idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-10.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 (June 14, 2016) is 2873 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-27) exists of draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-13 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5246 (Obsoleted by RFC 8446) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 7230 (Obsoleted by RFC 9110, RFC 9112) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 BFCPBIS Working Group V. Pascual 3 Internet-Draft Oracle 4 Intended status: Standards Track A. Roman 5 Expires: December 16, 2016 Quobis 6 S. Cazeaux 7 France Telecom Orange 8 G. Salgueiro 9 R. Ravindranath 10 Cisco 11 S. Garcia Murillo 12 Medooze 13 June 14, 2016 15 The WebSocket Protocol as a Transport for the Binary Floor Control 16 Protocol (BFCP) 17 draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-10 19 Abstract 21 The WebSocket protocol enables two-way realtime communication between 22 clients and servers. This document specifies a new WebSocket sub- 23 protocol as a reliable transport mechanism between Binary Floor 24 Control Protocol (BFCP) entities to enable usage of BFCP in new 25 scenarios. 27 Status of This Memo 29 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 30 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 32 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 33 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 34 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 35 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 37 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 38 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 39 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 40 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 42 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 16, 2016. 44 Copyright Notice 46 Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 47 document authors. All rights reserved. 49 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 50 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 51 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 52 publication of this document. Please review these documents 53 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 54 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 55 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 56 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 57 described in the Simplified BSD License. 59 Table of Contents 61 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 62 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 2.1. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 3. The WebSocket Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 4. The WebSocket BFCP Sub-Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 4.1. Handshake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 4.2. BFCP Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 68 5. Transport Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 69 6. SDP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 70 6.1. Transport Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 71 6.2. SDP Media Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 72 7. SDP Offer/Answer Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 73 7.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 74 7.2. Example Usage of 'wss-uri' SDP Attribute . . . . . . . . 7 75 8. Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 76 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 77 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 78 10.1. Registration of the WebSocket BFCP Sub-Protocol . . . . 10 79 10.2. Registration of the 'TCP/WS/BFCP' and 'TCP/WSS/BFCP' SDP 80 'proto' Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 81 11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 82 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 83 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 84 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 85 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 87 1. Introduction 89 The WebSocket [RFC6455] protocol enables two-way message exchange 90 between clients and servers on top of a persistent TCP connection, 91 optionally secured with Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC5246]. 92 The initial protocol handshake makes use of Hypertext Transfer 93 Protocol (HTTP) [RFC7230] semantics, allowing the WebSocket protocol 94 to reuse existing HTTP infrastructure. 96 The Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP) is a protocol to coordinate 97 access to shared resources in a conference. It is defined in 98 [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis] and is used between floor participants 99 and floor control servers, and between floor chairs (i.e., 100 moderators) and floor control servers. 102 Modern web browsers include a WebSocket client stack complying with 103 the WebSocket API [WS-API] as specified by the W3C. It is expected 104 that other client applications (those running in personal computers 105 and devices such as smartphones) will also make a WebSocket client 106 stack available. This document extends the applicability of 107 [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis] and [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis] to 108 enable the usage of BFCP in these scenarios. 110 The transport over which BFCP entities exchange messages depends on 111 how the clients obtain information to contact the floor control 112 server (e.g. using an Session Description Protocol (SDP) offer/answer 113 exchange per [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis] or the procedure described 114 in RFC5018 [RFC5018]). [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis] defines two 115 transports for BFCP: TCP and UDP. This specification defines a new 116 WebSocket sub-protocol (as defined in Section 1.9 in [RFC6455]) for 117 transporting BFCP messages between a WebSocket client and server. 118 This sub-protocol provides a reliable and boundary preserving 119 transport for BFCP when run on top of TCP. Since WebSocket provides 120 a reliable transport, the extensions defined in 121 [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis] for sending BFCP over unreliable 122 transports are not applicable. 124 2. Terminology 126 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 127 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 128 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 130 2.1. Definitions 132 BFCP WebSocket Client: Any BFCP entity capable of opening outbound 133 connections to WebSocket servers and communicating using the 134 WebSocket BFCP sub-protocol as defined by this document. 136 BFCP WebSocket Server: Any BFCP entity capable of listening for 137 inbound connections from WebSocket clients and communicating 138 using the WebSocket BFCP sub-protocol as defined by this 139 document. 141 3. The WebSocket Protocol 143 The WebSocket protocol [RFC6455] is a transport layer on top of TCP 144 (optionally secured with TLS [RFC5246]) in which both client and 145 server exchange message units in both directions. The protocol 146 defines a connection handshake, WebSocket sub-protocol and extensions 147 negotiation, a frame format for sending application and control data, 148 a masking mechanism, and status codes for indicating disconnection 149 causes. 151 The WebSocket connection handshake is based on HTTP [RFC7230] and 152 utilizes the HTTP GET method with an "Upgrade" request. This is sent 153 by the client and then answered by the server (if the negotiation 154 succeeded) with an HTTP 101 status code. Once the handshake is 155 completed the connection upgrades from HTTP to the WebSocket 156 protocol. This handshake procedure is designed to reuse the existing 157 HTTP infrastructure. During the connection handshake, client and 158 server agree on the application protocol to use on top of the 159 WebSocket transport. Such an application protocol (also known as a 160 "WebSocket sub-protocol") defines the format and semantics of the 161 messages exchanged by the endpoints. This could be a custom protocol 162 or a standardized one (as the WebSocket BFCP sub-protocol defined in 163 this document). Once the HTTP 101 response is processed both client 164 and server reuse the underlying TCP connection for sending WebSocket 165 messages and control frames to each other. Unlike plain HTTP, this 166 connection is persistent and can be used for multiple message 167 exchanges. 169 The WebSocket protocol defines message units to be used by 170 applications for the exchange of data, so it provides a message 171 boundary-preserving transport layer. These message units can contain 172 either UTF-8 text or binary data, and can be split into multiple 173 WebSocket text/binary transport frames as needed by the WebSocket 174 stack. 176 The WebSocket API [WS-API] for web browsers only defines callbacks 177 to be invoked upon receipt of an entire message unit, regardless 178 of whether it was received in a single WebSocket frame or split 179 across multiple frames. 181 4. The WebSocket BFCP Sub-Protocol 183 The term WebSocket sub-protocol refers to an application-level 184 protocol layered on top of a WebSocket connection. This document 185 specifies the WebSocket BFCP sub-protocol for carrying BFCP messages 186 over a WebSocket connection. 188 4.1. Handshake 190 The BFCP WebSocket Client and BFCP WebSocket Server negotiate usage 191 of the WebSocket BFCP sub-protocol during the WebSocket handshake 192 procedure as defined in Section 1.3 of [RFC6455]. The Client MUST 193 include the value "bfcp" in the Sec-WebSocket-Protocol header in its 194 handshake request. The 101 reply from the Server MUST contain "bfcp" 195 in its corresponding Sec-WebSocket-Protocol header. 197 Below is an example of a WebSocket handshake in which the Client 198 requests the WebSocket BFCP sub-protocol support from the Server: 200 GET / HTTP/1.1 201 Host: bfcp-ws.example.com 202 Upgrade: websocket 203 Connection: Upgrade 204 Sec-WebSocket-Key: dGhlIHNhbXBsZSBub25jZQ== 205 Origin: http://www.example.com 206 Sec-WebSocket-Protocol: BFCP 207 Sec-WebSocket-Version: 13 209 The handshake response from the Server accepting the WebSocket BFCP 210 sub-protocol would look as follows: 212 HTTP/1.1 101 Switching Protocols 213 Upgrade: websocket 214 Connection: Upgrade 215 Sec-WebSocket-Accept: s3pPLMBiTxaQ9kYGzzhZRbK+xOo= 216 Sec-WebSocket-Protocol: BFCP 218 Once the negotiation has been completed, the WebSocket connection is 219 established and can be used for the transport of BFCP messages. The 220 WebSocket messages transmitted over this connection MUST conform to 221 the negotiated WebSocket sub-protocol. 223 4.2. BFCP Encoding 225 BFCP messages use a TLV (Type-Length-Value) binary encoding, 226 therefore BFCP WebSocket Clients and BFCP WebSocket Servers MUST be 227 transported in unfragmented binary WebSocket frames 228 (FIN:1,opcode:%x2) to exchange BFCP messages. The WebSocket frame 229 data MUST be a valid BCFP message, so the length of the payload of 230 the WebSocket frame MUST be lower than the maximum size allowed (2^16 231 +12 bytes) for a BCFP message as described in 232 [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis]. In addition, the encoding rules for 233 reliable protocols defined in [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis] MUST be 234 followed. 236 While this specification assumes that BFCP encoding is only TLV 237 binary, future documents may define other mechanisms like JSON 238 serialization. 240 5. Transport Reliability 242 WebSocket [RFC6455] provides a reliable transport and therefore the 243 BFCP WebSocket sub-protocol defined by this document also provides 244 reliable BFCP transport. Thus, client and server transactions using 245 WebSocket for transport MUST follow the procedures for reliable 246 transports as defined in [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis] and 247 [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis]. 249 BFCP WebSocket clients cannot receive incoming WebSocket connections 250 initiated by any other peer. This means that a BFCP WebSocket client 251 MUST actively initiate a connection towards a BFCP WebSocket server. 253 Each BFCP message MUST be carried within a single WebSocket message, 254 and a WebSocket message MUST NOT contain more than one BFCP message. 256 6. SDP Considerations 258 6.1. Transport Negotiation 260 Rules to generate an 'm' line for a BFCP stream are described in 261 [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis], Section 3 263 New values are defined for the transport field: TCP/WS/BFCP and 264 TCP/WSS/BFCP. 266 TCP/WS/BFCP is used when BFCP runs on top of WS, which in turn 267 runs on top of TCP. 269 TCP/WSS/BFCP is used when BFCP runs on top of WSS, which in turn 270 runs on top of TLS and TCP. 272 When TCP is used as the transport, the port field is set following 273 the rules in Section 3 and Section 8.1 of 274 [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis]. Depending on the value of the SDP 275 'setup' attribute defined in [RFC4145], the port field contains the 276 port to which the remote endpoint will direct BFCP messages or is 277 irrelevant (i.e., the endpoint will initiate the connection towards 278 the remote endpoint) and should be set to a value of 9, which is the 279 discard port. Connection attribute and port MUST follow the rules of 280 [RFC4145] 282 Some web browsers do not allow non-secure WebSocket connections to be 283 made. So, while the recommendation to use Secure WebSockets (i.e. 285 TCP/WSS) is for security reasons, it is also to achieve maximum 286 compatibility among clients. 288 6.2. SDP Media Attributes 290 [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri] defines a new SDP attribute to indicate 291 the connection Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for the WebSocket 292 Client. The SDP attribute 'ws-uri' defined in Section 3.1 of 293 [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri] MUST be used when BFCP runs on top of 294 WS, which in turn runs on top of TCP. The SDP attribute 'wss-uri' 295 defined in Section 3.2 of [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri] MUST be used 296 when BFCP runs on top of WSS, which in turn runs on top of TLS and 297 TCP. When the 'ws-uri' or 'wss-uri' attribute is present in the 298 media section of the SDP, the IP and port information provided in the 299 'c' lines SHALL be ignored and the full URI SHALL be used instead to 300 open the WebSocket connection. The port provided in the 'm' line 301 SHALL be ignored too, as the a=ws-uri or a=wss-uri SHALL provide port 302 number when needed. 304 7. SDP Offer/Answer Procedures 306 7.1. General 308 An endpoint (i.e., both the offerer and the answerer) MUST create an 309 SDP media description ("m=" line) for each BFCP-over-WebSocket media 310 stream and MUST assign either TCP/WSS/BFCP or TCP/WS/BFCP value to 311 the "proto" field of the "m=" line depending on whether the endpoint 312 wishes to use secure WebSocket or WebSocket. Furthermore, the server 313 side, which could be either the offerer or answerer, MUST add an 314 "a=ws-uri" or "a=wss-uri" attribute in the media section depending on 315 whether it wishes to use WebSocket or secure WebSocket. This new 316 attribute MUST follow the syntax defined in 317 [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri]. Additionally, the SDP Offer/Answer 318 procedures defined in Section 4 of [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri] MUST 319 be followed for the "m=" line associated with a BFCP-over-WebSocket 320 media stream. 322 7.2. Example Usage of 'wss-uri' SDP Attribute 324 The following is an example of an "m=" line for a BFCP connection. 325 In this example, the offerer sends the SDP with the "proto" field 326 having a value of TCP/WSS/BFCP * indicating that the offerer wishes 327 to use secure WebSocket as a transport for the media stream. 329 Offer (browser): 330 m=application 9 TCP/WSS/BFCP * 331 a=setup:active 332 a=connection:new 333 a=floorctrl:c-only 334 m=audio 55000 RTP/AVP 0 335 m=video 55002 RTP/AVP 31 337 Answer (server): 338 m=application 50000 TCP/WSS/BFCP * 339 a=setup:passive 340 a=connection:new 341 a=wss-uri:wss://bfcp-ws.example.com?token=3170449312 342 a=floorctrl:s-only 343 a=confid:4321 344 a=userid:1234 345 a=floorid:1 m-stream:10 346 a=floorid:2 m-stream:11 347 m=audio 50002 RTP/AVP 0 348 a=label:10 349 m=video 50004 RTP/AVP 31 350 a=label:11 352 It is possible that an endpoint (e.g., a browser) sends an offerless 353 INVITE to the server. In such cases the server will act as SDP 354 offerer. The server MUST assign the SDP "setup" attribute with a 355 value of "passive". The server MUST have an "a=ws-uri" or "a=wss- 356 uri" attribute in the media section depending on whether the server 357 wishes to use WebSocket or secure WebSocket. This attribute MUST 358 follow the syntax defined in Section 3. For BFCP application, the 359 "proto" value in the "m=" line MUST be TCP/WSS/BFCP if WebSocket is 360 over TLS, else it MUST be TCP/WS/BFCP. 362 8. Authentication 364 Section 9 of [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis] states that BFCP clients 365 and floor control servers SHOULD authenticate each other prior to 366 accepting messages, and RECOMMENDS that mutual TLS/DTLS 367 authentication be used. However, browser-based WebSocket clients 368 have no control over the use of TLS in the WebSocket API [WS-API], so 369 it is RECOMMENDED that standard Web-based methods for client and 370 server authentication are used, as follows. 372 When a BFCP WebSocket client connects to a BFCP WebSocket server, it 373 SHOULD use TCP/WSS as its transport. The WebSocket client SHOULD 374 inspect the TLS certificate offered by the server and verify that it 375 is valid. 377 Since the WebSocket API does not distinguish between certificate 378 errors and other kinds of failure to establish a connection, it is 379 expected that browser vendors will warn end users directly of any 380 kind of problem with the server certificate. 382 A floor control server that receives a message over TCP/WS can 383 request the use of TCP/WSS by generating an Error message, as 384 described in Section 13.8 of [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis], with an 385 Error code with a value of 9 (use TLS). 387 Prior to sending BFCP requests, a BFCP WebSocket client connects to a 388 BFCP WebSocket server and performs the connection handshake. As 389 described in Section 3 the handshake procedure involves a HTTP GET 390 method request from the client and a response from the server 391 including an HTTP 101 status code. 393 In order to authorize the WebSocket connection, the BFCP WebSocket 394 server MAY inspect any cookie [RFC6265] headers present in the HTTP 395 GET request. For many web applications the value of such a cookie is 396 provided by the web server once the user has authenticated themselves 397 to the web server, which could be done by many existing mechanisms. 398 As an alternative method, the BFCP WebSocket Server could request 399 HTTP authentication by replying to the Client's GET method request 400 with a HTTP 401 status code. The WebSocket protocol [RFC6455] covers 401 this usage in Section 4.1: 403 If the status code received from the server is not 101, the 404 WebSocket client stack handles the response per HTTP [RFC7230] 405 procedures, in particular the client might perform authentication 406 if it receives 401 status code. 408 9. Security Considerations 410 Considerations from [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis], 411 [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis] and RFC5018 [RFC5018] apply. 413 BFCP relies on lower-layer security mechanisms to provide replay and 414 integrity protection and confidentiality. It is RECOMMENDED that the 415 BFCP traffic transported over a WebSocket communication be protected 416 by using a secure WebSocket connection (using TLS [RFC5246] over 417 TCP). 419 10. IANA Considerations 420 10.1. Registration of the WebSocket BFCP Sub-Protocol 422 This specification requests IANA to register the WebSocket BFCP sub- 423 protocol under the "WebSocket Subprotocol Name" Registry with the 424 following data: 426 Subprotocol Identifier: bfcp 428 Subprotocol Common Name: WebSocket Transport for BFCP (Binary Floor 429 Control Protocol) 431 Subprotocol Definition: RFCXXXX 433 [[NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: Please change XXXX to the number assigned to 434 this specification, and remove this paragraph on publication.]] 436 10.2. Registration of the 'TCP/WS/BFCP' and 'TCP/WSS/BFCP' SDP 'proto' 437 Values 439 This document defines two new values for the SDP 'proto' field under 440 the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters registry. The 441 resulting entries are shown in Figure 1 below: 443 Value Reference 444 ---------- ----------- 445 TCP/WS/BFCP RFCXXXX; 446 TCP/WSS/BFCP RFCXXXX; 448 Figure 1: Values for the SDP 'proto' Field 450 [[NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: Please change XXXX to the number assigned to 451 this specification, and remove this paragraph on publication.]] 453 11. Acknowledgements 455 The authors want to thank Robert Welbourn, from Acme Packet, who made 456 significant contributions to the first version of this document. 457 This work benefited from the thorough review and constructive 458 comments of Charles Eckel, Christer Holmberg and Paul Kyzivat. 460 12. References 462 12.1. Normative References 464 [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis] 465 Camarillo, G., Drage, K., Kristensen, T., Ott, J., and C. 466 Eckel, "The Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP)", draft- 467 ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-16 (work in progress), November 468 2015. 470 [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri] 471 R, R. and G. Salgueiro, "Session Description Protocol 472 (SDP) WebSocket Connection URI Attribute", draft-ietf- 473 bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-04 (work in progress), May 2016. 475 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 476 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 477 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 478 . 480 [RFC4145] Yon, D. and G. Camarillo, "TCP-Based Media Transport in 481 the Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 4145, 482 DOI 10.17487/RFC4145, September 2005, 483 . 485 [RFC5018] Camarillo, G., "Connection Establishment in the Binary 486 Floor Control Protocol (BFCP)", RFC 5018, 487 DOI 10.17487/RFC5018, September 2007, 488 . 490 [RFC6455] Fette, I. and A. Melnikov, "The WebSocket Protocol", 491 RFC 6455, DOI 10.17487/RFC6455, December 2011, 492 . 494 12.2. Informative References 496 [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis] 497 Camarillo, G., Kristensen, T., and P. Jones, "Session 498 Description Protocol (SDP) Format for Binary Floor Control 499 Protocol (BFCP) Streams", draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-13 500 (work in progress), February 2016. 502 [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security 503 (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, 504 DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008, 505 . 507 [RFC6265] Barth, A., "HTTP State Management Mechanism", RFC 6265, 508 DOI 10.17487/RFC6265, April 2011, 509 . 511 [RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer 512 Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", 513 RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014, 514 . 516 [WS-API] W3C and I. Hickson, Ed., "The WebSocket API", May 2012. 518 Authors' Addresses 520 Victor Pascual 521 Oracle 523 Email: victor.pascual.avila@oracle.com 525 Anton Roman 526 Quobis 528 Email: anton.roman@quobis.com 530 Stephane Cazeaux 531 France Telecom Orange 533 Email: stephane.cazeaux@orange.com 535 Gonzalo Salgueiro 536 Cisco Systems, Inc. 537 7200-12 Kit Creek Road 538 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 539 US 541 Email: gsalguei@cisco.com 543 Ram Mohan Ravindranath 544 Cisco Systems, Inc. 545 Cessna Business Park, 546 Kadabeesanahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, 547 Sarjapur-Marathahalli Outer Ring Road 548 Bangalore, Karnataka 560103 549 India 551 Email: rmohanr@cisco.com 552 Sergio Garcia Murillo 553 Medooze 555 Email: sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com