|
1.
|
Clear description of the referenced document:
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
Status of approval:
|
|
|
Approved Standards Track RFC approved 2007-09.
|
|
3.
|
Justification for the specific reference:
|
|
|
To allow H.245 to signal the support of the CLUE protocol and to establish a CLUE over WebRTC data channel which in turn uses SCTP / DTLS.
|
|
4.
|
Current information, if any, about IPR issues:
|
|
|
Information on IPR issues regarding RFCs is available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/. Specifically: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=rfc_search&rfc_search=4960
|
|
5.
|
Other useful information describing the "Quality" of the document:
|
|
|
RFC 4960 has been in existence since 2007. Updated by RFC 6335, RFC 6096, RFC 7053. Obsoletes RFC 3309, RFC 2960
|
|
6.
|
The degree of stability or maturity of the document:
|
|
|
RFC is a standards-track document and is currently in the "Proposed Standard" state. This text is a Proposed Standard. These documents have been reviewed extensively in IETF. Updated by RFC 6096, RFC 6335, RFC 7053, RFC 8899. Obsoletes RFC 2960, RFC 3309. Errata exists.
|
|
7.
|
Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:
|
|
|
RFC 4960 defines the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) and is expected to be widely used.
|
|
8.
|
Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:
|
|
|
[ITU32] "ITU-T Recommendation V.42, "Error-correcting procedures for DCEs using asynchronous-to-synchronous conversion", ITU-T section 8.1.1.6.2./
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, August 1980./
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793, September 1981./
[RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989./
[RFC1123] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989./
[RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191, November 1990./
[RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996./
[RFC1982] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Serial Number Arithmetic", RFC 1982, August 1996./
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997./
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998./
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998./
[RFC2581] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and W. Stevens, "TCP Congestion Control", RFC 2581, April 1999./
[RFC3873] Pastor, J. and M. Belinchon, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3873, September 2004./
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006./
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005./
[RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", RFC 4303, December 2005./
[RFC4306] Kaufman, C., Ed., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol", RFC 4306, December 2005./
[RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery", RFC 4821, March 2007.
|
|
9.
|
Qualification of
ISOC/IETF:
|
|
|
9.1-9.6 Decisions of ITU Council to admit ISOC to participate in the work of the Sector (June 1995 and June 1996).
9.7 The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is responsible for ongoing maintenance of the RFCs when the need arises. Comments on RFCs and corresponding changes are accommodated through the existing standardization process.
9.8 Each revision of a given RFC has a different RFC number, so no confusion is possible. All RFCs always remain available on-line. An index of RFCs and their status may be found in the IETF archives at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html.
|
|
10.
|
Other (for any supplementary information):
|
|
|
References should always be made to RFC numbers (and not by other designations such as STD, BCP, etc.). References not to be made to documents referred to as "Internet Drafts" or RFCs categorized as "Historic". Normative references should not be made to RFCs that are not standards, for example, "Informational" and "Experimental" RFCs.
|
|
