MMUSIC K. Drage, Ed.
Internet-Draft M. Makaraju
Intended status: Standards Track Alcatel-Lucent
Expires: August 18, 2014 R. Ejzak
J. Marcon
Unaffiliated
February 14, 2014
SDP-based "SCTP over DTLS" data channel negotiation
draft-ejzak-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-00
Abstract
The Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers (RTCWeb) working group is
charged to provide protocols to support direct interactive rich
communication using audio, video, and data between two peers' web-
browsers. For the support of data communication, the RTCWeb working
group has in particular defined the concept of bi-directional data
channels over SCTP, where each data channel might be used to
transport other protocols, called sub-protocols. Data channel setup
can be done using either the in-band WebRTC Data Channel protocol or
some external (in-band or out-of-band) negotiation. This document
specifies how the SDP offer/answer exchange can be used to achieve
such an external negotiation. Even though data channels are designed
for RTCWeb use initially they may be used by other protocols like,
but not limited to, the CLUE protocol. This document is intended to
be used whereever data channels are used.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 18, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Drage, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SDP-based data channel negotiation February 2014
Copyright (c) 2014 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Data Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Stream identifier numbering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Generic external negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.2. Opening a data channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.3. Closing a data channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. SDP-based external negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. SDP syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1.1. SDP attribute for data channel parameter
negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1.1.1. stream parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1.1.2. label parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1.1.3. subprotocol parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1.1.4. max_retr parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1.1.5. max_time parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1.1.6. unordered parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1.2. Sub-protocol specific attributes . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2.1. Managing stream identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2.2. Opening a data channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2.3. Closing a data channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Drage, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SDP-based data channel negotiation February 2014
1. Introduction
The RTCWeb working group has defined the concept of bi-directional
data channels running on top of SCTP/DTLS. RTCWeb leaves it openfor
other applications to use data channels and its in-band or out-of-
band protocol for creating them. Each data channel consists of
paired SCTP streams sharing the same SCTP Stream Identifier. Data
channels are created by endpoint applications through the WebRTC API,
or other users of data channel like CLUE, and can be used to
transport proprietary or well-defined protocols, which in the latter
case can be signaled by the data channel "sub-protocol" parameter,
conceptually similar to the WebSocket "sub-protocol". However, apart
from the "sub-protocol" value transmitted to the peer, RTCWeb leaves
it open how endpoint applications can agree on how to instantiate a
given sub-protocol on a data channel, and whether it is signaled in-
band or out-of-band (or both). In particular, the SDP offer
generated by the browser includes no channel-specific information.
This document defines SDP-based out-of-band negotiation procedures to
establish data channels for transport of well-defined sub-protocols.
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. Terminology
This document uses the following terms:
Data channel: A bidirectional channel consisting of paired SCTP
outbound and inbound streams.
Data channel stack: An entity which, upon application request,
runs data channel protocol to keep track of states, sending and
receive data. If the application is browser based Javascript
application then this stack resides in the browser. If the
application is a native application then this stack resides in
application and accessible to it via some sort of APIs.
Data channel properties: fixed properties assigned to a data
channel at the time of its creation. Some of these properties
determine the way the data channel stack transmits data on this
channel (e.g., stream identifier, reliability, order of
delivery...)
Drage, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SDP-based data channel negotiation February 2014
External negotiation: data channel negotiation based on out-of-
band or in-band mechanisms other than the data channel protocol.
In-band: transmission through the peer-to-peer SCTP association.
In-band negotiation: data channel negotiation based on the in-band
data channel protocol defined in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol].
Out-of-band: transmission through the application signaling path.
Peer: From the perspective of one of the agents in a session, its
peer is the other agent. Specifically, from the perspective of
the SDP offerer, the peer is the SDP answerer. From the
perspective of the SDP answerer, the peer is the SDP offerer.
Stream identifier: the identifier of the outbound and inbound SCTP
streams composing a data channel.
4. Data Channels
This section summarizes how data channels work in general. Note that
the references to 'browser' here is intentional as in this specific
example the data channel user is a webrtc enabled browser.
A WebRTC application creates a data channel via the Data Channel API,
by providing a number of setup parameters (sub-protocol, label,
reliability, order of delivery, priority). The application also
specifies if it wants to make use of the in-band negotiation using
the data protocol, or if the application intends to perform an
"external negotiation" using some other in-band or out-of-band
mechanism.
In any case, the SDP offer generated by the browser is per
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp]. In brief, it contains one m-line for the
SCTP association on top of which data channels will run, and one
attribute per protocol assigned to the SCTP ports:
OPEN ISSUE: The syntax in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp] may change as
that document progresses. In particular we expect "webrtc-
datachannel" to become a more general term.
m=application 54111 DTLS/SCTP 5000 5001 5002
c=IN IP4 79.97.215.79
a=sctpmap:5000 webrtc-datachannel
a=sctpmap:5001 bfcp
a=sctpmap:5002 t38
Drage, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SDP-based data channel negotiation February 2014
Note: A WebRTC browser will only create an sctpmap attribute for the
webrtc-datachannel protocol, and will not create sctpmap attributes
for other protocols such as bfcp or t38. This example shows the
hypothetical power of the syntax to support multiplexing of SCTP
associations for different protocols on the same DTLS connection.
Note: This SDP syntax does not contain any channel-specific
information.
4.1. Stream identifier numbering
Independently from the requested type of negotiation, the application
creating a data channel can either pass to the browser the stream
identifier to assign to the data channel or else let the browser pick
one identifier from the ones unused.
To avoid glare situations, each endpoint can moreover own an
exclusive set of stream identifiers, in which case an endpoint can
only create a data channel with a stream identifier it owns.
Which set of stream identifiers is owned by which endpoint is
determined by convention or other means.
For data channels negotiated in-band, one endpoint owns by
convention the even stream identifiers, whereas the other owns the
odd stream identifiers, as defined in
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol].
For data channels externally negotiated, no convention is defined
by default.
4.2. Generic external negotiation
4.2.1. Overview
In-band negotiation only provides for negotiation of data channel
transport parameters and does not provide for negotiation of sub-
protocol specific parameters. External negotiation can be defined to
allow negotiation of parameters beyond those handled by in-band
negotiation, e.g., parameters specific to the sub-protocol
instantiated on a particular data channel. See Section 5.1.2 for an
example of such a parameter.
The following procedures are common to all methods of external
negotiation, whether in-band (communicated using proprietary means on
an already established data channel) or out-of-band (using SDP or
some other protocol associated with the signaling channel).
Drage, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SDP-based data channel negotiation February 2014
4.2.2. Opening a data channel
In the case of external negotiation, the endpoint application has the
option to fully control the stream identifier assignments. However
these assignments have to coexist with the assignments controlled by
the data channel stack for the in-band negotiated data channels (if
any). It is the responsibility of the application to ensure
consistent assignment of stream identifiers.
When the application requests the creation of a new data channel to
be set up via external negotiation, the data channel stack creates
the data channel locally without sending any DATA CHANNEL OPEN
message in-band, and sets the data channel state to Connecting if the
SCTP association is not yet established, or sets the data channel
state to Open if the SCTP association is already established. The
side which starts external negotiation creates data channel using
underlying data channel stack API and the data channel is put into
open state immediately (assuming ICE, SCTP procedures were already
done). However, the application can't send data on this data channel
until external negotiation is complete with the peer. This is
because peer needs to be aware and accept the data channel via
external negotiation. The peer after accepting the data channel
offer can start sending data immediately. This implies that offerer
may get data channel message before external negotiation is complete
and the application should be ready to handle it.
If the peer rejects the data channel part of the offer then it
doesn't have to do anything as the data channel was not created using
the stack. The offerer on the other hand need to close the data
channel that was opened by invoking relevant data channel stack API.
It is also worth noting that a data channel stack implementation may
not provide any API to create and close data channels; instead the
data channels are used on the fly as needed just by communicating via
external means or by even having some local configuration/assumptions
on both the peers.
The application then externally negotiates the data channel
properties and sub-protocol properties with the peer's application.
[ASSUMPTION] The peer must then symmetrically create a data channel
with these negotiated data channel properties. This is the only way
for the peer's data channel stack to know which properties to apply
when transmitting data on this channel. The data channel stack must
allow data channel creation with any non-conflicting stream
identifier so that both peers can create the data channel with the
same stream identifier.
Drage, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SDP-based data channel negotiation February 2014
In case the external negotiation is correlated with an SDP offer/
answer exchange that establishes the SCTP association, the SCTP
initialization completion triggers a callback from the data channel
stack to an application on both the ends to change the data channel
state from Connecting to Open. The details of this interface is
specific to the data channel user application. Browser based
applications (could include hybrid apps) will use
[http://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc/], while native applications use a
compatible API, which is yet to be specified. See Section 5.2.2 for
details on when the data channel stack can assume the data channel is
open, and on when the application can assume the data channel is
open.
4.2.3. Closing a data channel
When the application requests the closing of an externally negotiated
data channel, the data channel stack always performs an in-band SSN
reset for this channel.
Depending upon the method used for external negotiation and the sub-
protocol associated with the data channel, the closing might in
addition be signaled to the peer via external negotiation.
5. SDP-based external negotiation
This section defines a method of external negotiation by which two
clients can negotiate data channel-specific and sub-protocol-specific
parameters, using the out-of-band SDP offer/answer exchange.
5.1. SDP syntax
Two new SDP attributes are defined to support external negotiation of
data channels. The first attribute provides for negotiation of
channel-specific parameters. The second attribute provides for
negotiation of sub-protocol-specific parameters.
5.1.1. SDP attribute for data channel parameter negotiation
Associated with the m line that defines the SCTP association for data
channels (defined in Section 4), each SDP offer and answer includes
an attribute line that defines the data channel parameters for each
data channel to be negotiated. Each attribute line specifies the
following parameters for a data channel: Stream Identifier, sub-
protocol, label, reliability, order of delivery, and priority. The
following is an example of the attribute line for sub-protocol "BFCP"
and stream id "2" :
Drage, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SDP-based data channel negotiation February 2014
a=dcmap:5000 stream=2;label="channel 2"; \
subprotocol="BFCP";max_retr=3
This line MUST be replicated without changes in the SDP answer, if
the answerer accepts the offered data channel.
This line MUST be replicated without changes in any subsequent offer
or answer, as long as the data channel is still opened at the time of
offer or answer generation.
Note: This attribute was defined in old version 03 of the
following draft but was removed along with any support for SDP
external negotiation in subsequent versions:
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp].
Note: This document does not provide a complete specification of
how to negotiate the use of a data channel to transport BFCP.
Procedures specific to each sub-protocol such as BFCP will be
documented elsewhere. The use of BFCP is only an example of how
the generic procedures described herein might apply to a specific
sub-protocol.
5.1.1.1. stream parameter
The 'stream' parameter indicates the actual stream identifier within
the association used to form the channel. Stream is a mandatory
parameter.
stream-attr = "stream=" streamidentifier
streamidentifier = 1*DIGIT
5.1.1.2. label parameter
The optional 'label' parameter indicates the name of the channel. It
represents a label that can be used to distinguish, in the context of
the WebRTC API, an RTCDataChannel object from other RTCDataChannel
objects. Label is a mandatory parameter.
label-attr = "label=" labelstring
labelstring = text
text = byte-string
5.1.1.3. subprotocol parameter
The 'subprotocol' parameter indicates which protocol the client
expects to exchange via the channel. Subprotocol is a mandatory
parameter.
Drage, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SDP-based data channel negotiation February 2014
subprotocol-attr = "subprotocol=" labelstring
labelstring = text
text = byte-string
[ACTION ITEM] The IANA registry to be used for the subprotocol
parameter is still to be determined. It also needs to be determined
what the relationship is to existing registries and how to reference
already-existing protocols.
5.1.1.4. max_retr parameter
The 'max_retr' parameter indicates the max times a user message will
be retransmitted. The max_retr parameter is optional with default
value unbounded.
maxretr-attr = "maxretr=" maxretrvalue
maxretrvalue = 1*DIGIT
5.1.1.5. max_time parameter
A user messages will no longer be transmitted or retransmitted after
a specified life-time given in milliseconds in the 'max_time'
parameter. The max_time parameter is optional with default value
unbounded. If the data channel is reliable then the SCTP association
will be closed after 'maxtime' if data is still not transmitted
successfully. This also means it impacts other streams. If the data
channel is unreliable then the SCTP association stays up after
'maxtime' even if the data not is successfully transmitted.
maxtime-attr = "maxtime=" maxtimevalue
maxtimevalue = 1*DIGIT
5.1.1.6. unordered parameter
The 'unordered' parameter indicates that DATA chunks in the channel
MUST be dispatched to the upper layer by the receiver without any
attempt to reorder. The unordered parameter is optional. If the
unordered parameter is absent, the receiver is required to deliver
DATA chunks to the upper layer in proper order.
5.1.2. Sub-protocol specific attributes
In the SDP, each data channel declaration MAY also be followed by
other SDP attributes specific to the sub-protocol in use. Each of
these attributes is represented by one new attribute line, and it
includes the contents of a media-level SDP attribute already defined
for use with this (sub)protocol in another IETF specification. Sub-
protocol-specific attributes might also be defined for exclusive use
Drage, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SDP-based data channel negotiation February 2014
with data channel transport, but should use the same syntax described
here for other sub-protocol-specific attributes.
Each sub-protocol specific SDP attribute that would normally be used
to negotiate the subprotocol using SDP is replaced with an attribute
of the form "a=dcsa:sctp-port:stream-id original-attribute", where
dcsa stands for "data channel sub-protocol attribute", sctp-port is
the sctp port number assigned for data channel on the media line,
stream-id is the sctp stream identifier assigned to this sub-protocol
instance, and original-attribute represents the contents of the sub-
protocol related attribute to be included.
a=dcmap:5000 stream=2;label="channel 2"; \
subprotocol="MSRP";max_retr=3
a=dcsa:5000:2 accept-types:text/plain
Thus in the example above, the original attribute line "a=accept-
types:text/plain" is represented by the attribute line "a=dcsa:5000:2
accept-types:text/plain", which specifies that this instance of MSRP
being transported on the sctp association using port number 5000 and
the data channel with stream id 2 accepts plain text files.
As opposed to the data channel setup parameters, these parameters are
subject to offer/answer negotiation following the procedures defined
in the sub-protocol specific documents.
The same syntax applies to any other SDP attribute required for
negotiation of this instance of the sub-protocol.
Note: This document does not provide a complete specification of how
to negotiate the use of a data channel to transport MSRP. Procedures
specific to each sub-protocol such as MSRP will be documented
elsewhere. The use of MSRP is only an example of how the generic
procedures described herein might apply to a specific sub-protocol.
5.2. Procedures
5.2.1. Managing stream identifiers
For the SDP-based external negotiation described in this document,
the initial offerer based "SCTP over DTLS" owns by convention the
even stream identifiers whereas the initial answerer owns the odd
stream identifiers. This ownership is invariant for the whole
lifetime of the signaling session, e.g. it does not change if the
initial answerer sends a new offer to the initial offerer.
[ACTION ITEM] This convention is different from the convention
currently defined for in-band negotiation, where even/odd assignment
Drage, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SDP-based data channel negotiation February 2014
is determined by DTLS role. Since DTLS role cannot be determined
until after the initial SDP offer/answer is complete, this convention
cannot be used for external negotiation. It might be appropriate to
change the convention for stream identifier assignment for in-band
negotiation for consistency with external negotiation. Otherwise it
might be necessary to prohibit simultaneous use of in-band and
external negotiation for data channels.
5.2.2. Opening a data channel
The procedure for opening a data channel using external negotiation
starts with the agent preparing to send an SDP offer. If a peer
receives an SDP offer before getting to send a new SDP offer with
data channels that are to be externally negotiated, or loses an SDP
offer glare resolution procedure in this case, it must wait until the
ongoing SDP offer/answer completes before resuming the external
negotiation procedure.
The agent that intends to send an SDP offer to create data channels
through SDP-based external negotiation performs the following:
o Creates data channels using stream identifiers from the owned set
(see Section 5.2.1).
o As described in Section 4.2.2, if the SCTP association is not yet
established, then the newly created data channels are in the
Connecting state, else if the SCTP association is already
established, then the newly created data channels are in the Open
state.
o Generates a new SDP offer. In the case of the browser based
applications browser generates the offer via createOffer() API
call[JSEP reference here].
o Determines the list of stream identifiers assigned to data
channels opened through external negotiation.
o Completes the SDP offer with the dcmap and dcsa attributes needed
for each externally-negotiated data channel, as described in
Section 5.1.
o Sends the SDP offer.
The peer receiving such an SDP offer performs the following:
o Applies the SDP offer. Note that the browser ignores data channel
specific attributes in the SDP.
Drage, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SDP-based data channel negotiation February 2014
o Analyzes the channel parameters and sub-protocol attributes to
determine whether to accept each offered data channel.
o For accepted data channels, creates peer instances for the data
channels with the browser using the channel parameters described
in the SDP offer. Note that the browser is asked to create data
channels with stream identifiers not "owned" by the agent.
o As described in Section 4.2.2, if the SCTP association is not yet
established, then the newly created data channels are in the
Connecting state, else if the SCTP association is already
established, then the newly created data channels are in the Open
state.
o Generates an SDP answer.
o Completes the SDP answer with the dcmap and dcsa attributes needed
for each externally-negotiated data channel, as described in
Section 5.1.
o Sends the SDP answer.
The agent receiving such an SDP answer performs the following:
o Closes any created data channels (whether in Connecting or Open
state) for which the expected dcmap and dcsa attributes are not
present in the SDP answer.
o Applies the SDP answer.
Any data channels in Connecting state are transitioned to the Open
state when the SCTP association is established.
Each agent application MUST wait to send data until it has
confirmation that the data channel at the peer is in the Open state.
For webrtc, this is when both data channel stacks have channel
parameters instantiated. This occurs:
o At both peers when a data channel is created without an
established SCTP association, as soon as the data channel stacks
report that the data channel transitions to the Open state from
the Connecting state.
o At the agent receiving an SDP offer for which there is an
established SCTP association, as soon as it creates an externally
negotiated data channel in the Open state based on information
signaled in the SDP offer.
Drage, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SDP-based data channel negotiation February 2014
o At the agent sending an SDP offer to create a new externally
negotiated data channel for which there is an established SCTP
association, when it receives the SDP answer confirming acceptance
of the data channel or when it begins to receive data on the data
channel from the peer, whichever occurs first.
5.2.3. Closing a data channel
When the application requests the closing of a data channel that was
externally negotiated, the browser always performs an in-band SSN
reset for this channel.
It is specific to the sub-protocol whether this closing must in
addition be signaled to the peer via a new SDP offer/answer exchange.
The application must also close any data channel that was externally
negotiated, for which the stream identifiers are not listed in an
incoming SDP offer.
6. Security Considerations
No security considerations are envisaged beyond those already
documented in [RFC4566]
7. IANA Considerations
To be completed.
8. Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the borrowing of ideas from other
internet drafts by Salvatore Loreto, Gonzalo Camarillo, Peter Dunkley
and Gavin Llewellyn, and to thank Paul Kyzivat, Jonathan Lennox, Uwe
Rauschenbach and Keith Drage for their invaluable comments.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.
Drage, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft SDP-based data channel negotiation February 2014
[RFC3264] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264,
June 2002.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-jsep]
Uberti, J. and C. Jennings, "Javascript Session
Establishment Protocol", draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-06 (work
in progress), February 2014.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel]
Jesup, R., Loreto, S., and M. Tuexen, "WebRTC Data
Channels", draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-07 (work in
progress), February 2014.
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp]
Loreto, S. and G. Camarillo, "Stream Control Transmission
Protocol (SCTP)-Based Media Transport in the Session
Description Protocol (SDP)", draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-06
(work in progress), February 2014.
[WebRtcAPI]
Bergkvist, A., Burnett, D., Narayanan, A., and C.
Jennings, "WebRTC 1.0: Real-time Communication Between
Browsers", World Wide Web Consortium WD WD-webrtc-
20120821, August 2012,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-webrtc-20120821>.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol]
Jesup, R., Loreto, S., and M. Tuexen, "WebRTC Data Channel
Establishment Protocol",
draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol-03 (work in progress),
February 2014.
[RFC4975] Campbell, B., Mahy, R., and C. Jennings, "The Message
Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)", RFC 4975, September 2007.
[RFC4976] Jennings, C., Mahy, R., and A. Roach, "Relay Extensions
for the Message Sessions Relay Protocol (MSRP)", RFC 4976,
September 2007.
[RFC5547] Garcia-Martin, M., Isomaki, M., Camarillo, G., Loreto, S.,
and P. Kyzivat, "A Session Description Protocol (SDP)
Offer/Answer Mechanism to Enable File Transfer", RFC 5547,
May 2009.
[RFC6135] Holmberg, C. and S. Blau, "An Alternative Connection Model
Drage, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft SDP-based data channel negotiation February 2014
for the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)", RFC 6135,
February 2011.
[RFC6714] Holmberg, C., Blau, S., and E. Burger, "Connection
Establishment for Media Anchoring (CEMA) for the Message
Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)", RFC 6714, August 2012.
Authors' Addresses
Keith Drage (editor)
Alcatel-Lucent
Quadrant, Stonehill Green, Westlea
Swindon
UK
Email: keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com
Raju Makaraju
Alcatel-Lucent
2000 Lucent Lane
Naperville, Illinois
US
Email: Raju.Makaraju@alcatel-lucent.com
Richard Ejzak
Unaffiliated
Email: richard.ejzak@gmail.com
Jerome Marcon
Unaffiliated
Drage, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 15]