Network Working Group A. Begen Internet-Draft Cisco Intended status: Standards Track October 15, 2014 Expires: April 18, 2015 IANA Registry Updates for RFC 4566bis draft-begen-mmusic-rfc4566bis-iana-updates-00 Abstract The Session Description Protocol (SDP) specification is currently being revised. There are a number of issues that have been identified in the IANA registries related to the SDP protocol (These are tracked in the issue tracker). This document has the goal of addressing these issues by making the necessary changes in the IANA registries and registration procedures. The changes and updates listed in this draft are submitted in this individual draft rather than the 4566bis draft because (i) the 4566bis draft has seen quite a number of changes recently, which require a detailed review and further revisions would make the review process difficult, and (ii) the changes and updates listed in this draft are all IANA related matters. If this draft gets published separately, it will update RFC 4566 or the RFC resulting from the 4566bis draft. An alternative option is to include the whole text in the 4566bis draft once the changes and updates are agreed. 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 http://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 April 18, 2015. Copyright Notice Begen Expires April 18, 2015 [Page 1] Internet-Draft IANA Updates for 4566bis October 2014 Copyright (c) 2014 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 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents 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. Glossary of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. Proposed Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3.1. Dependency between "nettype" and "addrtype" Registries . 2 3.2. New Network Type and Address Type Registrations . . . . . 3 3.3. Format of the "att-field" Registry . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1. Introduction The Session Description Protocol (SDP) specification is currently being revised [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis]. There are a number of issues that have been identified in the IANA registries related to the SDP protocol. This document has the goal of addressing these issues by proposing changes in the IANA registries and registration procedures. 2. Glossary of Terms The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 3. Proposed Changes 3.1. Dependency between "nettype" and "addrtype" Registries Begen Expires April 18, 2015 [Page 2] Internet-Draft IANA Updates for 4566bis October 2014 The "nettype" registry resides at http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters/sdp-parameters.xhtml #sdp-parameters-4 and the "addrtype" registry resides at http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-parameters/sdp-parameters.xhtml #sdp-parameters-5. While there have been multiple network and address types have been registered so far, not all address types are usable with every network type. In other words, there exists a dependency between the network and address types. This dependency should be reflected in the registry. Solution: We add a new column in the "addrtype" registry with the title "Usable nettype Values" and update the "addrtype" registry as follows: -------------------------------------------------------------------- |Type | SDP Name | Usable nettype Values | Reference | -------------------------------------------------------------------- |addrtype | IP4 | IN | [RFC4566] | |addrtype | IP6 | IN | [RFC4566] | |addrtype | NSAP | ATM | [RFC3108] | |addrtype | GWID | ATM | [RFC3108] | |addrtype | E164 | PSTN, ATM | [RFC7195][RFC3108]| -------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case of a new nettype registration, the author has to check whether the new network type is usable with the existing address types. If yes, the "addrtype" registry MUST be updated accordingly. In the case of a new addrtype registration, the author MUST specify the usable network type(s). Editor's note: Both [RFC7195] and [RFC3108] registered "E164" as an address type, although [RFC7195] mentions that the "E164" address type has a different context for ATM and PSTN networks. 3.2. New Network Type and Address Type Registrations New network and address types MUST be registered with IANA. These registrations are subject to the RFC Required - RFC publication policy of [RFC5226]. Begen Expires April 18, 2015 [Page 3] Internet-Draft IANA Updates for 4566bis October 2014 3.3. Format of the "att-field" Registry Section 6 of [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis] defines several attribute names. However, the IANA registration (Section 8.2.4) does not specify the format of the table. There are different usage levels for SDP attributes and the usage level(s) for each attribute MUST be reflected in the registry. Solution: We combine all the five "att-field" registries into one registry and update the columns to reflect the name, usage level(s), charset dependency and reference. That is, we use the following columns: Name | Usage Level | Dependent on charset? | Reference The "Name" column reflects the attribute name (as it will appear in the SDP). The "Usage Level" column MUST indicate one or more of the following: session, media, source. The "Dependent on charset?" column MUST indicate "Yes" or "No" depending on whether the attribute value is subject to the charset attribute. Finally, the "Reference" column indicates the specification(s) where the attribute is defined. Editor's note: In the next revision, the new table with all the attributes in the current IANA registries will be provided here for easier processing by the IANA. 4. Security Considerations There are no security considerations. 5. IANA Considerations This document proposes several changes in the IANA registries related to the SDP protocol. These changes are listed in Section 3. Editor's note: While it is not a common practice to use normative language for the IANA considerations, it should be noted that the normative language in this document applies to the registration procedures (which may eventually move to [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis]). Begen Expires April 18, 2015 [Page 4] Internet-Draft IANA Updates for 4566bis October 2014 6. References 6.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008. [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rfc4566bis] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., Perkins, C., and A. Begen, "SDP: Session Description Protocol", draft-ietf-mmusic- rfc4566bis-12 (work in progress), September 2014. 6.2. Informative References [RFC3108] Kumar, R. and M. Mostafa, "Conventions for the use of the Session Description Protocol (SDP) for ATM Bearer Connections", RFC 3108, May 2001. [RFC7195] Garcia-Martin, M. and S. Veikkolainen, "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Extension for Setting Audio and Video Media Streams over Circuit-Switched Bearers in the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)", RFC 7195, May 2014. Author's Address Ali Begen Cisco 181 Bay Street Toronto, ON M5J 2T3 Canada EMail: abegen@cisco.com Begen Expires April 18, 2015 [Page 5]