Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-tram-stun-dtls
draft-ietf-tram-stun-dtls
TRAM M. Petit-Huguenin
Internet-Draft Jive Communications
Updates: 5389, 5928 (if approved) G. Salgueiro
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Expires: December 29, 2014 June 27, 2014
Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) as Transport for Session
Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)
draft-ietf-tram-stun-dtls-05
Abstract
This document specifies the usage of Datagram Transport Layer
Security (DTLS) as a transport protocol for Session Traversal
Utilities for NAT (STUN). It provides guidances on when and how to
use DTLS with the currently standardized STUN Usages. It also
specifies modifications to the STUN URIs and TURN URIs and to the
TURN resolution mechanism to facilitate the resolution of STUN URIs
and TURN URIs into the IP address and port of STUN and TURN servers
supporting DTLS as a transport protocol. This document updates RFC
5389 and RFC 5928.
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 http://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 December 29, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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
Petit-Huguenin & SalgueiExpires December 29, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft STUN over DTLS June 2014
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. DTLS as Transport for STUN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. STUN Usages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. NAT Discovery Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1.1. DTLS Support in STUN URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Connectivity Check Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. Media Keep-Alive Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.4. SIP Keep-Alive Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.5. NAT Behavior Discovery Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.6. TURN Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.6.1. DTLS Support in TURN URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.6.2. Resolution Mechanism for TURN over DTLS . . . . . . . 7
5. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. turnuri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. rfc5766-turn-server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. S-NAPTR application protocol tag . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number . . . . . 10
7.2.1. The stuns Service Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2.2. The turns Service Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix B. Release notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
B.1. Modifications between ietf-tram-stun-dtls-04 and ietf-
tram-stun-dtls-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
B.2. Modifications between ietf-tram-stun-dtls-03 and ietf-
tram-stun-dtls-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
B.3. Modifications between ietf-tram-stun-dtls-02 and ietf-
tram-stun-dtls-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
B.4. Modifications between ietf-tram-stun-dtls-01 and ietf-
tram-stun-dtls-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
B.5. Modifications between ietf-tram-stun-dtls-00 and ietf-
tram-stun-dtls-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
B.6. Modifications between petithuguenin-tram-stun-dtls-00 and
Petit-Huguenin & SalgueiExpires December 29, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft STUN over DTLS June 2014
ietf-tram-stun-dtls-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
B.7. Modifications between petithuguenin-tram-turn-dtls-00 and
petithuguenin-tram-stun-dtls-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction
STUN [RFC5389] defines Transport Layer Security (TLS) over TCP
(simply referred to as TLS [RFC5246]) as the transport for STUN due
to additional security advantages it offers over plain UDP or TCP
transport. But TCP (and thus TLS-over-TCP) is not an optimal
transport when STUN is used for its originally intended purpose,
which is to support multimedia sessions. This is a well documented
and understood transport limitation for real-time communications.
DTLS-over-UDP (referred to in this document as simply DTLS [RFC6347])
offers the same security advantages as TLS-over-TCP, but without the
undesirable concerns.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL"
in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] when
they appear in ALL CAPS. When these words are not in ALL CAPS (such
as "must" or "Must"), they have their usual English meanings, and are
not to be interpreted as RFC 2119 key words.
3. DTLS as Transport for STUN
STUN [RFC5389] defines three transports: UDP, TCP, and TLS. This
document adds DTLS as a valid transport for STUN.
STUN over DTLS MUST use the same retransmission rules as STUN over
UDP (as described in Section 7.2.1 of [RFC5389]). It MUST also use
the same rules that are described in Section 7.2.2 of [RFC5389] to
verify the server identity. Instead of TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA,
which is the default cipher suite for STUN over TLS, implementations
of STUN over DTLS, and deployed clients and servers, MUST support
TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 and
TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256, and MAY support other
ciphersuites. Perfect Forward Secrecy (PFS) cipher suites MUST be
preferred over non-PFS cipher suites. Cipher suites with known
weaknesses, such as those based on (single) DES and RC4, MUST NOT be
used. Implementations MUST disable TLS-level compression. The same
rules established in Section 7.2.2 of [RFC5389] for keeping open and
closing TCP/TLS connections MUST be used as well for DTLS
associations.
Petit-Huguenin & SalgueiExpires December 29, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft STUN over DTLS June 2014
In addition to the path MTU rules described in Section 7.1 of
[RFC5389], if the path MTU is unknown, the actual STUN message needs
to be adjusted to take into account the size of the (13-byte) DTLS
Record header, the MAC size, and the padding size.
By default, STUN over DTLS MUST use port 5349, the same port number
as STUN over TLS. However, the SRV procedures can be implemented to
use a different port (as described in Section 9 of [RFC5389]). When
using SRV records, the service name MUST be set to "stuns" and the
protocol name to "udp".
Classic STUN [RFC3489] defines only UDP as a transport and DTLS MUST
NOT be used. Any STUN request or indication without the magic cookie
(see Section 6 of [RFC5389]) over DTLS MUST always result in an
error.
4. STUN Usages
[RFC5389] Section 7.2 states that STUN usages must specify which
transport protocol is used. The following sections discuss if and
how the existing STUN usages are used with DTLS as the transport.
Future STUN usages MUST take into account DTLS as a transport and
discuss its applicability. In all cases, new STUN usages MUST
explicitly state if implementing the denial-of-service counter-
measure described in Section 4.2.1 of [RFC6347] is mandatory.
4.1. NAT Discovery Usage
As stated by Section 13 of [RFC5389], "...TLS provides minimal
security benefits..." for this particular STUN usage. DTLS will also
similarly offer only limited benefit. This is because the only
mandatory attribute that is TLS/DTLS protected is the XOR-MAPPED-
ADDRESS, which is already known by an on-path attacker, since it is
the same as the source address and port of the STUN request. On the
other hand, using TLS/DTLS will prevent an active attacker to inject
XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS in responses. The TLS/DTLS transport will also
protect the SOFTWARE attribute, which can be used to find
vulnerabilities in STUN implementations.
Regardless, this usage is rarely used by itself, since using TURN
[RFC5766] with ICE [RFC5245] is generally indispensable, and TURN
provides the same NAT Discovery feature as part of an Allocation
creation. In fact, with ICE, the NAT Discovery usage is only used
when there is no longer any resource available for new Allocations in
the TURN server.
Petit-Huguenin & SalgueiExpires December 29, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft STUN over DTLS June 2014
A STUN server implementing the NAT Discovery Usage and using DTLS
MUST implement the denial-of-service counter-measure described in
Section 4.2.1 of [RFC6347].
4.1.1. DTLS Support in STUN URIs
This document does not make any changes to the syntax of a STUN URI
[RFC7064]. As indicated in Section 3.2 of [RFC7064], secure
transports like STUN over TLS, and now STUN over DTLS, MUST use the
"stuns" URI scheme.
The <host> value MUST be used when using the rules in Section 7.2.2
of [RFC5389] to verify the server identity. A STUN URI containing an
IP address MUST be rejected, unless the domain name is provided by
the same mechanism that provided the STUN URI, and that this domain
name can be passed to the verification code.
4.2. Connectivity Check Usage
Using DTLS would hide the USERNAME, PRIORITY, USE-CANDIDATE, ICE-
CONTROLLED and ICE-CONTROLLING attributes. But because MESSAGE-
INTEGRITY protects the entire STUN response using a password that is
known only by looking at the SDP exchanged, it is not possible for an
attacker that does not have access to this SDP to inject an incorrect
XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS, XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS which would subsequently be
used as a peer reflexive candidate.
Adding DTLS on top of the connectivity check would delay, and
consequently impair, the ICE process. Adding additional round-trips
to ICE is undesirable, so much that there is a proposal
([I-D.thomson-rtcweb-ice-dtls]) to use the DTLS handshake used by the
WebRTC SRTP streams as a replacement for the connectivity checks.
STUN URIs are not used with this usage.
4.3. Media Keep-Alive Usage
When STUN Binding Indications are being used for media keep-alive
(described in Section 10 of [RFC5245]), it runs alongside an RTP or
RTCP session. It is possible to send these media keep-alive packets
inside a separately negotiated non-SRTP DTLS session if DTLS-SRTP
[RFC5764] is used, but that would add overhead, with minimal security
benefit.
STUN URIs are not used with this usage.
Petit-Huguenin & SalgueiExpires December 29, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft STUN over DTLS June 2014
4.4. SIP Keep-Alive Usage
The SIP keep-alive (described in [RFC5626]) runs inside a SIP flow.
This flow would be protected if a SIP over DTLS transport mechanism
is implemented (such as described in [I-D.jennings-sip-dtls]).
STUN URIs are not used with this usage.
4.5. NAT Behavior Discovery Usage
The NAT Behavior Discovery usage is Experimental and to date has
never being effectively deployed. Despite this, using DTLS would add
the same security properties as for the NAT Discovery Usage
(Section 4.1).
The STUN URI can be used to access the NAT Discovery feature of a NAT
Behavior Discovery server, but accessing the full features would
require definition of a "stun-behaviors:" URI, which is out of scope
for this document.
A STUN server implementing the NAT Behavior Discovery Usage and using
DTLS MUST implement the denial-of-service counter-measure described
in Section 4.2.1 of [RFC6347].
4.6. TURN Usage
TURN [RFC5766] defines three combinations of transports/allocations:
UDP/UDP, TCP/UDP and TLS/UDP. This document adds DTLS/UDP as a valid
combination. A TURN server using DTLS MUST implement the denial-of-
service counter-measure described in Section 4.2.1 of [RFC6347].
[RFC6062] states that TCP allocations cannot be obtained using a UDP
association between client and server. The fact that DTLS uses UDP
implies that TCP allocations MUST NOT be obtained using a DTLS
association between client and server.
By default, TURN over DTLS uses port 5349, the same port number as
TURN over TLS. However, the SRV procedures can be implemented to use
a different port (as described in Section 6 of [RFC5766]. When using
SRV records, the service name MUST be set to "turns" and the protocol
name to "udp".
4.6.1. DTLS Support in TURN URIs
This document does not make any changes to the syntax of a TURN URI
[RFC7065]. As indicated in Section 3 of [RFC7065], secure transports
like TURN over TLS, and now TURN over DTLS, MUST use the "turns" URI
Petit-Huguenin & SalgueiExpires December 29, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft STUN over DTLS June 2014
scheme. When using the "turns" URI scheme to designate TURN over
DTLS, the transport value of the TURN URI, if set, MUST be "udp".
The <host> value MUST be used when using the rules in Section 7.2.2
of [RFC5389] to verify the server identity. A TURN URI containing an
IP address MUST be rejected, unless the domain is provided by the
same mechanism that provided the TURN URI, and that this domain name
can be passed to the verification code.
4.6.2. Resolution Mechanism for TURN over DTLS
This document defines a new Straightforward Naming Authority Pointer
(S-NAPTR) application protocol tag: "turn.dtls".
The <transport> component, as provisioned or resulting from the
parsing of a TURN URI, is passed without modification to the TURN
resolution mechanism defined in Section 3 of [RFC5928], but with the
following alterations to that algorithm:
o The acceptable values for transport name are extended with the
addition of "dtls".
o The acceptable values in the ordered list of supported TURN
transports is extended with the addition of "Datagram Transport
Layer Security (DTLS)".
o The resolution algorithm check rules list is extended with the
addition of the following step:
If <secure> is true and <transport> is defined as "udp" but the
list of TURN transports supported by the application does not
contain DTLS, then the resolution MUST stop with an error.
o The 5th rule of the resolution algorithm check rules list is
modified to read like this:
If <secure> is true and <transport> is not defined but the list
of TURN transports supported by the application does not
contain TLS or DTLS, then the resolution MUST stop with an
error.
o Table 1 is modified to add the following line:
+----------+-------------+----------------+
| <secure> | <transport> | TURN Transport |
+----------+-------------+----------------+
| true | "udp" | DTLS |
+----------+-------------+----------------+
Petit-Huguenin & SalgueiExpires December 29, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft STUN over DTLS June 2014
o In step 1 of the resolution algorithm the default port for DTLS is
5349.
o In step 4 of the resolution algorithm the following is added to
the list of conversions between the filtered list of TURN
transports supported by the application and application protocol
tags:
"turn.dtls" is used if the TURN transport is DTLS.
Note that using the [RFC5928] resolution mechanism does not imply
that additional round trips to the DNS server will be needed (e.g.,
the TURN client will start immediately if the TURN URI contains an IP
address).
5. Implementation Status
[[Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section and the reference to
[RFC6982] before publication.]]
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC6982].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.
According to [RFC6982], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit".
5.1. turnuri
Organization: Impedance Mismatch
Name: turnuri 0.5.0 http://debian.implementers.org/stable/source/
turnuri.tar.gz
Petit-Huguenin & SalgueiExpires December 29, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft STUN over DTLS June 2014
Description: A reference implementation of the URI and resolution
mechanism defined in this document, RFC 7065 [RFC7065] and RFC
5928 [RFC5928].
Level of maturity: Beta.
Coverage: Fully implements the URIs and resolution mechanism
defined in this specification, in RFC 7065 and in RFC 5928.
Licensing: AGPL3
Implementation experience: TBD
Contact: Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc@petit-huguenin.org>.
5.2. rfc5766-turn-server
Organization: This is a public project, the full list of authors
and contributors here: http://turnserver.open-sys.org/downloads/
AUTHORS.
Name: http://code.google.com/p/rfc5766-turn-server/
Description: A mature open-source TURN server specs implementation
(RFC 5766, RFC 6062, RFC 6156, etc) designed for high-performance
applications, especially geared for WebRTC.
Level of maturity: Production level.
Coverage: Fully implements DTLS with TURN protocol.
Licensing: BSD: http://turnserver.open-sys.org/downloads/LICENSE
Implementation experience: DTLS is recommended for secure media
applications. It has benefits of both UDP and TLS.
Contact: Oleg Moskalenko <mom040267@gmail.com>
6. Security Considerations
STUN over DTLS as a STUN transport does not introduce any specific
security considerations beyond those for STUN over TLS detailed in
[RFC5389].
The usage of "udp" as a transport parameter with the "stuns" URI
scheme does not introduce any specific security issues beyond those
discussed in [RFC7064].
Petit-Huguenin & SalgueiExpires December 29, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft STUN over DTLS June 2014
TURN over DTLS as a TURN transport does not introduce any specific
security considerations beyond those for TURN over TLS detailed in
[RFC5766].
The usage of "udp" as a transport parameter with the "turns" URI
scheme does not introduce any specific security issues beyond those
discussed in [RFC7065].
The new S-NAPTR application protocol tag defined in this document as
well as the modifications this document makes to the TURN resolution
mechanism described in [RFC5928] do not introduce any additional
security considerations beyond those outlined in [RFC5928].
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. S-NAPTR application protocol tag
This specification contains the registration information for one
S-NAPTR application protocol tag in the "Straightforward-NAPTR
(S-NAPTR) Parameters/S-NAPTR Application Protocol Tags" registry (in
accordance with [RFC3958]).
Application Protocol Tag: turn.dtls
Intended Usage: See Section 4.6.2
Interoperability considerations: N/A
Security considerations: See Section 6
Relevant publications: This document
Contact information: Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org>
Author/Change controller: The IESG
7.2. Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number
This specification contains the registration information for two
Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Numbers in the "Service
Names and Transport Protocol Port Numbers/Service Name and Transport
Protocol Port Number" registry (in accordance with [RFC6335]).
7.2.1. The stuns Service Name
IANA is requested to modify the following entry in the registry
"Service Names and Transport Protocol Port Numbers/Service Name and
Transport Protocol Port Number":
Petit-Huguenin & SalgueiExpires December 29, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft STUN over DTLS June 2014
Service Name: stuns
Transport Protocol(s): UDP
Assignee:
Contact:
Description: Reserved for a future enhancement of STUN
Reference: RFC5389
Port Number: 5349
Such as it contains the following:
Service Name: stuns
Transport Protocol(s): UDP
Assignee: IESG
Contact: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
Description: STUN over DTLS
Reference: RFC-to-be
Port Number: 5349
Assignment Notes: This service name was initially created by RFC
5389
7.2.2. The turns Service Name
IANA is requested to modify the following entry in the registry
"Service Names and Transport Protocol Port Numbers/Service Name and
Transport Protocol Port Number":
Service Name: turns
Transport Protocol(s): UDP
Assignee:
Contact:
Petit-Huguenin & SalgueiExpires December 29, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft STUN over DTLS June 2014
Description: Reserved for a future enhancement of TURN
Reference: RFC5766
Port Number: 5349
Such as it contains the following:
Service Name: turns
Transport Protocol(s): UDP
Assignee: IESG
Contact: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
Description: TURN over DTLS
Reference: RFC-to-be
Port Number: 5349
Assignment Notes: This service name was initially created by RFC
5766
8. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Alan Johnston, Oleg Moskalenko, Simon Perreault, Thomas
Stach, Simon Josefsson, Roni Even, Kathleen Moriarty, Benoit Claise,
Martin Stiemerling, Jari Arkko, and Stephen Farrell for the comments,
suggestions, and questions that helped improve this document.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3489] Rosenberg, J., Weinberger, J., Huitema, C., and R. Mahy,
"STUN - Simple Traversal of User Datagram Protocol (UDP)
Through Network Address Translators (NATs)", RFC 3489,
March 2003.
[RFC3958] Daigle, L. and A. Newton, "Domain-Based Application
Service Location Using SRV RRs and the Dynamic Delegation
Discovery Service (DDDS)", RFC 3958, January 2005.
Petit-Huguenin & SalgueiExpires December 29, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft STUN over DTLS June 2014
[RFC5245] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT)
Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245, April
2010.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.
[RFC5389] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing,
"Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389,
October 2008.
[RFC5626] Jennings, C., Mahy, R., and F. Audet, "Managing Client-
Initiated Connections in the Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP)", RFC 5626, October 2009.
[RFC5764] McGrew, D. and E. Rescorla, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for the Secure
Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 5764, May 2010.
[RFC5766] Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using
Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to Session
Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5766, April 2010.
[RFC5928] Petit-Huguenin, M., "Traversal Using Relays around NAT
(TURN) Resolution Mechanism", RFC 5928, August 2010.
[RFC6062] Perreault, S. and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using Relays
around NAT (TURN) Extensions for TCP Allocations", RFC
6062, November 2010.
[RFC6335] Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S.
Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and
Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", BCP 165, RFC
6335, August 2011.
[RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, January 2012.
[RFC7064] Nandakumar, S., Salgueiro, G., Jones, P., and M. Petit-
Huguenin, "URI Scheme for the Session Traversal Utilities
for NAT (STUN) Protocol", RFC 7064, November 2013.
[RFC7065] Petit-Huguenin, M., Nandakumar, S., Salgueiro, G., and P.
Jones, "Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Uniform
Resource Identifiers", RFC 7065, November 2013.
Petit-Huguenin & SalgueiExpires December 29, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft STUN over DTLS June 2014
9.2. Informative References
[RFC6982] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", RFC 6982, July
2013.
[I-D.thomson-rtcweb-ice-dtls]
Thomson, M., "Using Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS) For Interactivity Connectivity Establishment (ICE)
Connectivity Checking: ICE-DTLS", draft-thomson-rtcweb-
ice-dtls-00 (work in progress), March 2012.
[I-D.jennings-sip-dtls]
Jennings, C. and N. Modadugu, "Using Interactive
Connectivity Establishment (ICE) in Web Real-Time
Communications (WebRTC)", draft-jennings-sip-dtls-05 (work
in progress), October 2007.
Appendix A. Examples
Table 1 shows how the <secure>, <port> and <transport> components are
populated for a TURN URI that uses DTLS as its transport. For all
these examples, the <host> component is populated with "example.net".
+---------------------------------+----------+--------+-------------+
| URI | <secure> | <port> | <transport> |
+---------------------------------+----------+--------+-------------+
| turns:example.net?transport=udp | true | | DTLS |
+---------------------------------+----------+--------+-------------+
Table 1
With the DNS RRs in Figure 1 and an ordered TURN transport list of
{DTLS, TLS, TCP, UDP}, the resolution algorithm will convert the TURN
URI "turns:example.net" to the ordered list of IP address, port, and
protocol tuples in Table 2.
Petit-Huguenin & SalgueiExpires December 29, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft STUN over DTLS June 2014
example.net.
IN NAPTR 100 10 "" RELAY:turn.udp:turn.dtls "" datagram.example.net.
IN NAPTR 200 10 "" RELAY:turn.tcp:turn.tls "" stream.example.net.
datagram.example.net.
IN NAPTR 100 10 S RELAY:turn.udp "" _turn._udp.example.net.
IN NAPTR 200 10 S RELAY:turn.dtls "" _turns._udp.example.net.
stream.example.net.
IN NAPTR 100 10 S RELAY:turn.tcp "" _turn._tcp.example.net.
IN NAPTR 200 10 A RELAY:turn.tls "" a.example.net.
_turn._udp.example.net.
IN SRV 0 0 3478 a.example.net.
_turn._tcp.example.net.
IN SRV 0 0 5000 a.example.net.
_turns._udp.example.net.
IN SRV 0 0 5349 a.example.net.
a.example.net.
IN A 192.0.2.1
Figure 1
+-------+----------+------------+------+
| Order | Protocol | IP address | Port |
+-------+----------+------------+------+
| 1 | DTLS | 192.0.2.1 | 5349 |
| 2 | TLS | 192.0.2.1 | 5349 |
+-------+----------+------------+------+
Table 2
Appendix B. Release notes
This section must be removed before publication as an RFC.
B.1. Modifications between ietf-tram-stun-dtls-04 and ietf-tram-stun-
dtls-05
o Resolve nits: Updates RFC in abstract.
o Update short title to reflect long title
o Simplify the introduction to simply states that TCP is not optimal
for realtime communications.
Petit-Huguenin & SalgueiExpires December 29, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft STUN over DTLS June 2014
o Add refereence to RFC 5389 section 6 for the magic cookie.
o s/domain/domain name/
o Make clear that knowledge of the SDP is needed to be able to
inject a false XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS.
o Invert the sentence about ICE round-trips to make clear that the
cited draft is just an evidence, not an advice.
o Rewrite of the IANA templates for Port numbers.
o Remove compression from the list of element to take in accoutn to
adjust the PMTU size, as it is now forbidden.
B.2. Modifications between ietf-tram-stun-dtls-03 and ietf-tram-stun-
dtls-04
o Add text to disable TLS compression.
o Add text to require usage of the DTLS cookie for NAT discovery and
NAT behavior discovery.
o Add text to so new usages talk about cookie usage.
o Change TLS-over-UDP to DTLS-over-UDP and use DTLS as alias for
DTLS over UDP..
o Use new text proposed by Simon Josefsson for the cipher suites.
o s/the same port/the same port number/
o s/application name/protocol name/
o Make clear that section 4.3 is only about the STUN Indication
method of media keep-alive.
o Changed contact information to IETF Chair in Port number template.
o Added email addresses in IANA templates.
B.3. Modifications between ietf-tram-stun-dtls-02 and ietf-tram-stun-
dtls-03
o Make it clear that both cipher suites are mandatory.
o Clarify that the ciphers suites listed are replacing the TLS
cipher suites.
Petit-Huguenin & SalgueiExpires December 29, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft STUN over DTLS June 2014
o Change text so "mandatory" is not understood as compliance.
o Clarify that STUN URI are not to be used with some usages.
o Fix incorrect interpretation of ICE media keep-alive (and fixed
section #).
o Explain that sending media keep-alive inside DTLS is possible if
RFC 5764 is used.
o Added title/subtitle of IANA registries.
o Change to normatively update RFC 5389 and RFC 5928.
B.4. Modifications between ietf-tram-stun-dtls-01 and ietf-tram-stun-
dtls-02
o Add text saying that PFS is preferred over non-PFS, to be in sync
with the decision in the rtcweb session in London.
o Add text about IP address in STUN/TURN URIs.
o Nits
B.5. Modifications between ietf-tram-stun-dtls-00 and ietf-tram-stun-
dtls-01
o Update the mandatory cipher suites.
o Add a new open item to determine if we want to specify favoring
cipher suites which support PFS over non-PFS cipher suites.
o Close remaining opening items from previous draft.
B.6. Modifications between petithuguenin-tram-stun-dtls-00 and ietf-
tram-stun-dtls-00
o Draft renamed after WG adoption.
B.7. Modifications between petithuguenin-tram-turn-dtls-00 and
petithuguenin-tram-stun-dtls-00
o Add RFC 6982 information for rfc5766-turn-server project.
o Rename the draft as TURN is now just one of the usages.
o Remove the references in the abstract to make idnits happy.
Petit-Huguenin & SalgueiExpires December 29, 2014 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft STUN over DTLS June 2014
o No longer updates other standard drafts.
o Rewrite from a STUN over DTLS point of view. The previous text
becomes section 4.6.
o Add IANA request for stuns port.
o Add acknowledgement section.
Authors' Addresses
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Jive Communications
1275 West 1600 North, Suite 100
Orem, UT 84057
USA
Email: marcph@getjive.com
Gonzalo Salgueiro
Cisco Systems
7200-12 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
US
Email: gsalguei@cisco.com
Petit-Huguenin & SalgueiExpires December 29, 2014 [Page 18]
