idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-07.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC5764]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC5764, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC5764 though, so this could be OK. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). (Using the creation date from RFC5764, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2007-07-03) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (May 10, 2016) is 2901 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4347 (Obsoleted by RFC 6347) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5245 (Obsoleted by RFC 8445, RFC 8839) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5246 (Obsoleted by RFC 8446) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5389 (Obsoleted by RFC 8489) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5766 (Obsoleted by RFC 8656) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6347 (Obsoleted by RFC 9147) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 6982 (Obsoleted by RFC 7942) == Outdated reference: A later version (-54) exists of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-23 Summary: 7 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 AVTCORE M. Petit-Huguenin 3 Internet-Draft Impedance Mismatch 4 Updates: 5764 (if approved) G. Salgueiro 5 Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems 6 Expires: November 11, 2016 May 10, 2016 8 Multiplexing Scheme Updates for Secure Real-time Transport Protocol 9 (SRTP) Extension for Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) 10 draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-07 12 Abstract 14 This document defines how Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS), 15 Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP), RTP Control Protocol (RTCP), 16 Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN), and Traversal Using 17 Relays around NAT (TURN) packets are multiplexed on a single 18 receiving socket. It overrides the guidance from SRTP Extension for 19 DTLS [RFC5764], which suffered from three issues described and fixed 20 in this document. 22 Status of This Memo 24 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 25 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 27 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 28 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 29 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 30 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 32 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 33 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 34 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 35 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 37 This Internet-Draft will expire on November 11, 2016. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 42 document authors. All rights reserved. 44 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 45 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 46 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 47 publication of this document. Please review these documents 48 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 49 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 50 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 51 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 52 described in the Simplified BSD License. 54 Table of Contents 56 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 3. Implicit Allocation of Codepoints for New STUN Methods . . . 4 59 4. Implicit Allocation of New Codepoints for TLS ContentTypes . 5 60 5. Multiplexing of TURN Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 61 6. RFC 5764 Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 62 7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 63 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 64 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 65 9.1. STUN Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 66 9.2. TLS ContentType . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 67 9.3. TURN Channel Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 68 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 69 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 70 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 71 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 72 Appendix A. Release notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 73 A.1. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- 74 fixes-07 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-06 . . 12 75 A.2. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- 76 fixes-06 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-05 . . 12 77 A.3. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- 78 fixes-05 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-04 . . 12 79 A.4. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- 80 fixes-04 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-03 . . 12 81 A.5. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- 82 fixes-03 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-02 . . 12 83 A.6. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- 84 fixes-02 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01 . . 12 85 A.7. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- 86 fixes-01 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-00 . . 13 87 A.8. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- 88 fixes-00 and draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- 89 fixes-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 90 A.9. Modifications between draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764 91 -mux-fixes-00 and draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764 92 -mux-fixes-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 93 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 95 1. Introduction 97 Section 5.1.2 of Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) Extension 98 for DTLS [RFC5764] defines a scheme for a Real-time Transport 99 Protocol (RTP) [RFC3550] receiver to demultiplex Datagram Transport 100 Layer Security (DTLS) [RFC6347], Session Traversal Utilities for NAT 101 (STUN) [RFC5389] and Secure Real-time Transport Protocol 102 (SRTP)/Secure RTP Control Protocol (SRTCP) [RFC3711] packets that are 103 arriving on the RTP port. Unfortunately, this demultiplexing scheme 104 has created problematic issues: 106 1. It implicitly allocated codepoints for new STUN methods without 107 an IANA registry reflecting these new allocations. 109 2. It implicitly allocated codepoints for new Transport Layer 110 Security (TLS) ContentTypes without an IANA registry reflecting 111 these new allocations. 113 3. It did not take into account the fact that the Traversal Using 114 Relays around NAT (TURN) usage of STUN can create TURN channels 115 that also need to be demultiplexed with the other packet types 116 explicitly mentioned in Section 5.1.2 of RFC 5764. 118 Having overlapping ranges between different IANA registries becomes 119 an issue when a new codepoint is allocated in one of these registries 120 without carefully analyzing the impact it could have on the other 121 registries when that codepoint is demultiplexed. Among other 122 downsides of the bad design of the demultiplexing algorithm detailed 123 in [RFC5764], it creates a requirement for coordination between 124 codepoint assignments where none should exist, and that is 125 organizationally and socially undesirable. However, RFC 5764 has 126 been widely deployed so there must be an awareness of this issue and 127 how it must be dealt with. Thus, even if a codepoint is not 128 initially thought to be useful, the respective IANA registry expert 129 should at least raise a flag when the allocated codepoint irrevocably 130 prevents multiplexing. 132 The first goal of this document is to make sure that future 133 allocations in any of the affected protocols are done with the full 134 knowledge of their impact on multiplexing. This is achieved by 135 modifying the IANA registries with instructions for coordination 136 between the protocols at risk. 138 A second goal is to permit the addition of new protocols to the list 139 of existing multiplexed protocols in a manner that does not break 140 existing implementations. 142 The flaws in the demultiplexing scheme were unavoidably inherited by 143 other documents, such as [RFC7345] and 144 [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation]. So in addition, these and 145 any other affected documents will need to be corrected with the 146 updates this document provides. 148 2. Terminology 150 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" 151 in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] when 152 they appear in ALL CAPS. When these words are not in ALL CAPS (such 153 as "must" or "Must"), they have their usual English meanings, and are 154 not to be interpreted as RFC 2119 key words. 156 3. Implicit Allocation of Codepoints for New STUN Methods 158 The demultiplexing scheme in [RFC5764] states that the receiver can 159 identify the packet type by looking at the first byte. If the value 160 of this first byte is 0 or 1, the packet is identified to be STUN. 161 The problem that arises as a result of this implicit allocation is 162 that this restricts the codepoints for STUN methods (as described in 163 Section 18.1 of [RFC5389]) to values between 0x000 and 0x07F, which 164 in turn reduces the number of possible STUN method codepoints 165 assigned by IETF Review (i.e., the range from (0x000 - 0x7FF) from 166 2048 to only 128 and eliminating the possibility of having STUN 167 method codepoints assigned by Designated Expert (i.e., the range 168 0x800 - 0xFFF). 170 To preserve the Designated Expert range, this document allocates the 171 value 2 and 3 to also identify STUN methods. 173 The IANA Registry for STUN methods is modified to mark the codepoints 174 from 0x100 to 0xFFF as Reserved. These codepoints can still be 175 allocated, but require IETF Review with a document that will properly 176 evaluate the risk of an assignment overlapping with other registries. 178 In addition, this document also updates the IANA registry such that 179 the STUN method codepoints assigned in the 0x080-0x0FF range are also 180 assigned via Designated Expert. The proposed changes to the STUN 181 Method Registry are: 183 OLD: 185 0x000-0x7FF IETF Review 186 0x800-0xFFF Designated Expert 188 NEW: 190 0x000-0x07F IETF Review 191 0x080-0x0FF Designated Expert 192 0x100-0xFFF Reserved 194 4. Implicit Allocation of New Codepoints for TLS ContentTypes 196 The demultiplexing scheme in [RFC5764] dictates that if the value of 197 the first byte is between 20 and 63 (inclusive), then the packet is 198 identified to be DTLS. For DTLS 1.0 [RFC4347] and DTLS 1.2 [RFC6347] 199 that first byte corresponds to the TLS ContentType field. 200 Considerations must be taken into account when assigning additional 201 ContentTypes in the code point ranges 0 to 19 and 64 to 255 so this 202 does not prevent demultiplexing when this functionality is desirable. 203 Note that [RFC5764] describes a narrow use of DTLS that works as long 204 as the specific DTLS version used abides by the restrictions on the 205 demultiplexing byte (the ones that this document imposes on the TLS 206 ContentType Registry). Any extension or revision to DTLS that causes 207 it to no longer meet these constraints should consider what values 208 may occur in the first byte of the DTLS message and what impact it 209 would have on the multiplexing that [RFC5764] describes. 211 With respect to TLS packet identification, this document explicitly 212 adds a warning to the codepoints from 0 to 19 and from 64 to 255 213 indicating that allocations in these ranges require coordination, as 214 described in this document. The proposed changes to the TLS 215 ContentType Registry are: 217 OLD: 219 0-19 Unassigned 220 20 change_cipher_spec 221 21 alert 222 22 handshake 223 23 application_data 224 24 heartbeat 225 25-255 Unassigned 227 NEW: 229 0-19 Unassigned (Requires coordination, see RFCXXXX) 230 20 change_cipher_spec 231 21 alert 232 22 handshake 233 23 application_data 234 24 heartbeat 235 25-63 Unassigned 236 64-255 Unassigned (Requires coordination, see RFCXXXX) 238 5. Multiplexing of TURN Channels 240 When used with ICE [RFC5245], an RFC 5764 implementation can receive 241 packets on the same socket from three different paths, as shown in 242 Figure 1: 244 1. Directly from the source 246 2. Through a NAT 248 3. Relayed by a TURN server 250 +------+ 251 | TURN |<------------------------+ 252 +------+ | 253 | | 254 | +-------------------------+ | 255 | | | | 256 v v | | 257 NAT ----------- | | 258 | | +---------------------+ | | 259 | | | | | | 260 v v v | | | 261 +----------+ +----------+ 262 | RFC 5764 | | RFC 5764 | 263 +----------+ +----------+ 265 Figure 1: Packet Reception by an RFC 5764 Implementation 267 Even if the ICE algorithm succeeded in selecting a non-relayed path, 268 it is still possible to receive data from the TURN server. For 269 instance, when ICE is used with aggressive nomination the media path 270 can quickly change until it stabilizes. Also, freeing ICE candidates 271 is optional, so the TURN server can restart forwarding STUN 272 connectivity checks during an ICE restart. 274 TURN channels are an optimization where data packets are exchanged 275 with a 4-byte prefix, instead of the standard 36-byte STUN overhead 276 (see Section 2.5 of [RFC5766]). The problem is that the RFC 5764 277 demultiplexing scheme does not define what to do with packets 278 received over a TURN channel since these packets will start with a 279 first byte whose value will be between 64 and 127 (inclusive). If 280 the TURN server was instructed to send data over a TURN channel, then 281 the current RFC 5764 demultiplexing scheme will reject these packets. 282 Current implementations violate RFC 5764 for values 64 to 127 283 (inclusive) and they instead parse packets with such values as TURN. 285 In order to prevent future documents from assigning values from the 286 unused range to a new protocol, this document modifies the RFC 5764 287 demultiplexing algorithm to properly account for TURN channels by 288 allocating the values from 64 to 79 for this purpose. 290 6. RFC 5764 Updates 292 This document updates the text in Section 5.1.2 of [RFC5764] as 293 follows: 295 OLD TEXT 297 The process for demultiplexing a packet is as follows. The receiver 298 looks at the first byte of the packet. If the value of this byte is 299 0 or 1, then the packet is STUN. If the value is in between 128 and 300 191 (inclusive), then the packet is RTP (or RTCP, if both RTCP and 301 RTP are being multiplexed over the same destination port). If the 302 value is between 20 and 63 (inclusive), the packet is DTLS. This 303 process is summarized in Figure 3. 305 +----------------+ 306 | 127 < B < 192 -+--> forward to RTP 307 | | 308 packet --> | 19 < B < 64 -+--> forward to DTLS 309 | | 310 | B < 2 -+--> forward to STUN 311 +----------------+ 313 Figure 3: The DTLS-SRTP receiver's packet demultiplexing algorithm. 314 Here the field B denotes the leading byte of the packet. 316 END OLD TEXT 318 NEW TEXT 320 The process for demultiplexing a packet is as follows. The receiver 321 looks at the first byte of the packet. If the value of this byte is 322 in between 0 and 3 (inclusive), then the packet is STUN. If the 323 value is between 20 and 63 (inclusive), then the packet is DTLS. If 324 the value is between 64 and 79 (inclusive), then the packet is TURN 325 Channel. If the value is in between 128 and 191 (inclusive), then 326 the packet is RTP (or RTCP, if both RTCP and RTP are being 327 multiplexed over the same destination port). If the value does not 328 match any known range then the packet MUST be dropped and an alert 329 MAY be logged. This process is summarized in Figure 3. 331 +----------------+ 332 | [0..3] -+--> forward to STUN 333 | | 334 packet --> | [20..63] -+--> forward to DTLS 335 | | 336 | [64..79] -+--> forward to TURN Channel 337 | | 338 | [128..191] -+--> forward to RTP/RTCP 339 +----------------+ 341 Figure 3: The DTLS-SRTP receiver's packet demultiplexing algorithm. 343 END NEW TEXT 345 7. Implementation Status 347 [[Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section and the reference to 348 [RFC6982] before publication.]] 350 This section records the status of known implementations of the 351 protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this 352 Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC6982]. 353 The description of implementations in this section is intended to 354 assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to 355 RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation 356 here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort 357 has been spent to verify the information presented here that was 358 supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not 359 be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their 360 features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may 361 exist. 363 According to [RFC6982], "this will allow reviewers and working groups 364 to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of 365 running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation 366 and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. 367 It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as 368 they see fit". 370 Note that there is currently no implementation declared in this 371 section, but the intent is to add RFC 6982 templates here from 372 implementers that support the modifications in this document. 374 8. Security Considerations 376 This document updates existing IANA registries, adds a new range for 377 TURN channels in the demuxing algorithm, and madates an ascending 378 order for testing the ranges in the demuxing algorithm. 380 These modifications do not introduce any specific security 381 considerations beyond those detailed in [RFC5764]. 383 9. IANA Considerations 385 9.1. STUN Methods 387 This specification contains the registration information for reserved 388 STUN Methods codepoints, as explained in Section 3 and in accordance 389 with the procedures defined in Section 18.1 of [RFC5389]. 391 Value: 0x100-0xFFF 393 Name: Reserved (MUST be allocated with IETF Review. For DTLS-SRTP 394 multiplexing collision avoidance see RFC XXXX) 396 Reference: RFC5764, RFCXXXX 398 This specification also reassigns the ranges in the STUN Methods 399 Registry as follow: 401 Range: 0x000-0x07F 403 Registration Procedures: IETF Review 405 Range: 0x080-0x0FF 407 Registration Procedures: Designated Expert 409 9.2. TLS ContentType 411 This specification contains the registration information for reserved 412 TLS ContentType codepoints, as explained in Section 4 and in 413 accordance with the procedures defined in Section 12 of [RFC5246]. 415 Value: 0-19 417 Description: Unassigned (Requires coordination, see RFCXXXX) 419 DTLS-OK: N/A 421 Reference: RFC5764, RFCXXXX 423 Value: 64-255 425 Description: Unassigned (Requires coordination, see RFCXXXX)) 427 DTLS-OK: N/A 428 Reference: RFC5764, RFCXXXX 430 9.3. TURN Channel Numbers 432 This specification contains the registration information for reserved 433 TURN Channel Numbers codepoints, as explained in Section 5 and in 434 accordance with the procedures defined in Section 18 of [RFC5766]. 436 Value: 0x5000-0xFFFF 438 Name: Reserved (For DTLS-SRTP multiplexing collision avoidance see 439 RFC XXXX) 441 Reference: RFCXXXX 443 [RFC EDITOR NOTE: Please replace RFCXXXX with the RFC number of this 444 document.] 446 10. Acknowledgements 448 The implicit STUN Method codepoint allocations problem was first 449 reported by Martin Thomson in the RTCWEB mailing-list and discussed 450 further with Magnus Westerlund. 452 Thanks to Simon Perreault, Colton Shields, Cullen Jennings, Colin 453 Perkins, Magnus Westerlund, Paul Jones, Jonathan Lennox, Varun Singh, 454 Justin Uberti, Joseph Salowey, Martin Thomson, Ben Campbell, Stephen 455 Farrell and Paul Kyzivat for the comments, suggestions, and questions 456 that helped improve this document. 458 11. References 460 11.1. Normative References 462 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 463 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 464 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 465 . 467 [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. 468 Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time 469 Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550, 470 July 2003, . 472 [RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K. 473 Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", 474 RFC 3711, DOI 10.17487/RFC3711, March 2004, 475 . 477 [RFC4347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer 478 Security", RFC 4347, DOI 10.17487/RFC4347, April 2006, 479 . 481 [RFC5245] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment 482 (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) 483 Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245, 484 DOI 10.17487/RFC5245, April 2010, 485 . 487 [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security 488 (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, 489 DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008, 490 . 492 [RFC5389] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing, 493 "Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389, 494 DOI 10.17487/RFC5389, October 2008, 495 . 497 [RFC5764] McGrew, D. and E. Rescorla, "Datagram Transport Layer 498 Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for the Secure 499 Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 5764, 500 DOI 10.17487/RFC5764, May 2010, 501 . 503 [RFC5766] Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using 504 Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to Session 505 Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5766, 506 DOI 10.17487/RFC5766, April 2010, 507 . 509 [RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer 510 Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347, 511 January 2012, . 513 11.2. Informative References 515 [RFC6982] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running 516 Code: The Implementation Status Section", RFC 6982, 517 DOI 10.17487/RFC6982, July 2013, 518 . 520 [RFC7345] Holmberg, C., Sedlacek, I., and G. Salgueiro, "UDP 521 Transport Layer (UDPTL) over Datagram Transport Layer 522 Security (DTLS)", RFC 7345, DOI 10.17487/RFC7345, August 523 2014, . 525 [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation] 526 Holmberg, C., Alvestrand, H., and C. Jennings, 527 "Negotiating Media Multiplexing Using the Session 528 Description Protocol (SDP)", draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle- 529 negotiation-23 (work in progress), July 2015. 531 Appendix A. Release notes 533 This section must be removed before publication as an RFC. 535 A.1. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-07 and 536 draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-06 538 o Addresses Martin Thomson, Ben Campbell and Stephen Farrell's 539 review comments about TLS ContentType registrations. 541 A.2. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-06 and 542 draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-05 544 o Addresses Colin's WGLC review comments 546 A.3. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-05 and 547 draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-04 549 o Removed some remnants of the ordering from Section 6 551 o Moved Terminology from Section 5 to Section 2 553 A.4. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-04 and 554 draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-03 556 o Removed Section on "Demultiplexing Algorithm Test Order" 558 o Split the Introduction into separate sections 560 A.5. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-03 and 561 draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-02 563 o Revert to the RFC 5389, as the stunbis reference was needed only 564 for STUN over SCTP. 566 A.6. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-02 and 567 draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01 569 o Remove any discussion about SCTP until a consensus emerges in 570 TRAM. 572 A.7. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01 and 573 draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-00 575 o Instead of allocating the values that are common on each registry, 576 the specification now only reserves them, giving the possibility 577 to allocate them in case muxing is irrelevant. 579 o STUN range is now 0-3m with 2-3 being Designated Expert. 581 o TLS ContentType 0-19 and 64-255 are now reserved. 583 o Add SCTP over UDP value. 585 o If an implementation uses the source IP address/port to separate 586 TURN channels packets then the whole channel numbers are 587 available. 589 o If not the prefix is between 64 and 79. 591 o First byte test order is now by incremental values, so failure is 592 deterministic. 594 o Redraw the demuxing diagram. 596 A.8. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-00 and 597 draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-02 599 o Adoption by WG. 601 o Add reference to STUNbis. 603 A.9. Modifications between draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- 604 fixes-00 and draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01 606 o Change affiliation. 608 Authors' Addresses 610 Marc Petit-Huguenin 611 Impedance Mismatch 613 Email: marc@petit-huguenin.org 614 Gonzalo Salgueiro 615 Cisco Systems 616 7200-12 Kit Creek Road 617 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 618 US 620 Email: gsalguei@cisco.com