1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
|
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Westerlund
Request for Comments: 6336 Ericsson
Updates: 5245 C. Perkins
Category: Standards Track University of Glasgow
ISSN: 2070-1721 July 2011
IANA Registry for Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) Options
Abstract
It has been identified that "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for
Offer/Answer Protocols" (RFC 5245) is missing a registry for ICE
options. This document defines this missing IANA registry and
updates RFC 5245.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6336.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Westerlund & Perkins Standards Track [Page 1]
^L
RFC 6336 IANA Registry for ICE July 2011
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Requirements Language ...........................................2
3. IANA Considerations .............................................3
3.1. ICE Options ................................................3
4. Security Considerations .........................................3
5. Acknowledgements ................................................4
6. References ......................................................4
6.1. Normative References .......................................4
6.2. Informative References .....................................4
1. Introduction
"Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network
Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols"
[RFC5245] defines a concept of ICE options. However, the ICE RFC
fails to create an IANA registry for ICE options. As one ICE option
is under specification in [ECN-FOR-RTP], there is now a need to
create the registry.
RFC 5245 says: "ICE provides for extensibility by allowing an offer
or answer to contain a series of tokens that identify the ICE
extensions used by that agent. If an agent supports an ICE
extension, it MUST include the token defined for that extension in
the ice-options attribute".
Thus, as future extensions are defined, these ICE options need to be
registered with IANA to ensure non-conflicting identification. The
ICE option identifiers are used in signalling between the ICE
endpoints to negotiate extension support. RFC 5245 defines one
method of signalling these ICE options, using the Session Description
Protocol (SDP) with Offer/Answer [RFC3264].
This document updates the ICE specification [RFC5245] to define the
"Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) Options" registry.
2. Requirements Language
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Westerlund & Perkins Standards Track [Page 2]
^L
RFC 6336 IANA Registry for ICE July 2011
3. IANA Considerations
This document defines a registry "Interactive Connectivity
Establishment (ICE) Options" for ICE options that can be used in the
SDP "ice-options" attribute or other signalling parameters carrying
the ICE options.
3.1. ICE Options
An ICE option identifier MUST fulfill the ABNF [RFC5234] syntax for
"ice-option-tag" as specified in [RFC5245]. This syntax is
reproduced here for simplicity, but the authoritative definition is
in the ICE RFC:
ice-option-tag = 1*ice-char
ice-char = ALPHA / DIGIT / "+" / "/"
ICE options are of unlimited length according to the syntax; however,
they are RECOMMENDED to be no longer than 20 characters. This is to
reduce message sizes and allow for efficient parsing.
Registration of an ICE option in the "Interactive Connectivity
Establishment (ICE) Options" registry is done using the Specification
Required policy as defined in "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC5226].
A registration request MUST include the following information:
o The ICE option identifier to be registered
o Name, Email, and Address of a contact person for the registration
o Organization or individuals having the change control
o Short description of the ICE extension to which the option relates
o Reference(s) to the specification defining the ICE option and the
related extensions
This document registers no ICE option.
4. Security Considerations
As this document defines an IANA registry for an already existing
concept, there are no new security considerations.
Westerlund & Perkins Standards Track [Page 3]
^L
RFC 6336 IANA Registry for ICE July 2011
5. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the people who reviewed the document
and provided feedback: Flemming Andreasen, Mykyta Yevstifeyev, Amanda
Baber, and Brian Carpenter.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed., and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for
Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
January 2008.
[RFC5245] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT)
Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245,
April 2010.
6.2. Informative References
[ECN-FOR-RTP]
Westerlund, M., Johansson, I., Perkins, C., O'Hanlon, P.,
and K. Carlberg, "Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
for RTP over UDP", Work in Progress, July 2011.
[RFC3264] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264,
June 2002.
Westerlund & Perkins Standards Track [Page 4]
^L
RFC 6336 IANA Registry for ICE July 2011
Authors' Addresses
Magnus Westerlund
Ericsson
Farogatan 6
SE-164 80 Kista
Sweden
Phone: +46 10 714 82 87
EMail: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
Colin Perkins
University of Glasgow
School of Computing Science
Glasgow G12 8QQ
United Kingdom
EMail: csp@csperkins.org
Westerlund & Perkins Standards Track [Page 5]
^L
|
