Movatterモバイル変換

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                     M. WesterlundRequest for Comments: 6336                                      EricssonUpdates:5245                                                 C. PerkinsCategory: Standards Track                          University of GlasgowISSN: 2070-1721                                                July 2011IANA Registry for Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) OptionsAbstract   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   updatesRFC 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 inSection 2 of RFC 5741.   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained athttp://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 toBCP 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]

RFC 6336                  IANA Registry for ICE                July 2011Table of Contents1. Introduction ....................................................22. Requirements Language ...........................................23. IANA Considerations .............................................33.1. ICE Options ................................................34. Security Considerations .........................................35. Acknowledgements ................................................46. References ......................................................46.1. Normative References .......................................46.2. Informative References .....................................41.  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 inRFC 2119 [RFC2119].Westerlund & Perkins         Standards Track                    [Page 2]

RFC 6336                  IANA Registry for ICE                July 20113.  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]

RFC 6336                  IANA Registry for ICE                July 20115.  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.  References6.1.  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]

RFC 6336                  IANA Registry for ICE                July 2011Authors' 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.orgWesterlund & Perkins         Standards Track                    [Page 5]