Committed to connecting the world

  •  
ITU GSR 2024

ITU-T work programme

Home : ITU-T Home : ITU-T Work Programme : H.245 (V17)     
  ITU-T A.5 justification information for referenced document IETF RFC 8841 (2021) in draft H.245 (V17)
1. Clear description of the referenced document:
Name: IETF RFC 8841 (2021)
Title: Session Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answer Procedures for Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) over Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Transport
2. Status of approval:
Standards track RFC approved by IESG (Internet Engineering Steering Group) in January 2021.
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=8841
5. Other useful information describing the "Quality" of the document:
The status of the referred RFC, is "Proposed Standard".
6. The degree of stability or maturity of the document:
RFC is a standards-track document and is currently in the "Proposed Standard" state. No errata.
7. Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:
None.
8. Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:
Normative references/
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793./
[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./
[RFC4145] Yon, D. and G. Camarillo, "TCP-Based Media Transport in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 4145, DOI 10.17487/RFC4145, September 2005, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4145./
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session Description Protocol", RFC 4566, DOI 10.17487/RFC4566, July 2006, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4566./
[RFC4571] Lazzaro, J., "Framing Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) and RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Packets over Connection- Oriented Transport", RFC 4571, DOI 10.17487/RFC4571, July 2006, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4571./
[RFC4960] Stewart, R., Ed., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 4960, DOI 10.17487/RFC4960, September 2007, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4960./
[RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347, January 2012, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347./
[RFC6544] Rosenberg, J., Keranen, A., Lowekamp, B. B., and A. B. Roach, "TCP Candidates with Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE)", RFC 6544, DOI 10.17487/RFC6544, March 2012, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6544. /
[RFC8122] Lennox, J. and C. Holmberg, "Connection-Oriented Media Transport over the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 8122, DOI 10.17487/RFC8122, March 2017, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8122./
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126./
[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./
[RFC8261] Tuexen, M., Stewart, R., Jesup, R., and S. Loreto, "Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Encapsulation of SCTP Packets", RFC 8261, DOI 10.17487/RFC8261, November 2017, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8261./
[RFC8842] Holmberg, C. and R. Shpount, "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answer Considerations for Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) and Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 8842, DOI 10.17487/RFC8842, January 2021, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8842./
[RFC8859] Nandakumar, S., "A Framework for Session Description Protocol (SDP) Attributes When Multiplexing", RFC 8859, DOI 10.17487/RFC8859, January 2021, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8859./
/
Informative References/
[RFC8445] Keranen, A., Holmberg, C., and J. Rosenberg, "Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal", RFC 8445, DOI 10.17487/RFC8445, July 2018, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8445./
[RFC8831] Jesup, R., Loreto, S., and M. Tüxen, "WebRTC Data Channels", RFC 8831, DOI 10.17487/RFC8831, January 2021, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8831. /
[RFC8832] Jesup, R., Loreto, S., and M. Tüxen, "WebRTC Data Channel Establishment Protocol", RFC 8832, DOI 10.17487/RFC8832, January 2021, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8832. /
[RFC8864] Drage, K., Makaraju, M., Ejzak, R., Marcon, J., and R. Even, Ed., "Negotiation Data Channels Using the Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 8864, DOI 10.17487/RFC8864, January 2021, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8864./
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 not be made to documents referred to as "Internet Drafts" or to IETF RFCs categorized as Historic or Experimental. Normative references must only be made to IETF RFCs that are Standards Track or to Informational RFCs that have IETF consensus.
Note: This form is based on Recommendation ITU-T A.5