draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-options-registry-01.txt   draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-options-registry-02.txt 
Network Working Group M. Westerlund Network Working Group M. Westerlund
Internet-Draft Ericsson Internet-Draft Ericsson
Updates: 5245 (if approved) C. Perkins Updates: 5245 (if approved) C. Perkins
Intended status: Standards Track University of Glasgow Intended status: Standards Track University of Glasgow
Expires: September 29, 2011 March 28, 2011 Expires: November 13, 2011 May 12, 2011
IANA Registry for Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) Options IANA Registry for Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) Options
draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-options-registry-01 draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-options-registry-02
Abstract Abstract
It has been identified that Interactive Connectivity Establishment It has been identified that Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE) RFC5245 is missing a registry for ICE options. This document (ICE) RFC5245 is missing a registry for ICE options. This document
defines this missing IANA registry and updates RFC5245. defines this missing IANA registry and updates RFC5245.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
skipping to change at page 1, line 33 skipping to change at page 1, line 33
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 29, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 13, 2011.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 3, line 10 skipping to change at page 3, line 10
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
"Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network "Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network
Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for Offer/Answer" [RFC5245] Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for Offer/Answer" [RFC5245]
defines a concept of ICE Options. However, the ICE RFC fails to defines a concept of ICE Options. However, the ICE RFC fails to
create an IANA registry for ICE options. As there has come into create an IANA registry for ICE options. As one ICE option is under
existence at least one ICE option, there is need to create the specification in [I-D.ietf-avtcore-ecn-for-rtp], there is now a need
registry. to create the registry.
RFC 5245 says: "ICE provides for extensibility by allowing an offer RFC 5245 says: "ICE provides for extensibility by allowing an offer
or answer to contain a series of tokens that identify the ICE or answer to contain a series of tokens that identify the ICE
extensions used by that agent. If an agent supports an ICE extensions used by that agent. If an agent supports an ICE
extension, it MUST include the token defined for that extension in extension, it MUST include the token defined for that extension in
the ice-options attribute." the ice-options attribute."
Thus, as future extensions are defined, these ICE options needs to be Thus, as future extensions are defined, these ICE options needs to be
registered with IANA to ensure non-conflicting identification. The registered with IANA to ensure non-conflicting identification. The
ICE options identifiers are used in signalling between the ICE ICE options identifiers are used in signalling between the ICE
endpoints to negotiate extension support. RFC 5245 defines one endpoints to negotiate extension support. RFC 5245 defines one
method of signalling these ICE options, using SDP with Offer/Answer method of signalling these ICE options, using SDP with Offer/Answer
[RFC3264]. [RFC3264].
This document updates the ICE specification [RFC5245]. This document updates the ICE specification [RFC5245] to define the
"Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) Options" registry.
2. Requirements Language 2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
3. IANA Considerations 3. IANA Considerations
This document defines a registry for ICE options that can be used in This document defines a registry "Interactive Connectivity
SDP "ice-options" attribute or other signalling parameters carrying Establishment (ICE) Options" for ICE options that can be used in SDP
the ICE options. "ice-options" attribute or other signalling parameters carrying the
ICE options.
3.1. ICE Options 3.1. ICE Options
An ICE option identifier MUST fulfill the ABNF [RFC5234] syntax for An ICE option identifier MUST fulfill the ABNF [RFC5234] syntax for
"ice-option-tag" as specified in [RFC5245]. This syntax is "ice-option-tag" as specified in [RFC5245]. This syntax is
reproduced here for simplicity, but the authoritative definition is reproduced here for simplicity, but the authoritative definition is
in the ICE RFC: in the ICE RFC:
ice-option-tag = 1*ice-char ice-option-tag = 1*ice-char
ice-char = ALPHA / DIGIT / "+" / "/" ice-char = ALPHA / DIGIT / "+" / "/"
ICE options are of unlimited length by the syntax, however they are ICE options are of unlimited length by the syntax, however they are
RECOMMENDED to be no longer than 20 characters. This is to reduce RECOMMENDED to be no longer than 20 characters. This is to reduce
message sizes and allow for efficient parsing. message sizes and allow for efficient parsing.
Registration of an ICE option is done using the Specification Registration of an ICE option in the "Interactive Connectivity
Establishment (ICE) Options" registry is done using the Specification
Required policy as defined in "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Required policy as defined in "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC5226]. Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC5226].
A registration request MUST include the following information: A registration request MUST include the following information:
o Name of contact person for the registration o The ICE option identifier to be registered
o Email and Address of the Contact person o Name, Email and Address of contact person for the registration
o Organization or individuals having the change control o Organization or individuals having the change control
o The ICE option identifier o Short description of the ICE extension to which the option relates
o Short description of the ICE extension
o Reference(s) to the specification defining the ICE option and the o Reference(s) to the specification defining the ICE option and the
related extensions related extensions
This document registers no ICE option.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
As this document defines an IANA registry for an already existing As this document defines an IANA registry for an already existing
concept there are no new security considerations. concept there are no new security considerations.
5. Acknowledgements 5. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the people having reviewed the draft
and provided feedback, Flemming Andreasen, Mykyta Yevstifeyev, Amanda
Baber and Brian Carpenter.
6. References 6. References
6.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008. May 2008.
skipping to change at page 5, line 9 skipping to change at page 5, line 15
[RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax [RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008. Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.
[RFC5245] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment [RFC5245] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT)
Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245, Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245,
April 2010. April 2010.
6.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-avtcore-ecn-for-rtp]
Westerlund, M., Johansson, I., Perkins, C., and K.
Carlberg, "Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) for RTP
over UDP", draft-ietf-avtcore-ecn-for-rtp-01 (work in
progress), March 2011.
[RFC3264] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model [RFC3264] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264,
June 2002. June 2002.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Magnus Westerlund Magnus Westerlund
Ericsson Ericsson
Farogatan 6 Farogatan 6
SE-164 80 Kista SE-164 80 Kista
 End of changes. 14 change blocks. 
17 lines changed or deleted 29 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.33. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/