Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg
draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg
MMUSIC K. Drage
Internet-Draft Unaffiliated
Intended status: Standards Track M. Makaraju
Expires: November 12, 2019 Nokia
R. Ejzak
J. Marcon
Unaffiliated
R. Even, Ed.
Huawei
May 11, 2019
SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation
draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-28
Abstract
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 an out-of-band
non-DCEP negotiation for establishing a data channel.
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
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 November 12, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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
Drage, et al. Expires November 12, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1.9. DCMAP Multiplexing Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. SDP DCSA Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2.1. DCSA Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2.2. DCSA Multiplexing Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. SDP Offer/Answer Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
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 . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.6. Modifying the Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.6.1. Closing a Data Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.7. Various SDP Offer/Answer Considerations . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9.1. Subprotocol Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9.2. New SDP Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9.2.1. dcmap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9.2.2. dcsa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
12. CHANGE LOG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
12.1. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-
sdpneg-15' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Drage, et al. Expires November 12, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
12.2. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-
sdpneg-14' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
12.3. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-
sdpneg-12' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
12.4. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-
sdpneg-11' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
12.5. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-
sdpneg-10' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
12.6. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-
sdpneg-09' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
12.7. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-
sdpneg-08' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
12.8. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-
sdpneg-07' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
12.9. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-
sdpneg-06' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
12.10. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-
sdpneg-05' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
12.11. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-
sdpneg-04' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
12.12. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-
sdpneg-03' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
12.13. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-
sdpneg-02' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
12.14. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-
sdpneg-01' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
12.15. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-
sdpneg-00' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
12.16. Changes against 'draft-ejzak-mmusic-data-channel-
sdpneg-02' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
12.17. Changes against '-01' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
12.18. Changes against '-00' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
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 . . . . . 38
A.2.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
A.2.2. Opening a Data Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
A.2.3. Closing a Data Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Drage, et al. Expires November 12, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
1. Introduction
The concept of establishing a bi-directional data channel running on
top of the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) is in
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel] allowing applications to use data
channels. An in-band Data Channel Establishment Protocol (DCEP) is
in [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 using
the WebRTC API (Application Programming Interface), or other
protocols like CLUE [I-D.ietf-clue-datachannel]. The protocols can
be signaled by the data channel "subprotocol" parameter, conceptually
similar to the WebSocket [RFC5234] "subprotocol". However, apart
from the "subprotocol" value transmitted to the peer, an endpoint
application 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).
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 uses 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.
2. Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED","MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Drage, et al. Expires November 12, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
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,
etc.).
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. SDP offer/answer exchange can be 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. In this
case 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
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].
Drage, et al. Expires November 12, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
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) [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis] when used
together with the SDP offer/answer mechanism [RFC3264]. Declarative
usage of SDP is out of scope for this document, and is thus
undefined.
5. SDP Data Channel Attributes
This section 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 bi-directional SCTP data channels
having the same set of attributes. The data channel properties
(reliable/partially reliable, ordered/unordered) need to be 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:
Name: dcmap
Value: dcmap-value
Usage Level: media
Drage, et al. Expires November 12, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
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
; maxretr-opt and maxtime-opt are mutually exclusive
;
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>
Examples:
a=dcmap:0
a=dcmap:1 subprotocol="bfcp";max-time=60000;priority=512
a=dcmap:2 subprotocol="msrp";ordered=true;label="msrp"
Drage, et al. Expires November 12, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
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 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.
In order to communicate with WEbRTC API the label attribute should:
o Serialize the WebRTC label as a UTF-8 string [RFC3629].
o Treat the UTF-8 serialization as a series of bytes
o For each byte in the serialization:
* If the byte can be expressed as a `quoted-char`, do so
* Otherwise, express the byte as an `escaped-char`.
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].
Drage, et al. Expires November 12, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
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'
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 and the max-time parameter are not present,
then reliable transmission is performed 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 life-time starts when providing the user message to
the protocol stack. The max-time parameter is optional. If the max-
retr parameter and the max-time parameter are not present, then
reliable transmission is performed 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
will 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].
Drage, et al. Expires November 12, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
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.
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 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.
Drage, et al. Expires November 12, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
The detailed offer/answer procedures for the dcsa attribute are
dependent on the associated sub-protocol. If no offer/answer
procedures exist for the sub-protocol when used outside of the dcsa
attribute, no specification is needed for use with dcsa. The IANA
registration procedures for the WebSocket Subprotocol Name Registry
(Section 9.1) do not strictly require a specification of the offer/
answer procedures for the sub-protocol when used with dcsa. If the
sub-protocol has defined offer/answer procedures when used outside of
dcsa, such a specification is encouraged to ensure interoperability.
If the sub-protocol has defined offer/answer procedures when used
outside of dcsa, but no specification exists for the offer/answer
procedures for the sub-protocol when used with dcsa, implementations
SHOULD assume the use of the default values for all otherwise-
negotiable and applicable sub-protocol parameters.
5.2.1. DCSA Syntax
Formal Syntax:
Name: dcsa
Value: dcsa-value
Usage Level: media
Charset Dependent: no
Syntax:
dcsa-value = stream-id SP attribute
stream-id = 1*5DIGIT
attribute = <from-RFC4566>
Example:
a=dcmap:2 subprotocol="msrp";ordered=true;label="msrp"
a=dcsa:2 accept-types:text/plain
Note that the reference to [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis] 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.
Drage, et al. Expires November 12, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
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.
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.
SDP attributes that are only defined for use at the dcsa usage level,
SHALL use the dcsa usage level when registering the attribute. If
existing media attributes are used in a datachannel subprotocol
specific way, then a new dcsa usage level MUST be defined for the
existing media attribute. Where the SDP attribute is applicable to a
particular subprotocol/s this SHALL also be registered by indicating
the applicable subprotocol identifiers (see
/[I-D.ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis] section-8.5) along with the dcsa usage
level.
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
Drage, et al. Expires November 12, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
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 see Section 5.2.
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.
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:
Drage, et al. Expires November 12, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
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 both
MUST NOT be present in the "a=dcmap:" attribute line. If an SDP
offer contains both of these parameters then the receiver of such an
SDP offer MUST reject the SDP offer. If an SDP answer contains both
of these parameters then the offerer MUST treat the associated SDP
offer/answer as failed.
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
Drage, et al. Expires November 12, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
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 an SDP answer performs the following:
o SHALL close 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. At this point the offerer may use DCEP
negotiation [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol] to open data channels
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:
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.
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. The answerer may reject the offer. The means
for rejecting an offer are dependent on the higher layer protocol.
Drage, et al. Expires November 12, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
The offer/answer exchange is atomic; if the answer is rejected, the
session reverts to the state prior to the offer [RFC3264].
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 after a reset has been performed 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.
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.
Drage, et al. Expires November 12, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
7. Examples
SDP offer:
m=application 10001 UDP/DTLS/SCTP webrtc-datachannel
c=IN 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 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
In the example in Figure 1 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.
Drage, et al. Expires November 12, 2019 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
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 example in Figure 2 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 November 12, 2019 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
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 example in Figure 3 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]. Each subprotocol
may come with it's own security considerations that need to be
documented as part of the subprotocol definition. Otherwise this
document does not add any security considerations to the ones
specified in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp]
Drage, et al. Expires November 12, 2019 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
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 November 12, 2019 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Contact name: | IESG |
| 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 |
| 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 |
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
10. Contributors
Juergen Stoetzer-Bradler co-authored this document.
11. 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
Drage, et al. Expires November 12, 2019 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
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.
12. CHANGE LOG
12.1. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-15'
o Editorial changes separate sections for offer/answer procedures.
o Update security section.
12.2. 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.
12.3. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-12'
o Modification of Keith's address information.
12.4. 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.
o Use of TEST-NET-1 ip addresses in examples.
o Add missing a=dtls-id in one example.
12.5. Changes against 'draft-ietf-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-10'
o Removal of the "a=connection" attribute lines from all SDP
examples.
12.6. 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
Drage, et al. Expires November 12, 2019 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
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 draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp to the list of informative
references.
o Addition of "a=dtls-id" attribute lines to the SDP offer/answer
examples in Section 7.
12.7. 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 "new-usage-level">.
Drage, et al. Expires November 12, 2019 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
12.8. 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.
12.9. 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.
12.10. 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
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.
Drage, et al. Expires November 12, 2019 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
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".
12.11. 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.
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].
Drage, et al. Expires November 12, 2019 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
o Addition of new Section 5.2.2 describing the mux category of the
dcsa SDP attribute.
12.12. 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."
* 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"
Drage, et al. Expires November 12, 2019 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
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.
12.13. 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".
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".
Drage, et al. Expires November 12, 2019 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
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 aBoth MUST NOT 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.
12.14. 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."
* 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
Drage, et al. Expires November 12, 2019 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
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 "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 only one 'maxretr-opt' parameter or one
'maxtime-opt' parameter is present. Both MUST NOT be present."
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
Drage, et al. Expires November 12, 2019 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
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."
12.15. 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.
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
Drage, et al. Expires November 12, 2019 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
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".
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.'
Drage, et al. Expires November 12, 2019 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
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
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
Drage, et al. Expires November 12, 2019 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
and moval of reliability negotiation related text to this new
section.
12.16. 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]".
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"'.
Drage, et al. Expires November 12, 2019 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
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.
12.17. 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.
12.18. 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.
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.
13. References
13.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis]
Begen, A., Kyzivat, P., Perkins, C., and M. Handley, "SDP:
Session Description Protocol", draft-ietf-mmusic-
rfc4566bis-32 (work in progress), December 2018.
Drage, et al. Expires November 12, 2019 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
[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.
[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.
[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>.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>.
[RFC4960] Stewart, R., Ed., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
RFC 4960, DOI 10.17487/RFC4960, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4960>.
[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 November 12, 2019 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
[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>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
13.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-clue-datachannel]
Holmberg, C., "CLUE Protocol data channel", draft-ietf-
clue-datachannel-18 (work in progress), April 2019.
[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-10 (work in
progress), April 2019.
[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>.
[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>.
[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., Narayanan, A.,
Aboba, B., Brandstetter, T., and J. Bruaroey, "WebRTC 1.0:
Real-time Communication Between Browsers", World Wide Web
Consortium CR CR-webrtc-20180927, September 2018,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/CR-webrtc-20180927/>.
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.
Drage, et al. Expires November 12, 2019 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
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.
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 [RFC3264], 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].
Drage, et al. Expires November 12, 2019 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
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.
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.
Drage, et al. Expires November 12, 2019 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
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.
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
Drage, et al. Expires November 12, 2019 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft SDP-based Data Channel Negotiation May 2019
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 November 12, 2019 [Page 40]
