|
1.
|
Clear description of the referenced document:
|
|
|
|
|
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=8832
|
|
5.
|
Other useful information describing the "Quality" of the document:
|
|
|
The status of the referred RFC, is "Proposed Standard". Errata exist.
|
|
6.
|
The degree of stability or maturity of the document:
|
|
|
RFC is a standards-track document and is currently in the "Proposed Standard" state. errata exists.
|
|
7.
|
Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:
|
|
|
None.
|
|
8.
|
Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:
|
|
|
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./
[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./
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November 2003, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629./
[RFC4960] Stewart, R., Ed., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 4960, DOI 10.17487/RFC4960, September 2007, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4960./
[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./
[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./
[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./
/
Informative References/
[RFC4347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer Security", RFC 4347, DOI 10.17487/RFC4347, April 2006, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4347./
[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./
[RFC6455] Fette, I. and A. Melnikov, "The WebSocket Protocol", RFC 6455, DOI 10.17487/RFC6455, December 2011, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6455./
[RFC8826] Rescorla, E., "Security Considerations for WebRTC", RFC 8826, DOI 10.17487/RFC8826, January 2021, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8826./
[RFC8827] Rescorla, E., "WebRTC Security Architecture", RFC 8827, DOI 10.17487/RFC8827, January 2021, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8827./
[TLS-DTLS13] Rescorla, E., Tschofenig, H., and N. Modadugu, "The Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version 1.3", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-tls- dtls13-39, 2 November 2020, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-dtls13-39.
|
|
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.
|
|
