idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-08.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 25, 2016) is 2890 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 26, 2016 May 25, 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-08 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 26, 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-08 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-07 . . 12 75 A.2. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- 76 fixes-07 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-06 . . 12 77 A.3. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- 78 fixes-06 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-05 . . 12 79 A.4. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- 80 fixes-05 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-04 . . 12 81 A.5. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- 82 fixes-04 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-03 . . 12 83 A.6. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- 84 fixes-03 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-02 . . 12 85 A.7. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- 86 fixes-02 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01 . . 13 87 A.8. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- 88 fixes-01 and draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-00 . . 13 89 A.9. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- 90 fixes-00 and draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- 91 fixes-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 92 A.10. Modifications between draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764 93 -mux-fixes-00 and draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764 94 -mux-fixes-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 95 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 97 1. Introduction 99 Section 5.1.2 of Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) Extension 100 for DTLS [RFC5764] defines a scheme for a Real-time Transport 101 Protocol (RTP) [RFC3550] receiver to demultiplex Datagram Transport 102 Layer Security (DTLS) [RFC6347], Session Traversal Utilities for NAT 103 (STUN) [RFC5389] and Secure Real-time Transport Protocol 104 (SRTP)/Secure RTP Control Protocol (SRTCP) [RFC3711] packets that are 105 arriving on the RTP port. Unfortunately, this demultiplexing scheme 106 has created problematic issues: 108 1. It implicitly allocated codepoints for new STUN methods without 109 an IANA registry reflecting these new allocations. 111 2. It implicitly allocated codepoints for new Transport Layer 112 Security (TLS) ContentTypes without an IANA registry reflecting 113 these new allocations. 115 3. It did not take into account the fact that the Traversal Using 116 Relays around NAT (TURN) usage of STUN can create TURN channels 117 that also need to be demultiplexed with the other packet types 118 explicitly mentioned in Section 5.1.2 of RFC 5764. 120 Having overlapping ranges between different IANA registries becomes 121 an issue when a new codepoint is allocated in one of these registries 122 without carefully analyzing the impact it could have on the other 123 registries when that codepoint is demultiplexed. Among other 124 downsides of the bad design of the demultiplexing algorithm detailed 125 in [RFC5764], it creates a requirement for coordination between 126 codepoint assignments where none should exist, and that is 127 organizationally and socially undesirable. However, RFC 5764 has 128 been widely deployed so there must be an awareness of this issue and 129 how it must be dealt with. Thus, even if a codepoint is not 130 initially thought to be useful, the respective IANA registry expert 131 should at least raise a flag when the allocated codepoint irrevocably 132 prevents multiplexing. 134 The first goal of this document is to make sure that future 135 allocations in any of the affected protocols are done with the full 136 knowledge of their impact on multiplexing. This is achieved by 137 modifying the IANA registries with instructions for coordination 138 between the protocols at risk. 140 A second goal is to permit the addition of new protocols to the list 141 of existing multiplexed protocols in a manner that does not break 142 existing implementations. 144 The flaws in the demultiplexing scheme were unavoidably inherited by 145 other documents, such as [RFC7345] and 146 [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation]. So in addition, these and 147 any other affected documents will need to be corrected with the 148 updates this document provides. 150 2. Terminology 152 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" 153 in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] when 154 they appear in ALL CAPS. When these words are not in ALL CAPS (such 155 as "must" or "Must"), they have their usual English meanings, and are 156 not to be interpreted as RFC 2119 key words. 158 3. Implicit Allocation of Codepoints for New STUN Methods 160 The demultiplexing scheme in [RFC5764] states that the receiver can 161 identify the packet type by looking at the first byte. If the value 162 of this first byte is 0 or 1, the packet is identified to be STUN. 163 The problem that arises as a result of this implicit allocation is 164 that this restricts the codepoints for STUN methods (as described in 165 Section 18.1 of [RFC5389]) to values between 0x000 and 0x07F, which 166 in turn reduces the number of possible STUN method codepoints 167 assigned by IETF Review (i.e., the range from (0x000 - 0x7FF) from 168 2048 to only 128 and eliminating the possibility of having STUN 169 method codepoints assigned by Designated Expert (i.e., the range 170 0x800 - 0xFFF). 172 To preserve the Designated Expert range, this document allocates the 173 value 2 and 3 to also identify STUN methods. 175 The IANA Registry for STUN methods is modified to mark the codepoints 176 from 0x100 to 0xFFF as Reserved. These codepoints can still be 177 allocated, but require IETF Review with a document that will properly 178 evaluate the risk of an assignment overlapping with other registries. 180 In addition, this document also updates the IANA registry such that 181 the STUN method codepoints assigned in the 0x080-0x0FF range are also 182 assigned via Designated Expert. The proposed changes to the STUN 183 Method Registry are: 185 OLD: 187 0x000-0x7FF IETF Review 188 0x800-0xFFF Designated Expert 190 NEW: 192 0x000-0x07F IETF Review 193 0x080-0x0FF Designated Expert 194 0x100-0xFFF Reserved 196 4. Implicit Allocation of New Codepoints for TLS ContentTypes 198 The demultiplexing scheme in [RFC5764] dictates that if the value of 199 the first byte is between 20 and 63 (inclusive), then the packet is 200 identified to be DTLS. For DTLS 1.0 [RFC4347] and DTLS 1.2 [RFC6347] 201 that first byte corresponds to the TLS ContentType field. 202 Considerations must be taken into account when assigning additional 203 ContentTypes in the code point ranges 0 to 19 and 64 to 255 so this 204 does not prevent demultiplexing when this functionality is desirable. 205 Note that [RFC5764] describes a narrow use of DTLS that works as long 206 as the specific DTLS version used abides by the restrictions on the 207 demultiplexing byte (the ones that this document imposes on the TLS 208 ContentType Registry). Any extension or revision to DTLS that causes 209 it to no longer meet these constraints should consider what values 210 may occur in the first byte of the DTLS message and what impact it 211 would have on the multiplexing that [RFC5764] describes. 213 With respect to TLS packet identification, this document explicitly 214 adds a warning to the codepoints from 0 to 19 and from 64 to 255 215 indicating that allocations in these ranges require coordination, as 216 described in this document. The proposed changes to the TLS 217 ContentType Registry are: 219 OLD: 221 0-19 Unassigned 222 20 change_cipher_spec 223 21 alert 224 22 handshake 225 23 application_data 226 24 heartbeat 227 25-255 Unassigned 229 NEW: 231 0-19 Unassigned (Requires coordination, see RFCXXXX) 232 20 change_cipher_spec 233 21 alert 234 22 handshake 235 23 application_data 236 24 heartbeat 237 25-63 Unassigned 238 64-255 Unassigned (Requires coordination, see RFCXXXX) 240 5. Multiplexing of TURN Channels 242 When used with ICE [RFC5245], an RFC 5764 implementation can receive 243 packets on the same socket from three different paths, as shown in 244 Figure 1: 246 1. Directly from the source 248 2. Through a NAT 250 3. Relayed by a TURN server 252 +------+ 253 | TURN |<------------------------+ 254 +------+ | 255 | | 256 | +-------------------------+ | 257 | | | | 258 v v | | 259 NAT ----------- | | 260 | | +---------------------+ | | 261 | | | | | | 262 v v v | | | 263 +----------+ +----------+ 264 | RFC 5764 | | RFC 5764 | 265 +----------+ +----------+ 267 Figure 1: Packet Reception by an RFC 5764 Implementation 269 Even if the ICE algorithm succeeded in selecting a non-relayed path, 270 it is still possible to receive data from the TURN server. For 271 instance, when ICE is used with aggressive nomination the media path 272 can quickly change until it stabilizes. Also, freeing ICE candidates 273 is optional, so the TURN server can restart forwarding STUN 274 connectivity checks during an ICE restart. 276 TURN channels are an optimization where data packets are exchanged 277 with a 4-byte prefix, instead of the standard 36-byte STUN overhead 278 (see Section 2.5 of [RFC5766]). The problem is that the RFC 5764 279 demultiplexing scheme does not define what to do with packets 280 received over a TURN channel since these packets will start with a 281 first byte whose value will be between 64 and 127 (inclusive). If 282 the TURN server was instructed to send data over a TURN channel, then 283 the current RFC 5764 demultiplexing scheme will reject these packets. 284 Current implementations violate RFC 5764 for values 64 to 127 285 (inclusive) and they instead parse packets with such values as TURN. 287 In order to prevent future documents from assigning values from the 288 unused range to a new protocol, this document modifies the RFC 5764 289 demultiplexing algorithm to properly account for TURN channels by 290 allocating the values from 64 to 79 for this purpose. 292 6. RFC 5764 Updates 294 This document updates the text in Section 5.1.2 of [RFC5764] as 295 follows: 297 OLD TEXT 299 The process for demultiplexing a packet is as follows. The receiver 300 looks at the first byte of the packet. If the value of this byte is 301 0 or 1, then the packet is STUN. If the value is in between 128 and 302 191 (inclusive), then the packet is RTP (or RTCP, if both RTCP and 303 RTP are being multiplexed over the same destination port). If the 304 value is between 20 and 63 (inclusive), the packet is DTLS. This 305 process is summarized in Figure 3. 307 +----------------+ 308 | 127 < B < 192 -+--> forward to RTP 309 | | 310 packet --> | 19 < B < 64 -+--> forward to DTLS 311 | | 312 | B < 2 -+--> forward to STUN 313 +----------------+ 315 Figure 3: The DTLS-SRTP receiver's packet demultiplexing algorithm. 316 Here the field B denotes the leading byte of the packet. 318 END OLD TEXT 320 NEW TEXT 322 The process for demultiplexing a packet is as follows. The receiver 323 looks at the first byte of the packet. If the value of this byte is 324 in between 0 and 3 (inclusive), then the packet is STUN. If the 325 value is between 20 and 63 (inclusive), then the packet is DTLS. If 326 the value is between 64 and 79 (inclusive), then the packet is TURN 327 Channel. If the value is in between 128 and 191 (inclusive), then 328 the packet is RTP (or RTCP, if both RTCP and RTP are being 329 multiplexed over the same destination port). If the value does not 330 match any known range then the packet MUST be dropped and an alert 331 MAY be logged. This process is summarized in Figure 3. 333 +----------------+ 334 | [0..3] -+--> forward to STUN 335 | | 336 packet --> | [20..63] -+--> forward to DTLS 337 | | 338 | [64..79] -+--> forward to TURN Channel 339 | | 340 | [128..191] -+--> forward to RTP/RTCP 341 +----------------+ 343 Figure 3: The DTLS-SRTP receiver's packet demultiplexing algorithm. 345 END NEW TEXT 347 7. Implementation Status 349 [[Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section and the reference to 350 [RFC6982] before publication.]] 352 This section records the status of known implementations of the 353 protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this 354 Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC6982]. 355 The description of implementations in this section is intended to 356 assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to 357 RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation 358 here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort 359 has been spent to verify the information presented here that was 360 supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not 361 be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their 362 features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may 363 exist. 365 According to [RFC6982], "this will allow reviewers and working groups 366 to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of 367 running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation 368 and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. 369 It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as 370 they see fit". 372 Note that there is currently no implementation declared in this 373 section, but the intent is to add RFC 6982 templates here from 374 implementers that support the modifications in this document. 376 8. Security Considerations 378 This document updates existing IANA registries and adds a new range 379 for TURN channels in the demuxing algorithm. 381 These modifications do not introduce any specific security 382 considerations beyond those detailed in [RFC5764]. 384 9. IANA Considerations 386 9.1. STUN Methods 388 This specification contains the registration information for reserved 389 STUN Methods codepoints, as explained in Section 3 and in accordance 390 with the procedures defined in Section 18.1 of [RFC5389]. 392 Value: 0x100-0xFFF 394 Name: Reserved (MUST be allocated with IETF Review. For DTLS-SRTP 395 multiplexing collision avoidance see RFC XXXX) 397 Reference: RFC5764, RFCXXXX 399 This specification also reassigns the ranges in the STUN Methods 400 Registry as follow: 402 Range: 0x000-0x07F 404 Registration Procedures: IETF Review 406 Range: 0x080-0x0FF 408 Registration Procedures: Designated Expert 410 9.2. TLS ContentType 412 This specification contains the registration information for reserved 413 TLS ContentType codepoints, as explained in Section 4 and in 414 accordance with the procedures defined in Section 12 of [RFC5246]. 416 Value: 0-19 418 Description: Unassigned (Requires coordination, see RFCXXXX) 420 DTLS-OK: N/A 422 Reference: RFC5764, RFCXXXX 424 Value: 64-255 426 Description: Unassigned (Requires coordination, see RFCXXXX)) 428 DTLS-OK: N/A 429 Reference: RFC5764, RFCXXXX 431 9.3. TURN Channel Numbers 433 This specification contains the registration information for reserved 434 TURN Channel Numbers codepoints, as explained in Section 5 and in 435 accordance with the procedures defined in Section 18 of [RFC5766]. 437 Value: 0x5000-0xFFFF 439 Name: Reserved (For DTLS-SRTP multiplexing collision avoidance see 440 RFC XXXX) 442 Reference: RFCXXXX 444 [RFC EDITOR NOTE: Please replace RFCXXXX with the RFC number of this 445 document.] 447 10. Acknowledgements 449 The implicit STUN Method codepoint allocations problem was first 450 reported by Martin Thomson in the RTCWEB mailing-list and discussed 451 further with Magnus Westerlund. 453 Thanks to Simon Perreault, Colton Shields, Cullen Jennings, Colin 454 Perkins, Magnus Westerlund, Paul Jones, Jonathan Lennox, Varun Singh, 455 Justin Uberti, Joseph Salowey, Martin Thomson, Ben Campbell, Stephen 456 Farrell and Paul Kyzivat for the comments, suggestions, and questions 457 that helped improve this document. 459 11. References 461 11.1. Normative References 463 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 464 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 465 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 466 . 468 [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. 469 Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time 470 Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550, 471 July 2003, . 473 [RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K. 474 Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", 475 RFC 3711, DOI 10.17487/RFC3711, March 2004, 476 . 478 [RFC4347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer 479 Security", RFC 4347, DOI 10.17487/RFC4347, April 2006, 480 . 482 [RFC5245] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment 483 (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) 484 Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245, 485 DOI 10.17487/RFC5245, April 2010, 486 . 488 [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security 489 (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, 490 DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008, 491 . 493 [RFC5389] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing, 494 "Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389, 495 DOI 10.17487/RFC5389, October 2008, 496 . 498 [RFC5764] McGrew, D. and E. Rescorla, "Datagram Transport Layer 499 Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for the Secure 500 Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 5764, 501 DOI 10.17487/RFC5764, May 2010, 502 . 504 [RFC5766] Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using 505 Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to Session 506 Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5766, 507 DOI 10.17487/RFC5766, April 2010, 508 . 510 [RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer 511 Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347, 512 January 2012, . 514 11.2. Informative References 516 [RFC6982] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running 517 Code: The Implementation Status Section", RFC 6982, 518 DOI 10.17487/RFC6982, July 2013, 519 . 521 [RFC7345] Holmberg, C., Sedlacek, I., and G. Salgueiro, "UDP 522 Transport Layer (UDPTL) over Datagram Transport Layer 523 Security (DTLS)", RFC 7345, DOI 10.17487/RFC7345, August 524 2014, . 526 [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation] 527 Holmberg, C., Alvestrand, H., and C. Jennings, 528 "Negotiating Media Multiplexing Using the Session 529 Description Protocol (SDP)", draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle- 530 negotiation-23 (work in progress), July 2015. 532 Appendix A. Release notes 534 This section must be removed before publication as an RFC. 536 A.1. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-08 and 537 draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-07 539 o Minor update to Security Considerations section. 541 A.2. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-07 and 542 draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-06 544 o Addresses Martin Thomson, Ben Campbell and Stephen Farrell's 545 review comments about TLS ContentType registrations. 547 A.3. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-06 and 548 draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-05 550 o Addresses Colin's WGLC review comments 552 A.4. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-05 and 553 draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-04 555 o Removed some remnants of the ordering from Section 6 557 o Moved Terminology from Section 5 to Section 2 559 A.5. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-04 and 560 draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-03 562 o Removed Section on "Demultiplexing Algorithm Test Order" 564 o Split the Introduction into separate sections 566 A.6. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-03 and 567 draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-02 569 o Revert to the RFC 5389, as the stunbis reference was needed only 570 for STUN over SCTP. 572 A.7. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-02 and 573 draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01 575 o Remove any discussion about SCTP until a consensus emerges in 576 TRAM. 578 A.8. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01 and 579 draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-00 581 o Instead of allocating the values that are common on each registry, 582 the specification now only reserves them, giving the possibility 583 to allocate them in case muxing is irrelevant. 585 o STUN range is now 0-3m with 2-3 being Designated Expert. 587 o TLS ContentType 0-19 and 64-255 are now reserved. 589 o Add SCTP over UDP value. 591 o If an implementation uses the source IP address/port to separate 592 TURN channels packets then the whole channel numbers are 593 available. 595 o If not the prefix is between 64 and 79. 597 o First byte test order is now by incremental values, so failure is 598 deterministic. 600 o Redraw the demuxing diagram. 602 A.9. Modifications between draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-00 and 603 draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-02 605 o Adoption by WG. 607 o Add reference to STUNbis. 609 A.10. Modifications between draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764-mux- 610 fixes-00 and draft-petithuguenin-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01 612 o Change affiliation. 614 Authors' Addresses 616 Marc Petit-Huguenin 617 Impedance Mismatch 619 Email: marc@petit-huguenin.org 620 Gonzalo Salgueiro 621 Cisco Systems 622 7200-12 Kit Creek Road 623 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 624 US 626 Email: gsalguei@cisco.com