RTCWeb Working Group R. Jesup
Internet-Draft Mozilla
Intended status: Informational S. Loreto
Expires: May 3, 2012 Ericsson
M. Tuexen
Muenster University of Applied
Sciences
October 31, 2011
RTCWeb Datagram Connection
draft-jesup-rtcweb-data-01.txt
Abstract
This document investigates the possibilities for designing a generic
transport service that allows Web Browser to exchange generic data in
a peer to peer way. Several, already standardized by IETF, transport
protocols and their properties are investigated in order to identify
the most appropriate one.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 3, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
Jesup, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft data P2P in RTCWEB October 2011
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Use cases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Use cases for unreliable datagram based channel . . . . . 5
3.2. Use cases for reliable channels (datagram or stream). . . 5
4. Protocol alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Datagrams over DTLS over DCCP over UDP. . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Datagrams over SCTP over DTLS over UDP. . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. A new protocol on top of UDP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3.1. TCP over DTLS over UDP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4. A RTP compatible protocol. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Datagrams over SCTP over DTLS over UDP. . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. User Space vs Kernel implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. The envisioned usage of SCTP in the RTCWeb context . . . . 11
5.3. SCTP/DTLS/UDP vs DTLS/SCTP/UDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Message Format. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Jesup, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft data P2P in RTCWEB October 2011
1. Introduction
The issue of how best to handle non-media data types in the context
of RTCWEB is still under discussion in the mailing list; there have
been several proposals on how to address this problem, but there is
not yet a clear consensus on the actual solution.
However it seems to be a general agreement that for NAT traversal
purpose it has to be:
FOO/UDP/IP
or most likely:
FOO/DTLS/UDP/IP (for confidentiality, source authenticated, integrity