Bay Street 212 Toronto, ON M5J 2T3 213 Canada 215 EMail: abegen@cisco.com