idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-clue-datachannel-17.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 (April 17, 2019) is 1829 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Experimental ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4566 (Obsoleted by RFC 8866) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4960 (Obsoleted by RFC 9260) == Outdated reference: A later version (-28) exists of draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-25 == Outdated reference: A later version (-19) exists of draft-ietf-clue-protocol-17 == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-ietf-clue-signaling-14 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 CLUE Working Group C. Holmberg 3 Internet-Draft Ericsson 4 Intended status: Experimental April 17, 2019 5 Expires: October 19, 2019 7 CLUE Protocol data channel 8 draft-ietf-clue-datachannel-17 10 Abstract 12 This document defines how to use the WebRTC data channel mechanism in 13 order to realize a data channel, referred to as a CLUE data channel, 14 for transporting CLUE protocol messages between two CLUE entities. 16 Status of This Memo 18 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 19 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 21 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 22 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 23 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 24 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 26 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 27 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 28 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 29 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 31 This Internet-Draft will expire on October 19, 2019. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 36 document authors. All rights reserved. 38 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 39 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 40 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 41 publication of this document. Please review these documents 42 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 43 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 44 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 45 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 46 described in the Simplified BSD License. 48 Table of Contents 50 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 51 2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 52 3. CLUE data channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 3.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 3.2. SCTP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 55 3.2.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 3.2.2. SCTP Payload Protocol Identifier (PPID) . . . . . . . 4 57 3.2.3. Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 3.2.4. Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 3.2.5. Stream Reset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 3.2.6. SCTP Multihoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 3.2.7. Closing the CLUE data channel . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 3.3. SDP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 3.3.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 3.3.2. SDP dcmap Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 65 3.3.3. SDP dcsa Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 66 3.3.4. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 67 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 68 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 69 5.1. New WebRTC data channel Protocol Value . . . . . . . . . 8 70 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 71 7. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 72 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 73 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 74 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 75 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 77 1. Introduction 79 This document defines how to use the WebRTC data channel mechanism 80 [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel] in order to realize a data channel, 81 referred to as a CLUE data channel, for transporting CLUE protocol 82 [I-D.ietf-clue-protocol] messages between two CLUE entities. 84 The document defines how to describe the SCTPoDTLS association 85 [RFC8261] used to realize the CLUE data channel using the Session 86 Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566], and defines usage of the SDP- 87 based "SCTP over DTLS" data channel negotiation mechanism 88 [I-D.ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg]. This includes SCTP 89 considerations specific to a CLUE data channel, the SDP Media 90 Description ("m=" line) values, and usage of SDP attributes specific 91 to a CLUE data channel. 93 Details and procedures associated with the CLUE protocol, and the SDP 94 Offer/Answer [RFC3264] procedures for negotiating usage of a CLUE 95 data channel, are outside the scope of this document. 97 NOTE: The usage of the Data Channel Establishment Protocol (DCEP) 98 [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol] for establishing a CLUE data channel 99 is outside the scope of this document. 101 2. Conventions 103 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 104 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 105 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 106 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 107 capitals, as shown here. 109 SCTPoDTLS association refers to an SCTP association carried over an 110 DTLS connection [RFC8261]. 112 WebRTC data channel refers to a pair of SCTP streams over a SCTPoDTLS 113 association that is used to transport non-media data between two 114 entities, as defined in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel]. 116 CLUE data channel refers to a WebRTC data channel 117 [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel] realization, with a specific set of 118 SCTP characteristics, with the purpose of transporting CLUE protocol 119 [I-D.ietf-clue-protocol] messages between two CLUE entities. 121 CLUE entity refers to a SIP User Agent (UA) [RFC3261] that supports 122 the CLUE data channel and the CLUE protocol. 124 CLUE session refers to a SIP session [RFC3261] between two SIP UAs, 125 where a CLUE data channel, associated with the SIP session, has been 126 established between the SIP UAs. 128 SCTP stream is defined in [RFC4960] as a unidirectional logical 129 channel established from one to another associated SCTP endpoint, 130 within which all user messages are delivered in sequence except for 131 those submitted to the unordered delivery service. 133 SCTP identifier is defined in [RFC4960] as an unsigned integer, which 134 identifies an SCTP stream. 136 3. CLUE data channel 138 3.1. General 140 This section describes the realization of a CLUE data channel, using 141 the WebRTC data channel mechanism. This includes a set of SCTP 142 characteristics specific to a CLUE data channel, the values of the 143 "m=" line describing the SCTPoDTLS association associated with the 144 WebRTC data channel, and the usage of the SDP-based "SCTP over DTLS" 145 data channel negotiation mechanism for creating the CLUE data 146 channel. 148 As described in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel], the SCTP streams 149 realizing a WebRTC data channel must be associated with the same SCTP 150 association. In addition, both SCTP streams realizing the WebRTC 151 data channel must use the same SCTP stream identifier value. These 152 rules also apply to a CLUE data channel. 154 Within a given CLUE session, a CLUE entity MUST use a single CLUE 155 data channel for transport of all CLUE messages towards its peer. 157 3.2. SCTP Considerations 159 3.2.1. General 161 As described in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel], different SCTP 162 options (e.g., regarding ordered delivery ), can be used for a data 163 channel. This section describes the SCTP options used for a CLUE 164 data channel. Section 3.3 describes how SCTP options are signaled 165 using SDP. 167 NOTE: While SCTP allows SCTP options to be applied per SCTP message, 168 [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel] mandates that, for a given data 169 channel, the same SCTP options are applied to each SCTP message 170 associated with that data channel. 172 3.2.2. SCTP Payload Protocol Identifier (PPID) 174 A CLUE entity MUST use the PPID value 51 when sending a CLUE message 175 on a CLUE data channel. 177 NOTE: As described in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel], the PPID value 178 51 indicates that the SCTP message contains data encoded in a UTF-8 179 format. The PPID value 51 does not indicate which application 180 protocol the SCTP message is associated with, only the format in 181 which the data is encoded. 183 3.2.3. Reliability 185 The usage of SCTP for the CLUE data channel ensures reliable 186 transport of CLUE protocol [I-D.ietf-clue-protocol] messages. 188 [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel] requires the support of the partial 189 reliability extension defined in [RFC3758] and the limited 190 retransmission policy defined in [RFC7496]. A CLUE entity MUST NOT 191 use these extensions, as messages are required to always be sent 192 reliably. A CLUE entity MUST terminate the session if it detects 193 that the peer entity uses any of the extensions. 195 3.2.4. Order 197 A CLUE entity MUST use the ordered delivery SCTP service, as 198 described in [RFC4960], for the CLUE data channel. 200 3.2.5. Stream Reset 202 A CLUE entity MUST support the stream reset extension defined in 203 [RFC6525]. 205 As defined in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel], the dynamic address 206 reconfiguration extension ('Supported Extensions Parameter' 207 parameter) defined in [RFC5061] must be used to signal the support of 208 the stream reset extension defined in [RFC6525]. Other features of 209 [RFC5061] MUST NOT be used for CLUE data channels. 211 3.2.6. SCTP Multihoming 213 SCTP multi-homing is not supported for SCTPoDTLS associations, and 214 can therefore not be used for a CLUE data channel. 216 3.2.7. Closing the CLUE data channel 218 As described in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel], in order to close a 219 data channel, an entity sends an SCTP reset message [RFC6525] on its 220 outgoing SCTP stream associated with the data channel. When the 221 remote peer receives the reset message, it also sends (unless already 222 sent) a reset message on its outgoing SCTP stream associated with the 223 data channel. The SCTPoDTLS association, and other data channels 224 established on the same association, are not affected by the SCTP 225 reset messages. 227 3.3. SDP Considerations 229 3.3.1. General 231 This section defines how to construct the SDP Media Description ("m=" 232 line) for describing the SCTPoDTLS association used to realize a CLUE 233 data channel. The section also defines how to use the SDP-based 234 "SCTP over DTLS" data channel negotiation mechanism 235 [I-D.ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg] for establishing a CLUE data 236 channel on the SCTPoDTLS association. 238 NOTE: Other protocols than SDP for negotiating usage of an SCTPoDTLS 239 association for realizing a CLUE data channel are outside the scope 240 of this specification. 242 [I-D.ietf-clue-signaling] describes the SDP Offer/Answer procedures 243 for negotiating a CLUE session, including the CLUE controlled media 244 streams and the CLUE data channel. 246 3.3.1.1. SDP Media Description Fields 248 As defined in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp], the field values of an "m=" 249 line describing an SCTPoDTLS association are set as following: 251 +---------------+--------------+-----------------+------------------+ 252 | media | port | proto | fmt | 253 +---------------+--------------+-----------------+------------------+ 254 | "application" | UDP port | "UDP/DTLS/SCTP" | application | 255 | | value | | usage | 256 | "application" | TCP port | "TCP/DTLS/SCTP" | application | 257 | | value | | usage | 258 +---------------+--------------+-----------------+------------------+ 260 Table 1: SDP "proto" field values 262 CLUE entities SHOULD NOT transport the SCTPoDTLS association used to 263 realize the CLUE data channel over TCP (using the "TCP/DTLS/SCTP" 264 proto value), unless it is known that UDP/DTLS/SCTP will not work 265 (for instance, when the Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) 266 mechanism [RFC8445] is used and the ICE procedures determine that TCP 267 transport is required). 269 As defined in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp], when the SCTPoDTLS 270 association is used to realize a WebRTC data channel, the value of 271 the application usage part is 'webrtc-datachannel'. 273 3.3.1.2. SDP sctp-port Attribute 275 As defined in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp], the SDP sctp-port attribute 276 value is set to the SCTP port of the SCTPoDTLS association. A CLUE 277 entity can choose any valid SCTP port value 278 [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp]. 280 3.3.2. SDP dcmap Attribute 282 The values of the SDP dcmap attribute 283 [I-D.ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg], associated with the "m=" line 284 describing the SCTPoDTLS association used to realize the WebRTC data 285 channel, are set as following: 287 +----------+------------+------------+--------+----------+----------+ 288 | stream- | subprotoco | label | ordere | max-retr | max-time | 289 | id | l | | d | | | 290 +----------+------------+------------+--------+----------+----------+ 291 | Value of | "CLUE" | Applicatio | "true" | N/A | N/A | 292 | the SCTP | | n specific | | | | 293 | stream | | | | | | 294 | used to | | | | | | 295 | realize | | | | | | 296 | the CLUE | | | | | | 297 | data | | | | | | 298 | channel | | | | | | 299 +----------+------------+------------+--------+----------+----------+ 301 Table 2: SDP dcmap attribute values 303 NOTE: As CLUE entities are required to use ordered SCTP message 304 delivery, with full reliability, according to the procedures in 305 [I-D.ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg] the max-retr and max-time 306 attribute parameters are not used when negotiating CLUE data 307 channels. 309 3.3.3. SDP dcsa Attribute 311 The SDP dcsa attribute [I-D.ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg] is not 312 used when establishing a CLUE data channel. 314 3.3.4. Example 316 The example in Figure 1 shows an SDP media description for a CLUE 317 data channel. Examples of complete SDP examples can be found in 318 [I-D.ietf-clue-signaling]. 320 m=application 54111 UDP/DTLS/SCTP webrtc-datachannel 321 a=sctp-port: 5000 322 a=dcmap:2 subprotocol="CLUE";ordered=true 324 Figure 1: SDP Media Description for a CLUE data channel 326 4. Security Considerations 328 This specification relies on the security properties of the WebRTC 329 data channel described in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel], including 330 reliance on DTLS. Since CLUE sessions are established using SIP/SDP, 331 protecting the data channel against message modification and recovery 332 requires the use of SIP authentication and authorization mechanisms 333 described in [RFC3261] for session establishment prior to 334 establishing the data channel. 336 5. IANA Considerations 338 5.1. New WebRTC data channel Protocol Value 340 [RFC EDITOR NOTE: Please replace RFC-XXXX with the RFC number of this 341 document.] 343 This document adds the 'CLUE' value to the "WebSocket Subprotocol 344 Name Registry" as follows: 346 Subprotocl Identifier: CLUE 347 Subprotocol Common Name: CLUE 348 Subprotocol Definition: RFC-XXXX 349 Reference: RFC-XXXX 351 6. Acknowledgments 353 Thanks to Paul Kyzivat, Christian Groves and Mark Duckworth for 354 comments on the document. 356 7. Change Log 358 [RFC EDITOR NOTE: Please remove this section when publishing] 360 Changes from draft-ietf-clue-datachannel-16 362 o Category changed to Experimental. 364 Changes from draft-ietf-clue-datachannel-15 366 o Updates based on IESG review by Roman Danyliw. 367 o Make CLUE references Informative, as they are going to be 368 published as Experimental RFCs. 370 Changes from draft-ietf-clue-datachannel-14 372 o ICE reference update. 373 o Reference draft versions updates. 375 Changes from draft-ietf-clue-datachannel-13 377 o Editorial changes based on Gen-ART review from Brian Carpenter. 379 Changes from draft-ietf-clue-datachannel-12 381 o Changes based on AD comments from Alissa Cooper 382 (https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/clue/current/ 383 msg04911.html): 384 o - DCEP reference removed from security considerations. 385 o - Editorial fixes. 386 o - NOTE: Comment regarding the Security Considerations is still 387 pending. 389 Changes from draft-ietf-clue-datachannel-11 391 o Changes based on WGLC comments from Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler and 392 Christian groves: 393 o - Reference updates. 394 o - 'Reference' added to IANA registration data. 396 Changes from draft-ietf-clue-datachannel-10 398 o Security Considerations modified and enhanced, based on comments 399 provided by Alissa Cooper. 401 Changes from draft-ietf-clue-datachannel-09 403 o Reference updates: 404 o - draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-prpolicies published as RFC 7496 405 o - Reference update of draft versions 407 Changes from draft-ietf-clue-datachannel-08 409 o Changes based on WGLC comments from Daniel Burnett: 410 o - Editorial corrections. 411 o Changes based on WGLC comments from Paul Kyzivat: 412 o - Editorial corrections. 414 Changes from draft-ietf-clue-datachannel-07 416 o Changes based on WGLC comments from Christian Groves: 417 o - IANA considerations for dcmap attribute removed. 418 o - Explicit clarification that the dcmap attribute max-time and 419 max-retr parameters are not used with ordered/reliable 420 transmission of SCTP messages. 421 o - Indication that TCP transport should only be used if ICE is 422 used, and if usage of TCP is required by ICE. 423 o - Informative reference to ICE added. 424 o - Editorial corrections. 425 o Changes based on WGLC comments from Mark Duckworth: 427 o - Make it more clear that the rules regarding usage of partial 428 reliability and ordered reliability apply to CLUE data channels. 429 o Changes based on WGLC comments from Paul Kyzivat: 430 o - Clarify that same SCTP options are applied to each SCTP message 431 associated with a given data channel. 432 o - Switched location of sections 3.2 and 3.3. 433 o - PPID table removed. Not needed, since only one value is used. 434 o - Editorial corrections. 436 Changes from draft-ietf-clue-datachannel-06 438 o Usage of DCEP removed. 440 Changes from draft-ietf-clue-datachannel-05 442 o "DTLS/SCTP" split into "UDP/DTLS/SCTP" and "TCP/DTLS/SCTP". 443 o Removed note regarding optionality of including the SDP sctp-port 444 attribute. 445 o Added defintion of 'SCTPoDTLS association' to the Conventions. 446 o Reference to RFC 4566 (SDP) added. 448 Changes from draft-ietf-clue-datachannel-04 450 o Defines DCEP and external SDP negotiation as two separate 451 mechanisms for negotiating a CLUE data channel. 452 o Updates based on technical changes in referenced specifications. 453 o Reference to draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp added. 455 Changes from draft-ietf-clue-datachannel-03 457 o IANA considerations added. 458 o Editorial changes based on comments from Christian Groves. 460 Changes from draft-ietf-clue-datachannel-02 462 o SDP "m=" line example fixed. 463 o OPEN ISSUE #1 closed. 464 o - It was agreed (IETF#91) to use draft-ejzak-mmusic-data-channel- 465 sdpneg, as it was adopted as a WG item in MMUSIC. 466 o - Details for draft-ejzak-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg usage added. 467 o SDP Offer/Answer procedures removed, as they will be defined in 468 the CLUE protocol draft. 469 o References updated. 471 Changes from draft-ietf-clue-datachannel-01 473 o Support of interleaving "MUST"->"SHOULD". 474 o Example updated. 476 o Reference update. 478 Changes from draft-ietf-clue-datachannel-00 480 o SDP Offer/Answer procedures structures according to RFC 3264. 481 o Reference update. 483 Changes from draft-holmberg-clue-datachannel-04 485 o Draft submitted as draft-ietf-clue-data-channel-00. 486 o Editorial nits fixed. 487 o Changes based on comments from Paul Kyzivat (http://www.ietf.org/ 488 mail-archive/web/clue/current/msg03559.html). 489 o - Proto value fixed. 490 o - Explicit text that the partial reliability and limited 491 retransmission policies MUST NOT be used. 492 o - Added open issue on whether the DCEP 'protocol' field value for 493 CLUE should contain a version number. 494 o - Removed paragraph saying that an offerer must not insert more 495 than one "m=" line describing an SCTPoDTLS association to be used 496 to realize a CLUE data channel, as the draft already states that 497 only one CLUE data channel per CLUE session shall be opened. 498 o - Added reference to draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol regarding 499 details on reseting SCTP streams. 500 o - Added text saying that the value of the DCEP 'channel type' MUST 501 be DATA_CHANNEL_RELIABLE. 502 o - Clarified that DCEP must be supported, and used in the absence 503 of another mechanism for opening a CLUE data channel. 505 Changes from draft-holmberg-clue-datachannel-03 507 o Procedures updated, based on WG agreement (IETF#89) to use DCEP 508 for the CLUE data channel. 509 o Procedures updated, based on WG agreement (IETF#89) that offerer 510 is responsible for sending DCEP DATA_CHANNEL_OPEN. 511 o Editorial changes, and alignments caused by changes in referenced 512 specifications. 514 Changes from draft-holmberg-clue-datachannel-02 516 o PPID value for CLUE messages added 517 o References updated 519 Changes from draft-holmberg-clue-datachannel-01 521 o More text added 523 Changes from draft-holmberg-clue-datachannel-00 524 o Editorial corrections based on comments from Paul K 526 8. References 528 8.1. Normative References 530 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 531 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 532 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . 535 [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, 536 A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. 537 Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, 538 DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002, . 541 [RFC3264] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model 542 with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, 543 DOI 10.17487/RFC3264, June 2002, . 546 [RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session 547 Description Protocol", RFC 4566, DOI 10.17487/RFC4566, 548 July 2006, . 550 [RFC4960] Stewart, R., Ed., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", 551 RFC 4960, DOI 10.17487/RFC4960, September 2007, 552 . 554 [RFC5061] Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., Maruyama, S., and M. 555 Kozuka, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) 556 Dynamic Address Reconfiguration", RFC 5061, 557 DOI 10.17487/RFC5061, September 2007, . 560 [RFC6525] Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., and P. Lei, "Stream Control 561 Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Stream Reconfiguration", 562 RFC 6525, DOI 10.17487/RFC6525, February 2012, 563 . 565 [RFC7496] Tuexen, M., Seggelmann, R., Stewart, R., and S. Loreto, 566 "Additional Policies for the Partially Reliable Stream 567 Control Transmission Protocol Extension", RFC 7496, 568 DOI 10.17487/RFC7496, April 2015, . 571 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 572 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 573 May 2017, . 575 [RFC8261] Tuexen, M., Stewart, R., Jesup, R., and S. Loreto, 576 "Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Encapsulation of 577 SCTP Packets", RFC 8261, DOI 10.17487/RFC8261, November 578 2017, . 580 [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp] 581 Holmberg, C., Loreto, S., and G. Camarillo, "Stream 582 Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)-Based Media Transport 583 in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)", draft-ietf- 584 mmusic-sctp-sdp-26.txt (work in progress), April 2017. 586 [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel] 587 Jesup, R., Loreto, S., and M. Tuexen, "WebRTC data 588 channels", draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-13.txt (work in 589 progress), January 2015. 591 [I-D.ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg] 592 Drage, K., Makaraju, R., Stoetzer-Bradler, J., Ejzak, R., 593 and J. Marcon, "SDP-based "SCTP over DTLS" data channel 594 negotiation", draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-25.txt 595 (work in progress), March 2019. 597 8.2. Informative References 599 [RFC3758] Stewart, R., Ramalho, M., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., and P. 600 Conrad, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) 601 Partial Reliability Extension", RFC 3758, 602 DOI 10.17487/RFC3758, May 2004, . 605 [RFC8445] Keranen, A., Holmberg, C., and J. Rosenberg, "Interactive 606 Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network 607 Address Translator (NAT) Traversal", RFC 8445, 608 DOI 10.17487/RFC8445, July 2018, . 611 [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol] 612 Jesup, R., Loreto, S., and M. Tuexen, "WebRTC data channel 613 Establishment Protocol", draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol- 614 09.txt (work in progress), January 2015. 616 [I-D.ietf-clue-protocol] 617 Presta, R. and S. Romano, "CLUE protocol", draft-ietf- 618 clue-protocol-17.txt (work in progress), September 2018. 620 [I-D.ietf-clue-signaling] 621 Kyzivat, P., Xiao, L., Groves, C., and S. Romano, "CLUE 622 Signaling", draft-ietf-clue-signaling-14.txt (work in 623 progress), October 2018. 625 Author's Address 627 Christer Holmberg 628 Ericsson 629 Hirsalantie 11 630 Jorvas 02420 631 Finland 633 Email: christer.holmberg@ericsson.com