Internet DRAFT - draft-rosenberg-mmusic-ice-tcp
draft-rosenberg-mmusic-ice-tcp
MMUSIC J. Rosenberg
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Expires: April 20, 2006 October 17, 2005
TCP Alternatives with Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE
draft-rosenberg-mmusic-ice-tcp-00
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 20, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) defines a mechanism for
NAT traversal for multimedia communication protocols based on the
offer/answer model of session negotiation. ICE works by providing a
set of candidate transport addresses for each media stream, which are
then validated with peer-to-peer connectivity checks based on Simple
Traversal of UDP over NAT (STUN). ICE provides a general framework
for describing alternates, but only defines UDP-based transport
protocols. This specification extends ICE to TCP-based media,
including the ability to offer a mix of TCP and UDP-based candidates
Rosenberg Expires April 20, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ICE October 2005
for a single stream.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Overview of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Gathering Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Ordering the Candidate Pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Performing the Connectivity Checks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Promoting a Candidate to Active . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Learning New Candidates from Connectivity Checks . . . . . . 12
10. Subsequent Offers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. Binding Keepalives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
14.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
14.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 16
Rosenberg Expires April 20, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ICE October 2005
1. Introduction
Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) [5] defines a mechanism
for NAT traversal for multimedia communication protocols based on the
offer/answer model [2] of session negotiation. ICE works by
providing a set of candidate transport addresses for each media
stream, which are then validated with peer-to-peer connectivity
checks based on Simple Traversal of UDP over NAT (STUN) [1]. ICE
provides a general framework for describing alternates, but only
defines procedures for UDP-based transport protocols.
There are many reasons why ICE support for TCP is important.
Firstly, there are media protocols that run over TCP. Examples of
such protocols are web and application sharing and instant messaging
[7]. For these protocols to work in the presence of NAT, unless they
define their own nat traversal mechanisms, ICE support for TCP is
needed. In addition, RTP itself can run over TCP [8]. Typically, it
is preferable to run RTP over UDP, and not TCP. However, in a
variety of network environments, overly restrictive NAT and firewall
devices prevent UDP-based communications altogether, but general TCP-
based communications are permitted. In such environments, sending
RTP over TCP, and thus establishing the media session, may be
preferable to having it fail altogether. With ICE, agents can gather
both UDP and TCP candidates for an RTP-based stream, list the UDP
ones with higher priority, and then only use the TCP-based ones if
the UDP ones fail altogether. This provides a fallback mechanism
that allows multimedia communicatoins to be highly reliable.
The usage of RTP over TCP is particularly useful when combined with
TURN. In that usage, one of the agents would connect to its TURN
server using TCP, and obtain a TCP-based transport address. It would
offer this up to its peer agent as a candidate. That agent would
initiate a TCP connection towards the TURN server. When that
connection is established, media can flow over the connections,
through the relay. The benefit of this usage is that it only
requires the agents to make outbound TCP connections to a server on
the public network. This kind of operation is broadly interoperable
through NAT and firewall devices. Since it is a goal of ICE and this
extension to provide highly reliable communications that "just works"
in as a broad a set of network deployments as possible, this usage is
particularly important.
This specification extends ICE by defining its usage with TCP-based
candidates. ICE indicates in each of its sections where there is
transport-specific logic. It requests that specifications which
define usage of ICE with other transport protocols - as this one does
- define a version of that logic. This specification does so by
following the outline of ICE itself, and calling out the transport
Rosenberg Expires April 20, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ICE October 2005
protocol specific logic needed in each section.
2. Overview of Operation
The usage of ICE with TCP is relatively straightforward. The main
area of specification is around how and when connections are opened,
and how those connections relate to transport address pairs and
candidates.
When the agents perform address allocations to gather TCP-based
candidates, the transport addresses they obtain are always used in a
passive mode. As such, a candidate pair formed through an offer/
answer exchange will contain a pair of transport addresses, both of
which can only be used in passive mode. When it comes time to
perform a connectivity check on the candidate pair, both sides open a
TCP connection, but do so from an ephemeral port on the same
interface as their passive transport address. If the connection
setup succeeds, the active side sends a STUN Binding Request over the
connection. With TCP, the STUN Binding Requests are not so much for
validation of connectivity (which TCP itself will provide), but
rather, identification of the connection and correlation of it with a
peer agent.
Since the connection was opened from a different port, the agent will
see a new source IP address and port in the Binding Request. This
will result in the creation of a new peer-derived TCP candidate and a
candidate pair. If the connection attempt succeeded in the other
direction, a second peer-derived TCP candidate and candidate pair
would be created. The peer-derived candidate pairs each hold a
single TCP connection, whereas the original candidate pair will never
hold any. Effectively, the original candidate pair only serves the
purpose of spawning peer-derived candidate pairs that actually
contain the TCP connections.
This is shown pictorially in Figure 1. The picture shows two agents
L and R. Agent L has an IP interface with IP address M, and agent R
has one with IP address N. Agent L binds to a TCP port on interface M
with port X, and Agent R binds to a TCP port on interface N with port
A. An offer answer exchange takes place, resulting in a candidate
pair with a transport address pair containing M:X and N:A. When this
candidate pair is selected for a connectivity check, agent L
initiates the connection on interface M, but from ephemeral port Y.
The connection is opened to N:A. Similarly, agent R opens a
connection from interface N, but from ephemeral port B. The
connection is opened to M:X. Each agent sends a STUN Binding Request
over the connection it opened. This will result in a pair of peer
derived candidates, each with a transport address pair and a TCP
connection. One contains the transport address pair {N:B,M:X} and
Rosenberg Expires April 20, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ICE October 2005
the connection with that 5-tuple, and the other contains the
transport address pair {M:Y,N:A} and the connection with that
5-tuple. Note how there is no TCP connection associated with the
original candidate pair.
Agent Agent
L R
+-----+ +-----+
............. ............
.......................................
. . | | . . | | . . Original
. . | X |^ . . | A | . . Candidate
. ........| \ . . ^| ....... . Pair
.......................................
| |. \ . / |. |
| | . \ . . / . |
| | . \. . .| |
| | . . / . . | |
| | .. \/ . | |
| | .. /\ . . | |
| | . . \. .| |
| | . / . .\ . |
| | . / . \ |. |
| | . / . . \ | . |
.......... / . . \ | .......
Peer-Derived. | | / . . \| | .Peer-Derived
Candidate . | Y |/ . . | B | .Candidate
Pair . | | . . | | .Pair
............ ...........
| | | |
+-----+ +-----+
Interface Interface
M N
Figure 1
Because of the reliable nature of TCP, a Binding Request is needed
only from the active side of the connection to the passive side,
entirely for identification purposes. Once complete, the peer-
derived candidate pair and its connection are valid, and can be
promoted to the m/c-line.
The reason why connections are not opened from the same port as the
transport address is that doing so would produce a simultaneous open
between the agents in many cases. True simultaneous opens fail to
Rosenberg Expires April 20, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ICE October 2005
work through many NATs, therefore defeating the purpose of this
specification.
When a TCP-based candidate is promoted to the m/c-line, the SDP
extensions for connection oriented media [3] are used to signal that
an existing connection should be used, rather than opening a new one.
In addition, the original candidate is no longer listed with
a=candidate attributes. This is to prevent usage of STUN for
keepalives. Separating STUN from the media data over the same TCP
connection may not be possible, and for this reason application-layer
keepalives are used with TCP.
3. Gathering Addresses
Section 7.1 of ICE defines the procedures for gathering of transport
addresses for usage in candidates. These procedures are defined for
local candidates, STUN-derived candidates and TURN-derived
candidates. ICE indicates that these procedures are transport
protocol specific, and requires extensions to ICE to define
procedures for other transport protocols. This section defines those
procedures for TCP.
For each TCP-only media stream the agent wishes to use, the agent
obtains a set of candidates by binding to N ephemeral TCP ports on
each interface, where N is the number of transport addresses needed
for the candidate. For media streams that can support either UDP or
TCP, the agent SHOULD obtain a set of candidates by binding to N
ephemeral UDP and N ephemeral TCP ports on each interface, where N is
the number of transport addresses needed for the candidate.
Media streams carried using the Real Time Transport Protocol (RTP)
[4] can run over TCP [8]. As such, it is RECOMMENDED that both UDP
and TCP candidates be obtained. However, providers of real-time
communications services may decide that it is preferable to have no
media at all than it is to have media over TCP. To allow for choice,
it is RECOMMENDED that agents be configurable with whether they
obtain TCP candidates for real time media.
Having it be configurable, and then configuring it to be off, is
far better than not having the capability at all. An important
goal of this specification is to provide a single mechanism that
can be used across all types of endpoints. As such, it is
preferable to account for provider and network variation through
configuration, instead of hard-coded limitations in an
implementation. Furthermore, network characteristics and
connectivity assumptions can, and will change over time. Just
because a agent is communicating with a server on the public
network today, doesn't mean that it won't need to communicate with
Rosenberg Expires April 20, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ICE October 2005
one behind a NAT tomorrow. Just because a agent is behind a full
cone NAT today, doesn't mean that tomorrow they won't pick up
their agent and take it to a public network access point where
there is a symmetric NAT or one that only allows outbound TCP.
The way to handle these cases and build a reliable system is for
agents to implement a diverse set of techniques for allocating
addresses, so that at least one of them is almost certainly going
to work in any situation. Implementors should consider very
carefully any assumptions that they make about deployments before
electing not to implement one of the mechanisms for address
allocation. In particular, implementors should consider whether
the elements in the system may be mobile, and connect through
different networks with different connectivity. They should also
consider whether endpoints which are under their control, in terms
of location and network connectivity, would always be under their
control. Only in cases where there isn't now, and never will be,
endpoint mobility or nomadicity of any sort, should a technique be
omitted.
STUN-based candidates for TCP streams are not possible, since STUN
only works with UDP.
To obtain a TURN-derived TCP candidates, the client takes a local TCP
candidate, and for each configured TURN server, produces a TCP TURN
candidate. It is anticipated that clients may have a multiplicity of
TURN servers configured in network environments where there are
multiple layers of NAT, and that layering is known to the provider of
the client. To produce the TURN candidate from a local candidate, it
iterates through the local transport addresses in the local
candidate, and for for each one, initiates a TCP connection from the
same interface of the local transport address to the TURN server. It
MUST NOT initiate the connection from the actual port in the local
transport address, but rather, from an ephemeral port. Following the
procedures of Section 8 of [6], it initiates an Allocate Request
transaction over the connection. The Allocate Response will provide
the client with its TCP TURN derived transport address in the MAPPED-
ADDRESS attribute. Once the TURN allocations against a particular
TURN server succeed from all of the transport addresses in a
particular local candidate, the client SHOULD NOT attempt any further
TURN allocations to that particular server from the transport
addresses in any other local candidates.
Like its UDP counterparts, TCP-based TURN allocations are paced out
at one every Ta seconds. This pacing refers to the establishment of
a TCP connection to the server and the subsequent TURN request. That
is, every Ta seconds, the agent will open a new TCP connection and
send a TURN Allocate request.
Rosenberg Expires April 20, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ICE October 2005
4. Prioritization
Section 7.2 of ICE defines guidelines for prioritizing the set of
candidates learned through the gathering process. It specifies that
if there are considerations that are specific to the transport
protocol, these considerations should be called out in the ICE
extension which defines usage with that transport protocol. This
section describes considerations specific to TCP.
The transport protocol itself is a criteria for choosing one
candidate over another. If a particular media stream can run over
UDP or TCP, the UDP candidates might be preferred over the TCP
candidates. This allows ICE to use the lower latency UDP
connectivity if it exists, but fallback to TCP if UDP doesn't work.
Section 7.2 of ICE also defines guidelines for selecting an active
candidate in the initial offer. It specifies that if there are
considerations that are specific to the transport protocol, these
considerations should be called out in the ICE extension which
defines usage with that transport protocol. This section describes
considerations specific to TCP.
When TCP-based media streams are used with ICE, the ICE mechanisms
described here are responsible for opening the connections and
testing them. Once validated, they are promoted to active and then,
and only then, can be used for media transport. For this reason, in
an initial offer, prior to validation, the active candidate will
either be non-TCP (for example, with RTP, it is anticipated that the
active candidate would be UDP-based, with TCP candidates as lower
priority alternatives), or there is no active candidate.
5. Encoding
Section 7.3 of ICE defines procedurs for encoding the candidates into
an SDP offer or answer. It specifies that if there are
considerations that are specific to the transport protocol, these
considerations should be called out in the ICE extension which
defines usage with that transport protocol. This section describes
considerations specific to TCP.
TCP-based candidates are encoded into a=candidate lines identically
to the UDP encoding described in [5]. However, the transport
protocol is set to "tcp" rather than "udp".
Encoding of the active candidate in the m/c-line, however, requires
special considerations for TCP. If there is no active candidate, the
media session MUST include an a=holdconn attribute as defined in RFC
4145 [3]. This has the effect of suspending opening of the TCP
Rosenberg Expires April 20, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ICE October 2005
connections - exactly the desired effect since they are opened by the
procedures defined in this specification. The IP address and port
encoded into the m/c-line are inconsequential, since they are never
used anyway.
If there is an active candidate, it will be because a candidate pair
has been validated. The m/c-line contains the native IP address and
port for the candidate, which will be the ephemeral port if the agent
had opened the connection. This is in contrast to RFC 4145, which
recommends that the active side of a connection place a port with
value '9'. In addition, the media session MUST NOT contain the
a=holdconn attribute. It MUST contain the a=active attribute if the
agent had opened the TCP connection corresponding to the active
candidate, and a=passive if it had been the passive side of the
connection. Finally, the media session MUST contain the a=existing
attribute, indicating that an existing connection is to be used,
rather than opening a new one.
6. Ordering the Candidate Pairs
Section 7.5 of ICE defines procedurs for ordering the candidates into
an SDP offer or answer. It specifies that if there are
considerations that are specific to the transport protocol, these
considerations should be called out in the ICE extension which
defines usage with that transport protocol. This section describes
considerations specific to TCP.
ICE defines two orderings for candidate pairs - a priority order and
a check order. These differ only by the position of the active
candidate in the list. However, with TCP, prior to validation, there
is no active TCP candidate. As a consequence, the two lists are
equivalent if there is no active candidate.
7. Performing the Connectivity Checks
Section 7.6 of ICE defines procedures for performing the connectivity
checks. These are based on a state machine that captures
progressions of the checks. This state machine is specific to the
transport protocol, and the version for TCP is described here.
The set of states visited by the offerer and answerer are depicted
graphically in Figure 2
Rosenberg Expires April 20, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ICE October 2005
|
|Start
|
|
V
+------------+
+------| |------+
Cnxn Attempt | | | | Get Req.
------------ | | Waiting | | --------
Accept | | | | Send Res.
+----->| |<-----+
+------------+
|
| Timer Ta
| --------.
| Open Conn,
V Send Req
+------------+
| |
|new pair | | |new pair
|learned | Testing | |learned
|from | | |from
|Response | | |Request
| +------------+ |
| | |
| | Error |
| | ----- |
| | - |
| V |
| +------------+ |
| | | |
| | | |
| | Invalid | |
| | | |
| | | |
| +------------+ |
| ^ |
| | Error |
| | ----- |
| | - |
| +------------+ |
| | | |
| | | |
+-------------->| Valid |<-------------+
| |
| |
+------------+
Rosenberg Expires April 20, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ICE October 2005
Figure 2
The state machine has four states - waiting, testing, Valid and
Invalid. Initially, all transport address pairs start in the waiting
state. In this state, the agent waits for one of a chance to open a
connection and send a Binding Request.
STUN Binding Requests and Responses are mapped to transport address
pairs and their state machines as described in Section 7.6 of ICE.
Every Ta seconds, the agent starts a new connectivity check for a
transport address pair. The check is started for the first transport
address pair in the transport address pair check ordered list that is
in the Waiting state. The state machine for this transport address
pair is moved to the Testing state, and the agent opens a TCP
connection to the remote transport address in the transport address
pair, and do so "from" its native transport address. Here, "from"
means something different than the UDP case. If the native transport
address is a local transport address, the agent opens the TCP
connection from the same IP interface used to obtain the local
transport address, but from a different and ephemeral port. Indeed,
that port MUST NOT be the same as the port in the local transport
address. If the native transport address is a TURN-derived TCP
transport address, no attempt is made to open a connection at all.
TURN-derived TCP transport addresses can only be used in passive
mode.
Once the connection is opened, the agent sends a STUN Binding Request
according to the procedures of Section 7.7 of ICE. That section
indicates that STUN extensions should define any transport specific
considerations for transmission of the STUN request. In the case of
TCP, the STUN request is sent on the connection that was just opened.
The STUN request is not retransmitted. STUN messages include length
indicators, allowing them to be framed over a connection-oriented
transport protocol.
If, while in the Waiting state, the agent receives a connection setup
attempt on one of its candidates, it creates the connection. If it
receives a STUN Binding Request, it generates a response according to
the procedures in Section 7.8 of ICE, including generation of the
MAPPED-ADDRESS attribute in the response. Note that, in the case of
TCP, there is no need to disambiguate STUN and media traffic sent
over the same connection. When a connection is opened initially, the
first packet sent (and received) is a stun message. No further STUN
messages are sent; the connection is either eventually torn down, or
promoted to active, in which case media packets will follow.
If the STUN transaction produces an error, the state machine moves
Rosenberg Expires April 20, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft ICE October 2005
into the Invalid state. Note that there is no change of state if it
produces a success response. Rather, that response will yield a new
peer-derived transport address and corresponding state machine that
moves directly to the Valid state, as described below. Similarly, if
an agent receives a STUN request that generates a success response, a
peer derived transport address is created, and its corresponding
transport address pair moves to the Valid state.
8. Promoting a Candidate to Active
Promotion of a candidate to active occurs as described in Section 7.9
of ICE. The only difference to note is that, with TCP, the candidate
pair priority ordered list and candidate pair check ordered list are
identical, since there is no active TCP candidate. As a consequence,
as soon as a candidate is validated, if it is the first in the
priority list, an offer is sent immediately. Otherwise, timer Tws is
set, and the offer will be sent when it fires.
9. Learning New Candidates from Connectivity Checks
Section 7.10 of ICE describes procedures for learning new candidates
from connectivity checks. ICE indicates that the behavior of the
state machines are transport protocol specific, and extensions to ICE
for new transport protocols are asked to describe the behavior of the
state machines. This section does so for TCP.
Firstly, it is important to realize that a successul TCP connection
attempt and STUN connectivity check will always result in a peer-
derived candidate being constructed. ICE talks about learning new
peer-derived candidates as a consequence of symmetric NAT. Here,
they are learned as a consequence of opening TCP connections from an
ephemeral port.
When a new peer-derived candidate is formed as a result of receipt of
a STUN Binding Request that generates a successful response, the
state machine for that candidate enters the Valid state. Unlike UDP,
a Binding Request is not sent back to the source of the request.
Similarly, when a new peer-derived candidate is formed as a result of
receipt of a successful STUN Binding Response, the state machine for
that candidate enters the Valid state. In both cases, the new
candidate pair is inserted into the ordered list of pairs and
processing follows the logic described in Section 7.
10. Subsequent Offers
Section 7.11 of ICE describes procedures for subsequent offer/answer
exchanges. ICE indicates that if there are any considerations that
are transport protocol specific, new transport protocols are asked to
Rosenberg Expires April 20, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft ICE October 2005
describe them. This section does so for TCP.
The procedures defined in Section 7.11 of ICE apply to TCP as
defined. However, if a candidate is not valid, it MUST NOT be placed
into the m/c-line of a subsequent offer or answer. Only valid
candidates are placed into the m/c-line for TCP. This is in contrast
to UDP, where a partially valid one can be used.
Once the offer/answer exchange has completed, the m/c-lines from each
agent, when put together, identify a complete 5-tuple. This 5-tuple
is used to identify the TCP connection on which media can now be
sent.
In addition, if a candidate pair is removed as a consequence of the
processing defined in Section 7.11, and that candidate pair was TCP-
based, its corresponding TCP connection (if any) is torn down.
Additional considerations do apply, however, to the usage of RFC 4145
attributes in the m/c-line. The offerer will include the a=existing
and either a=active or a=inactive attributes in the m-line, depending
on whether the agent had opened or closed the connection. When the
answerer receives this, it follows the procedures of RFC 4145 to
generate the attributes in the response. It MUST indicate that the
existing connection is being reused, by including an a=existing
attribute in the answer.
Furthermore, RFC 4145 defines the a=existing attribute to mean the
reuse of the existing connection established as a consequence of RFC
4145 processing for this media stream. This specification broadens
that definition. The existing connection can also be one established
as a consequence of the mechanisms defined in this specification, and
the specific TCP connection to use is defined by the 5-tuple
constructed from the m/c-line in the offer and the m/c-line in the
answer.
RFC 4145 also describes TCP connection lifecycle management
procedures. If the TCP connection used in the m/c-line was opened by
ICE processing, it is closed by ICE processing as well. This occurs
when the session terminates, or when the generating candidate for the
active one ceases to be retained in a subsequent offer/answer
exchange.
11. Binding Keepalives
As mention in ICE, STUN-based keepalives are not used for TCP-based
media streams. Instead, application layer keepalives MUST be used.
For RTP, the considerations described in Section 7.12 of ICE for
communicating with non-ICE endpoints apply to the selection of a
Rosenberg Expires April 20, 2006 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft ICE October 2005
keepalive mechanism.
12. Security Considerations
13. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations associated with this specification.
14. References
14.1 Normative References
[1] 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.
[2] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model with
Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, June 2002.
[3] Yon, D. and G. Camarillo, "TCP-Based Media Transport in the
Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 4145, September 2005.
[4] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. Jacobson,
"RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications",
RFC 3550, July 2003.
[5] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A
Methodology for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for
Offer/Answer Protocols", draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-05 (work in
progress), July 2005.
[6] Rosenberg, J., "Traversal Using Relay NAT (TURN)",
draft-rosenberg-midcom-turn-08 (work in progress),
September 2005.
14.2 Informative References
[7] Campbell, B., "The Message Session Relay Protocol",
draft-ietf-simple-message-sessions-11 (work in progress),
July 2005.
[8] Lazzaro, J., "Framing RTP and RTCP Packets over Connection-
Oriented Transport", draft-ietf-avt-rtp-framing-contrans-06
(work in progress), September 2005.
Rosenberg Expires April 20, 2006 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft ICE October 2005
Author's Address
Jonathan Rosenberg
Cisco Systems
600 Lanidex Plaza
Parsippany, NJ 07054
US
Phone: +1 973 952-5000
Email: jdrosen@cisco.com
URI: http://www.jdrosen.net
Rosenberg Expires April 20, 2006 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft ICE October 2005
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Rosenberg Expires April 20, 2006 [Page 16]