MMUSIC K. Drage
Internet-Draft Unaffiliated
Intended status: Standards Track M. Makaraju
Expires: December 25, 2018 Nokia
J. Stoetzer-Bradler
R. Ejzak
J. Marcon
Unaffiliated
R. Even, Ed.
Huawei
June 23, 2018
SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation
draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-20
Abstract
The Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers (RTCWeb) working group is
charged to provide protocols to support direct interactive rich
communications 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 (Stream Control Transmission Protocol), where each
data channel might be used to transport other protocols, called
subprotocols. Data channel setup can be done using either the in-
band Data Channel Establishment Protocol (DCEP) or using some out-of-
band non-DCEP protocol. This document specifies how the SDP (Session
Description Protocol) offer/answer exchange can be used to achieve
such an out-of-band non-DCEP 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 (which is
defined by the IETF "ControLling mUltiple streams for tElepresence"
working group). This document is intended to be used wherever 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 https://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
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
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 December 25, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
(https://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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. SDP Data Channel Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. SDP DCMAP Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1.1. DCMAP Attribute Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1.2. Dcmap-stream-id Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1.3. Label Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1.4. Subprotocol Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1.5. Max-retr Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1.6. Max-time Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1.7. Ordered Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1.8. Priority Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1.9. DCMAP Multiplexing Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. SDP DCSA Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2.1. DCSA Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2.2. DCSA Multiplexing Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. SDP Offer/Answer Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. Managing Stream Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2. Negotiating Data Channel Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.3. Generating the Initial Offer for A Data Channel . . . . . 14
6.4. Generating SDP Answer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.5. Offerer Processing of the SDP Answer . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.6. Modifying the Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.6.1. Closing a Data Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
6.7. Various SDP Offer/Answer Considerations . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.1. Subprotocol Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.2. New SDP Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.2.1. dcmap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.2.2. dcsa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9.3. New Usage Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11. CHANGE LOG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11.1. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-
sdpneg-15' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11.2. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-
sdpneg-14' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11.3. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-
sdpneg-12' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11.4. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-
sdpneg-11' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11.5. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-
sdpneg-10' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
11.6. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-
sdpneg-09' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
11.7. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-
sdpneg-08' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11.8. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-
sdpneg-07' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11.9. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-
sdpneg-06' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11.10. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-
sdpneg-05' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11.11. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-
sdpneg-04' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
11.12. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-
sdpneg-03' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
11.13. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-
sdpneg-02' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11.14. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-
sdpneg-01' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11.15. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-
sdpneg-00' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
11.16. Changes against 'draft-ejzak-mmusic-data-channel-
sdpneg-02' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
11.17. Changes against '-01' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
11.18. Changes against '-00' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
Appendix A. Generic Data Channel Negotiation Aspects When Not
Using DCEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
A.1. Stream Identifier Numbering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
A.2. Generic Data Channel Negotiation Not Using DCEP . . . . . 37
A.2.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
A.2.2. Opening a Data Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
A.2.3. Closing a Data Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
1. Introduction
The RTCWeb working group has defined the concept of bi-directional
data channels running on top of the Stream Control Transmission
Protocol (SCTP) [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel]. RTCWeb allows
applications to use data channels. RTCWeb defines an in-band Data
Channel Establishment Protocol (DCEP)
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol], however other in-band or out-of-band
protocols may be used for establishing data channels. 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 (Application Programming Interface), or other
users of a data channel like CLUE [I-D.ietf-clue-datachannel] They
can be used to transport proprietary or well-defined protocols, which
in the latter case can be signaled by the data channel "subprotocol"
parameter, conceptually similar to the WebSocket "subprotocol".
However, apart from the "subprotocol" value transmitted to the peer,
RTCWeb leaves it open how endpoint applications can agree on how to
instantiate a given subprotocol on a data channel, and whether it is
signaled in-band using DCEP or out-of-band using a non-DCEP protocol
(or both). In particular, the SDP offer generated by the RTCweb data
channel stack includes no channel-specific information.
This document defines SDP offer/answer [RFC3264] procedures that
enable out-of-band negotiation for establishing data channels for
transport of well-defined subprotocols. These procedures are based
on generic SDP offer/answer negotiation rules for SCTP based media
transport as specified in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp] for the SDP "m"
line proto values UDP/DTLS/SCTP and TCP/DTLS/SCTP.
This document makes use of MSRP (Message Session Relay Protocol)
[RFC4975] and BFCP (Binary Floor Control Protocol) [RFC4582] in many
of the examples. It does not provide a complete specification of how
to negotiate the use of a data channel to transport MSRP. Procedures
specific to each subprotocol would have to be documented elsewhere.
For MSRP they are documented in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel] . The use of MSRP in some
examples is only to show how the generic procedures described herein
might apply to a specific subprotocol.
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
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 WebRTC data channel as specified in
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel].
Data channel stack: An entity which, upon application request,
runs the data channel protocol to keep track of states, sending
and receiving data. If the application is a browser based
JavaScript application then this stack resides in the browser. If
the application is a native application then this stack resides in
the application and is accessible 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...).
Data channel subprotocol: The application protocol which is
transported over a single data channel. Data channel subprotocol
messages are sent as data channel payload over an established data
channel. If an SDP offer/answer exchange is used as specified in
this document to negotiate the establishment of data channels,
corresponding data channel properties, associated data channel
subprotocols and data channel subprotocol properties, then the
data channel subprotocols may be identified by the values of the
"subprotocol" parameters of the SDP "a=dcmap" attribute as
described in Section 5.1.4. Within this document the term "data
channel subprotocol" is often abbreviated as just "subprotocol".
DCEP: Data Channel Establishment Protocol defined in
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol].
In-band: Transmission through the peer-to-peer SCTP association.
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
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
the SDP offerer, the peer is the SDP answerer. From the
perspective of the SDP answerer, the peer is the SDP offerer.
SCTP Stream Sequence Number (SSN): the SCTP stream sequence number
as specified in [RFC4960].
Stream identifier: The identifier of the outbound and inbound SCTP
streams composing a data channel.
4. Applicability Statement
The mechanism in this document only applies to the Session
Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566], when used together with the SDP
offer/answer mechanism [RFC3264]. Declarative usage of SDP is out of
scope of this document, and is thus undefined.
5. SDP Data Channel Attributes
This sections defines two new SDP media-level attributes, that can be
used together with the SDP Offer/Answer mechanism to negotiate data
channel-specific and subprotocol-specific parameters, without the
usage of DCEP [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol]. The first attribute
provides for negotiation of channel-specific parameters. The second
attribute provides for negotiation of subprotocol-specific
parameters.
Note: Appendix A provides information how data channels work in
general and especially summarizes some key aspects, which should be
considered for the negotiation of data channels if DCEP is not used.
5.1. SDP DCMAP Attribute
This section defines a new media level attribute "a=dcmap:" that
defines the data channel parameters for each data channel to be
negotiated.
The attribute is used to create, on two peers matched data channels
as pairs of oppositely directed SCTP streams having the same set of
attributes. It is assumed that the data channel properties
(reliable/partially reliable, ordered/unordered) are suitable per the
subprotocol transport requirements.
5.1.1. DCMAP Attribute Syntax
"a=dcmap:" is a media level attribute having the following ABNF
(Augmented Backus-Naur Form, [RFC5234]) syntax.
Formal Syntax:
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
Name: dcmap
Value: dcmap-value
Usage Level: media
Charset Dependent: no
Syntax:
dcmap-value = dcmap-stream-id
[ SP dcmap-opt *(";" dcmap-opt) ]
dcmap-opt = ordering-opt / subprotocol-opt / label-opt
/ maxretr-opt / maxtime-opt / priority-opt
; Either only maxretr-opt or maxtime-opt
; is present.
dcmap-stream-id = 1*5DIGIT
ordering-opt = "ordered=" ordering-value
ordering-value = "true" / "false"
subprotocol-opt = "subprotocol=" quoted-string
label-opt = "label=" quoted-string
maxretr-opt = "max-retr=" maxretr-value
maxretr-value = "0" / integer
; number of retransmissions,
; less than 2^32,
; derived from 'Reliability Parameter' of
; [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol]
maxtime-opt = "max-time=" maxtime-value
maxtime-value = "0" / integer
; milliseconds,
; less than 2^32,
; derived from 'Reliability Parameter' of
; [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol]
priority-opt = "priority=" priority-value
priority-value = "0" / integer
; unsigned integer value indicating the priority of
; the data channel,
; less than 2^16,
; derived from 'Priority' of
; [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol]
quoted-string = DQUOTE *(quoted-char / escaped-char) DQUOTE
quoted-char = SP / quoted-visible
quoted-visible = %x21 / %x23-24 / %x26-7E ; VCHAR without " or %
escaped-char = "%" HEXDIG HEXDIG
DQUOTE = <from-RFC5234>
integer = <from-RFC4566>
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
Examples:
a=dcmap:0
a=dcmap:1 subprotocol="BFCP";max-time=60000;priority=512
a=dcmap:2 subprotocol="MSRP";ordered=true;label="MSRP"
a=dcmap:3 label="Label 1";ordered=false;max-retr=5;priority=128
a=dcmap:4 label="foo%09bar";ordered=true;max-time=15000
Note: The last example (a=dcmap:4) shows a 'label' parameter value
which contains one non-printable 'escaped-char' character (the
tabulator character).
Within an 'a=dcmap:' attribute line's 'dcmap-opt' value either only
one 'maxretr-opt' parameter or one 'maxtime-opt' parameter MAY be
present. Both MUST NOT be present.
5.1.2. Dcmap-stream-id Parameter
The 'dcmap-stream-id' parameter indicates the SCTP stream identifier
within the SCTP association used to form the data channel.
5.1.3. Label Parameter
The '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 [WebRtcAPI], an RTCDataChannel object from other
RTCDataChannel objects. This parameter maps to the 'Label' parameter
defined in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol]. The 'label' parameter is
optional. If it is not present, then its value defaults to the empty
string.
Note: The empty string MAY also be explicitly used as a 'label'
value, such that 'label=""' is equivalent to the 'label' parameter
not being present at all. [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol] allows the
DATA_CHANNEL_OPEN message's 'Label' value to be an empty string.
5.1.4. Subprotocol Parameter
The 'subprotocol' parameter indicates which protocol the client
expects to exchange via the channel. This parameter maps to the
'Protocol' parameter defined in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol].
Section 9.1 specifies how new subprotocol parameter values are
registered. 'Subprotocol' is an optional parameter. If the
'subprotocol' parameter is not present, then its value defaults to an
empty string.
Note: The empty string MAY also be explicitly used as 'subprotocol'
value, such that 'subprotocol=""' is equivalent to the 'subprotocol'
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
parameter not being present at all. [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol]
allows the DATA_CHANNEL_OPEN message's 'Subprotocol' value to be an
empty string.
5.1.5. Max-retr Parameter
This parameter indicates that the data channel is partially reliable.
The 'max-retr' parameter indicates the maximal number of times a user
message will be retransmitted. The max-retr parameter is optional.
If the max-retr parameter is not present, then the maximal number of
retransmissions is determined as per the generic SCTP retransmission
rules as specified in [RFC4960]. This parameter maps to the 'Number
of RTX' parameter defined in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol].
5.1.6. Max-time Parameter
This parameter indicates that the data channel is partially reliable.
A user message 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. If the max-time
parameter is not present, then the generic SCTP retransmission timing
rules apply as specified in [RFC4960]. This parameter maps to the
'Lifetime in ms' parameter defined in
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol].
5.1.7. Ordered Parameter
The 'ordered' parameter with value "true" indicates that the receiver
MUST dispatch DATA chunks in the data channel to the upper layer
while preserving the order. The ordered parameter is optional and
takes two values: "true" for ordered and "false" for unordered
delivery with "true" as the default value. Any other value is
ignored and default "ordered=true" is assumed. In the absence of
this parameter "ordered=true" is assumed. This parameter maps to the
ordered or unordered data channel types as defined in
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol].
5.1.8. Priority Parameter
The 'priority' parameter indicates the data channel's priority
relative to the priorities of other data channels, which may
additionally exist over the same SCTP association. The 'priority'
parameter maps to the 'Priority' parameter defined in
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol]. The 'priority' parameter is
optional. In the absence of this parameter "priority=256" is
assumed.
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
5.1.9. DCMAP Multiplexing Category
The multiplexing category [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes] of the
"a=dcmap:" attribute is SPECIAL.
As the usage of multiple SCTP associations on top of a single DTLS
association is outside the scope of [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp], no
"a=dcmap:" attribute multiplexing rules are specified for the
UDP/DTLS/SCTP and TCP/DTLS/SCTP proto values. If future extensions
of [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp] define how to negotiate multiplexing of
multiple SCTP associations on top of a single DTLS association, or
how to add multiple SCTP associations to one BUNDLE group, then
multiplexing rules for the "a=dcmap:" attribute need to be defined as
well, for instance in an extension of this SDP offer/answer based
data channel negotiation specification.
5.2. SDP DCSA Attribute
In the SDP media description, each data channel declaration MAY also
be followed by other media level SDP attributes, which are either
specifically defined for or applied to the subprotocol 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 (Internet Engineering
Task Force) document. Subprotocol specific attributes MAY also be
defined for exclusive use with data channel transport, but MUST use
the same syntax described here for other subprotocol related
attributes.
Each SDP attribute, related to the subprotocol, that would normally
be used to negotiate the subprotocol using SDP offer/answer is
replaced with an attribute of the form "a=dcsa:stream-id original-
attribute", where dcsa stands for "data channel subprotocol
attribute", stream-id is the SCTP stream identifier assigned to this
subprotocol instance, and original-attribute represents the contents
of the subprotocol related attribute to be included.
The same syntax applies to any other SDP attribute required for
negotiation of this instance of the subprotocol.
5.2.1. DCSA Syntax
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
Formal Syntax:
Name: dcsa
Value: dcsa-value
Usage Level: media
Charset Dependent: no
Syntax:
dcsa-value = stream-id SP attribute
attribute = <from-RFC4566>
Example:
a=dcmap:2 subprotocol="MSRP";ordered=true;label="MSRP"
a=dcsa:2 accept-types:text/plain
Note that the above reference to [RFC4566] defines where the
attribute definition can be found; it does not provide any limitation
on support of attributes defined in other documents in accordance
with this attribute definition. Note however that not all SDP
attributes are suitable as a "a=dcsa:" parameter.
[IANA-SDP-Parameters] contains the lists of IANA (Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority) registered session and media level or media level
only SDP attributes.
Thus in the example above, the original attribute line "a=accept-
types:text/plain" is represented by the attribute line "a=dcsa:2
accept-types:text/plain", which specifies that this instance of the
MSRP subprotocol being transported on the SCTP association using the
data channel with stream id 2 accepts plain text files.
As opposed to the data channel "a=dcmap:" attribute parameters, these
parameters are subject to offer/answer negotiation following the
procedures defined in the subprotocol specific documents.
It is assumed that in general the usages of subprotocol related media
level attributes are independent from the subprotocol's transport
protocol. Such transport protocol independent subprotocol related
attributes are used in the same way as defined in the original
subprotocol specification, also if the subprotocol is transported
over a data channel and if the attribute is correspondingly embedded
in a "a=dcsa" attribute.
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
There may be cases, where the usage of a subprotocol related media
level attribute depends on the subprotocol's transport protocol. In
such cases the subprotocol related usage of the attribute is expected
to be described for the data channel transport. A data channel
specific usage of a subprotocol attribute is expected to be specified
in the same document that registers the subprotocol's identifier for
data channel usage as described in Section 9.1.
5.2.2. DCSA Multiplexing Category
The multiplexing category of the "a=dcsa:" attribute is SPECIAL.
As the usage of multiple SCTP associations on top of a single DTLS
association is outside the scope of [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp], no
"a=dcsa:" attribute multiplexing rules are specified for the
UDP/DTLS/SCTP and TCP/DTLS/SCTP proto values. If future extensions
of [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp] define how to negotiate multiplexing of
multiple SCTP associations on top of a single DTLS association, or
how to add multiple SCTP associations to one BUNDLE group, then
multiplexing rules for the "a=dcsa:" attribute need to be defined as
well, for instance in an extension of this SDP based data channel
negotiation specification.
6. SDP Offer/Answer Procedures
This section defines how data channels can be negotiated using the
SDP offer/answer mechanism. A given media description can describe
multiple data channels (each represented by a separate SDP dcmap
attribute) that can be created, modified and closed using different
offer/answer exchanges. The procedures in this section apply for a
given data channel.
The generic offer/answer procedures for negotiating the SCTP
association used to realize data channels are defined in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp]. This section only defines the data
channel specific procedures.
"Initial offer" refers to the offer in which a data channel is
opened. It can be the initial offer, or a subsequent offer, of the
associated SDP session.
The detailed offer/answer procedures for the dcsa attribute are
dependent on the associated sub-protocol. A sub-protocol
specification MUST define the offer/answer procedures for the dsca
attribute (if applicable) associated with the sub-protocol.
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
6.1. Managing Stream Identifiers
In order to avoid SCTP Stream identifier collisions, in alignment
with [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol], the endpoint acting as DTLS
client (for the SCTP association used to realize data channels) MUST
use even identifier values, and the endpoint acting as DTLS server
MUST use odd identifier values. SCTP stream identifiers associated
with data channels that have been negotiated using DCEP MUST NOT be
included in SDP offers and answers.
SCTP stream identifiers associated with data channels that have been
negotiated using DCEP MUST NOT be included in SDP offers and answers.
6.2. Negotiating Data Channel Parameters
The data channel types defined in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol] are
mapped to the dcmap SDP attribute parameters in the following manner
where "ordered=true" is the default and may be omitted:
DATA_CHANNEL_RELIABLE
ordered=true
DATA_CHANNEL_RELIABLE_UNORDERED
ordered=false
DATA_CHANNEL_PARTIAL_RELIABLE_REXMIT
ordered=true;max-retr=<number of retransmissions>
DATA_CHANNEL_PARTIAL_RELIABLE_REXMIT_UNORDERED
ordered=false;max-retr=<number of retransmissions>
DATA_CHANNEL_PARTIAL_RELIABLE_TIMED
ordered=true;max-time=<lifetime in milliseconds>
DATA_CHANNEL_PARTIAL_RELIABLE_TIMED_UNORDERED
ordered=false;max-time=<lifetime in milliseconds>
By definition max-retr and max-time are mutually exclusive, so at
most one of them MAY be present in the "a=dcmap:" attribute line. If
a SDP offer contains both of these parameters then the receiver of
such an SDP offer MUST reject the SDP offer. If a SDP answer
contains both of these parameters then the offerer MUST treat the
associated SDP offer/answer failed.
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
6.3. Generating the Initial Offer for A Data Channel
When an offerer sends an initial offer, in order to negotiate an SCTP
stream for a data channel, the offerer:
o SHALL include an SDP dcmap attribute (Section 5 and Section 6.2)
associated with the data channel in the "m=" section representing
the SCTP association used to realize the data channel; and
o MAY include one or more SDP dcsa attributes (Section 5.2)
associated with the data channel. The value of the stream-id part
of each attribute SHALL match the dcmap-stream-id value of the
dcmap attribute.
6.4. Generating SDP Answer
When an answerer receives an offer that includes an "m=" section for
an SCTP association, that describes an SCTP stream for a data
channel, if the answerer accepts the data channel it:
o SHALL include an SDP dcmap attribute (Section 5 and Section 6.2)
associated with the data channel in the "m=" section representing
the SCTP association used to realize the data channel. The value
of the dcmap-stream-id, max-retr and max-time values of the dcmap
attribute SHALL be identical to the value used for the data
channel in the offer; and
o MAY include one or more SDP dcsa attributes (Section 5.2)
associated with the data channel.
6.5. Offerer Processing of the SDP Answer
An offerer receiving a SDP answer performs the following:
o SHALL closes any created data channels as described in
Section 6.6.1 for which the expected "a=dcmap:" attributes are not
present in the SDP answer. If the SDP answer has no "a=dcmap"
attribute either the peer does not support "a=dcmap:" attributes
or it rejected all the data channels. In either case the offerer
closes all the SDP offered data channels that were open at the
time of offer. The DTLS association and SCTP association will
still be setup.
Each agent application MUST wait to send data until it has
confirmation that the data channel at the peer is instantiated. For
WebRTC, this is when both data channel stacks have channel parameters
instantiated. This occurs:
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
o At both peers when a data channel is created without a previously
established SCTP association, as soon as the SCTP association is
successfully established.
o At the agent receiving an SDP offer for which there is an
established SCTP association, as soon as it creates the negotiated
data channel based on information signaled in the SDP offer.
o At the agent sending an SDP offer to create a new 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.
Note: DCEP is not used, that is neither the SDP offerer nor the SDP
answerer send an in-band DCEP DATA_CHANNEL_OPEN message.
6.6. Modifying the Session
When an offer sends a subsequent offer, that includes information for
a previously negotiated data channel, unless the offerer intends to
close the data channel (Section 6.6.1), the offerer SHALL include the
previously negotiated SDP attributes and attribute values associated
with the data channel.
6.6.1. Closing a Data Channel
In order to close a data channel the endpoint that wants to close
SHALL send the SCTP SSN reset message [RFC6525], following the
procedures in section 6.7 of [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel]. In
addition, if the closed data channel was negotiated using the offer/
answer mechanism Section 6.3, the endpoint that closed the data
channel SHALL send a subsequent offer, in which it either:
o removes the SDP dcmap attribute and SDP dcsa attributes associated
with the closed data channel. Once the endpoint receives a
successful answer, the SCTP stream identifier value can later be
used for a new data channel (negotiated using DCTP or using the
offer/answer mechanism); or
o immediately re-uses the SCTP stream used for the closed data
channel for a new data channel, using the procedures in
Section 6.3. The offerer SHALL use a different SDP dcmap
attribute value for the data channel using the same SCTP stream.
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
6.7. Various SDP Offer/Answer Considerations
An SDP offer or answer has no "a=dcmap:" attributes but has
"a=dcsa:" attributes.
* This is considered an error case. In this case the receiver of
such an SDP offer or answer MUST discard this "a=dcsa:"
attributes.
SDP offer or answer has an "a=dcsa" attribute, whose subprotocol
attribute is unknown.
* The receiver of such an SDP offer or answer SHOULD ignore this
entire "a=dcsa" attribute line.
SDP offer or answer has an "a=dcsa" attribute, whose subprotocol
attribute is known, but whose subprotocol attribute semantic is
not known for the data channel transport case.
* The receiver of such an SDP offer or answer SHOULD ignore this
entire "a=dcsa" attribute line.
7. Examples
SDP offer:
m=application 10001 UDP/DTLS/SCTP webrtc-datachannel
c=IN IP6 IP6 2001:db8::3
a=max-message-size:100000
a=sctp-port:5000
a=setup:actpass
a=fingerprint:SHA-1 \
4A:AD:B9:B1:3F:82:18:3B:54:02:12:DF:3E:5D:49:6B:19:E5:7C:AB
a=tls-id:abc3de65cddef001be82
a=dcmap:0 subprotocol="BFCP";label="BFCP"
SDP answer:
m=application 10002 UDP/DTLS/SCTP webrtc-datachannel
c=IN IP6 IP6 2001:db8::1
a=max-message-size:100000
a=sctp-port:5002
a=setup:passive
a=fingerprint:SHA-1 \
5B:AD:67:B1:3E:82:AC:3B:90:02:B1:DF:12:5D:CA:6B:3F:E5:54:FA
a=tls-id:dcb3ae65cddef0532d42
Figure 1: Example 1
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
In the above example the SDP answerer rejected the data channel with
stream id 0 either for explicit reasons or because it does not
understand the "a=dcmap:" attribute. As a result the offerer will
close the data channel created with the SDP offer/answer negotiation
option. The SCTP association will still be setup over DTLS. At this
point the offerer or the answerer may use DCEP negotiation to open
data channels.
SDP offer:
m=application 10001 UDP/DTLS/SCTP webrtc-datachannel
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.1
a=max-message-size:100000
a=sctp-port:5000
a=setup:actpass
a=fingerprint:SHA-1 \
4A:AD:B9:B1:3F:82:18:3B:54:02:12:DF:3E:5D:49:6B:19:E5:7C:AB
a=tls-id:abc3de65cddef001be82
a=dcmap:0 subprotocol="BFCP";label="BFCP"
a=dcmap:2 subprotocol="MSRP";label="MSRP"
a=dcsa:2 accept-types:message/cpim text/plain
a=dcsa:2 path:msrp://alice.example.com:10001/2s93i93idj;dc
SDP answer:
m=application 10002 UDP/DTLS/SCTP webrtc-datachannel
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.2
a=max-message-size:100000
a=sctp-port:5002
a=setup:passive
a=fingerprint:SHA-1 \
5B:AD:67:B1:3E:82:AC:3B:90:02:B1:DF:12:5D:CA:6B:3F:E5:54:FA
a=tls-id:dcb3ae65cddef0532d42
a=dcmap:2 subprotocol="MSRP";label="MSRP"
a=dcsa:2 accept-types:message/cpim text/plain
a=dcsa:2 path:msrp://bob.example.com:10002/si438dsaodes;dc
Figure 2: Example 2
In the above example the SDP offer contains data channels for BFCP
(Binary Floor Control Protocol) and MSRP subprotocols. The SDP
answer rejected BFCP and accepted MSRP. So, the offerer closes the
data channel for BFCP and both offerer and answerer may start using
the MSRP data channel (after the SCTP association is set up). The
data channel with stream id 0 is free and can be used for future DCEP
or SDP offer/answer negotiation.
Continuing the example in Figure 2.
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
Subsequent SDP offer:
m=application 10001 UDP/DTLS/SCTP webrtc-datachannel
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.1
a=max-message-size:100000
a=sctp-port:5000
a=setup:actpass
a=fingerprint:SHA-1 \
4A:AD:B9:B1:3F:82:18:3B:54:02:12:DF:3E:5D:49:6B:19:E5:7C:AB
a=tls-id:abc3de65cddef001be82
a=dcmap:4 subprotocol="MSRP";label="MSRP"
a=dcsa:4 accept-types:message/cpim text/plain
a=dcsa:4 path:msrp://alice.example.com:10001/2s93i93idj;dc
Subsequent SDP answer:
m=application 10002 UDP/DTLS/SCTP webrtc-datachannel
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.2
a=max-message-size:100000
a=sctp-port:5002
a=setup:passive
a=fingerprint:SHA-1 \
5B:AD:67:B1:3E:82:AC:3B:90:02:B1:DF:12:5D:CA:6B:3F:E5:54:FA
a=tls-id:dcb3ae65cddef0532d42
a=dcmap:4 subprotocol="MSRP";label="MSRP"
a=dcsa:4 accept-types:message/cpim text/plain
a=dcsa:4 path:msrp://bob.example.com:10002/si438dsaodes;dc
Figure 3: Example 3
The above example is a continuation of the example in Figure 2. The
SDP offerer now removes the MSRP data channel with stream id 2, but
opens a new MSRP data channel with stream id 4. The answerer accepts
the entire offer. As a result the offerer closes the earlier
negotiated MSRP related data channel and both offerer and answerer
may start using new the MSRP related data channel.
8. Security Considerations
This document specifies new SDP attributes used in the negotiation of
the DATA channel parameters.
These parameter are negotiated as part of opening a SCTP channel over
DTLS as specified in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp]. This document do
not add any security considerations to the ones specified in the
above document
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
Error cases like the use of unknown parameter values or violation the
odd/even rule must be handled by closing the corresponding Data
Channel.
9. IANA Considerations
9.1. Subprotocol Identifiers
Registration of new subprotocol identifiers is performed using the
existing IANA "WebSocket Subprotocol Name Registry" table.
The following text should be added following the title of the table.
"This table also includes subprotocol identifiers specified for usage
within a WebRTC data channel."
The following reference should be added to under the heading
reference: "RFC XXXX".
This document assigns no new values to this table.
A subprotocol may simultaneously be defined for data channel
transport and for Websocket transport. In such a case the
"Subprotocol Definition" and "Reference" cells in the subprotocol's
row of the IANA "WebSocket Subprotocol Name Registry" table should
contain two entries. One entry in each of these cells should refer
to the Websocket related subprotocol specification, and the other
entry should refer to the data channel related subprotocol
specification.
NOTE to RFC Editor: Please replace "XXXX" with the number of this
RFC.
9.2. New SDP Attributes
9.2.1. dcmap
NOTE to RFC Editor: Please replace "XXXX" with the number of this
RFC.
This document defines a new SDP media-level attribute "a=dcmap:" as
follows:
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Contact name: | IESG Chairs |
| Contact email: | iesg@ietf.org |
| Attribute name: | dcmap |
| Attribute syntax: | As per Section 5.1.1 |
| Attribute semantics: | As per Section 5.1.1 |
| Usage level: | media |
| Charset dependent: | No |
| Purpose: | Define data channel specific parameters |
| Appropriate values: | As per Section 5.1.1 |
| O/A procedures: | As per Section 6 |
| Mux category: | SPECIAL. See Section 5.1.9 |
| Reference: | RFCXXXX |
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
9.2.2. dcsa
NOTE to RFC Editor: Please replace "XXXX" with the number of this
RFC.
This document defines a new SDP media-level attribute "a=dcsa:" as
follows:
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Contact name: | IESG Chairs |
| Contact email: | iesg@ietf.org |
| Attribute name: | dcsa |
| Attribute syntax: | As per Section 5.2.1 |
| Attribute semantics: | As per Section 5.2.1 |
| Usage level: | media |
| Charset dependent: | No |
| Purpose: | Define data channel subprotocol specific |
| | attributes |
| Appropriate values: | As per Section 5.2.1 |
| O/A procedures: | As per Section 6 |
| Mux category: | SPECIAL. See Section 5.2.2 |
| Reference: | RFCXXXX |
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
9.3. New Usage Level
This document introduces a new "Data Channel Subprotocol Attribute"
(dcsa) usage level of the SDP media description to the IANA SDP att-
field registry. SDP attributes that are defined for use at the dcsa
usage level only SHALL use the dcsa usage level when registering the
attribute. If existing media attributes are used in a datachannel
subprotocol specific way (Section 5.2.1), then a new dcsa usage level
MUST be defined for the existing media attribute. Where the SDP
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
attribute is applicable to a particular subprotocol/s this SHALL also
be registered by indicating the applicable subprotocol identifiers
(see Section 9.1) along with the dcsa usage level. E.g.
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| ... | ... |
| Usage level: | dcsa(MSRP) |
| ... | ... |
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
10. 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 Flemming Andreasen, Christian
Groves, Gunnar Hellstrom, Paul Kyzivat, Jonathan Lennox, Uwe
Rauschenbach and Roman Shpount for their invaluable comments.
Special thanks to Christer Holmberg for helping finish the document
and cleaning the SDP offer/answer section.
11. CHANGE LOG
11.1. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-15'
o Editorial changes separate sections for offer/answer procedures.
o Update security section.
11.2. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-14'
o Change "dtls-id" to "tls-id" and assign 20 octet long values
o Remove of RFC4566bis draft from list of normative references.
11.3. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-12'
o Modification of Keith's address information.
11.4. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-11'
o dcmap-stream-id syntax change to limit size to 5 digits.
o Add missing 'x' prefix to quoted-visible syntax.
o Align SDP offerer and answerer handling when both max-retr and
max-time are present.
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
o Use of TEST-NET-1 ip addresses in examples.
o Add missing a=dtls-id in one example.
11.5. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-10'
o Removal of the "a=connection" attribute lines from all SDP
examples.
11.6. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-09'
o In the introduction:
* Replacement of the sentence "The RTCWeb working group has
defined the concept of bi-directional data channels running on
top of SCTP/DTLS (SCTP over the Datagram Transport Layer
Security protocol)" with "The RTCWeb working group has defined
the concept of bi-directional data channels running on top of
the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)".
* Addition of following sentences to the second paragraph: "These
procedures are based on generic SDP offer/answer negotiation
rules for SCTP based media transport as specified in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp] for the SDP "m" line proto values
UDP/DTLS/SCTP and TCP/DTLS/SCTP. In the future, data channels
could be defined over other SCTP based protocols, such as SCTP
over IP. However, corresponding potential other "m" line proto
values are not considered in this document."
o Replacement of "DTLS connection" with "DTLS association"
throughout the document.
o In sections Section 5.1.9 and Section 5.2.2 removal of the
sentences "This document also does not specify multiplexing rules
for this attribute for SCTP or SCTP/DTLS proto values".
o In the text related to "Subsequent SDP answer" in section
Section 6.7 replacement of "The DTLS/SCTP association remains open
..." with "The SCTP association remains open ...".
o In the text after the second SDP answer in section Section 7
replacement of "... (after SCTP/DTLS association is setup)" with
"... (after the SCTP association is set up)".
o Addition of [I-D.ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp] to the list of informative
references.
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
o Addition of "a=dtls-id" attribute lines to the SDP offer/answer
examples in Section 7.
11.7. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-08'
o Addition of definition of "data channel subprotocol" to Section 3
as proposed on the MMUSIC list, https://www.ietf.org/mail-
archive/web/mmusic/current/msg15827.html.
o Addition of RFC4566bis draft to list of normative references.
o Updates of tables in Section 9.2.1 and Section 9.2.2 as per
section 8.2.4 of RFC4566bis draft.
o Addition of new Section 9.3.
11.8. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-07'
o Addition of two new paragraphs to Section 5.2.1 regarding
subprotocol attribute relationship with transport protocol.
o Addition of a note to Section 9.1 regarding subprotocols
simultaneously defined for data channel and Websocket usage.
o Addition of two further SDP offer/answer considerations to
Section 6.7 regarding unknown subprotocol attributes and known
subprotocol attributes with unknown data channel transport related
semantic.
11.9. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-06'
o Changes addressing Christian Groves's WGLC review comments raised
in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/
msg15357.html and http://www.ietf.org/mail-
archive/web/mmusic/current/msg15359.html.
11.10. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-05'
o In IANA registration Section 9.2.1 and Section 9.2.2 replacement
of contact name and e-mail address with "MMUSIC Chairs" and
"mmusic-chairs@ietf.org".
o In Section 5.2.1 replacement of "Thus in the example above, the
original attribute line "a=accept- types:text/plain" is
represented by the attribute line "a=dcsa:2 accept-types:text/
plain", which specifies that this instance of MSRP being
transported on the SCTP association using the data channel with
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
stream id 2 accepts plain text files." with "... which specifies
that this instance of the MSRP subprotocol being transported ...".
o The last paragraph of Section 5.2.1 started with "Note: This
document does not provide a complete specification ...". Removal
of "Note:" and move of this paragraph to the introduction in
Section 1 as last paragraph.
o Section 5.2's headline was "Subprotocol Specific Attributes".
Change of this headline to "Other Media Level Attributes" and
adaptations of the first paragraph of this section and the first
paragraph of Section 5.2.1 in order to clarify that not only those
attributes may be encapsulated in a "dcsa" attribute, which are
specifically defined for the subprotocol, but that also other
attributes may be encapsulated if they are related to the specific
subprotocol instance.
o Move of the last but one paragraph of Section 5.2.1 starting with
"The same syntax applies to ..." right in front of the formal
syntax definition of the "dcsa" attribute.
o Modifications of the text in Section 5.1.9 and Section 5.2.2 in
order not to explicitly restrict usage of the "a=dcmap:" and
"a=dcsa:" attributes to "m" lines with proto values "UDP/DTLS/
SCTP" or "TCP/DTLS/SCTP".
11.11. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-04'
o In Section 5.1.4 the first (and only) paragraph was "The
'subprotocol' parameter indicates which protocol the client
expects to exchange via the channel. 'Subprotocol' is an optional
parameter. If the 'subprotocol' parameter is not present, then
its value defaults to the empty string." Replacement of this
paragraph with following two paragraphs:
* The 'subprotocol' parameter indicates which protocol the client
expects to exchange via the channel. This parameter maps to
the 'Protocol' parameter defined in
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol]. Section 9.1 specifies how new
subprotocol parameter values are registered. 'Subprotocol' is
an optional parameter. If the 'subprotocol' parameter is not
present, then its value defaults to the empty string.
* Note: The empty string MAY also be explicitly used as
'subprotocol' value, such that 'subprotocol=""' is equivalent
to the 'subprotocol' parameter not being present at all.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol] allows the DATA_CHANNEL_OPEN
message's 'Subprotocol' value to be an empty string.
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
o Addition of [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes] to list the of
normative references.
o Addition of dcmap attribute specific IANA registration
Section 9.2.1.
o Addition of dcsa attribute specific IANA registration
Section 9.2.2.
o Addition of new Section 5.1.9 describing the mux category of the
dcmap SDP attribute. This section and the new "a=dcsa:" attribute
related mux category section are similar to the "Mux Category"
sections of the "a=sctp-port:" and "a=max-message-size:"
attributes in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp].
o Addition of new Section 5.2.2 describing the mux category of the
dcsa SDP attribute.
11.12. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-03'
o In Section 1 replacement of "RTCWeb leaves it open for other
applications to use data channels and its in-band DCEP or out-of-
band non-DCEP protocols for creating them" with "... to use data
channels and its in-band DCEP or other in-band or out-of-band
protocols for creating them". Additionally replacement of "In
particular, the SDP offer generated by the application includes no
channel-specific information" with "... generated by the RTCweb
data channel stack includes no channel-specific information".
o Move of former section 5 ("Data Channels") to new Appendix A and
removal of JavaScript API specific discussions from this moved
text (like mentioning of data channel stack specific states).
Therefore former section 6 ("SDP Offer/Answer Negotiation") is now
Section 5.
o In Section 5:
* Relacement of Section 5's first paragraph "This section defines
a method of non-DCEP negotiation by which two clients can
negotiate data channel-specific and subprotocol-specific
parameters, using the out-of-band SDP offer/answer exchange.
This SDP extension can only be used with the SDP offer/answer
model." with "This section defines an SDP extension by which
two clients can negotiate data channel-specific and
subprotocol-specific parameters without using DCEP
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol]. This SDP extension only
defines usage in the context of SDP offer/answer."
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
* Addition of new paragraph: "Appendix A provides information how
data channels work in general and especially summarizes some
key aspects, which should be considered for the negotiation of
data channels if DCEP is not used."
o In Section 5.1 replacement of "The intention of exchanging these
attributes is to create data channels on both the peers with the
same set of attributes without actually using the DCEP
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol]" with "The intention in exchanging
these attributes is to create, on two peers, without use of DCEP
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol], matched pairs of oppositely
directed data channels having the same set of attributes".
o In Section 5.1.5 replacement of "The 'max-retr' parameter
indicates the maximal number a user message will be retransmitted"
with "The 'max-retr' parameter indicates the maximal number of
times a user message will be retransmitted".
o In Section 6.1 replacement of "However, an SDP offer/answer
exchange MUST NOT be initiated if the associated SCTP stream is
already negotiated via DCEP" with "However, an SCTP stream MUST
NOT be referenced in a dcmap or dcsa attribute of an SDP offer/
answer exchange if the associated SCTP stream has already been
negotiated via DCEP".
o In the examples in Section 7 addition of the previously missing
colons to the "a=sctp-port" attribute lines.
11.13. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-02'
o Move of reference draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep from the list of
normative references to the list of informative references.
Remover in -07 since not referenced
o Addition of [IANA-SDP-Parameters] to the list of informative
references and addition of following two sentences to the first
paragraph after the ABNF definition: "Note however that not all
SDP attributes are suitable as "a=dcsa:" parameter.
[IANA-SDP-Parameters] contains the lists of IANA registered
session and media level or media level only SDP attributes."
o In the introduction replacement of last sentence "This document
defines SDP-based out-of-band negotiation procedures to establish
data channels for transport of well-defined subprotocols" with
"This document defines SDP offer/answer negotiation procedures to
establish data channels for transport of well-defined
subprotocols, to enable out-of-band negotiation".
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
o Throughout the document replacement of "external negotiation" with
"SDP offer/answer negotiation" and removal of term "external
negotiation" from the terminology list in Section 3.
o Throughout the document replacement of "internal negotiation" with
"DCEP" and removal of terms "internal negotiation" and "in-band
negotiation" from the terminology list in Section 3.
o Addition of "SCTP Stream Sequence Number (SSN)" to the list of
terms.
o In Section 6.1 replacement of sentence "However, a single stream
is managed using one method at a time." with "However, an SDP
offer/answer exchange MUST NOT be initiated if the associated SCTP
stream is already negotiated via DCEP".
o In Section 6.2 replacement of sentence "By definition max-retr and
max-time are mutually exclusive, so only one of them can be
present in a=dcmap" with "By definition max-retr and max-time are
mutually exclusive, so at most one of them MAY be present in
a=dcmap".
o Move of reference [WebRtcAPI] from list of normative references to
list of informative references.
o Removal of almost all text parts, which discussed JavaScript or
other API specific aspects. Such API specific aspects were mainly
discussed in sub-sections of Section 5 and Section 5 of draft-
ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-02.
11.14. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-01'
o New Section 4 regarding applicability to SDP offer/answer only.
o Addition of new Section 9.1 "Subprotocol identifiers" as
subsection of the "IANA Considerations" related Section 9. Also
removal of the temporary note "To be completed. As [I-D.ietf-
rtcweb-data-protocol] this document should refer to IANA's
WebSocket Subprotocol Name Registry defined in [RFC6455]"
o In Section 6.2:
* In the first paragraph replacement of the sentence "If an SDP
offer contains both of these parameters then such an SDP offer
will be rejected." with "If an SDP offer contains both of these
parameters then the receiver of such an SDP offer MUST reject
the SDP offer."
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
* In the second paragraph capitalization of "shall" and "may"
such that both sentences now read: "The SDP answer SHALL echo
the same subprotocol, max-retr, max-time, ordered parameters,
if those were present in the offer, and MAY include a label
parameter. They MAY appear in any order, which could be
different from the SDP offer, in the SDP answer."
* In the third paragraph replacement of the sentence "The same
information 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." with
"When sending a subsequent offer or an answer, and for as long
as the data channel is still open, the sender MUST replicate
the same information.".
o In Section 6.2 the mapping of data channel types defined in
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol] to the SDP "a=dcmap" attribute
parameters were illustrated using example "a=dcmap" attribute
lines. Replacement of these example "a=dcmap" attribute lines
with just the "a=dcmap" attribute parameters being relevant for
the channel type.
o In Section 6.7 the description of bullet point "SDP offer has no
a=dcmap attributes - Initial SDP offer:" was "Initial SDP offer:
No data channel negotiated yet." Replacement of this description
with "Initial SDP offer: No data channel is negotiated yet. The
DTLS connection and SCTP association is negotiated and, if agreed,
established as per [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp]."
o In Section 6.7 in both bullet points related to "Subsequent SDP
offer" and "Subsequent SDP answer" replacement of "All the
externally negotiated data channels must be closed now." with "All
the externally negotiated data channels are expected to be closed
now.".
o In Appendix A.2.2's sixth paragraph replacement of the two
occurrences of "must" with "MUST".
o In Section 5.1.1 in the definition of the ABNF rule "dcmap-opt"
there was a comment saying that "Either only maxretr-opt or
maxtime-opt is present. Both MUST NOT be present." Removal of
the second normative sentence and instead addition of following
new paragraph to the end of this section: "Within an 'a=dcmap'
attribute line's 'dcmap-opt' value either only one 'maxretr-opt'
parameter or one 'maxtime-opt' parameter is present. Both MUST
NOT be present."
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
o In Section 5.1.7 replacement of the first sentence "The 'ordered'
parameter with value "true" indicates that DATA chunks in the
channel MUST be dispatched to the upper layer by the receiver
while preserving the order." with "The 'ordered' parameter with
value "true" indicates that the receiver MUST dispatch DATA chunks
in the data channel to the upper layer while preserving the
order.".
o In Section 6.3's first paragraph replacement of the one occurrence
of "must" with "..., it MUST wait until ...".
o In Section 6.6.1:
* In the second paragraph replacement of "must" with "... whether
this closing MUST in addition ..."
* In the third paragraph replacement of the sentence "The port
value for the "m" line SHOULD NOT be changed (e.g., to zero)
when closing a data channel ..." with "The offerer SHOULD NOT
change the port value for the "m" line (e.g., to zero) when
closing a data channel ...".
* In the last but two paragraph replacement of the sentence "...
then an SDP offer which excludes this closed data channel
SHOULD be generated." with "... then the client SHOULD generate
an SDP offer which excludes this closed data channel.".
* In the last but one paragraph replacement of "must" with "The
application MUST also close...".
o In Section 5.2 addition of following note after the formal
definition of the 'a=dcsa' attribute: "Note that the above
reference to RFC 4566 defines were the attribute definition can be
found; it does not provide any limitation on support of attributes
defined in other documents in accordance with this attribute
definition."
11.15. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-00'
o In Section 3 "WebRTC data channel" was defined as "A bidirectional
channel consisting of paired SCTP outbound and inbound streams."
Replacement of this definition with "Data channel: A WebRTC data
channel as specified in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel]", and
consistent usage of "data channel" in the remainder of the
document including the document's headline."
o In Section 5 removal of following note: 'OPEN ISSUE: The syntax in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp] may change as that document progresses.
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
In particular we expect "webrtc-datachannel" to become a more
general term.'
o Consistent usage of '"m" line' in whole document as per [RFC4566].
o In Section 5.1 removal of the example dcmap attribute line
'a=dcmap:2 subprotocol="BFCP";label="channel 2' as there are
already four examples right after the ABNF rules in Section 5.1.1.
Corresponding removal of following related note: "Note: This
document does not provide a complete specification of how to
negotiate the use of a WebRTC data channel to transport BFCP.
Procedures specific to each subprotocol 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
subprotocol."
o In Section 5.1 removal of following note: "Note: This attribute is
derived from attribute "webrtc-DataChannel", which was defined in
old version 03 of the following draft, but which was removed along
with any support for SDP external negotiation in subsequent
versions: [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp]."
o Insertion of following new sentence to the beginning of
Section 5.1.1: "dcmap is a media level attribute having following
ABNF syntax:"
o Insertion of new Section 5.1.2 containing the dcmap-stream-id
specifying sentence, which previously was placed right before the
formal ABNF rules. Removal of the sentence 'Stream is a mandatory
parameter and is noted directly after the "a=dcmap:" attribute's
colon' as this information is part of the ABNF specification.
o In Section 5.1.1 modification of the 'ordering-value' values from
"0" or "1" to "true" or "false". Corresponding text modifications
in Section 5.1.7.
o In Section 5.1.1 the ABNF definition of "quoted-string" referred
to rule name "escaped-char", which was not defined. Instead a
rule with name "escaped" was defined. Renamed that rule's name to
"escaped-char".
o Insertion of a dedicated note right after the "a=dcmap:4"
attribute example in Section 5.1.1 regarding the non-printable
"escaped-char" character within the "label" value.
o In Section 5.2's second paragraph replacement of "sctp stream
identifier" with "SCTP stream identifier".
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
o In first paragraph of Section 6.1 replacement of first two
sentences '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.' with 'If an SDP offer/answer exchange (could be
the initial or a subsequent one) results in a UDP/DTLS/SCTP or
TCP/DTLS/SCTP based media description being accepted, and if this
SDP offer/answer exchange results in the establishment of a new
SCTP association, then the SDP offerer owns the even SCTP stream
ids of this new SCTP association and the answerer owns the odd
SCTP stream identifiers. If this "m" line is removed from the
signaling session (its port number set to zero), and if usage of
this or of a new UDP/DTLS/SCTP or TCP/DTLS/SCTP based "m" line is
renegotiated later on, then the even and odd SCTP stream
identifier ownership is redetermined as well as described above.'
o In Section 6.3 the first action of an SDP answerer, when receiving
an SDP offer, was described as "Applies the SDP offer. Note that
the browser ignores data channel specific attributes in the SDP."
Replacement of these two sentences with "Parses and applies the
SDP offer. Note that the typical parser normally ignores unknown
SDP attributes, which includes data channel related attributes."
o In Section 6.3 the second sentence of the third SDP answerer
action was "Note that the browser is asked to create data channels
with stream identifiers not "owned" by the agent.". Replacement
of this sentence with "Note that the agent is asked to create data
channels with SCTP stream identifiers contained in the SDP offer
if the SDP offer is accepted."
o In Section 6.6.1 the third paragraph began with "A data channel
can be closed by sending a new SDP offer which excludes the dcmap
and dcsa attribute lines for the data channel. The port value for
the m line SHOULD NOT be changed (e.g., to zero) when closing a
data channel (unless all data channels are being closed and the
SCTP association is no longer needed), since this would close the
SCTP association and impact all of the data channels. If the
answerer accepts the SDP offer then it MUST also exclude the
corresponding attribute lines in the answer. ..." Replacement of
this part with "The intention to close a data channel can be
signaled by sending a new SDP offer which excludes the "a=dcmap:"
and "a=dcsa:" attribute lines for the data channel. The port
value for the "m" line SHOULD NOT be changed (e.g., to zero) when
closing a data channel (unless all data channels are being closed
and the SCTP association is no longer needed), since this would
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
close the SCTP association and impact all of the data channels.
If the answerer accepts the SDP offer then it MUST close those
data channels whose "a=dcmap:" and "a=dcsa:" attribute lines were
excluded from the received SDP offer, unless those data channels
were already closed, and it MUST also exclude the corresponding
attribute lines in the answer."
o In Section 6.6.1 the hanging text after the third paragraph was
"This delayed close is to handle cases where a successful SDP
answer is not received, in which case the state of session should
be kept per the last successful SDP offer/answer." Replacement of
this sentence with "This delayed closure is RECOMMENDED in order
to handle cases where a successful SDP answer is not received, in
which case the state of the session SHOULD be kept per the last
successful SDP offer/answer."
o Although dedicated to "a=dcmap" and "a=dcsa" SDP syntax aspects
Section 5.1 contained already procedural descriptions related to
data channel reliability negotiation. Creation of new Section 6.2
and moval of reliability negotiation related text to this new
section.
11.16. Changes against 'draft-ejzak-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-02'
o Removal of note "ACTION ITEM" from section "subprotocol
parameter". As [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol] this document
should refer to IANA's WebSocket Subprotocol Name Registry defined
in [RFC6455]
o In whole document, replacement of "unreliable" with "partially
reliable", which is used in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel] and in
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol] in most places.
o Clarification of the semantic if the "max-retr" parameter is not
present in an "a=dcmap" attribute line. In section "max-retr
parameter" the sentence "The max-retr parameter is optional with
default value unbounded" was replaced with "The max-retr parameter
is optional. If the max-retr parameter is not present, then the
maximal number of retransmissions is determined as per the generic
SCTP retransmission rules as specified in [RFC4960]".
o Clarification of the semantic if the "max-time" parameter is not
present in an "a=dcmap" attribute line. In section "max-time
parameter" the sentence "The max-time parameter is optional with
default value unbounded" was replaced with "The max-time parameter
is optional. If the max-time parameter is not present, then the
generic SCTP retransmission timing rules apply as specified in
[RFC4960]".
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
o In section "label parameter" the sentence "Label is a mandatory
parameter." was removed and following new sentences (including the
note) were added: "The 'label' parameter is optional. If it is
not present, then its value defaults to the empty string. Note:
The empty string may also be explicitly used as 'label' value,
such that 'label=""' is equivalent to the 'label' parameter not
being present at all. [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol] allows the
DATA_CHANNEL_OPEN message's 'Label' value to be an empty string."
o In section "subprotocol parameter" the sentence "Subprotocol is a
mandatory parameter." was replaced with "'Subprotocol' is an
optional parameter. If the 'subprotocol' parameter is not
present, then its value defaults to the empty string."
o In the "Examples" section, in the first two SDP offer examples in
the "a=dcmap" attribute lines 'label="BGCP"' was replaced with
'label="BFCP"'.
o In all examples, the "m" line proto value "DTLS/SCTP" was replaced
with "UDP/DTLS/SCTP" and the "a=fmtp" attribute lines were
replaced with "a=max-message-size" attribute lines, as per draft-
ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-12.
11.17. Changes against '-01'
o Formal syntax for dcmap and dcsa attribute lines.
o Making subprotocol as an optional parameter in dcmap.
o Specifying disallowed parameter combinations for max-time and max-
retr.
o Clarifications on WebRTC data channel close procedures.
11.18. Changes against '-00'
o Revisions to identify difference between internal and external
negotiation and their usage.
o Introduction of more generic terminology, e.g. "application"
instead of "browser".
o Clarification of how "max-retr and max-time affect the usage of
unreliable and reliable WebRTC data channels.
o Updates of examples to take into account the SDP syntax changes
introduced with draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-07.
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
o Removal of the SCTP port number from the "a=dcmap" and "a=dcsa"
attributes as this is now contained in the a=sctp-port attribute,
and as draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-07 supports only one SCTP
association on top of the DTLS connection.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp]
Holmberg, C., Shpount, R., Loreto, S., and G. Camarillo,
"Session Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answer
Procedures For Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
over Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Transport.",
draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-26 (work in progress), April
2017.
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes]
Nandakumar, S., "A Framework for SDP Attributes when
Multiplexing", draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes-17
(work in progress), February 2018.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel]
Jesup, R., Loreto, S., and M. Tuexen, "WebRTC Data
Channels", draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-13 (work in
progress), January 2015.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3264] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3264, June 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3264>.
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, DOI 10.17487/RFC4566,
July 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4566>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
[RFC6525] Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., and P. Lei, "Stream Control
Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Stream Reconfiguration",
RFC 6525, DOI 10.17487/RFC6525, February 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6525>.
12.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-clue-datachannel]
Holmberg, C., "CLUE Protocol data channel", draft-ietf-
clue-datachannel-14 (work in progress), August 2016.
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp]
Holmberg, C. and R. Shpount, "Session Description Protocol
(SDP) Offer/Answer Considerations for Datagram Transport
Layer Security (DTLS) and Transport Layer Security (TLS)",
draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-32 (work in progress), October
2017.
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel]
Drage, K., Makaraju, M., Stoetzer-Bradler, J., Ejzak, R.,
Marcon, J., and J. Recio, "MSRP over Data Channels",
draft-ietf-mmusic-msrp-usage-data-channel-09 (work in
progress), May 2018.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol]
Jesup, R., Loreto, S., and M. Tuexen, "WebRTC Data Channel
Establishment Protocol", draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-
protocol-09 (work in progress), January 2015.
[IANA-SDP-Parameters]
"Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters", Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority Protocol Assignments Session
Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters,
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters/
sdp-parameters.xhtml>.
[RFC4582] Camarillo, G., Ott, J., and K. Drage, "The Binary Floor
Control Protocol (BFCP)", RFC 4582, DOI 10.17487/RFC4582,
November 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4582>.
[RFC4960] Stewart, R., Ed., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
RFC 4960, DOI 10.17487/RFC4960, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4960>.
[RFC4975] Campbell, B., Ed., Mahy, R., Ed., and C. Jennings, Ed.,
"The Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)", RFC 4975,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4975, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4975>.
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
[RFC6455] Fette, I. and A. Melnikov, "The WebSocket Protocol",
RFC 6455, DOI 10.17487/RFC6455, December 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6455>.
[WebRtcAPI]
Bergkvist, A., Burnett, D., Jennings, C., and A.
Narayanan, "WebRTC 1.0: Real-time Communication Between
Browsers", World Wide Web Consortium WD-webrtc-20150210,
February 2015,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-webrtc-20150210/>.
Appendix A. Generic Data Channel Negotiation Aspects When Not Using
DCEP
This appendix summarizes how data channels work in general and
discusses some key aspects, which should be considered for the out-
of-band negotiation of data channels if DCEP is not used.
A WebRTC application creates a data channel by providing a number of
setup parameters (subprotocol, label, maximal number of
retransmissions, maximal retransmission time, order of delivery,
priority). The application also specifies if it wants to make use of
the negotiation using the DCEP [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol], or if
the application intends to negotiate data channels using the SDP
offer/answer protocol.
In any case, the SDP offer generated by the application 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:
m=application 54111 UDP/DTLS/SCTP webrtc-datachannel
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.1
a=max-message-size:100000
a=sctp-port:5000
a=tls-id:abc3de65cddef001be82
a=setup:actpass
a=fingerprint:SHA-1 \
4A:AD:B9:B1:3F:82:18:3B:54:02:12:DF:3E:5D:49:6B:19:E5:7C:AB
Note: A WebRTC application will only use "m" line format "webrtc-
datachannel", and will not use other formats in the "m" line for
other protocols such as t38. [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp] supports
only one SCTP association to be established on top of a DTLS
association.
Note: The above SDP media description does not contain any channel-
specific information.
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
A.1. Stream Identifier Numbering
Independently from the requested type of negotiation, the application
creating a data channel can either pass the stream identifier to the
data channel stack to assign to the data channel or else let the data
channel stack pick one identifier from the unused ones.
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.
Note:For data channels negotiated with the DCEP, 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].
Note:For data channels negotiated via different protocol from
DCEP, no convention is defined by default.
A.2. Generic Data Channel Negotiation Not Using DCEP
A.2.1. Overview
DCEP negotiation only provides for negotiation of data channel
transport parameters and does not provide for negotiation of
subprotocol specific parameters. DCEP-less data channel negotiation
can be defined to allow negotiation of parameters beyond those
handled by DCEP, e.g., parameters specific to the subprotocol
instantiated on a particular data channel.
The following procedures are common to all methods of data channel
negotiation not using DCEP, whether in-band (communicated using
proprietary means on an already established data channel) or out-of-
band (using SDP offer/answer or some other protocol associated with
the signaling channel).
A.2.2. Opening a Data Channel
In the case of DCEP-less 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 DCEP negotiated data
channels (if any). It is the responsibility of the application to
ensure consistent assignment of stream identifiers.
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
When the application requests the creation of a new data channel to
be set up via DCEP-less negotiation, the data channel stack creates
the data channel locally without sending any DATA_CHANNEL_OPEN
message in-band. However, even if the ICE (Interactive Connectivity
Establishment), DTLS and SCTP procedures were already successfully
completed, the application can't send data on this data channel until
the negotiation is complete with the peer. This is because the peer
needs to be aware of and accept the usage of this data channel. The
peer, after accepting the data channel offer, can start sending data
immediately. This implies that the offerer may receive data channel
subprotocol messages before the 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 needs to close the data
channel that was opened by invoking relevant data channel stack API
procedures.
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 may be used on the fly as needed just by communicating
via non-DCEP means or by even having some local configuration/
assumptions on both the peers.
The application then negotiates the data channel properties and
subprotocol properties with the peer's application using a mechanism
different from DCEP.
The peer then symmetrically creates 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.
A.2.3. Closing a Data Channel
When the application requests the closing of a data channel
negotiated without DCEP, the data channel stack always performs an
SCTP SSN reset for this channel.
Depending upon the method used for DCEP-less negotiation and the
subprotocol associated with the data channel, the closing might in
addition be signaled to the peer via SDP offer/answer negotiation.
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation June 2018
Authors' Addresses
Keith Drage
Unaffiliated
Email: drageke@ntlworld.com
Maridi R. Makaraju (Raju)
Nokia
2000 Lucent Lane
Naperville, Illinois
US
Email: Raju.Makaraju@nokia.com
Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler
Unaffiliated
Email: Juergen.S-B.ietf@email.de
Richard Ejzak
Unaffiliated
Email: richard.ejzak@gmail.com
Jerome Marcon
Unaffiliated
Email: jeromee.marcon@free.fr
Roni Even (editor)
Huawei
Email: roni.even@huawei.com
Drage, et al. Expires December 25, 2018 [Page 39]