Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8035 Updates: 5761 November 2016 Category: Standards Track ISSN:

Similar documents
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Category: Standards Track ISSN: September 2015

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8055 Category: Standards Track. January 2017

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Category: Standards Track. Cisco May 2012

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Updates: 5451 March 2012 Category: Standards Track ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Informational. May IEEE Information Element for the IETF

Clarifications for When to Use the name-addr Production in SIP Messages

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Updates: 4326 June 2014 Category: Standards Track ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: ISSN: March 2016

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Q. Wu, Ed. R. Huang Huawei November 2014

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 5725 Category: Standards Track ISSN: February 2010

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) January 2014

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Informational March 2016 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6028 Category: Experimental ISSN: October 2010

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8142 Category: Standards Track April 2017 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Category: Standards Track ISSN: February 2016

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track December 2011 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8262 Updates: 5368, 5621, 6442 Category: Standards Track October 2017 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6441 BCP: 171 November 2011 Category: Best Current Practice ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6961 June 2013 Category: Standards Track ISSN:

Request for Comments: 5498 Category: Standards Track March IANA Allocations for Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Protocols

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) BCP: 183 May 2013 Category: Best Current Practice ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8516 Category: Standards Track January 2019 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track. March 2017

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7330 Category: Standards Track. Cisco Systems August 2014

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8186 Category: Standards Track. June 2017

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Updates: 2474 August 2018 Category: Standards Track ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Category: Standards Track. July 2014

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7725 Category: Standards Track February 2016 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: ISSN: June 2010

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6522 STD: 73 January 2012 Obsoletes: 3462 Category: Standards Track ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7189 Category: Standards Track March 2014 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7982 Category: Standards Track. V. Singh callstats.io September 2016

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8069 Category: Informational February 2017 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7504 June 2015 Updates: 1846, 5321 Category: Standards Track ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7973 Category: Informational ISSN: November 2016

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Microsoft May Packet-Loss Resiliency for Router Solicitations

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7403 Category: Standards Track November 2014 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Category: Standards Track May 2011 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: M. Luby Qualcomm Incorporated August 2012

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd July Rebind Capability in DHCPv6 Reconfigure Messages

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8050 Category: Standards Track ISSN: May 2017

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) BroadSoft August Essential Correction for IPv6 ABNF and URI Comparison in RFC 3261

Intended status: Standards Track October 15, 2012 Expires: April 18, 2013

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7881 Category: Standards Track. Big Switch Networks July 2016

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track. Enterprise Architects February 2012

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: November 2010

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: ISSN: August 2010

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: ISSN: March 2017

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Cisco Systems, Inc. April 2015

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track ISSN: January 2011

Intended status: Informational Expires: June 6, 2019 A. Hutton Atos R. Jesske Deutsche Telekom T. Stach Unaffiliated December 3, 2018

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Informational August 2012 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track April 2010 ISSN: RTP and the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: ISSN: January 2010

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6440 Category: Standards Track. Huawei December 2011

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Updates: 5280 May 2018 Category: Standards Track ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Informational. June A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for CableLabs

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: November 2015

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7537 Updates: 4379, L. Andersson S. Aldrin Huawei Technologies May 2015

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Google K. Patel Cisco Systems August 2015

Network Working Group Request for Comments: 5509 Category: Standards Track April 2009

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track. February 2012

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Category: Best Current Practice ISSN: March 2017

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Category: Standards Track. Ericsson March 2017

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track March 2011 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: ISSN: May 2014

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6309

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8441 Updates: 6455 September 2018 Category: Standards Track ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7198 Category: Standards Track. April 2014

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Standards Track ISSN: March 2010

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: ISSN: March 2018

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: ISSN: M. Petit-Huguenin Impedance Mismatch January 2015

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Informational. August Using Trust Anchor Constraints during Certification Path Processing

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) October This document establishes an IETF URN Sub-namespace for use with OAuth-related specifications.

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8440 Category: Standards Track ISSN: August 2018

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: ISSN: October 2011

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6843 Category: Standards Track. Q. Wu Huawei January 2013

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Category: Standards Track ISSN: July 2014

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6034 Category: Standards Track October 2010 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7319 BCP: 191 July 2014 Category: Best Current Practice ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Best Current Practice. Cisco Systems July IPv6 Prefix Length Recommendation for Forwarding

Moving the Undeployed TCP Extensions RFC 1072, RFC 1106, RFC 1110, RFC 1145, RFC 1146, RFC 1379, RFC 1644, and RFC 1693 to Historic Status.

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7005 Category: Standards Track. Q. Wu Huawei September 2013

February Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Nokia Research Center May 2014

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: March 2012

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Updates: 5885 Category: Standards Track July 2016 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 5736 Category: Informational. ICANN January 2010

Category: Standards Track October Session Description Protocol (SDP) Simple Capability Declaration

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 6379 Obsoletes: 4869 Category: Informational October 2011 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7213 Category: Standards Track. M. Bocci Alcatel-Lucent June 2014

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: Category: Experimental February 2014 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 5756

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8465 September 2018 Category: Informational ISSN:

DHCPv6 Option for IPv4-Embedded Multicast and Unicast IPv6 Prefixes

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Category: Informational. August IANA Registration for the Cryptographic Algorithm Object Identifier Range

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7197 Category: Standards Track. H. Ou. Cisco. April 2014

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: August 2011

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 7237 Category: Informational June 2014 ISSN:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments: 8297 Category: Experimental December 2017 ISSN:

Transcription:

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) C. Holmberg Request for Comments: 8035 Ericsson Updates: 5761 November 2016 Category: Standards Track ISSN: 2070-1721 Abstract Session Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answer Clarifications for RTP/RTCP Multiplexing This document updates RFC 5761 by clarifying the SDP offer/answer negotiation of RTP and RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) multiplexing. It makes it clear that an answerer can only include an "a=rtcp-mux" attribute in a Session Description Protocol (SDP) answer if the associated SDP offer contained the attribute. Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8035. Holmberg Standards Track [Page 1]

Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2016 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 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. This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English. Holmberg Standards Track [Page 2]

Table of Contents 1. Introduction........................ 3 2. Conventions......................... 3 3. Update to RFC 5761..................... 3 3.1. Update to Section 5.1.1................. 4 4. Security Considerations................... 6 5. IANA Considerations..................... 6 6. Normative References.................... 6 Acknowledgements........................ 6 Author s Address........................ 7 1. Introduction RFC 5761 [RFC5761] specifies how to multiplex RTP data packets and RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) packets on a single UDP port, and how to negotiate usage of such multiplexing using the SDP offer/answer mechanism [RFC3264] with an "a=rtcp-mux" attribute. However, the text is unclear on whether an answerer is allowed to include the attribute in an answer even if the associated offer did not contain an attribute. This document updates RFC 5761 [RFC5761] by clarifying that an answerer can only include an "a=rtcp-mux" attribute in an answer if the associated offer contained the attribute. It also clarifies that the negotiation of RTP and RTCP multiplexing is for usage in both directions. 2. Conventions The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 3. Update to RFC 5761 This section updates Section 5.1.1 of RFC 5761 by clarifying that an answerer can only include an "a=rtcp-mux" attribute in an answer if the associated offer contained the attribute, and by clarifying that the negotiation of RTP and RTCP multiplexing is for usage in both directions. Holmberg Standards Track [Page 3]

3.1. Update to Section 5.1.1 In this section, any references to Sections 4 and 8 are to those sections in [RFC5761]. OLD TEXT: When the Session Description Protocol (SDP) [8] is used to negotiate RTP sessions following the offer/answer model [9], the "a=rtcp-mux" attribute (see Section 8) indicates the desire to multiplex RTP and RTCP onto a single port. The initial SDP offer MUST include this attribute at the media level to request multiplexing of RTP and RTCP on a single port. For example: v=0 o=csp 1153134164 1153134164 IN IP6 2001:DB8::211:24ff:fea3:7a2e s=c=in IP6 2001:DB8::211:24ff:fea3:7a2e t=1153134164 1153137764 m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP 97 a=rtpmap:97 ilbc/8000 a=rtcp-mux This offer denotes a unicast voice-over-ip session using the RTP/AVP profile with ilbc coding. The answerer is requested to send both RTP and RTCP to port 49170 on IPv6 address 2001:DB8::211:24ff:fea3:7a2e. If the answerer wishes to multiplex RTP and RTCP onto a single port, it MUST include a media-level "a=rtcp-mux" attribute in the answer. The RTP payload types used in the answer MUST conform to the rules in Section 4. If the answer does not contain an "a=rtcp-mux" attribute, the offerer MUST NOT multiplex RTP and RTCP packets on a single port. Instead, it should send and receive RTCP on a port allocated according to the usual port-selection rules (either the port pair, or a signalled port if the "a=rtcp:" attribute [10] is also included). This will occur when talking to a peer that does not understand the "a=rtcp-mux" attribute. When SDP is used in a declarative manner, the presence of an "a=rtcp-mux" attribute signals that the sender will multiplex RTP and RTCP on the same port. The receiver MUST be prepared to receive RTCP packets on the RTP port, and any resource reservation needs to be made including the RTCP bandwidth. Holmberg Standards Track [Page 4]

NEW TEXT: When the Session Description Protocol (SDP) [8] is used to negotiate RTP sessions following the offer/answer model [9], the "a=rtcp-mux" attribute (see Section 8) indicates the desire to multiplex RTP and RTCP onto a single port, and the usage is always negotiated for both directions. If the offerer wishes to multiplex RTP and RTCP onto a single port, the initial SDP offer MUST include the attribute at the media level to request multiplexing of RTP and RTCP on a single port. For example: v=0 o=csp 1153134164 1153134164 IN IP6 2001:DB8::211:24ff:fea3:7a2e s=c=in IP6 2001:DB8::211:24ff:fea3:7a2e t=1153134164 1153137764 m=audio 49170 RTP/AVP 97 a=rtpmap:97 ilbc/8000 a=rtcp-mux This offer denotes a unicast voice-over-ip session using the RTP/AVP profile with Internet Low Bit Rate Codec (ilbc) coding. The answerer is requested to send both RTP and RTCP to port 49170 on IPv6 address 2001:DB8::211:24ff:fea3:7a2e. If the offer contains the "a=rtcp-mux" attribute, and if the answerer wishes to multiplex RTP and RTCP onto a single port, it MUST include a media-level "a=rtcp-mux" attribute in the answer. The RTP payload types used in the answer MUST conform to the rules in Section 4. If the offer does not contain the "a=rtcp-mux" attribute, the answerer MUST NOT include an "a=rtcp-mux" attribute in the answer, and the answerer MUST NOT multiplex RTP and RTCP packets on a single port. If the answer contains an "a=rtcp-mux" attribute, the offerer and answerer MUST multiplex RTP and RTCP packets on a single port. If the answer does not contain an "a=rtcp-mux" attribute, the offerer and answerer MUST NOT multiplex RTP and RTCP packets on a single port. Instead, they should send and receive RTCP on a port allocated according to the usual port-selection rules (either the port pair, or a signalled port if the "a=rtcp:" attribute [10] is also included). This will occur when talking to a peer that does not understand the "a=rtcp-mux" attribute. Holmberg Standards Track [Page 5]

When SDP is used in a declarative manner, the presence of an "a=rtcpmux" attribute signals that the sender will multiplex RTP and RTCP on the same port. The receiver MUST be prepared to receive RTCP packets on the RTP port, and any resource reservation needs to be made including the RTCP bandwidth. 4. Security Considerations The security considerations for RTP and RTCP multiplexing are described in RFC 5761. This specification does not impact those security considerations. 5. IANA Considerations IANA has added a reference to this document for the att-field (media level only) registration "rtcp-mux" in the "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters" registry. 6. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. [RFC3264] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, DOI 10.17487/RFC3264, June 2002, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3264>. [RFC5761] Perkins, C. and M. Westerlund, "Multiplexing RTP Data and Control Packets on a Single Port", RFC 5761, DOI 10.17487/RFC5761, April 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5761>. Acknowledgements Thanks to Colin Perkins, Magnus Westerlund, Paul Kyzivat, and Roni Even for providing comments on the document. Thomas Belling provided useful input in the discussions that took place in 3GPP and resulted in the submission of the document. Elwyn Davies performed the Gen-ART review. Rick Casarez performed the Ops-Dir review. Alissa Cooper and Spencer Dawkins provided IESG review comments. Holmberg Standards Track [Page 6]

Author s Address Christer Holmberg Ericsson Hirsalantie 11 Jorvas 02420 Finland Email: christer.holmberg@ericsson.com Holmberg Standards Track [Page 7]