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
|
<pre>Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Tuexen
Request for Comments: 8261 Muenster Univ. of Appl. Sciences
Category: Standards Track R. Stewart
ISSN: 2070-1721 Netflix, Inc.
R. Jesup
WorldGate Communications
S. Loreto
Ericsson
November 2017
<span class="h1">Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Encapsulation of SCTP Packets</span>
Abstract
The Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) is a transport
protocol originally defined to run on top of the network protocols
IPv4 or IPv6. This document specifies how SCTP can be used on top of
the Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) protocol. Using the
encapsulation method described in this document, SCTP is unaware of
the protocols being used below DTLS; hence, explicit IP addresses
cannot be used in the SCTP control chunks. As a consequence, the
SCTP associations carried over DTLS can only be single-homed.
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="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8261">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8261</a>.
<span class="grey">Tuexen, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8261">RFC 8261</a> SCTP over DTLS November 2017</span>
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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="https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">https://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.
Table of Contents
<a href="#section-1">1</a>. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. Encapsulation and Decapsulation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. General Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-5">5</a>. DTLS Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-6">6</a>. SCTP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-7">7</a>. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-8">8</a>. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-9">9</a>. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-10">10</a>
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-10">10</a>
<span class="grey">Tuexen, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8261">RFC 8261</a> SCTP over DTLS November 2017</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Overview</span>
The Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) as defined in
[<a href="./rfc4960" title=""Stream Control Transmission Protocol"">RFC4960</a>] is a transport protocol running on top of the network
protocols IPv4 [<a href="./rfc0791" title=""Internet Protocol"">RFC0791</a>] or IPv6 [<a href="./rfc8200" title=""Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification"">RFC8200</a>]. This document specifies
how SCTP is used on top of the Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS) protocol. DTLS 1.0 is defined in [<a href="./rfc4347" title=""Datagram Transport Layer Security"">RFC4347</a>], and the latest
version when this RFC was published, DTLS 1.2, is defined in
[<a href="./rfc6347" title=""Datagram Transport Layer Security Version 1.2"">RFC6347</a>]. This encapsulation is used, for example, within the
WebRTC protocol suite (see [<a href="#ref-RTC-OVERVIEW">RTC-OVERVIEW</a>] for an overview) for
transporting non-SRTP data between browsers. The architecture of
this stack is described in [<a href="#ref-DATA-CHAN">DATA-CHAN</a>].
+----------+
| SCTP |
+----------+
| DTLS |
+----------+
| ICE/UDP |
+----------+
Figure 1: Basic Stack Diagram
This encapsulation of SCTP over DTLS over UDP or ICE/UDP (see
[<a href="./rfc5245" title=""Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols"">RFC5245</a>]) can provide a NAT traversal solution in addition to
confidentiality, source authentication, and integrity-protected
transfers. Please note that using ICE does not necessarily imply
that a different packet format is used on the wire.
Please note that the procedures defined in [<a href="./rfc6951" title=""UDP Encapsulation of Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Packets for End-Host to End-Host Communication"">RFC6951</a>] for dealing with
the UDP port numbers do not apply here. When using the encapsulation
defined in this document, SCTP is unaware about the protocols used
below DTLS.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. Conventions</span>
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a> [<a href="./rfc2119" title=""Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"">RFC2119</a>] [<a href="./rfc8174" title=""Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words"">RFC8174</a>] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. Encapsulation and Decapsulation Procedure</span>
When an SCTP packet is provided to the DTLS layer, the complete SCTP
packet, consisting of the SCTP common header and a number of SCTP
chunks, is handled as the payload of the application-layer protocol
of DTLS. When the DTLS layer has processed a DTLS record containing
<span class="grey">Tuexen, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8261">RFC 8261</a> SCTP over DTLS November 2017</span>
a message of the application-layer protocol, the payload is passed to
the SCTP layer. The SCTP layer expects an SCTP common header
followed by a number of SCTP chunks.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. General Considerations</span>
An implementation of SCTP over DTLS MUST implement and use a path
maximum transmission unit (MTU) discovery method that functions
without ICMP to provide SCTP/DTLS with an MTU estimate. An
implementation of "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery" [<a href="./rfc4821" title=""Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery"">RFC4821</a>]
either in SCTP or DTLS is RECOMMENDED.
The path MTU discovery is performed by SCTP when SCTP over DTLS is
used for data channels (see Section 5 of [<a href="#ref-DATA-CHAN">DATA-CHAN</a>]).
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. DTLS Considerations</span>
The DTLS implementation MUST support DTLS 1.0 [<a href="./rfc4347" title=""Datagram Transport Layer Security"">RFC4347</a>] and SHOULD
support the most recently published version of DTLS, which was DTLS
1.2 [<a href="./rfc6347" title=""Datagram Transport Layer Security Version 1.2"">RFC6347</a>] when this RFC was published. In the absence of a
revision to this document, the latter requirement applies to all
future versions of DTLS when they are published as RFCs. This
document will only be revised if a revision to DTLS or SCTP makes a
revision to the encapsulation necessary.
SCTP performs segmentation and reassembly based on the path MTU.
Therefore, the DTLS layer MUST NOT use any compression algorithm.
The DTLS MUST support sending messages larger than the current path
MTU. This might result in sending IP-level fragmented messages.
If path MTU discovery is performed by the DTLS layer, the method
described in [<a href="./rfc4821" title=""Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery"">RFC4821</a>] MUST be used. For probe packets, the
extension defined in [<a href="./rfc6520" title=""Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Heartbeat Extension"">RFC6520</a>] MUST be used.
If path MTU discovery is performed by the SCTP layer and IPv4 is used
as the network-layer protocol, the DTLS implementation SHOULD allow
the DTLS user to enforce that the corresponding IPv4 packet is sent
with the Don't Fragment (DF) bit set. If controlling the DF bit is
not possible (for example, due to implementation restrictions), a
safe value for the path MTU has to be used by the SCTP stack. It is
RECOMMENDED that the safe value not exceed 1200 bytes. Please note
that [<a href="./rfc1122" title=""Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers"">RFC1122</a>] only requires that end hosts be able to reassemble
fragmented IP packets up to 576 bytes in length.
The DTLS implementation SHOULD allow the DTLS user to set the
Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) used for IP packets being
sent (see [<a href="./rfc2474" title=""Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers"">RFC2474</a>]). This requires the DTLS implementation to pass
<span class="grey">Tuexen, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8261">RFC 8261</a> SCTP over DTLS November 2017</span>
the value through and the lower layer to allow setting this value.
If the lower layer does not support setting the DSCP, then the DTLS
user will end up with the default value used by the protocol stack.
Please note that only a single DSCP value can be used for all packets
belonging to the same SCTP association.
Using Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) in SCTP requires the
DTLS layer to pass the ECN bits through and its lower layer to expose
access to them for sent and received packets (see [<a href="./rfc3168" title=""The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP"">RFC3168</a>]). The
implementations of DTLS and its lower layer have to provide this
support. If this is not possible (for example, due to implementation
restrictions), ECN can't be used by SCTP.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. SCTP Considerations</span>
This section describes the usage of the base protocol and the
applicability of various SCTP extensions.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.1" href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>. Base Protocol</span>
This document uses SCTP [<a href="./rfc4960" title=""Stream Control Transmission Protocol"">RFC4960</a>] with the following restrictions,
which are required to reflect that the lower layer is DTLS instead of
IPv4 and IPv6 and that SCTP does not deal with the IP addresses or
the transport protocol used below DTLS:
o A DTLS connection MUST be established before an SCTP association
can be set up.
o Multiple SCTP associations MAY be multiplexed over a single DTLS
connection. The SCTP port numbers are used for multiplexing and
demultiplexing the SCTP associations carried over a single DTLS
connection.
o All SCTP associations are single-homed, because DTLS does not
expose any address management to its upper layer. Therefore, it
is RECOMMENDED to set the SCTP parameter path.max.retrans to
association.max.retrans.
o The INIT and INIT-ACK chunk MUST NOT contain any IPv4 Address or
IPv6 Address parameters. The INIT chunk MUST NOT contain the
Supported Address Types parameter.
o The implementation MUST NOT rely on processing ICMP or ICMPv6
packets, since the SCTP layer most likely is unable to access the
SCTP common header in the plain text of the packet, which
triggered the sending of the ICMP or ICMPv6 packet. This applies
in particular to path MTU discovery when performed by SCTP.
<span class="grey">Tuexen, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8261">RFC 8261</a> SCTP over DTLS November 2017</span>
o If the SCTP layer is notified about a path change by its lower
layers, SCTP SHOULD retest the path MTU and reset the congestion
state to the initial state. The window-based congestion control
method specified in [<a href="./rfc4960" title=""Stream Control Transmission Protocol"">RFC4960</a>] resets the congestion window and
slow-start threshold to their initial values.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.2" href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>. Padding Extension</span>
When the SCTP layer performs path MTU discovery as specified in
[<a href="./rfc4821" title=""Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery"">RFC4821</a>], the padding extension defined in [<a href="./rfc4820" title=""Padding Chunk and Parameter for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)"">RFC4820</a>] MUST be
supported and used for probe packets (HEARTBEAT chunks bundled with
PADDING chunks [<a href="./rfc4820" title=""Padding Chunk and Parameter for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)"">RFC4820</a>]).
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.3" href="#section-6.3">6.3</a>. Dynamic Address Reconfiguration Extension</span>
If the dynamic address reconfiguration extension defined in [<a href="./rfc5061" title=""Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Dynamic Address Reconfiguration"">RFC5061</a>]
is used, ASCONF chunks MUST use wildcard addresses only.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.4" href="#section-6.4">6.4</a>. SCTP Authentication Extension</span>
The SCTP authentication extension defined in [<a href="./rfc4895" title=""Authenticated Chunks for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)"">RFC4895</a>] can be used
with DTLS encapsulation, but does not provide any additional benefit.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.5" href="#section-6.5">6.5</a>. Partial Reliability Extension</span>
Partial reliability as defined in [<a href="./rfc3758" title=""Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Partial Reliability Extension"">RFC3758</a>] can be used in
combination with DTLS encapsulation. It is also possible to use
additional Partially Reliable Stream Control Transmission Protocol
(PR-SCTP) policies, for example, the ones defined in [<a href="./rfc7496" title=""Additional Policies for the Partially Reliable Stream Control Transmission Protocol Extension"">RFC7496</a>].
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.6" href="#section-6.6">6.6</a>. Stream Reset Extension</span>
The SCTP stream reset extension defined in [<a href="./rfc6525" title=""Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Stream Reconfiguration"">RFC6525</a>] can be used with
DTLS encapsulation. It is used to reset SCTP streams and add SCTP
streams during the lifetime of the SCTP association.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.7" href="#section-6.7">6.7</a>. Interleaving of Large User Messages</span>
SCTP as defined in [<a href="./rfc4960" title=""Stream Control Transmission Protocol"">RFC4960</a>] does not support the interleaving of
large user messages that need to be fragmented and reassembled by the
SCTP layer. The protocol extension defined in [<a href="./rfc8260" title=""Stream Schedulers and User Message Interleaving for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol"">RFC8260</a>] overcomes
this limitation and can be used with DTLS encapsulation.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>. IANA Considerations</span>
This document does not require any IANA actions.
<span class="grey">Tuexen, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8261">RFC 8261</a> SCTP over DTLS November 2017</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-8" href="#section-8">8</a>. Security Considerations</span>
Security considerations for DTLS are specified in [<a href="./rfc4347" title=""Datagram Transport Layer Security"">RFC4347</a>] and for
SCTP in [<a href="./rfc4960" title=""Stream Control Transmission Protocol"">RFC4960</a>], [<a href="./rfc3758" title=""Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Partial Reliability Extension"">RFC3758</a>], and [<a href="./rfc6525" title=""Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Stream Reconfiguration"">RFC6525</a>]. The combination of SCTP
and DTLS introduces no new security considerations.
SCTP should not process the IP addresses used for the underlying
communication since DTLS provides no guarantees about them.
It should be noted that the inability to process ICMP or ICMPv6
messages does not add any security issue. When SCTP is carried over
a connection-less lower layer like IPv4, IPv6, or UDP, processing of
these messages is required to protect other nodes not supporting
SCTP. Since DTLS provides a connection-oriented lower layer, this
kind of protection is not necessary.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-9" href="#section-9">9</a>. References</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-9.1" href="#section-9.1">9.1</a>. Normative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC1122">RFC1122</a>] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, <a href="./rfc1122">RFC 1122</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122</a>>.
[<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="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119</a>>.
[<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="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4347">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4347</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC4820">RFC4820</a>] Tuexen, M., Stewart, R., and P. Lei, "Padding Chunk and
Parameter for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol
(SCTP)", <a href="./rfc4820">RFC 4820</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC4820, March 2007,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4820">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4820</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC4821">RFC4821</a>] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery", <a href="./rfc4821">RFC 4821</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC4821, March 2007,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4821">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4821</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC4960">RFC4960</a>] Stewart, R., Ed., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
<a href="./rfc4960">RFC 4960</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC4960, September 2007,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4960">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4960</a>>.
<span class="grey">Tuexen, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8261">RFC 8261</a> SCTP over DTLS November 2017</span>
[<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="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC6520">RFC6520</a>] Seggelmann, R., Tuexen, M., and M. Williams, "Transport
Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS) Heartbeat Extension", <a href="./rfc6520">RFC 6520</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6520, February 2012,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6520">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6520</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC8174">RFC8174</a>] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in <a href="./rfc2119">RFC</a>
<a href="./rfc2119">2119</a> Key Words", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc8174">RFC 8174</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174</a>>.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-9.2" href="#section-9.2">9.2</a>. Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-DATA-CHAN">DATA-CHAN</a>]
Jesup, R., Loreto, S., and M. Tuexen, "WebRTC Data
Channels", Work in Progress, <a href="./draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-13">draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-</a>
<a href="./draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-13">channel-13</a>, January 2015.
[<a id="ref-RFC0791">RFC0791</a>] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, <a href="./rfc791">RFC 791</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC2474">RFC2474</a>] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", <a href="./rfc2474">RFC 2474</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC3168">RFC3168</a>] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
<a href="./rfc3168">RFC 3168</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC3758">RFC3758</a>] Stewart, R., Ramalho, M., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., and P.
Conrad, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
Partial Reliability Extension", <a href="./rfc3758">RFC 3758</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3758, May 2004,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3758">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3758</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC4895">RFC4895</a>] Tuexen, M., Stewart, R., Lei, P., and E. Rescorla,
"Authenticated Chunks for the Stream Control Transmission
Protocol (SCTP)", <a href="./rfc4895">RFC 4895</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC4895, August
2007, <<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4895">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4895</a>>.
<span class="grey">Tuexen, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8261">RFC 8261</a> SCTP over DTLS November 2017</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC5061">RFC5061</a>] Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., Maruyama, S., and M.
Kozuka, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
Dynamic Address Reconfiguration", <a href="./rfc5061">RFC 5061</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5061, September 2007,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5061">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5061</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="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5245">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5245</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC6525">RFC6525</a>] Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., and P. Lei, "Stream Control
Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Stream Reconfiguration",
<a href="./rfc6525">RFC 6525</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC6525, February 2012,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6525">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6525</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC6951">RFC6951</a>] Tuexen, M. and R. Stewart, "UDP Encapsulation of Stream
Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Packets for End-Host
to End-Host Communication", <a href="./rfc6951">RFC 6951</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6951, May 2013,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6951">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6951</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC7496">RFC7496</a>] Tuexen, M., Seggelmann, R., Stewart, R., and S. Loreto,
"Additional Policies for the Partially Reliable Stream
Control Transmission Protocol Extension", <a href="./rfc7496">RFC 7496</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7496, April 2015,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7496">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7496</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC8200">RFC8200</a>] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, <a href="./rfc8200">RFC 8200</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC8260">RFC8260</a>] Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., Loreto, S., and R. Seggelmann,
"Stream Schedulers and User Message Interleaving for the
Stream Control Transmission Protocol", <a href="./rfc8260">RFC 8260</a>, November
2017.
[<a id="ref-RTC-OVERVIEW">RTC-OVERVIEW</a>]
Alvestrand, H., "Overview: Real Time Protocols for
Browser-based Applications", Work in Progress, <a href="./draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-18">draft-ietf-</a>
<a href="./draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-18">rtcweb-overview-18</a>, March 2017.
<span class="grey">Tuexen, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8261">RFC 8261</a> SCTP over DTLS November 2017</span>
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank David Black, Benoit Claise, Spencer
Dawkins, Francis Dupont, Gorry Fairhurst, Stephen Farrell, Christer
Holmberg, Barry Leiba, Eric Rescorla, Tom Taylor, Joe Touch, and
Magnus Westerlund for their invaluable comments.
Authors' Addresses
Michael Tuexen
Muenster University of Applied Sciences
Stegerwaldstrasse 39
48565 Steinfurt
Germany
Email: tuexen@fh-muenster.de
Randall R. Stewart
Netflix, Inc.
Chapin, SC 29036
United States of America
Email: randall@lakerest.net
Randell Jesup
WorldGate Communications
3800 Horizon Blvd, Suite #103
Trevose, PA 19053-4947
United States of America
Phone: +1-215-354-5166
Email: randell-ietf@jesup.org
Salvatore Loreto
Ericsson
Hirsalantie 11
Jorvas 02420
Finland
Email: Salvatore.Loreto@ericsson.com
Tuexen, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
</pre>
|
