idnits 2.17.1 draft-jennings-sip-dtls-04.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 17. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on line 185. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 196. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 203. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 209. 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 Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- 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 (June 2, 2007) is 6166 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) -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: 'RFCXXXX' on line 111 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2246 (ref. '1') (Obsoleted by RFC 4346) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4347 (ref. '2') (Obsoleted by RFC 6347) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4234 (ref. '3') (Obsoleted by RFC 5234) Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 8 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group C. Jennings 3 Internet-Draft Cisco Systems 4 Intended status: Standards Track N. Modadugu 5 Expires: December 4, 2007 Stanford University 6 June 2, 2007 8 Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) over Datagram Transport Layer Security 9 (DTLS) 10 draft-jennings-sip-dtls-04 12 Status of this Memo 14 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 15 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 16 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 17 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 19 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 20 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 21 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 22 Drafts. 24 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 25 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 26 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 27 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 29 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 30 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 32 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 33 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 35 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 4, 2007. 37 Copyright Notice 39 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 41 Abstract 43 This specification defines how to use Datagram Transport Layer 44 Security (DTLS) as a transport for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). 45 DTLS is a protocol for providing Transport Layer Security (TLS) 46 security over a datagram protocol. This specification also specifies 47 the IANA registrations for using SIP with Datagram Congestion Control 48 Protocol (DCCP). 50 1. Introduction 52 Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) [2] provides communication 53 privacy similar to TLS [1] for datagram packets. SIP can run over 54 both stream and datagram transports, including UDP and TCP. SIP [4] 55 already defines how to use TLS with stream oriented transports. This 56 specification extends SIP to use DTLS with datagram oriented 57 transports. 59 2. Terminology 61 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 62 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 63 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [5]. 65 3. Transport Parameters 67 Via header fields in SIP carry a transport protocol identifier. This 68 specification extends RFC 3261 to define the value "DTLS-UDP" for 69 DTLS over UDP and "DTLS-DCCP" for DTLS over DCCP. The update to the 70 ABNF[3] in RFC 3261 for this parameter is the following: 71 transport =/ "DTLS-DCCP" / "DTLS-UDP" 73 The following is an example Via header field: 74 Via: SIP/2.0/DTLS-UDP atlanta.example.com:5060 76 4. DTLS Usage 78 The normal rules for sending a request over UDP in RFC 3261 apply to 79 sending over DTLS. Note that the congestion safety rules for UDP do 80 not apply to DCCP. In addition, the normal rules for validating a 81 TLS connection in RFC 3261 apply to DTLS connections. Requests with 82 a SIPS URI can be sent over DTLS as well as TLS. 84 5. Locating DTLS SIP Servers 86 The normal rules from RFC 3263 [6] apply when locating a SIP server 87 that supports DTLS. The following new NAPTR[7] service values are 88 defined: "SIPS+D2U" for UDP, and "SIPS+D2D" for DCCP[8]. In 89 addition, the service value "SIP+D2D" should be used for SIP without 90 DTLS over DCCP. 92 The default port for DTLS over UDP or DCCP is 5061. 94 6. Security Considerations 96 The security issues with SIP using DTLS are equivalent to the issues 97 of using SIP with TLS. All the security considerations in RFC 3261 98 relevant to TLS apply to DTLS. 100 7. IANA Considerations 102 This document defines new NAPTR service field values for DTLS over 103 DCCP and UDP as well as over DCCP with no DTLS. IANA is requested to 104 register these values under the "Registry for the SIP SRV Resource 105 Record Services Field". The resulting entries should be: 107 Services Field Protocol Reference 108 -------------------- -------- --------- 109 SIPS+D2U UDP [RFCXXXX] 110 SIPS+D2D DCCP [RFCXXXX] 111 SIP+D2D DCCP [RFCXXXX] 113 [Note to RFC Editor: Please replace XXXX with the RFC number of this 114 specification.] 116 8. Acknowledgments 118 Much of text and outline for this specification came from RFC 4168 119 authored by Jonathan Rosenberg, Henning Schulzrinne, and Gonzalo 120 Camarillo. Jakob Schlyter caught several typos. Eric Rescorla 121 provided helpful comments and text. 123 9. Normative References 125 [1] Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0", 126 RFC 2246, January 1999. 128 [2] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer 129 Security", RFC 4347, April 2006. 131 [3] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax 132 Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005. 134 [4] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., 135 Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP: 136 Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002. 138 [5] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 139 Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 141 [6] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation Protocol 142 (SIP): Locating SIP Servers", RFC 3263, June 2002. 144 [7] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part 145 Three: The Domain Name System (DNS) Database", RFC 3403, 146 October 2002. 148 [8] Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram Congestion 149 Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, March 2006. 151 Authors' Addresses 153 Cullen Jennings 154 Cisco Systems 155 170 West Tasman Drive 156 MS: SJC-21/2 157 San Jose, CA 95134 158 USA 160 Phone: +1 408 902-3341 161 Email: fluffy@cisco.com 163 Nagendra Modadugu 164 Stanford University 165 353 Serra Mall 166 Stanford, CA 94305 167 USA 169 Email: Nagendra@cs.stanford.edu 171 Full Copyright Statement 173 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 175 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 176 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 177 retain all their rights. 179 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 180 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 181 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 182 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 183 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 184 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 185 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 187 Intellectual Property 189 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 190 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 191 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 192 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 193 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 194 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 195 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 196 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 198 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 199 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 200 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 201 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 202 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 203 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 205 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 206 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 207 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 208 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 209 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 211 Acknowledgment 213 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF 214 Administrative Support Activity (IASA).