Skip to main content

Transports for WebRTC
RFC 8835

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2021-01-18
17 (System)
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8835, changed abstract to 'This document describes the data transport protocols used by Web Real-Time …
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8835, changed abstract to 'This document describes the data transport protocols used by Web Real-Time Communication (WebRTC), including the protocols used for interaction with intermediate boxes such as firewalls, relays, and NAT boxes.', changed pages to 13, changed standardization level to Proposed Standard, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2021-01-18, changed IESG state to RFC Published)
2021-01-18
17 (System) RFC published
2020-12-03
17 (System) RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc8835">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48
2020-11-05
17 (System) RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc8835">AUTH48</a> from AUTH48-DONE
2020-06-25
17 (System) RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc8835">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48
2020-06-01
17 (System) RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc8835">AUTH48</a> from RFC-EDITOR
2020-03-16
17 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF
2019-08-25
17 (System) RFC Editor state changed to REF from EDIT
2019-08-15
17 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF
2016-11-12
17 Jean Mahoney Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'No Response'
2016-10-31
17 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2016-10-31
17 (System) RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF
2016-10-28
17 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2016-10-28
17 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2016-10-27
17 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2016-10-27
17 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2016-10-27
17 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2016-10-27
17 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2016-10-27
17 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2016-10-27
17 Cindy Morgan Ballot writeup was changed
2016-10-26
17 Harald Alvestrand New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-17.txt
2016-10-26
17 (System) New version approved
2016-10-26
16 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Harald Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no>
2016-10-26
16 Harald Alvestrand Uploaded new revision
2016-10-04
16 Harald Alvestrand New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-16.txt
2016-10-04
16 (System) New version approved
2016-10-04
15 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Harald Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no>
2016-10-04
15 Harald Alvestrand Uploaded new revision
2016-08-08
15 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response'
2016-08-04
15 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation
2016-08-04
15 Mirja Kühlewind
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for updating!

Leaving it to this comment:
Based on the TSV review I agree that this document (named "Transports for WebRTC") should …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for updating!

Leaving it to this comment:
Based on the TSV review I agree that this document (named "Transports for WebRTC") should say more about congestion control. The TSV reviewer (Thanks Allison!) proposes to refer draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-17 and draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements-09. I would even appreciate to have a  sentence that says that congestion control and a circuit breaker is mandated in draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-26.
2016-08-04
15 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] Position for Mirja Kühlewind has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2016-08-04
15 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing the issues from my DISCUSS in version 15. I am clearing.
2016-08-04
15 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] Position for Suresh Krishnan has been changed to Yes from Discuss
2016-08-04
15 Harald Alvestrand IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2016-08-04
15 Harald Alvestrand New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-15.txt
2016-08-04
14 Mirja Kühlewind
[Ballot discuss]
Thanks, I think this is a very useful and well written document. Sorry for my late discuss but I don't think this is …
[Ballot discuss]
Thanks, I think this is a very useful and well written document. Sorry for my late discuss but I don't think this is anything complicated to address.
Based on the TSV review I agree that this document should say more about congestion control. While the TSV reviewer (Thanks Allison!) only proposes to refer draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-circuit-breakers-17 and draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements-09, I would even prefer to have a normative sentence that says that congestion control MUST be implemented for all traffic flows.
Please also provide the update on DSCP  black-holing (in the middle of a flow) as mentioned by David Black.
2016-08-04
14 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] Position for Mirja Kühlewind has been changed to Discuss from No Record
2016-08-04
14 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2016-08-03
14 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot comment]
I had the dame question as Stephen on why SSL instead of TLS, so thanks for clearing that up in the next revision.
2016-08-03
14 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2016-08-03
14 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2016-08-03
14 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot discuss]

I'd like to briefly chat about one aspect of this...

Section 3.4: Allowing configuration of STUN/TURN servers
from JS makes it easier for …
[Ballot discuss]

I'd like to briefly chat about one aspect of this...

Section 3.4: Allowing configuration of STUN/TURN servers
from JS makes it easier for a calling server to track a
user's call meta-data, if the JS supplied configuration is
e.g. always preferred.  Shouldn't a browser prefer locally
configured servers if those exist and can be used?  Or are
there other things to be said about which STUN/TURN
servers to use when there are multiple choices? (Apologies
if this is handled by ICE already, I forget;-)
2016-08-03
14 Stephen Farrell [Ballot comment]

- 3.1: Would "TURN/TLS" not be better than "TURN/SSL"?

- 3.2: Would s/or its TURN server/or the peer's TURN
server/ be better?
2016-08-03
14 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2016-08-03
14 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot comment]
I am glad this work is being completed.
2016-08-03
14 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2016-08-02
14 Suresh Krishnan
[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for writing this draft. It really helped clarify a lot of things for me. I do have a concern though.

In Section …
[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for writing this draft. It really helped clarify a lot of things for me. I do have a concern though.

In Section 3.3.  Usage of temporary IPv6 addresses, the draft states

" The IPv6 default address selection specification [RFC6724] specifies
  that temporary addresses [RFC4941] are to be preferred over permanent
  addresses."

While this is technically true, this is only the seventh rule in an ordered list of eight rules.
e.g. A valid permanent address would be preferred over a deprecated temporary address based on Rule 3.

If a host had only a valid permanent address and a deprecated temporary address, the mechanism specified in the draft would result in no addresses being made available, whereas the permanent address would have been an acceptable choice using RFC6724.

So, it is not entirely clear to me what the draft is trying to accomplish. It says

"  However, this rule is not completely obvious in the ICE scope.  This
  is therefore clarified as follows:"

What rule is this talking about when it says "this rule"?

Similarly, it also says

"When a client gathers all IPv6 addresses on a host..."

but it is not clear what "client" the draft is referring to.

I think if you can clarify what you want to achieve with the address selection we can work together on some replacement text.
2016-08-02
14 Suresh Krishnan Ballot discuss text updated for Suresh Krishnan
2016-08-02
14 Suresh Krishnan
[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for writing this draft. It really helped clarify a lot of things for me. I do have a concern though.

In Section …
[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for writing this draft. It really helped clarify a lot of things for me. I do have a concern though.

In Section 3.3.  Usage of temporary IPv6 addresses, the draft states

" The IPv6 default address selection specification [RFC6724] specifies
  that temporary addresses [RFC4941] are to be preferred over permanent
  addresses."

While this is technically true, this is only the seventh rule in an ordered list of eight rules.
e.g. A valid permanent address would be preferred over a deprecated temporary address based on Rule 3.

If a host had only a valid permanent address and a deprecated temporary address, the mechanism specified in the draft would result in no addresses being made available, whereas the permanent address would have been an acceptable choice using RFC6724.

So, it is not entirely clear to me what the draft is trying to accomplish. It says

"  However, this rule is not completely obvious in the ICE scope.  This
  is therefore clarified as follows:"

What rule is this talking about when it says "this rule"?

Similarly, it also says

"When a client gathers all IPv6 addresses on a host..."

but it is not clear what "client" the draft is referring to.

I think if you can clarify what you want to achieve we can work together on some replacement text.
2016-08-02
14 Suresh Krishnan Ballot discuss text updated for Suresh Krishnan
2016-08-02
14 Suresh Krishnan
[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for writing this draft. It really helped clarify a lot of things for me. I do have a concern though.

In Section …
[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for writing this draft. It really helped clarify a lot of things for me. I do have a concern though.

In Section 3.3.  Usage of temporary IPv6 addresses, the draft states

" The IPv6 default address selection specification [RFC6724] specifies
  that temporary addresses [RFC4941] are to be preferred over permanent
  addresses."

While this is technically true, this is only the seventh rule in an ordered list of eight rules.
e.g. A valid permanent address would be preferred over a deprecated temporary address based on Rule 3.

If a host had only a valid permanent address and a deprecated temporary address, the mechanism specified in the draft would result in no addresses being made available, whereas the permanent address would have been an acceptable choice using RFC6724.

So, it is not entirely clear to me what the draft is trying to accomplish. It says

"  However, this rule is not completely obvious in the ICE scope.  This
  is therefore clarified as follows:"

What rule is this talking about when it says "this rule"?

Similarly, it also says

"When a client gathers all IPv6 addresses on a host..."

but it is not clear what "client" the draft is referring to.
2016-08-02
14 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2016-08-02
14 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2016-08-02
14 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2016-08-02
14 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2016-08-02
14 Spencer Dawkins
[Ballot comment]
I noted that some comments that I agreed with have appeared during Last Call, and hope they'll be reflected in a -15. Beyond …
[Ballot comment]
I noted that some comments that I agreed with have appeared during Last Call, and hope they'll be reflected in a -15. Beyond that, I had a few comments of my own, but wanted to thank the working group for producing very clear and helpful transport guidance.

In this text

  If some of the temporary IPv6 addresses, but not all, are marked
  deprecated, the client SHOULD discard the deprecated addresses.
 
I would find some explanation of why this is a SHOULD to be helpful ("if some of the addresses are deprecated, and you could discard them because you still have addresses that are not marked deprecated, why would you not discard the deprecated addresses?").

In this text

  In order to deal with firewalls that block all UDP traffic, the mode
  of TURN that uses TCP between the client and the server MUST be
  supported, and the mode of TURN that uses TLS over TCP between the
  client and the server MUST be supported.  See [RFC5766] section 2.1
  for details.
 
I think MUST for both TCP and TLS over TCP is still a good requirement, but I note that RFC 5766 significantly predates RFC 7258, and wonder if it's worth mentioning the tradeoffs in selecting which to use in a pervasively monitored Internet, with RFC 7258 as a reference (RFC 5766 couldn't do that, of course).

In this text

  For data transport over the WebRTC data channel
  [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel], WebRTC implementations MUST support
  SCTP over DTLS over ICE.  This encapsulation is specified in
  [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps].
 
I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps seems to call this "SCTP over DTLS over ICE/UDP". That would be clearer to me.

I agree with

  There exist a number of schemes for achieving quality of service that
  do not depend solely on DSCP code points.  Some of these schemes
  depend on classifying the traffic into flows based on 5-tuple (source
  address, source port, protocol, destination address, destination
  port) or 6-tuple (5-tuple + DSCP code point).  Under differing
  conditions, it may therefore make sense for a sending application to
  choose any of the configurations:
 
and the text that follows it, but I'm not understanding how a sending application would know which configuration to choose, if we're still talking about downloaded Javascript on an arbitrary browser instance (is that still accurate? If not, my apologies).

Is the sending application just guessing/applying heuristics, or is there any guidance (or a reference to guidance) you can provide?
2016-08-02
14 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2016-08-02
14 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] Position for Mirja Kühlewind has been changed to No Record from No Objection
2016-08-01
14 Ben Campbell
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for writing this. It's a well written document that really helps bring together the rather fragmented specifications that an implementor needs to …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for writing this. It's a well written document that really helps bring together the rather fragmented specifications that an implementor needs to understand. I have one minor and a few editorial comments:

Minor Comments:

- 4.2, 2nd to last paragraph:"Sending data over multiple 5-tuples is not supported."
I am confused by this, since the last few paragraphs required support for a separate 5-tuple per media stream. That seems to be a form of sending data over multiple 5-tuples.  Does this mean to distinguish "data" from "media", maybe in the in the sense of "data-channels"?

- Informative References:
Please consider whether the references to rtcweb-overview, RFC 4595, and RFC 7656 should be normative references. They are cited for definition of terms used in this document; if those definitions are needed to fully understand this document, they should be normative. (IMHO, these are borderline).

Editorial Comments:

- Please expand TURN, SSL, and ICE on first mention.

- 3.4, 5th paragraph from end: "using TCP only between the endpoint and its relay"
I _think_ this means the use of TCP on the hop between the endpoint and the relay and not on other hops, but some may read it as the use of TCP but not other protocols on that hop.

- 4.2: There are a few instances of text of the form of "... packets...use a single DSCP code point", which I think would be more clear with s/a single/the same.
2016-08-01
14 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2016-08-01
14 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2016-08-01
14 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2016-08-01
14 Alissa Cooper IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2016-08-01
14 Alissa Cooper Ballot has been issued
2016-08-01
14 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2016-08-01
14 Alissa Cooper Created "Approve" ballot
2016-08-01
14 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2016-07-21
14 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: David Mandelberg.
2016-07-18
14 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-14.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this …
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-14.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN
2016-07-18
14 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2016-07-18
14 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-14.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this …
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-14.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN
2016-07-14
14 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to David Mandelberg
2016-07-14
14 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to David Mandelberg
2016-07-12
14 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: rtcweb@ietf.org, fluffy@iii.ca, alissa@cooperw.in, …
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: rtcweb@ietf.org, fluffy@iii.ca, alissa@cooperw.in, rtcweb-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Extended Last Call: <draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-14.txt> (Transports for WebRTC) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Real-Time Communication in
WEB-browsers WG (rtcweb) to consider the following document:
- 'Transports for WebRTC'
  <draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-14.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 2016-08-01. 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


  This document describes the data transport protocols used by WebRTC,
  including the protocols used for interaction with intermediate boxes
  such as firewalls, relays and NAT boxes.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


2016-07-12
14 Cindy Morgan Last call announcement was changed
2016-07-12
14 Cindy Morgan Last call announcement was generated
2016-07-11
14 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker
2016-07-11
14 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker
2016-07-08
14 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Wassim Haddad
2016-07-08
14 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Wassim Haddad
2016-07-07
14 Alissa Cooper Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-08-04
2016-07-07
14 Alissa Cooper Ballot writeup was changed
2016-07-07
14 Alissa Cooper Ballot writeup was changed
2016-07-07
14 Alissa Cooper
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated …
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Proposed Standard. This document specifies normative requirements for WebRTC implementations.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  This document describes the data transport protocols used by WebRTC,
  including the protocols used for interaction with intermediate boxes
  such as firewalls, relays and NAT boxes.

Working Group Summary

  Nothing particularly controversial in this spec. It is largely just a pointer to other specifications saying if you do WebRTC, then you need to what RFC X,Y, and Z says.

Based on the WGLC comments, the chairs suggest adding an RFC Ed note to include an informative reference to draft-ietf-rtcweb-return however there is not WG consensus to make this a MUST or SHOULD implement. (Cleary nothing forbids implementing it so it is already an MAY implement)

Document Quality

  Much of this is implemented in chrome and firefox which share a significant amount of code with respect to this so some parts of it has 2 implementations, some parts 1, and some none.

Personnel

  Cullen Jennings is the document shepherd. Alissa Cooper is the responsible AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

  Reviewed widely on list.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

  NA


(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

None

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

Strong

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

No issues

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

NA

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

No

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

NA

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

NA

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

NA
2016-07-07
14 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2016-07-07
14 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: rtcweb@ietf.org, fluffy@iii.ca, alissa@cooperw.in, …
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: rtcweb@ietf.org, fluffy@iii.ca, alissa@cooperw.in, rtcweb-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-14.txt> (Transports for WebRTC) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Real-Time Communication in
WEB-browsers WG (rtcweb) to consider the following document:
- 'Transports for WebRTC'
  <draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-14.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 2016-07-21. 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


  This document describes the data transport protocols used by WebRTC,
  including the protocols used for interaction with intermediate boxes
  such as firewalls, relays and NAT boxes.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


2016-07-07
14 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2016-07-07
14 Alissa Cooper Last call was requested
2016-07-07
14 Alissa Cooper Ballot approval text was generated
2016-07-07
14 Alissa Cooper Ballot writeup was generated
2016-07-07
14 Alissa Cooper IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2016-07-07
14 Alissa Cooper Last call announcement was generated
2016-07-07
14 Alissa Cooper IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2016-06-23
14 Cullen Jennings
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated …
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Proposed Standard,

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  This document describes the data transport protocols used by WebRTC,
  including the protocols used for interaction with intermediate boxes
  such as firewalls, relays and NAT boxes.

Working Group Summary

  Nothing particularly controversial in this spec. It is largely just a pointer to other specifications saying if you do WebRTC, then you need to what RFC X,Y, and Z says.

Based on the WGLC comments, the chairs suggest adding an RFC Ed note to include an informative reference to draft-ietf-rtcweb-return however there is not WG consensus to make this a MUST or SHOULD implement. (Cleary nothing forbids implementing it so it is already an MAY implement)

Document Quality

  Much of this is implemented in chrome and firefox which share a significant amount of code with respect to this so some parts of it has 2 implementations, some parts 1, and some none.

Personnel

  Cullen Jennings is shepherd.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

  Reviewed widely on list.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

  NA


(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

None

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

Strong

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

No issues

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

NA

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

No

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

NA

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

NA

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

NA
2016-06-23
14 Cullen Jennings Responsible AD changed to Alissa Cooper
2016-06-23
14 Cullen Jennings IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2016-06-23
14 Cullen Jennings IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2016-06-23
14 Cullen Jennings IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2016-06-23
14 Cullen Jennings Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared.
2016-06-23
14 Cullen Jennings Changed document writeup
2016-06-23
14 Cullen Jennings Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set.
2016-06-23
14 Cullen Jennings IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2016-06-23
14 Sean Turner Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2016-06-23
14 Sean Turner Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2016-06-09
14 Cullen Jennings this comment is optional
2016-06-09
14 Cullen Jennings IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2016-06-08
14 Cullen Jennings Changed document writeup
2016-06-08
14 Cullen Jennings Changed document writeup
2016-06-07
14 Harald Alvestrand New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-14.txt
2016-06-06
13 Harald Alvestrand New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-13.txt
2016-03-21
12 Harald Alvestrand New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-12.txt
2016-01-28
11 Harald Alvestrand New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-11.txt
2015-10-19
10 Harald Alvestrand New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-10.txt
2015-07-06
09 Harald Alvestrand New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-09.txt
2015-02-27
08 Harald Alvestrand New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-08.txt
2014-10-22
07 Harald Alvestrand New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-07.txt
2014-08-13
06 Harald Alvestrand New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-06.txt
2014-06-11
05 Harald Alvestrand New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-05.txt
2014-04-25
04 Harald Alvestrand New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-04.txt
2014-03-31
03 Harald Alvestrand New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-03.txt
2014-01-22
02 Harald Alvestrand New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-02.txt
2014-01-10
01 Magnus Westerlund Document shepherd changed to Cullen Jennings
2013-09-03
01 Harald Alvestrand New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-01.txt
2013-08-19
00 Harald Alvestrand New version available: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-00.txt