Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) Labels for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Usages
RFC 7443
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2015-10-14
|
08 | (System) | Notify list changed from tram-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-tram-alpn@ietf.org to (None) |
|
2015-01-23
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Telechat review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
|
2015-01-22
|
08 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2015-01-16
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7443">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48 |
|
2015-01-12
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7443">AUTH48</a> from RFC-EDITOR |
|
2015-01-12
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
|
2014-12-15
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
|
2014-12-12
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
|
2014-12-12
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors |
|
2014-12-08
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
|
2014-12-08
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
|
2014-12-08
|
08 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
|
2014-12-08
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
|
2014-12-08
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2014-12-08
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2014-12-08
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2014-12-08
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
|
2014-12-05
|
08 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] Amanda has confirmed that the IANA Designated Expert says this draft is good to go. I was holding a Discuss for IANA, and … [Ballot comment] Amanda has confirmed that the IANA Designated Expert says this draft is good to go. I was holding a Discuss for IANA, and I'm now clearing. |
|
2014-12-05
|
08 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Spencer Dawkins has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
|
2014-12-01
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
|
2014-11-27
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
|
2014-11-25
|
08 | Gonzalo Salgueiro | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
|
2014-11-25
|
08 | Gonzalo Salgueiro | New version available: draft-ietf-tram-alpn-08.txt |
|
2014-11-25
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Intended Status changed to Informational from Proposed Standard |
|
2014-11-25
|
07 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
|
2014-11-25
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation |
|
2014-11-25
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot discuss] Holding a discuss for IANA expert review (due next week). |
|
2014-11-25
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Spencer Dawkins has been changed to Discuss from Yes |
|
2014-11-25
|
07 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] Section 2 is entirely unnecessary. I suggest adding the two citations to Section 3, and then removing Section 2. Simon, thanks for the … [Ballot comment] Section 2 is entirely unnecessary. I suggest adding the two citations to Section 3, and then removing Section 2. Simon, thanks for the most excellent shepherd writeup... short, and with exactly the right detail. ...and move to Informational. |
|
2014-11-25
|
07 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Barry Leiba has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
|
2014-11-25
|
07 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
|
2014-11-25
|
07 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
|
2014-11-25
|
07 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
|
2014-11-24
|
07 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
|
2014-11-24
|
07 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot comment] The labels seem a bit long, considering that HTTP/2.0 has gotten slimmed down to h2. It seems worth mentioning in the security considerations … [Ballot comment] The labels seem a bit long, considering that HTTP/2.0 has gotten slimmed down to h2. It seems worth mentioning in the security considerations the reason why this spec was developed, namely so that proxies intending to handle one type of TLS traffic (HTTPS) could get out of the way or shut down STUN/TLS flows that could cause bad consequences. |
|
2014-11-24
|
07 | Richard Barnes | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Richard Barnes |
|
2014-11-24
|
07 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
|
2014-11-24
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] I saw a comment at one stage in the discussion of this to the effect that TLS1.3 is aiming to hide the ALPN … [Ballot comment] I saw a comment at one stage in the discussion of this to the effect that TLS1.3 is aiming to hide the ALPN labels which are in clear in TLS1.2. I wasn't sure if that was considered problematic or not for folks interested in this spec. Do we now know? And might that be worth a mention somewhere as it could cause developers problems if they do assume that ALPN labels will be in clear for all time. (And there would I think be a reason for this spec to include that - I think the readership of this one is maybe likely to be less familiar with TLS internals, compared to e.g. HTTP devs. (But I could easily be wrong there.) |
|
2014-11-24
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
|
2014-11-23
|
07 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
|
2014-11-23
|
07 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
|
2014-11-21
|
07 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
|
2014-11-20
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] I'd forgotten how much I like short documents. Thanks! Abstract s/layer negotiate/layer to negotiate/ |
|
2014-11-20
|
07 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
|
2014-11-17
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley |
|
2014-11-17
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley |
|
2014-11-08
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
|
2014-11-08
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from Waiting for Writeup |
|
2014-11-08
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2014-11-03
|
07 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot discuss] Why is this Standards Track? There is no protocol defined here, and it's just registreing two values in a registry for which the … [Ballot discuss] Why is this Standards Track? There is no protocol defined here, and it's just registreing two values in a registry for which the policy is Expert Review. It seems to me that this should be Informational. |
|
2014-11-03
|
07 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] Section 2 is entirely unnecessary. I suggest adding the two citations to Section 3, and then removing Section 2. Simon, thanks for the … [Ballot comment] Section 2 is entirely unnecessary. I suggest adding the two citations to Section 3, and then removing Section 2. Simon, thanks for the most excellent shepherd writeup... short, and with exactly the right detail. |
|
2014-11-03
|
07 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
|
2014-10-29
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot has been issued |
|
2014-10-29
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
|
2014-10-29
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2014-10-29
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2014-10-29
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2014-10-29
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
|
2014-10-29
|
07 | Naveen Khan | New revision available |
|
2014-10-27
|
06 | Spencer Dawkins | Telechat date has been changed to 2014-11-25 from 2014-10-30 |
|
2014-10-21
|
06 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
|
2014-10-20
|
06 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
|
2014-10-20
|
06 | Amanda Baber | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-tram-alpn-06. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible. IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions: … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-tram-alpn-06. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible. IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions: IANA understands that upon approval of this document there is a single action which IANA must complete. In the Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) Protocol IDs subregistry of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-extensiontype-values/ two new ALPN protocol Ids are to be regestered as follows: Protocol: TURN Identification Sequence: 0x73 0x74 0x75 0x6E 0x2E 0x74 0x75 0x72 0x6E Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Protocol: STUN Identification Sequence: 0x73 0x74 0x75 0x6E 0x2E 0x6e 0x61 0x74 0x2d 0x64 0x69 0x73 0x63 0x6f 0x76 0x65 0x72 0x79 Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 5226) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. IANA understands that this action is the only one required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. |
|
2014-10-12
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Juergen Quittek |
|
2014-10-12
|
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Juergen Quittek |
|
2014-10-09
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Alan DeKok |
|
2014-10-09
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Alan DeKok |
|
2014-10-08
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley |
|
2014-10-08
|
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Russ Housley |
|
2014-10-07
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
|
2014-10-07
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: <tram@ietf.org> Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: … The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: <tram@ietf.org> Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-tram-alpn-06.txt> (Application Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) labels for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Usages) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the TURN Revised and Modernized WG (tram) to consider the following document: - 'Application Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) labels for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Usages' <draft-ietf-tram-alpn-06.txt> as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-10-21. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract Application Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) labels for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) usages, such as Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) and NAT discovery, are defined in this document to allow an application layer negotiate STUN usages within the Transport Layer Security (TLS) connection. ALPN protocol identifiers defined in this document apply to both TLS and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS). The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tram-alpn/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tram-alpn/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
|
2014-10-07
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
|
2014-10-07
|
06 | Spencer Dawkins | > 1. Summary > > Who is the document shepherd? Simon Perreault <sperreault@jive.com> > Who is the responsible Area Director? Spencer Dawkins > … > 1. Summary > > Who is the document shepherd? Simon Perreault <sperreault@jive.com> > Who is the responsible Area Director? Spencer Dawkins > Explain briefly what the intent of the document is (the document's abstract is > usually good for this), and why the working group has chosen the requested > publication type (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, > Experimental, or Historic). This document defines two APLN labels for two usages of STUN over (D)TLS: NAT discovery and TURN. > 2. Review and Consensus > > Explain how actively the document was reviewed and discussed, by the working > group and external parties, and explain in a general sense how much of the > interested community is behind the document. Explain anything notable about > the discussion of the document. The draft was initially thought to be a "slam dunk" but the working group ended up arguing over the granularity of ALPN labels: did we need just one label for all of STUN or one label for each STUN usage? Once the WG selected the second option, it argued over the necessity of a generic "STUN" label for future and unknown usages, rejecting that idea in the end. Many TRAM regulars participated in the discussion. Martin Thompson in particular provided much (D)TLS and ALPN expertise. The consensus is solid and represents the whole working group. No specific implementation was mentioned on the list, but this shepherd expects that WebRTC stacks and TURN servers will implement this draft quickly. > 3. Intellectual Property > > Confirm that each author has stated that their direct, personal knowledge of > any IPR related to this document has already been disclosed, in conformance > with BCPs 78 and 79. Explain briefly the working group discussion about any > IPR disclosures regarding this document, and summarize the outcome. Confirmed. > 4. Other Points > > Note any downward references (see RFC 3967) and whether they appear in the > DOWNREF Registry > (http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DownrefRegistry), as these > need to be announced during Last Call. There are no downward references. > Check the IANA Considerations for clarity and against the checklist below. Checked. No problem identified. > Note any registrations that require expert review, and say what's been done to > have them reviewed before last call. There are two additions to the "Application Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) Protocol IDs" registry, which is Expert Review Required. They have not been sent to the designated expert reviewer yet, but can be handled during normal IANA Evaluation. > Note any new registries that are created by this document and briefly describe > the working group's discussion that led to the selection of the allocation > procedures and policies (see RFC 5226) that were selected for them. If any new > registries require expert review for future allocations, provide any public > guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the designated experts > (private comments may be sent to the Area Director separately). This document does not create any new IANA registry. > Explain anything else that the IESG might need to know when reviewing this > document. If there is significant discontent with the document or the process, > which might result in appeals to the IESG or especially bad feelings in the > working group, explain this in a separate email message to the responsible > Area Director. That's all! |
|
2014-10-07
|
06 | Spencer Dawkins | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-10-30 |
|
2014-10-07
|
06 | Spencer Dawkins | Last call was requested |
|
2014-10-07
|
06 | Spencer Dawkins | Last call announcement was generated |
|
2014-10-07
|
06 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2014-10-07
|
06 | Spencer Dawkins | Ballot writeup was generated |
|
2014-10-07
|
06 | Spencer Dawkins | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
|
2014-10-07
|
06 | Spencer Dawkins | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
|
2014-10-07
|
06 | Simon Perreault | > 1. Summary > > Who is the document shepherd? Simon Perreault <sperreault@jive.com> > Who is the responsible Area Director? Spencer Dawkins > … > 1. Summary > > Who is the document shepherd? Simon Perreault <sperreault@jive.com> > Who is the responsible Area Director? Spencer Dawkins > Explain briefly what the intent of the document is (the document's abstract is > usually good for this), and why the working group has chosen the requested > publication type (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, > Experimental, or Historic). This document defines two APLN labels for two usages of STUN over (D)TLS: NAT discovery and TURN. > 2. Review and Consensus > > Explain how actively the document was reviewed and discussed, by the working > group and external parties, and explain in a general sense how much of the > interested community is behind the document. Explain anything notable about > the discussion of the document. The draft was initially thought to be a "slam dunk" but the working group ended up arguing over the granularity of ALPN labels: did we need just one label for all of STUN or one label for each STUN usage? Once the WG selected the second option, it argued over the necessity of a generic "STUN" label for future and unknown usages, rejecting that idea in the end. Many TRAM regulars participated in the discussion. Martin Thompson in particular provided much (D)TLS and ALPN expertise. The consensus is solid and represents the whole working group. No specific implementation was mentioned on the list, but this shepherd expects that WebRTC stacks and TURN servers will implement this draft quickly. > 3. Intellectual Property > > Confirm that each author has stated that their direct, personal knowledge of > any IPR related to this document has already been disclosed, in conformance > with BCPs 78 and 79. Explain briefly the working group discussion about any > IPR disclosures regarding this document, and summarize the outcome. Confirmed. > 4. Other Points > > Note any downward references (see RFC 3967) and whether they appear in the > DOWNREF Registry > (http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DownrefRegistry), as these > need to be announced during Last Call. There are no downward references. > Check the IANA Considerations for clarity and against the checklist below. Checked. No problem identified. > Note any registrations that require expert review, and say what's been done to > have them reviewed before last call. If this this means "to have them reviewed *by the expert reviewer*", we did not contact the expert reviewer before WGLC (and neither during nor afterwards). Otherwise, the IANA considerations were reviewed continuously by the WG, as they represent the core of this document. This shepherd also made a final meticulous review. > Note any new registries that are created by this document and briefly describe > the working group's discussion that led to the selection of the allocation > procedures and policies (see RFC 5226) that were selected for them. If any new > registries require expert review for future allocations, provide any public > guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the designated experts > (private comments may be sent to the Area Director separately). This document does not create any new IANA registry. > Explain anything else that the IESG might need to know when reviewing this > document. If there is significant discontent with the document or the process, > which might result in appeals to the IESG or especially bad feelings in the > working group, explain this in a separate email message to the responsible > Area Director. That's all! |
|
2014-10-07
|
06 | Simon Perreault | State Change Notice email list changed to tram-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-tram-alpn@tools.ietf.org |
|
2014-10-07
|
06 | Simon Perreault | Responsible AD changed to Spencer Dawkins |
|
2014-10-07
|
06 | Simon Perreault | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
|
2014-10-07
|
06 | Simon Perreault | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
|
2014-10-07
|
06 | Simon Perreault | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2014-10-07
|
06 | Simon Perreault | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
|
2014-10-07
|
06 | Simon Perreault | Changed document writeup |
|
2014-10-07
|
06 | Simon Perreault | Changed document writeup |
|
2014-10-07
|
06 | Simon Perreault | Document shepherd changed to Simon Perreault |
|
2014-10-06
|
06 | Gonzalo Salgueiro | New version available: draft-ietf-tram-alpn-06.txt |
|
2014-09-26
|
05 | Prashanth Patil | New version available: draft-ietf-tram-alpn-05.txt |
|
2014-09-18
|
04 | Gonzalo Salgueiro | New version available: draft-ietf-tram-alpn-04.txt |
|
2014-09-17
|
03 | Gonzalo Salgueiro | New version available: draft-ietf-tram-alpn-03.txt |
|
2014-09-16
|
02 | Prashanth Patil | New version available: draft-ietf-tram-alpn-02.txt |
|
2014-09-10
|
01 | Prashanth Patil | New version available: draft-ietf-tram-alpn-01.txt |
|
2014-07-23
|
00 | Gonzalo Salgueiro | New version available: draft-ietf-tram-alpn-00.txt |