Internet DRAFT - draft-rosenberg-dispatch-ript-webrtc
draft-rosenberg-dispatch-ript-webrtc
Network Working Group J. Rosenberg
Internet-Draft Five9
Intended status: Standards Track February 7, 2020
Expires: August 10, 2020
RealTime Internet Peering for Telephony (RIPT) Compatibility with webRTC
draft-rosenberg-dispatch-ript-webrtc-00
Abstract
The Real-Time Internet Peering for Telephony (RIPT) Protocol defines
a technique for establishing, terminating and otherwise managing
calls between entities in differing administrative domains. The RIPT
Inbound extension brings this to end clients, such as a browser.
However, it defines a different technique for media that cannot
directly use the webRTC APIs, and require a change to them. This
specification provides an extension to RIPT for webRTC compatibility,
enabling media to flow from browser to server as is done with RIPT,
or from browser to browser as is done with webRTC. It also discusses
techniques for sending e2e encrypted media.
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 August 10, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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
publication of this document. Please review these documents
Rosenberg Expires August 10, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RIPT webRTC February 2020
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Overview of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1. Introduction
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Overview of Operation
Basic idea: The TG indicates that this compatibility mode is
supported on the TG. The handler is also indicates that this mode is
supported. The handler includes its own ICE candidates. This means
we provide the ICE candidates at "registration" time and not before
the call. This is necessary to facilitate the many call move and
other operations in RIPT-inbound. This also means the browser needs
to keep them fresh all of the time, rather than just before the call
[[is this posible with current API??]].
Since the media is sent by DTLS-SRTP and not embedded as media chunks
in a client-to-server HTTPS connection, the browser includes its
fingerprint in the handler as well.
To initiate this compatibility mode for media, the server indicates
as such in the directive. It can only put it in a directive if the
handler that is selected, supports the mode. The directive includes
the ICE candidates from the peer. This will trigger the client to
perform ICE and send media (which will be DTLS-SRTP).
RIPT itself doesnt convey the ICE candidates in the server to server
link, since its only through handler whih is static for a device and
not per-call. So we'd either need to move them, develop a separate
way to convey them, or assume SIP or some other technique is used for
server to server calls.
Rosenberg Expires August 10, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RIPT webRTC February 2020
Suggest we also require a well-known port for media, and we'll need
an RTP headr extension to convey the callID since its included inband
in RIPT.
3. IANA Considerations
TODO
4. Security Considerations
TODO
5. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Justin Uberti and Cullen Jennings for the discussion on
this concept.
6. Normative References
[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>.
Author's Address
Jonathan Rosenberg
Five9
Email: jdrosen@jdrosen.net
Rosenberg Expires August 10, 2020 [Page 3]