1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
|
<pre>Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Petit-Huguenin
Request for Comments: 7983 Impedance Mismatch
Updates: <a href="./rfc5764">5764</a> G. Salgueiro
Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems
ISSN: 2070-1721 September 2016
<span class="h1">Multiplexing Scheme Updates</span>
<span class="h1">for Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) Extension</span>
<span class="h1">for Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)</span>
Abstract
This document defines how Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS),
Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP), RTP Control Protocol (RTCP),
Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN), Traversal Using Relays
around NAT (TURN), and ZRTP packets are multiplexed on a single
receiving socket. It overrides the guidance from <a href="./rfc5764">RFC 5764</a> ("SRTP
Extension for DTLS"), which suffered from four issues described and
fixed in this document.
This document updates <a href="./rfc5764">RFC 5764</a>.
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 <a href="./rfc7841#section-2">Section 2 of RFC 7841</a>.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7983">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7983</a>.
<span class="grey">Petit-Huguenin & Salgueiro Standards Track [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7983">RFC 7983</a> Multiplexing Scheme Updates for <a href="./rfc5764">RFC 5764</a> September 2016</span>
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(<a href="http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info</a>) 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.
Table of Contents
<a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. Implicit Allocation of Codepoints for New STUN Methods . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. Multiplexing of ZRTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
5. Implicit Allocation of New Codepoints for TLS ContentTypes . 5
<a href="#section-6">6</a>. Multiplexing of TURN Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-7">7</a>. Updates to <a href="./rfc5764">RFC 5764</a> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-8">8</a>. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-9">9</a>
<a href="#section-9">9</a>. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-10">10</a>
<a href="#section-9.1">9.1</a>. STUN Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-10">10</a>
<a href="#section-9.2">9.2</a>. TLS ContentType . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-10">10</a>
9.3. Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Channel Numbers 11
<a href="#section-10">10</a>. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-11">11</a>
<a href="#section-10.1">10.1</a>. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-11">11</a>
<a href="#section-10.2">10.2</a>. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-12">12</a>
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-13">13</a>
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-13">13</a>
<span class="grey">Petit-Huguenin & Salgueiro Standards Track [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7983">RFC 7983</a> Multiplexing Scheme Updates for <a href="./rfc5764">RFC 5764</a> September 2016</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
<a href="#section-5.1.2">Section 5.1.2</a> of "Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Extension
to Establish Keys for the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)"
[<a href="./rfc5764" title=""Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)"">RFC5764</a>] defines a scheme for a Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP)
[<a href="./rfc3550" title=""RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications"">RFC3550</a>] receiver to demultiplex DTLS [<a href="./rfc6347" title=""Datagram Transport Layer Security Version 1.2"">RFC6347</a>], Session Traversal
Utilities for NAT (STUN) [<a href="./rfc5389" title=""Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)"">RFC5389</a>], and Secure Real-time Transport
Protocol (SRTP) / Secure Real-time Transport Control Protocol (SRTCP)
[<a href="./rfc3711" title=""The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)"">RFC3711</a>] packets that are arriving on the RTP port. Unfortunately,
this demultiplexing scheme has created problematic issues:
1. It implicitly allocated codepoints for new STUN methods without
an IANA registry reflecting these new allocations.
2. It did not take into account the fact that ZRTP [<a href="./rfc6189" title=""ZRTP: Media Path Key Agreement for Unicast Secure RTP"">RFC6189</a>] also
needs to be demultiplexed with the other packet types explicitly
mentioned in <a href="./rfc5764#section-5.1.2">Section 5.1.2 of RFC 5764</a>.
3. It implicitly allocated codepoints for new Transport Layer
Security (TLS) ContentTypes without an IANA registry reflecting
these new allocations.
4. It did not take into account the fact that the Traversal Using
Relays around NAT (TURN) usage of STUN can create TURN channels
that also need to be demultiplexed with the other packet types
explicitly mentioned in <a href="./rfc5764#section-5.1.2">Section 5.1.2 of RFC 5764</a>.
Having overlapping ranges between different IANA registries becomes
an issue when a new codepoint is allocated in one of these registries
without carefully analyzing the impact it could have on the other
registries when that codepoint is demultiplexed. Among other
downsides of the bad design of the demultiplexing algorithm detailed
in [<a href="./rfc5764" title=""Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)"">RFC5764</a>], it creates a requirement for coordination between
codepoint assignments where none should exist, and that is
organizationally and socially undesirable. However, <a href="./rfc5764">RFC 5764</a> has
been widely deployed, so there must be an awareness of this issue and
how it must be dealt with. Thus, even if the feature related to a
codepoint is not initially thought to be useful in the context of
demultiplexing, the respective IANA registry expert should at least
raise a flag when the allocated codepoint irrevocably prevents
multiplexing.
<span class="grey">Petit-Huguenin & Salgueiro Standards Track [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7983">RFC 7983</a> Multiplexing Scheme Updates for <a href="./rfc5764">RFC 5764</a> September 2016</span>
The first goal of this document is to make sure that future
allocations in any of the affected protocols are done with the full
knowledge of their impact on multiplexing. This is achieved by
updating [<a href="./rfc5764" title=""Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)"">RFC5764</a>], which includes modifying the IANA registries with
instructions for coordination between the protocols at risk.
A second goal is to permit the addition of new protocols to the list
of existing multiplexed protocols in a manner that does not break
existing implementations.
At the time of this writing, the flaws in the demultiplexing scheme
were unavoidably inherited by other documents, such as [<a href="./rfc7345" title=""UDP Transport Layer (UDPTL) over Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)"">RFC7345</a>] and
[<a href="#ref-SDP-BUNDLE">SDP-BUNDLE</a>]. So in addition, these and any other affected documents
will need to be corrected with the updates this document provides.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. Terminology</span>
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 [<a href="./rfc2119" title=""Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"">RFC2119</a>].
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. Implicit Allocation of Codepoints for New STUN Methods</span>
The demultiplexing scheme in [<a href="./rfc5764" title=""Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)"">RFC5764</a>] states that the receiver can
identify the packet type by looking at the first byte. If the value
of this first byte is 0 or 1, the packet is identified to be STUN.
The problem with this implicit allocation is that it restricts the
codepoints for STUN methods (as described in <a href="./rfc5389#section-18.1">Section 18.1 of
[RFC5389]</a>) to values between 0x000 and 0x07F, which in turn reduces
the number of possible STUN method codepoints assigned by IETF Review
(i.e., the range 0x000 - 0x7FF) from 2048 to only 128 and eliminates
the possibility of having STUN method codepoints assigned by
Designated Expert (i.e., the range 0x800 - 0xFFF).
To preserve the Designated Expert range, this document allocates the
values 2 and 3 to also identify STUN methods.
The IANA Registry for STUN methods has been modified to mark the
codepoints from 0x100 to 0xFFF as Reserved. These codepoints can
still be allocated, but require IETF Review with a document that will
properly evaluate the risk of an assignment overlapping with other
registries.
<span class="grey">Petit-Huguenin & Salgueiro Standards Track [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7983">RFC 7983</a> Multiplexing Scheme Updates for <a href="./rfc5764">RFC 5764</a> September 2016</span>
In addition, this document also updates the IANA registry such that
the STUN method codepoints assigned in the 0x080-0x0FF range are also
assigned via Designated Expert. The "STUN Methods" registry has been
changed as follows:
OLD:
0x000-0x7FF IETF Review
0x800-0xFFF Designated Expert
NEW:
0x000-0x07F IETF Review
0x080-0x0FF Designated Expert
0x100-0xFFF Reserved
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. Multiplexing of ZRTP</span>
ZRTP [<a href="./rfc6189" title=""ZRTP: Media Path Key Agreement for Unicast Secure RTP"">RFC6189</a>] is a protocol for media path Diffie-Hellman exchange
to agree on a session key and parameters for establishing unicast
SRTP sessions for Voice over IP (VoIP) applications. The ZRTP
protocol is media path keying because it is multiplexed on the same
port as RTP and does not require support in the signaling protocol.
In order to prevent future documents from assigning values from the
unused range to a new protocol, this document modifies the [<a href="./rfc5764" title=""Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)"">RFC5764</a>]
demultiplexing algorithm to properly account for ZRTP [<a href="./rfc6189" title=""ZRTP: Media Path Key Agreement for Unicast Secure RTP"">RFC6189</a>] by
allocating the values from 16 to 19 for this purpose.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. Implicit Allocation of New Codepoints for TLS ContentTypes</span>
The demultiplexing scheme in [<a href="./rfc5764" title=""Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)"">RFC5764</a>] dictates that if the value of
the first byte is between 20 and 63 (inclusive), then the packet is
identified to be DTLS. For DTLS 1.0 [<a href="./rfc4347" title=""Datagram Transport Layer Security"">RFC4347</a>] and DTLS 1.2
[<a href="./rfc6347" title=""Datagram Transport Layer Security Version 1.2"">RFC6347</a>], that first byte corresponds to the TLS ContentType field.
Considerations must be taken into account when assigning additional
ContentTypes in the codepoint ranges 0 to 19 and 64 to 255, so this
does not prevent demultiplexing when this functionality is desirable.
Note that [<a href="./rfc5764" title=""Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)"">RFC5764</a>] describes a narrow use of DTLS that works as long
as the specific DTLS version used abides by the restrictions on the
demultiplexing byte (the ones that this document imposes on the "TLS
ContentType Registry"). Any extension or revision to DTLS that
causes it to no longer meet these constraints should consider what
values may occur in the first byte of the DTLS message and what
impact it would have on the multiplexing that [<a href="./rfc5764" title=""Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)"">RFC5764</a>] describes.
<span class="grey">Petit-Huguenin & Salgueiro Standards Track [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7983">RFC 7983</a> Multiplexing Scheme Updates for <a href="./rfc5764">RFC 5764</a> September 2016</span>
With respect to TLS packet identification, this document explicitly
adds a warning to the codepoints from 0 to 19 and from 64 to 255
indicating that allocations in these ranges require coordination, as
described in this document. The "TLS ContentType Registry" has been
changed as follows:
OLD:
0-19 Unassigned
20 change_cipher_spec
21 alert
22 handshake
23 application_data
24 heartbeat
25-255 Unassigned
NEW:
0-19 Unassigned (Requires coordination; see <a href="./rfc7983">RFC 7983</a>)
20 change_cipher_spec
21 alert
22 handshake
23 application_data
24 heartbeat
25-63 Unassigned
64-255 Unassigned (Requires coordination; see <a href="./rfc7983">RFC 7983</a>)
<span class="grey">Petit-Huguenin & Salgueiro Standards Track [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7983">RFC 7983</a> Multiplexing Scheme Updates for <a href="./rfc5764">RFC 5764</a> September 2016</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. Multiplexing of TURN Channels</span>
When used with Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE)
[<a href="./rfc5245" title=""Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols"">RFC5245</a>], an implementation of <a href="./rfc5764">RFC 5764</a> can receive packets on the
same socket from three different paths, as shown in Figure 1:
1. Directly from the source
2. Through a NAT
3. Relayed by a TURN server
+------+
| TURN |<------------------------+
+------+ |
| |
| +-------------------------+ |
| | | |
v v | |
NAT ----------- | |
| | +---------------------+ | |
| | | | | |
v v v | | |
+----------+ +----------+
| <a href="./rfc5764">RFC 5764</a> | | <a href="./rfc5764">RFC 5764</a> |
+----------+ +----------+
Figure 1: Packet Reception by an Implementation of <a href="./rfc5764">RFC 5764</a>
Even if the ICE algorithm succeeded in selecting a non-relayed path,
it is still possible to receive data from the TURN server. For
instance, when ICE is used with aggressive nomination, the media path
can quickly change until it stabilizes. Also, freeing ICE candidates
is optional, so the TURN server can restart forwarding STUN
connectivity checks during an ICE restart.
TURN channels are an optimization where data packets are exchanged
with a 4-byte prefix instead of the standard 36-byte STUN overhead
(see <a href="./rfc5766#section-2.5">Section 2.5 of [RFC5766]</a>). The problem is that the <a href="./rfc5764">RFC 5764</a>
demultiplexing scheme does not define what to do with packets
received over a TURN channel since these packets will start with a
first byte whose value will be between 64 and 127 (inclusive). If
the TURN server was instructed to send data over a TURN channel, then
the demultiplexing scheme specified in <a href="./rfc5764">RFC 5764</a> will reject these
packets. Current implementations violate <a href="./rfc5764">RFC 5764</a> for values 64 to
127 (inclusive) and they instead parse packets with such values as
TURN.
<span class="grey">Petit-Huguenin & Salgueiro Standards Track [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7983">RFC 7983</a> Multiplexing Scheme Updates for <a href="./rfc5764">RFC 5764</a> September 2016</span>
In order to prevent future documents from assigning values from the
unused range to a new protocol, this document modifies the
demultiplexing algorithm in <a href="./rfc5764">RFC 5764</a> to properly account for TURN
channels by allocating the values from 64 to 79 for this purpose.
This modification restricts the TURN channel space to a more limited
set of possible channels when the TURN client does the channel
binding request in combination with the demultiplexing scheme
described in [<a href="./rfc5764" title=""Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)"">RFC5764</a>].
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>. Updates to <a href="./rfc5764">RFC 5764</a></span>
This document updates the text in <a href="./rfc5764#section-5.1.2">Section 5.1.2 of [RFC5764]</a> as
follows:
OLD TEXT
The process for demultiplexing a packet is as follows. The receiver
looks at the first byte of the packet. If the value of this byte is
0 or 1, then the packet is STUN. If the value is in between 128 and
191 (inclusive), then the packet is RTP (or RTCP, if both RTCP and
RTP are being multiplexed over the same destination port). If the
value is between 20 and 63 (inclusive), the packet is DTLS. This
process is summarized in Figure 3.
+----------------+
| 127 < B < 192 -+--> forward to RTP
| |
packet --> | 19 < B < 64 -+--> forward to DTLS
| |
| B < 2 -+--> forward to STUN
+----------------+
Figure 3: The DTLS-SRTP receiver's packet demultiplexing algorithm.
Here the field B denotes the leading byte of the packet.
END OLD TEXT
<span class="grey">Petit-Huguenin & Salgueiro Standards Track [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7983">RFC 7983</a> Multiplexing Scheme Updates for <a href="./rfc5764">RFC 5764</a> September 2016</span>
NEW TEXT
The process for demultiplexing a packet is as follows. The receiver
looks at the first byte of the packet. If the value of this byte is
in between 0 and 3 (inclusive), then the packet is STUN. If the
value is between 16 and 19 (inclusive), then the packet is ZRTP. If
the value is between 20 and 63 (inclusive), then the packet is DTLS.
If the value is between 64 and 79 (inclusive), then the packet is
TURN Channel. If the value is in between 128 and 191 (inclusive),
then the packet is RTP (or RTCP, if both RTCP and RTP are being
multiplexed over the same destination port). If the value does not
match any known range, then the packet MUST be dropped and an alert
MAY be logged. This process is summarized in Figure 3.
+----------------+
| [0..3] -+--> forward to STUN
| |
| [16..19] -+--> forward to ZRTP
| |
packet --> | [20..63] -+--> forward to DTLS
| |
| [64..79] -+--> forward to TURN Channel
| |
| [128..191] -+--> forward to RTP/RTCP
+----------------+
Figure 3: The DTLS-SRTP receiver's packet demultiplexing algorithm.
END NEW TEXT
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-8" href="#section-8">8</a>. Security Considerations</span>
This document updates existing IANA registries and adds a new range
for TURN channels in the demultiplexing algorithm.
These modifications do not introduce any specific security
considerations beyond those detailed in [<a href="./rfc5764" title=""Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)"">RFC5764</a>].
<span class="grey">Petit-Huguenin & Salgueiro Standards Track [Page 9]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7983">RFC 7983</a> Multiplexing Scheme Updates for <a href="./rfc5764">RFC 5764</a> September 2016</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-9" href="#section-9">9</a>. IANA Considerations</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-9.1" href="#section-9.1">9.1</a>. STUN Methods</span>
This specification contains the registration information for reserved
STUN Methods codepoints, as explained in <a href="#section-3">Section 3</a> and in accordance
with the procedures defined in <a href="./rfc5389#section-18.1">Section 18.1 of [RFC5389]</a>.
Value: 0x100-0xFFF
Name: Reserved (For DTLS-SRTP multiplexing collision avoidance, see
<a href="./rfc7983">RFC 7983</a>. Cannot be made available for assignment without IETF
Review.)
Reference: <a href="./rfc5764">RFC 5764</a>, <a href="./rfc7983">RFC 7983</a>
This specification also reassigns the ranges in the STUN Methods
Registry as follows:
Range: 0x000-0x07F
Registration Procedures: IETF Review
Range: 0x080-0x0FF
Registration Procedures: Designated Expert
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-9.2" href="#section-9.2">9.2</a>. TLS ContentType</span>
This specification contains the registration information for reserved
TLS ContentType codepoints, as explained in <a href="#section-5">Section 5</a> and in
accordance with the procedures defined in <a href="./rfc5246#section-12">Section 12 of [RFC5246]</a>.
Value: 0-19
Description: Unassigned (Requires coordination; see <a href="./rfc7983">RFC 7983</a>)
DTLS-OK: N/A
Reference: <a href="./rfc5764">RFC 5764</a>, <a href="./rfc7983">RFC 7983</a>
Value: 64-255
Description: Unassigned (Requires coordination; see <a href="./rfc7983">RFC 7983</a>)
DTLS-OK: N/A
Reference: <a href="./rfc5764">RFC 5764</a>, <a href="./rfc7983">RFC 7983</a>
<span class="grey">Petit-Huguenin & Salgueiro Standards Track [Page 10]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-11" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7983">RFC 7983</a> Multiplexing Scheme Updates for <a href="./rfc5764">RFC 5764</a> September 2016</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-9.3" href="#section-9.3">9.3</a>. Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Channel Numbers</span>
This specification contains the registration information for reserved
codepoints in the "Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Channel
Numbers" registry, as explained in <a href="#section-6">Section 6</a> and in accordance with
the procedures defined in <a href="./rfc5766#section-18">Section 18 of [RFC5766]</a>.
Value: 0x5000-0xFFFF
Name: Reserved (For DTLS-SRTP multiplexing collision avoidance, see
<a href="./rfc7983">RFC 7983</a>.)
Reference: <a href="./rfc7983">RFC 7983</a>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-10" href="#section-10">10</a>. References</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-10.1" href="#section-10.1">10.1</a>. Normative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC2119">RFC2119</a>] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC3550">RFC3550</a>] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, <a href="./rfc3550">RFC 3550</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550,
July 2003, <<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC3711">RFC3711</a>] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
<a href="./rfc3711">RFC 3711</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC3711, March 2004,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3711">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3711</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC5245">RFC5245</a>] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT)
Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", <a href="./rfc5245">RFC 5245</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5245, April 2010,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5245">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5245</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC5246">RFC5246</a>] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", <a href="./rfc5246">RFC 5246</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC5389">RFC5389</a>] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing,
"Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", <a href="./rfc5389">RFC 5389</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5389, October 2008,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5389">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5389</a>>.
<span class="grey">Petit-Huguenin & Salgueiro Standards Track [Page 11]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-12" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7983">RFC 7983</a> Multiplexing Scheme Updates for <a href="./rfc5764">RFC 5764</a> September 2016</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC5764">RFC5764</a>] McGrew, D. and E. Rescorla, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for the Secure
Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", <a href="./rfc5764">RFC 5764</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5764, May 2010,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5764">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5764</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC5766">RFC5766</a>] Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using
Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to Session
Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", <a href="./rfc5766">RFC 5766</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5766, April 2010,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5766">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5766</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC6347">RFC6347</a>] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security Version 1.2", <a href="./rfc6347">RFC 6347</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
January 2012, <<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347</a>>.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-10.2" href="#section-10.2">10.2</a>. Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC4347">RFC4347</a>] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security", <a href="./rfc4347">RFC 4347</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC4347, April 2006,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4347">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4347</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC6189">RFC6189</a>] Zimmermann, P., Johnston, A., Ed., and J. Callas, "ZRTP:
Media Path Key Agreement for Unicast Secure RTP",
<a href="./rfc6189">RFC 6189</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC6189, April 2011,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6189">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6189</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC7345">RFC7345</a>] Holmberg, C., Sedlacek, I., and G. Salgueiro, "UDP
Transport Layer (UDPTL) over Datagram Transport Layer
Security (DTLS)", <a href="./rfc7345">RFC 7345</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC7345, August
2014, <<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7345">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7345</a>>.
[<a id="ref-SDP-BUNDLE">SDP-BUNDLE</a>]
Holmberg, C., Alvestrand, H., and C. Jennings,
"Negotiating Media Multiplexing Using the Session
Description Protocol (SDP)", Work in Progress,
<a href="./draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-32">draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-32</a>, August 2016.
<span class="grey">Petit-Huguenin & Salgueiro Standards Track [Page 12]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-13" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7983">RFC 7983</a> Multiplexing Scheme Updates for <a href="./rfc5764">RFC 5764</a> September 2016</span>
Acknowledgements
The implicit STUN Method codepoint allocations problem was first
reported by Martin Thomson in the RTCWEB mailing list and discussed
further with Magnus Westerlund.
Thanks to Simon Perreault, Colton Shields, Cullen Jennings, Colin
Perkins, Magnus Westerlund, Paul Jones, Jonathan Lennox, Varun Singh,
Justin Uberti, Joseph Salowey, Martin Thomson, Ben Campbell, Stephen
Farrell, Alan Johnston, Mehmet Ersue, Matt Miller, Spencer Dawkins,
Joel Halpern, and Paul Kyzivat for the comments, suggestions, and
questions that helped improve this document.
Authors' Addresses
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Impedance Mismatch
Email: marc@petit-huguenin.org
Gonzalo Salgueiro
Cisco Systems
7200-12 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
United States of America
Email: gsalguei@cisco.com
Petit-Huguenin & Salgueiro Standards Track [Page 13]
</pre>
|
