The IETF 105 meeting was held from July 20-26, 2019 in Montreal, Canada
- Stephen McQuistin, Vivian Band, and Colin Perkins, Fully Specifying Protocol Parsing with Augmented ASCII Diagrams (.txt|.pdf), Internet Engineering Task Force, July 2019, Work in progress (draft-mcquistin-augmented-ascii-diagrams-00.txt).
This document describes a machine-readable format for fully specifying the process by which a protocol can be parsed. This format combines a consistent ASCII packet diagram format with the use of structured text, maintaining human readability while enabling support for machine parsing. This document is itself an example of how this format can be used.
- Gorry Fairhurst and Colin Perkins, The Impact of Transport Header Confidentiality on Network Operation and Evolution of the Internet (.txt|.pdf), Internet Engineering Task Force, July 2019, Work in progress (draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-07.txt).
Revises Section 2 to reduction duplication and repetition. Clarifications around flow identification in Section 3. Expands and clarifies the conclusions and security considerations. Several, primarily editorial, corrections and clarifications throughout.
- Gorry Fairhurst and Colin Perkins, The Impact of Transport Header Confidentiality on Network Operation and Evolution of the Internet (.txt|.pdf), Internet Engineering Task Force, May 2019, Work in progress (draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-06.txt).
This version expands the introductory remarks, adds some discussion of OAM-related metadata to Section 6.1, and updates the conclusions to be a little more focussed.
- Chris Wood, Theresa Enghardt, Tommy Pauly, Colin Perkins, and Kyle Rose, A Survey of Transport Security Protocols (.txt|.pdf), Internet Engineering Task Force, July 2019, Work in progress (draft-ietf-taps-transport-security-07.txt).
This version clarifies that while several of the security protocols need a reliable in-order transport, that transport doesn't have to be TCP. Similarly, those that require protocols that an unreliable datagram transport do not necessarily require UDP. It notes that DTLS requires a way of demultiplexing connections, but this can be something other than a UDP 4-tuple. It also includes editorial clarifications throughout and updates the references.
- Brian Trammell, Michael Welzl, Theresa Enghardt, Gorry Fairhurst, Mirja Kühlewind, Colin Perkins, Philipp S. Tiesel, Chris Wood, and Tommy Pauly, An Abstract Application Layer Interface to Transport Services (.txt|.pdf), Internet Engineering Task Force, July 2019, Work in progress (draft-ietf-taps-interface-04.txt).
Editorial clarifications throughout, including clarification of normative language. Clarifications around idempotent data, connection cloning, and message contexts and replies. More clearly specify defaults for message properties. Expand discussion of message contexts and message framers; specify an initial framer API.
- Anna Brunstrom, Tommy Pauly, Theresa Enghardt, Karl-Johan Grinnemo, Tom Jones, Philipp S. Tiesel, Colin Perkins, and Michael Welzl, Implementing Interfaces to Transport Services (.txt|.pdf), Internet Engineering Task Force, July 2019, Work in progress (draft-ietf-taps-impl-04.txt).
The major change in this version is to rewrite Section 9, on Specific Transport Protocol Considerations, to include a much more precise and concrete mapping to the concepts defined in the framework for TCP, UDP, TLS, DTLS, HTTP, HTTP/2, QUIC, and SCTP. It also restructures the discussion around gathering endpoint candidates for connection racing and NAT traversal.
- Tommy Pauly, Brian Trammell, Anna Brunstrom, Gorry Fairhurst, Colin Perkins, Philipp S. Tiesel, and Chris Wood, An Architecture for Transport Services (.txt|.pdf), Internet Engineering Task Force, July 2019, Work in progress (draft-ietf-taps-arch-04.txt).
This version is a minor update that clarifies that connection pooling is in scope for the TAPS architecture.
- Ali Begen, Paul Kyzivat, Colin Perkins, and Mark Handley, SDP: Session Description Protocol (.txt|.pdf), Internet Engineering Task Force, June 2019, Work in progress (draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-36.txt).
This revision is intended to address IESG review comments. Paul Kyzivat sent a summary of the changes to the MMUSIC mailing list, but the key points are:
- Revised normative statements that were redundant with ABNF syntax, making the text non-normative.
- Changed some examples to use IPv6 addresses, and added additional examples using IPv6.
- Revised sections that incorrectly referenced NTP
- Clarified the explanation of the impact and use of a=charset
- Revised the description of a=type to remove implication that it sometimes changes the default media direction to something other than sendrecv.
- Ali Begen, Paul Kyzivat, Colin Perkins, and Mark Handley, SDP: Session Description Protocol (.txt|.pdf), Internet Engineering Task Force, May 2019, Work in progress (draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis-35.txt).
This version of the draft went to IETF last call. Changes are a further clarification that the k= field is obsolete, and that the US-ASCII subset of UTF-8 is used.
- Magnus Westerlund, Bo Burman, Colin Perkins, Harald Alvestrand, and Roni Even, Guidelines for using the Multiplexing Features of RTP to Support Multiple Media Streams (.txt|.pdf), Internet Engineering Task Force, July 2019, Work in progress (draft-ietf-avtcore-multiplex-guidelines-09.txt).
This version includes clarifications on demultiplexing RTP and non-RTP traffic; and about RTP sessions and their relation to the SDP bundling extension. It also clarifies the motivation for the work in relation to RFC 3550, describes the relation to PERC, and includes editorial clarifications.
- Zaheduzzaman Sarker, Colin Perkins, Varun Singh, and Michael A. Ramalho, RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Feedback for Congestion Control (.txt|.pdf), Internet Engineering Task Force, July 2019, Work in progress (draft-ietf-avtcore-cc-feedback-message-04.txt).
This version addresses feedback received during IETF-104, based on hackathon experience. It does not change the packet format or signalling in any way, but rather clarifies parts of the specification that were unclear. The specific changes are
- to add an example of use of the "a=rtcp-fb:" attribute;
- to clarify that congestion control feedback is sent for FEC and retransmission packets, if used;
- to clarify that congestion control feedback signalling is IDENTICAL-PER-PT when used with the SDP bundling extension;
- to clarify that if an SDP offer indicates support for several different ways of providing congestion control feedback, the receiver SHOULD pick its preferred mechanism and use it consistently;
- to clarify that feedback reports indicating that packets were lost are not explicit requests for retransmission;
- to clarify that large feedback packets might need to be split across multiple RTCP packets if the RTCP bandwidth fraction is misconfigured; and
- to add a section on the desired congestion response in cases where congestion control feedback packets are lost.
At this time there are not believed to be any open technical issues with the specification. The only non-technical issue outstanding is to add some further design rationale and a comparison with other approaches, in particular those that use a single sequence number space across flows, to highlight the benefits and trade-offs.