datatracker.ietf.org
Sign In
Version 3.64p2, 2011-11-15
Report a bug

RTCWeb Datagram Connection
draft-jesup-rtcweb-data-01

Active Internet-Draft (Individual)
Document Stream: No stream defined
Last updated: 2011-10-31
Intended RFC status:-
Other versions: plain text, xml, pdf, html

Document shepherd:

IESG State: I-D Exists
Responsible AD:-

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