wdiff rfc8842.original rfc8842.txt

Network Working Group

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) C. Holmberg
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 8842 Ericsson
Updates: 5763,7345 (if approved) 5763, 7345 R. Shpount
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track TurboBridge
Expires: May 2, 2018 October 29, 2017
ISSN: 2070-1721 January 2021

Session Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answer Considerations for
Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) and Transport Layer Security
(TLS)
draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-32.txt

Abstract

This document defines the Session Description Protocol (SDP) offer/
answer procedures for negotiating and establishing a Datagram
Transport Layer Security (DTLS) association. The document also
defines the criteria for when a new DTLS association must be
established. The document updates RFC RFCs 5763 and RFC 7345, 7345 by replacing
common SDP offer/answer procedures with a reference to this
specification.

This document defines a new SDP media-level attribute, 'tls-id'. "tls-id".

This document also defines how the 'tls-id' "tls-id" attribute can be used for
negotiating and establishing a Transport Layer Security (TLS)
connection, in conjunction with the procedures in RFC RFCs 4145 and RFC 8122.

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 an Internet Standards Track document.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

Information about the current status of six months this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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 May 2, 2018.

Internet-DrafSession Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answe October 2017
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8842.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Establishing a new New DTLS Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Change of Local Transport Parameters . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Change of ICE ufrag value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Value
4. SDP tls-id "tls-id" Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. SDP Offer/Answer Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Generating the Initial SDP Offer . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3. Generating the Answer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4. Offerer Processing of the SDP Answer . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.5. Modifying the Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. ICE Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. TLS Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. SIP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. RFC Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.2. Update to RFC 5763 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.2.1. Update to section Section 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.2.2. Update to section Section 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.2.3. Update to section Section 6.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.2.4. Update to section Section 6.7.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.3. Update to RFC 7345 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.3.1. Update to section Section 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.3.2. Update to section Section 5.2.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.3.3. Update to section 10.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Section 9.1
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
13. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Internet-DrafSession Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answe October 2017

14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
14.1.
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
14.2.
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Acknowledgements
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

1. Introduction

[RFC5763] defines Session Description Protocol (SDP) offer/answer
procedures for Secure Realtime Real-time Transport Protocol Using using Datagram
Transport Layer Security (DTLS-SRTP). [RFC7345] defines SDP offer/
answer procedures for UDP Transport Layer over Datagram Transport
Layer Security (UDPTL-DTLS). This specification defines general
offer/answer procedures for DTLS, based on the procedures in
[RFC5763]. Other specifications, defining specific DTLS usages, can
then reference this specification, in order to ensure that the DTLS
aspects are common among all usages. Having common procedures is
essential when multiple usages share the same DTLS association
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation]. The
[RFC8843]. This document updates [RFC5763] and [RFC7345], [RFC7345] by
replacing common SDP offer/answer procedures with a reference to this
specification.

| NOTE: Since the publication of [RFC5763], [RFC4474] has been
| obsoleted by [I-D.ietf-stir-rfc4474bis]. [RFC8224]. The updating of the references (and
| the associated procedures) within [RFC5763] is outside the
| scope of this document. However, implementers of [RFC5763]
| applications are encouraged to implement
[I-D.ietf-stir-rfc4474bis] [RFC8224] instead of
| [RFC4474].

As defined in [RFC5763], a new DTLS association MUST be established
when transport parameters are changed. Transport parameter change is
not well defined when Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE)
[I-D.ietf-ice-rfc5245bis]
[RFC8445] is used. One possible way to determine a transport change
is based on ufrag [I-D.ietf-ice-rfc5245bis] [RFC8445] change, but the ufrag value is changed
both when ICE is negotiated and when ICE restart [I-D.ietf-ice-rfc5245bis] [RFC8445] occurs.
These events do not always require a new DTLS association to be
established, but previously there was no way to explicitly indicate
in an SDP offer or answer whether a new DTLS association is was
required. To solve that problem, this document defines a new SDP
attribute, 'tls-id'. "tls-id". The pair of SDP 'tls-id' "tls-id" attribute values (the
attribute values of the offerer and the answerer) uniquely identifies
the DTLS association. Providing a new value of the 'tls-id' "tls-id"
attribute in an SDP offer or
answers answer can be used to indicate whether a
new DTLS association is to be established.

The SDP 'tls-id' "tls-id" attribute can be specified when negotiating a
Transport Layer Security (TLS) connection, using the procedures in
this document in conjunction with the procedures in [RFC5763] and

Internet-DrafSession Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answe October 2017
[RFC8122]. The unique combination of SDP 'tls-id' "tls-id" attribute values
can be used to identity identify the negotiated TLS connection. The unique
value can be used, for example, within TLS protocol extensions to
differentiate between multiple TLS connections and correlate those
connections with specific offer/answer exchanges. The TLS specific TLS-specific
considerations are described in Section 7.

2. Conventions

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
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.

3. Establishing a new New DTLS Association

3.1. General

A new DTLS association must be established between two endpoints
after a successful SDP offer/answer exchange in the following cases:

* The negotiated DTLS setup roles change; or

* One or more fingerprint values are modified, added added, or removed in
either an SDP offer or answer; or

* The intent to establish a new DTLS association is explicitly
signaled using SDP, by changing the value of the SDP 'tls-id' "tls-id"
attribute defined in this document;

| NOTE: The first two items above are based on the procedures in
| [RFC5763]. This specification adds the support for explicit
| signaling using the SDP 'tls-id' "tls-id" attribute.

A new DTLS association can only be established as a result of the
successful SDP offer/answer exchange. Whenever an entity determines
that a new DTLS association is required, the entity MUST initiate an
SDP offer/answer exchange, following the procedures in Section 5.

The sections below describe typical cases where a new DTLS
association needs to be established.

In this document, a "new DTLS association" between two endpoints
refers to either an initial DTLS association (when no DTLS
association is currently established between the endpoints) or an a DTLS
association replacing a previously established DTLS association.

Internet-DrafSession Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answe October 2017 one.

3.2. Change of Local Transport Parameters

If an endpoint modifies its local transport parameters (address and/
or port), and if the modification requires a new DTLS association,
the endpoint MUST change its local SDP 'tls-id' "tls-id" attribute value (see
Section 4).

If the underlying transport protocol prohibits a DTLS association
from spanning multiple 5-tuples (transport/source address/source
port/destination address/destination port), and if the 5-tuple is
changed, the endpoint MUST change its local SDP 'tls-id' "tls-id" attribute
value (see Section 4). An example of such a case is when DTLS is
carried over the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP), as
described in [RFC6083].

3.3. Change of ICE ufrag value Value

If an endpoint uses ICE, ICE and modifies a local ufrag value, and if the
modification requires a new DTLS association, the endpoint MUST
change its local SDP 'tls-id' "tls-id" attribute value (see Section 4).

4. SDP tls-id "tls-id" Attribute

The pair of SDP 'tls-id' "tls-id" attribute values (the attribute values of
the offerer and the answerer) uniquely identifies the DTLS
association or TLS connection.

Internet-DrafSession Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answe October 2017

Name: tls-id

Value: tls-id-value

Usage Level: media

Charset Dependent: no

Default Value: N/A

Syntax:
tls-id-value = 20*255(tls-id-char)
tls-id-char = ALPHA / DIGIT / "+" / "/" / "-" / "_"

Example:
a=tls-id:abc3de65cddef001be82

Every time an endpoint requests to establish a new DTLS association,
the endpoint MUST generate a new local 'tls-id' "tls-id" attribute value. A
non-changed An
unchanged local 'tls-id' "tls-id" attribute value, in combination with non-
changed fingerprints, indicates that the endpoint intends to reuse
the existing DTLS association.

The 'tls-id' "tls-id" attribute value MUST be generated using a strong random
function and include at least 120 bits of randomness.

No default value is defined for the SDP 'tls-id' "tls-id" attribute.
Implementations that wish to use the attribute MUST explicitly
include it in SDP offers and answers. If an offer or answer does not
contain a 'tls-id' "tls-id" attribute (this could happen if the offerer or
answerer represents an existing implementation that has not been
updated to support the 'tls-id' "tls-id" attribute), unless there is another
mechanism to explicitly indicate that a new DTLS association is to be
established, a modification of one or
more of the following characteristics MUST be treated as an
indication that an endpoint wants to establish a new DTLS association:

o
association, unless there is another mechanism to explicitly indicate
that a new DTLS association is to be established:

* DTLS setup role; or

* fingerprint set; or

* local transport parameters

Internet-DrafSession Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answe October 2017

| NOTE: A modification of the ufrag value is not treated as an
| indication that an endpoint wants to establish a new DTLS assocation.
| association. In order to indicate that a new DTLS association
| is to be established, one or more of the characteristics listed
| above have to be modified.

The mux category [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes] [RFC8859] for the 'tls-
id' "tls-id" attribute is 'IDENTICAL', "IDENTICAL",
which means that the attribute value applies to all media
descriptions being multiplexed
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation]. [RFC8843]. However, as described in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation],
[RFC8843], in order to avoid
duplication duplication, the attribute is only
associated with the "m=" line representing the offerer/answerer BUNDLE-tag.
BUNDLE tag.

For RTP-based media, the 'tls-id' "tls-id" attribute applies to the whole
associated media description. The attribute MUST NOT be defined per
source (using the SDP 'ssrc' "ssrc" attribute [RFC5576]).

The SDP offer/answer [RFC3264] procedures [RFC3264] associated with the
attribute are defined in Section 5.

5. SDP Offer/Answer Procedures

5.1. General

This section defines the generic SDP offer/answer procedures for
negotiating a DTLS association. Additional procedures (e.g.,
regarding usage of specific SDP attributes etc.) attributes) for individual DTLS
usages (e.g., DTLS-SRTP) are outside the scope of this specification, specification
and need to be specified in a usage specific specification. usage-specific document.

| NOTE: The procedures in this section are generalizations of
| procedures first specified in the DTLS-SRTP document [RFC5763],
| with the addition of usage of the SDP 'tls-id' "tls-id" attribute. That
| document is herein updated to make use of these new procedures.

The procedures in this section apply to an SDP media description
("m=" line) associated with DTLS-protected media/data.

When an offerer or answerer indicates that it wants to establish a
new DTLS association, it needs to make sure that media packets
associated with any previously established DTLS association and the
new DTLS association can be de-multiplexed. demultiplexed. In the case of an ordered
transport (e.g., SCTP) SCTP), this can be done simply by sending packets
for the new DTLS association after all packets associated with a
previously established DTLS association has have been sent. In the case
of an unordered transport, such as UDP, packets associated with a
previously established DTLS association can arrive after the answer

Internet-DrafSession Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answe October 2017
SDP was received and after the first packets associated with the new DTLS association were
have been received. The only way to de-multiplex demultiplex packets associated
with with a previously established DTLS association and the new DTLS
association is on the basis of the 5-tuple. Because of this, if an
unordered transport is used for the DTLS association, a new 3-tuple
(transport/source address/source port) MUST be allocated by at least
one of the endpoints so that DTLS packets can be de-
multiplexed. demultiplexed.

When an offerer needs to establish a new DTLS association, and if an
unordered transport (e.g., UDP) is used, the offerer MUST allocate a
new 3-tuple for the offer in such a way that the offerer can
disambiguate any packets associated with the new DTLS association
from any packets associated with any other DTLS association. This
typically means using a local address and/or port, or a set of ICE
candidates (see Section 6), which were not recently used for any
other DTLS association.

When an answerer needs to establish a new DTLS association, if an
unordered transport is used, and if the offerer did not allocate a new
3-tuple, the answerer MUST allocate a new 3-tuple for the answer in
such a way that it can disambiguate any packets associated with the
new DTLS association from any packets associated with any other DTLS
association. This typically means using a local address and/or port,
or a set of ICE candidates (see Section 6), which were not recently
used for any other DTLS association.

In order to negotiate a DTLS association, the following SDP
attributes are used:

* The SDP 'setup' "setup" attribute, defined in [RFC4145], is used to
negotiate the DTLS roles;

* The SDP 'fingerprint' "fingerprint" attribute, defined in [RFC8122], is used to
provide one or more fingerprint values; and

* The SDP 'tls-id' "tls-id" attribute, defined in this specification, is used
to identity the DTLS association.

This specification does not define the usage of the SDP 'connection' "connection"
attribute [RFC4145] for negotiating a DTLS association. However, the
attribute MAY be used if the DTLS association is used together with
another protocol (e.g., SCTP or TCP) for which the usage of the
attribute has been defined.

Unlike for TCP and TLS connections, endpoints MUST NOT use the SDP
'setup'
"setup" attribute 'holdconn' "holdconn" value when negotiating a DTLS
association.

Internet-DrafSession Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answe October 2017

Endpoints MUST support the hash functions as defined in [RFC8122].

The certificate received during the DTLS handshake [RFC6347] MUST
match a certificate fingerprint received in SDP 'fingerprint' "fingerprint"
attributes according to the procedures defined in [RFC8122]. If
fingerprints do not match the hashed certificate, then an endpoint
MUST tear down the media session immediately (see [RFC8122]).

SDP offerers and answerers might reuse certificates across multiple
DTLS associations, and provide identical fingerprint values for each
DTLS association. The combination of the SDP 'tls-id' "tls-id" attribute
values of the SDP offerer and answerer identifies each individual
DTLS association.

| NOTE: There are cases where the SDP 'tls-id' "tls-id" attribute value
| generated by the offerer will end up being used for multiple
| DTLS associations. For that reason reason, the combination of the
| attribute values of the offerer and answerer is needed in order
| to identity a DTLS association. An example of such a case is
| where the offerer sends an updated offer (Section 5.5), 5.5) without
| modifying its attribute value, but the answerer determines that
| a new DTLS association is to be created. The answerer will
| generate a new local attribute value for the new DTLS
| association (Section 5.3), while the offerer will use the same
| attribute value that it used for the current association.
| Another example is when the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
| [RFC3261] is used for signalling, signaling, and an offer is forked to
| multiple answerers. The attribute value generated by the
| offerer will be used for DTLS associations established by each
| answerer.

5.2. Generating the Initial SDP Offer

When an offerer sends the initial offer, the offerer MUST insert an
SDP 'setup' "setup" attribute [RFC4145] with an 'actpass' "actpass" attribute value,
and as
well as one or more SDP 'fingerprint' "fingerprint" attributes according to the
procedures in [RFC8122]. In addition, the offerer MUST insert in the
offer an SDP 'tls-id' "tls-id" attribute with a unique attribute value.

As the offerer inserts the SDP 'setup' "setup" attribute with an 'actpass' "actpass"
attribute value, the offerer MUST be prepared to receive a DTLS
ClientHello message [RFC6347] from the answerer (if a new DTLS
association is established by the answerer) from the answerer before the offerer
receives the SDP answer.

If the offerer receives a DTLS ClientHello message, and a DTLS
association is established, established before the offerer receives the SDP
Answer answer
carrying the fingerprint associated with the DTLS association, any
data received on the DTLS association before the fingerprint MUST be
considered to be coming from an unverified source. The processing of

Internet-DrafSession Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answe October 2017
such data, data and sending of data by the offerer to the unverified
source, source
is outside the scope of this document.

5.3. Generating the Answer

When an answerer sends an answer, the answerer MUST insert in the
answer an SDP 'setup' "setup" attribute according to the procedures in
[RFC4145],
[RFC4145] and one or more SDP 'fingerprint' "fingerprint" attributes according to
the procedures in [RFC8122]. If the answerer determines, based on
the criteria specified in Section 3.1, that a new DTLS association is
to be established, the answerer MUST insert in the associated answer
an SDP 'tls-id' "tls-id" attribute with a new unique attribute value. Note
that the offerer and answerer generate their own local 'tls-id' "tls-id"
attribute values, and the combination of both values identify identifies the
DTLS association.

If the answerer receives an offer that requires establishment of a
new DTLS association, and if the answerer does not accept the
establishment of a new DTLS association, the answerer MUST reject the
"m=" lines associated with the suggested DTLS association [RFC3264].

If an answerer receives an offer that does not require the
establishment of a new DTLS association, and if the answerer
determines that a new DTLS association is not to be established, the
answerer MUST insert in the associated answer an SDP 'tls-id' "tls-id"
attribute with the previously assigned attribute value in the associated answer. value. In addition,
the answerer MUST insert an SDP 'setup' "setup" attribute with an attribute
value that does not change the previously negotiated DTLS roles, and as
well as one or more SDP 'fingerprint' "fingerprint" attributes values that do not
change the previously sent fingerprint set, in the associated answer.

If the answerer receives an offer that does not contain an SDP 'tls-
id' "tls-
id" attribute, the answerer MUST NOT insert a 'tls-id' "tls-id" attribute in
the answer.

If a new DTLS association is to be established, and if the answerer
inserts an SDP 'setup' "setup" attribute with an 'active' "active" attribute value in
the answer, the answerer MUST initiate a DTLS handshake [RFC6347]) [RFC6347] by
sending a DTLS ClientHello message towards the offerer.

Even though an offerer is required to insert an 'SDP' "SDP" setup attribute
with an 'actpass' "actpass" attribute value in initial offers (Section 5.2) and
subsequent offers (Section 5.5), the answerer MUST be able to receive
initial and subsequent offers with other attribute values, in order
to be backward compatible with older implementations that might
insert other attribute values in initial and subsequent offers.

Internet-DrafSession Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answe October 2017

5.4. Offerer Processing of the SDP Answer

When an offerer receives an answer that establishes a new DTLS
association based on criteria defined in Section 3.1, and if the offerer
becomes DTLS client (based on the value of the SDP 'setup' "setup" attribute
value [RFC4145]), the offerer MUST establish a DTLS association. If
the offerer becomes DTLS server, it MUST wait for the answerer to
establish the DTLS association.

If the offerer indicated a desire to reuse an existing DTLS
association
association, and the answerer does not request the establishment of a
new DTLS association, the offerer will continue to use the previously
established DTLS association.

A new DTLS association can be established based on changes in either
an SDP offer or answer. When communicating with legacy endpoints, an
offerer can receive an answer that includes the same fingerprint set
and setup role. A new DTLS association will still be established if
such an answer was is received as a response to an offer which that requested
the establishment of a new DTLS association, as the transport
parameters would have been changed in the offer.

5.5. Modifying the Session

When an offerer sends a subsequent offer, and if the offerer wants to
establish a new DTLS association, the offerer MUST insert an SDP
'setup'
"setup" attribute [RFC4145] with an 'actpass' "actpass" attribute value, and
one as
well as or more SDP 'fingerprint' "fingerprint" attributes according to the
procedures in [RFC8122]. In addition, the offerer MUST insert in the
offer an SDP 'tls-id' "tls-id" attribute with a new unique attribute value.

When an offerer sends a subsequent offer, offer and the offerer does not want to
establish a new DTLS association, and if a previously established DTLS
association exists, the offerer MUST insert in the offer an SDP
'setup'
"setup" attribute with an 'actpass' "actpass" attribute value, and one or more
SDP 'fingerprint' "fingerprint" attributes with attribute values that do not change
the previously sent fingerprint set, in the offer. set. In addition, the offerer MUST
insert an SDP 'tls-id' "tls-id" attribute with the previously assigned
attribute value in the offer.

| NOTE: When a new DTLS association is being established, each
| endpoint needs to be prepared to receive data on both the new
| and old DTLS associations as long as both are alive.

Internet-DrafSession Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answe October 2017

6. ICE Considerations

When the Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) mechanism
[I-D.ietf-ice-rfc5245bis]
[RFC8445] is used, the ICE connectivity checks are performed before
the DTLS handshake begins. Note that if aggressive nomination mode
is used, multiple candidate pairs may be marked valid before ICE
finally converges on a single candidate pair.

| NOTE: Aggressive nomination has been deprecated from ICE, ICE but
| must still be supported for backwards compatibility reasons
[I-D.ietf-ice-rfc5245bis].
| [RFC8445].

When a new DTLS association is established over an unordered
transport, in order to disambiguate any packets associated with the
newly established DTLS association, at least one of the endpoints
MUST allocate a completely new set of ICE candidates which that were not
recently used for any other DTLS association. This means the
answerer cannot initiate a new DTLS association unless the offerer
initiated ICE restart [I-D.ietf-ice-rfc5245bis]. [RFC8445]. If the answerer wants to initiate a
new DTLS association, it needs to initiate an ICE restart and a new
offer/answer exchange on its own. However, an ICE restart does not
by default require a new DTLS association to be established.

| NOTE: Simple Traversal of the UDP Protocol through NAT (STUN)
| packets are sent directly over UDP, not over DTLS. [RFC7983]
| describes how to demultiplex STUN packets from DTLS packets and
| SRTP packets.

Each ICE candidate associated with a component is treated as being
part of the same DTLS association. Therefore, from a DTLS
perspective
perspective, it is not considered a change of local transport
parameters when an endpoint switches between those ICE candidates.

7. TLS Considerations

The procedures in this document can also be used for negotiating and
establishing a TLS connection, with the restriction described below.

As specified in [RFC4145], the SDP 'connection' "connection" attribute is used to
indicate whether to establish a new TLS connection. An offerer and
answerer MUST ensure that the 'connection' "connection" attribute value and the
'tls-id'
"tls-id" attribute value does do not cause a conflict regarding whether a
new TLS connection is to be established or not.

| NOTE: Even though the SDP 'connection' "connection" attribute can be used to
| indicate whether a new TLS connection is to be established, the
| unique combination of SDP 'tls-id' "tls-id" attribute values can be used
| to identity a TLS connection. The unique value can be used
| e.g., within

Internet-DrafSession Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answe October 2017 TLS protocol extensions to differentiate between
| multiple TLS connections and correlate those connections with
| specific offer/
answer offer/answer exchanges. One such extension is defined
| in
[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-uks]. [RFC8844].

If an offerer or answerer inserts an SDP 'connection' "connection" attribute with
a 'new' "new" value in the offer/answer and also inserts an SDP 'tls-id' "tls-id"
attribute, the value of tls-id' the "tls-id" attribute MUST be new and
unique.

If an offerer or answerer inserts an SDP 'connection' "connection" attribute with
a 'existing'
an "existing" value in the offer/answer, if a previously established
TLS connection exists, and if the offerer/answerer previously
inserted an SDP 'tls-id' "tls-id" attribute associated with the same TLS
connection in an offer/answer, the offerer/answerer MUST also insert
an SDP 'tls-id' "tls-id" attribute with the previously assigned value in the
offer/answer.

If an offerer or answerer receives an offer/answer with conflicting
attribute values, the offerer/answerer MUST process the offer/answer
as misformed.

An endpoint MUST NOT make assumptions regarding the support of the
SDP 'tls-id' "tls-id" attribute by the peer. Therefore, to avoid ambiguity,
both offerers and answerers MUST always use the 'connection' "connection"
attribute in conjunction with the 'tls-id' "tls-id" attribute.

| NOTE: As defined in [RFC4145], if the SDP 'connection' "connection"
| attribute is not explicitly present, the implicit default value
| is 'new'. "new".

The SDP example below is based on the example in section Section 3.4 of
[RFC8122], with the addition of the SDP 'tls-id' "tls-id" attribute.

m=image 54111 TCP/TLS t38
c=IN IP4 192.0.2.2
a=tls-id:abc3de65cddef001be82
a=setup:passive
a=connection:new
a=fingerprint:SHA-256 \
12:DF:3E:5D:49:6B:19:E5:7C:AB:4A:AD:B9:B1:3F:82:18:3B:54:02:12:DF: \
3E:5D:49:6B:19:E5:7C:AB:4A:AD
a=fingerprint:SHA-1 \
4A:AD:B9:B1:3F:82:18:3B:54:02:12:DF:3E:5D:49:6B:19:E5:7C:AB

Internet-DrafSession Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answe October 2017

8. SIP Considerations

When the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] is used as the
signal protocol for establishing a multimedia session, dialogs
[RFC3261] might be established between the caller and multiple
callees. This is referred to as forking. If forking occurs,
separate DTLS associations will be established between the caller and
each callee.

When forking occurs, an SDP offerer can receive DTLS ClientHello
messages and SDP answerers answers from multiple remote locations. Because of
this, the offerer might have to wait for multiple SDP answers (from
different remote locations) until it receives a certificate
fingerprint that matches the certificate associated with a specific
DTLS handshake. The offerer MUST NOT declare a fingerprint mismatch
until it determines that it will not receive SDP answers from any
additional remote locations.

It is possible to send an INVITE request which that does not contain an SDP
offer. Such an INVITE request is often referred to as an 'empty
INVITE', "empty
INVITE" or an 'offer-less INVITE'. "offerless INVITE". The receiving endpoint will
include the SDP offer in a response to the request. When the
endpoint generates such an SDP offer, if a previously established
DTLS association exists, the offerer MUST insert an SDP 'tls-id'
attribute, "tls-id"
attribute and one or more SDP 'fingerprint' "fingerprint" attributes, with
previously assigned attribute values. If a previously established
DTLS association did does not exist, the offer MUST be generated based on
the same rules as a new offer (see Section 5.2). Regardless of the
previous existence of a DTLS association, the SDP 'setup' "setup" attribute
MUST be included according to the rules defined in [RFC4145].
Furthermore, if ICE is used, ICE restart MUST be initiated, according
to the third party call
control third-party call-control considerations described in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp],
ICE restart MUST be initiated.
[RFC8839].

9. RFC Updates

9.1. General

This section updates specifications that use DTLS-protected media, in
order to reflect the procedures defined in this specification.

9.2. Update to RFC 5763

9.2.1. Update to section Section 1

The reference to [RFC4572] is replaced with a reference to [RFC8122].

Internet-DrafSession Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answe October 2017

9.2.2. Update to section Section 5

The text in section [RFC5763], Section 5 (Establishing ("Establishing a Secure Channel) Channel") is
modified by replacing generic SDP offer/answer procedures for DTLS
with a reference to this specification:

NEW TEXT:

| The two endpoints in the exchange present their identities as part
| of the DTLS handshake procedure using certificates. This document
| uses certificates in the same style as described in "Connection-Oriented "Connection-
| Oriented Media Transport over the Transport Layer Security (TLS)
| Protocol in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)" [RFC8122].
|
| If self-signed certificates are used, the content of the
subjectAltName
| "subjectAltName" attribute inside the certificate MAY use the
| uniform resource identifier (URI) of the user. This is useful for
| debugging purposes only and is not required to bind the
| certificate to one of the communication endpoints. The integrity
| of the certificate is ensured through the fingerprint "fingerprint" attribute
| in the SDP.
|
| The generation of public/private key pairs is relatively
| expensive. Endpoints are not required to generate certificates
| for each session.
|
| The offer/answer model, defined in [RFC3264], is used by protocols
| like the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] to set up
| multimedia sessions.
|
| When an endpoint wishes to set up a secure media session with
| another endpoint, it sends an offer in a SIP message to the other
| endpoint. This offer includes, as part of the SDP payload, a
| fingerprint of a certificate that the endpoint wants to use. The
| endpoint SHOULD send the SIP message containing the offer to the
| offerer's SIP proxy over an integrity protected integrity-protected channel. The
| proxy SHOULD add an Identity header field according to the
| procedures outlined in [RFC4474]. When the far endpoint receives
| the SIP message, it can verify the identity of the sender using
| the Identity header field. Since the Identity header field is a
| digital signature across several SIP header fields, in addition to
| the body of the SIP message, the receiver can also be certain that
| the message has not been tampered with after the digital signature
| was applied and added to the SIP message.
|
| The far endpoint (answerer) may now establish a DTLS association
| with the offerer. Alternately, it can indicate in its answer that
| the offerer is to initiate the DTLS association. In either case,
| mutual DTLS certificate-based authentication will be used. After
| completing

Internet-DrafSession Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answe October 2017 the DTLS handshake, information about the authenticated
| identities, including the certificates, are is made available to the
| endpoint application. The answerer is then able to verify that
| the offerer's certificate used for authentication in the DTLS
| handshake can be associated to with a certificate fingerprint
| contained in the offer in the SDP. At this point, the answerer
| may indicate to the end user that the media is secured. The
| offerer may only tentatively accept the answerer's certificate certificate,
| since it may not yet have the answerer's certificate fingerprint. fingerprint
|
| When the answerer accepts the offer, it provides an answer back to
| the offerer containing the answerer's certificate fingerprint. At
| this point, the offerer can accept or reject the peer's certificate
| certificate, and the offerer can indicate to the end user that the
| media is secured.
|
| Note that the entire authentication and key exchange for securing
| the media traffic is handled in the media path through DTLS. The
| signaling path is only used to verify the peers' certificate
| fingerprints.
|
| The offerer and answerer MUST follow the SDP offer/answer
| procedures defined in [RFCXXXX]. RFC 8842.

9.2.3. Update to section Section 6.6

The text in section [RFC5763], Section 6.6 (Session Modification) ("Session Modification") is
modified by replacing generic SDP offer/answer procedures for DTLS
with a reference to this specification:

NEW TEXT:

| Once an answer is provided to the offerer, either endpoint MAY
| request a session modification that MAY include an updated offer.
| This session modification can be carried in either an INVITE or
| UPDATE request. The peers can reuse an existing DTLS association, association
| or establish a new one, following the procedures in [RFCXXXX]. RFC 8842.

9.2.4. Update to section Section 6.7.1

The text in section [RFC5763], Section 6.7.1 (ICE Interaction) ("ICE Interaction") is modified
by replacing the ICE procedures with a reference to this
specification:

Internet-DrafSession Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answe October 2017

NEW TEXT:

| The Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE)
[I-D.ietf-ice-rfc5245bis] [RFC8445]
| considerations for DTLS-protected media are described in [RFCXXXX]. RFC 8842.

9.3. Update to RFC 7345

9.3.1. Update to section Section 4

The subsections (4.1.-4.5.) (4.1 - 4.5) in section [RFC7345], Section 4 (SDP Offerer/Answerer
Procedures) ("SDP Offerer/
Answerer Procedures") are removed, removed and replaced with the new text
below:

NEW TEXT:

| An endpoint (i.e., both the offerer and the answerer) MUST create
| an SDP media description ("m=" line) for each UDPTL-over-DTLS
| media stream and MUST assign a UDP/TLS/UDPTL value (see Table 1)
| to the "proto" field of the "m=" line.
|
| The offerer and answerer MUST follow the SDP offer/answer
| procedures defined in [RFCXXXX] RFC 8842 in order to negotiate the DTLS
| association associated with the UDPTL-over-DTLS media stream. In
| addition, the offerer and answerer MUST use the SDP attributes
| defined for UDPTL over UDP, as defined in [ITU.T38.2010]. [ITU.T38].

9.3.2. Update to section Section 5.2.1

The text in section [RFC7345], Section 5.2.1 (ICE Usage) ("ICE Usage") is modified by
replacing the ICE procedures with a reference to this specification:

NEW TEXT:

| The Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE)
[I-D.ietf-ice-rfc5245bis] [RFC8445]
| considerations for DTLS-protected media are described in [RFCXXXX].

[RFC EDITOR NOTE: Throughout the document, please replace RFCXXXX
with the RFC number of this document.]

Internet-DrafSession Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answe October 2017 8842.

9.3.3. Update to section 10.1 Section 9.1

A reference to [RFC8122] is added to section 10.1 (Normative
References): [RFC7345], Section 9.1
("Normative References"):

NEW TEXT:

| [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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8122>.
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8122>.

10. Security Considerations

This specification does not modify the security considerations
associated with DTLS, DTLS or the SDP offer/answer mechanism. In addition
to the introduction of the SDP 'tls-id' "tls-id" attribute, the specification this document
simply clarifies the procedures for negotiating and establishing a
DTLS association.

This specification does not modify the actual TLS connection setup
procedures. The SDP 'tls-is' "tls-is" attribute as such cannot be used to
correlate an SDP Offer/Answer offer/answer exchange with a TLS connection setup.
Thus, this draft document does not introduce new security considerations
related to correlating an SDP Offer/Answer offer/answer exchange with a TLS
connection setup.

11. IANA Considerations

This document updates the "Session Description Protocol Parameters"
registry as specified in Section 8.2.2 of [RFC4566]. Specifically,
it adds the SDP 'tls-id' "tls-id" attribute to the table for SDP media level
attributes. media-level
attributes as follows.

Attribute name: tls-id

Type of attribute: media-level Media-level

Subject to charset: no No

Purpose: Indicates whether a new DTLS association or TLS connection
is to be established/re-established.

Appropriate Values: see See Section 4

Contact name: Christer Holmberg

Mux Category: IDENTICAL

Internet-DrafSession Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answe October 2017

12. Acknowledgements

Thanks to Justin Uberti, Martin Thomson, Paul Kyzivat, Jens Guballa,
Charles Eckel, Gonzalo Salgueiro and Paul Jones for providing
comments and suggestions on the document. Ben Campbell performed an
AD review. Paul Kyzivat performed a gen-art review.

13. Change Log

[RFC EDITOR NOTE: Please remove this section when publishing]

Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-dtls-31

o Changes based on IESG comments from Eric R

Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-dtls-30

o Changes based on IESG comments from Mirja K

Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-dtls-29

o Removal of ufrag value change as a trigger for a new DTLS
association

Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-dtls-28

o Changes based on IESG review by Adam Roach, Eric Rescorla, Alexey
Melnikov and Mirja Kuhlewind:

o - Document title changed

o - Transport Protocol Considerations section removed

o - Additional text to Security Considerations section

o - Editorial changes

Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-dtls-27

o Reference fixes based on Gen-ART review by Paul Kyzivat.

Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-dtls-26

o Editorial fixes based on Gen-ART review by Paul Kyzivat.

Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-dtls-25

o Minor editorial nits.

Internet-DrafSession Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answe October 2017

Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-dtls-24

o Changes based on 2nd WGLC comments from Roman S and Martin T:

o - RFC update structure shortened (old text removed).

o - Guidance regarding receiving ClientHello before SDP answer
added.

o - Additional SIP considerations regarding forking.

o - SDP setup attribute value restriction in initial and subsequent
offers based on comment from Ekr.

Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-dtls-23

o Editorial change to make it clear that the document does not
modify the procedures in RFC 8122.

Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-dtls-22

o Support for TLS added.

o Editorial changes based on sec-dir review by Rich Salz.

o Editorial changes based on gen-art review by Paul Kyzivat.

o Editorial changes based on ops-dir review by Carlos Pignataro.

Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-dtls-21

o Changes based on AD review by Ben Campbell.

o (https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/
msg17707.html)

Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-dtls-20

o Change to length and randomness of tls-id attribute value.

Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-dtls-19

o Change based on comment from Roman.

Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-dtls-18

o Changes based on comments from Flemming.

Internet-DrafSession Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answe October 2017

o - Change in tls-id value definition.

o - Editorial fixes.

Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-dtls-17

o Reference fix.

Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-dtls-16

o Editorial changes based on 2nd WGLC comments from Christian Groves
and Nevenka Biondic.

Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-dtls-15

o tls-id attribute value made globally unique

Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-dtls-14

o Changes based on comments from Flemming:

o - Additional dtls-is clarifications

o - Editorial fixes

Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-dtls-13

o Text about the updated RFCs added to Abstract and Introduction

o Reference to RFC 5763 removed from section 6 (ICE Considerations)

o Reference to RFC 5763 removed from section 8 (SIP Considerations)

Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-dtls-12

o "unreliable" changed to "unordered"

Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-dtls-11

o Attribute name changed to tls-id

o Additional text based on comments from Roman Shpount.

Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-dtls-10

o Modified document to use tls-id instead of dtls-connection

Internet-DrafSession Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answe October 2017

o Changes are based on comments from Eric Rescorla, Justin Uberti,
and Paul Kyzivat.

Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-dtls-08

o Offer/Answer section modified in order to allow sending of
multiple SDP 'fingerprint' attributes.

o Terminology made consistent: 'DTLS connection' replaced with 'DTLS
association'.

o Editorial changes based on comments from Paul Kyzivat.

Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-dtls-07

o Reference to RFC 7315 replaced with reference to RFC 7345.

Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-dtls-06

o Text on restrictions regarding spanning a DTLS association over
multiple transports added.

o Mux category added to IANA Considerations.

o Normative text regarding mux category and source-specific
applicability added.

o Reference to RFC 7315 added.

o Clarified that offerer/answerer that has not been updated to
support this specification will not include the tls-id attribute
in offers and answers.

o Editorial corrections based on WGLC comments from Charles Eckel.

Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-dtls-05

o Text on handling offer/answer error conditions added.

Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-dtls-04

o Editorial nits fixed based on comments from Paul Kyzivat:

Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-dtls-03

o Changes based on comments from Paul Kyzivat:

o - Modification of tls-id attribute section.

Internet-DrafSession Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answe October 2017

o - Removal of IANA considerations subsection.

o - Making note into normative text in o/a section.

o Changes based on comments from Martin Thompson:

o - Abbreviations section removed.

o - Clarify that a new DTLS association requires a new o/a
transaction.

Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-dtls-02

o - Updated RFCs added to boilerplate.

Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-dtls-01

o - Annex regarding 'tls-id-id' attribute removed.

o - Additional SDP offer/answer procedures, related to certificates,
added.

o - Updates to RFC 5763 and RFC 7345 added.

o - Transport protocol considerations added.

Changes from draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-dtls-00

o - SDP 'connection' attribute replaced with new 'tls-id' attribute.

o - IANA Considerations added.

o - E-mail regarding 'tls-id-id' attribute added as Annex.

Changes from draft-holmberg-mmusic-sdp-dtls-01

o - draft-ietf-mmusic version of draft submitted.

o - Draft file name change (sdp-dtls -> dtls-sdp) due to collision
with another expired draft.

o - Clarify that if ufrag in offer is unchanged, it must be
unchanged in associated answer.

o - SIP Considerations section added.

o - Section about multiple SDP fingerprint attributes added.

Internet-DrafSession Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answe October 2017

Changes from draft-holmberg-mmusic-sdp-dtls-00

o - Editorial changes and clarifications.

14. References

14.1. Normative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words References

12.1. 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>.

[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.

[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>.

[RFC5763] Fischl, J., Tschofenig, H., and E. Rescorla, "Framework
for Establishing a Secure Real-time Transport Protocol
(SRTP) Security Context Using Datagram Transport Layer
Security (DTLS)", RFC 5763, DOI 10.17487/RFC5763, May
2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5763>.

[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>.

[RFC7345] Holmberg, C., Sedlacek, I., and G. Salgueiro, "UDP
Transport Layer (UDPTL) over Datagram Transport Layer
Security (DTLS)", RFC 7345, DOI 10.17487/RFC7345, August
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7345>.

Internet-DrafSession Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answe October 2017

[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>.

[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>.

[I-D.ietf-ice-rfc5245bis]

[RFC8445] Keranen, A., Holmberg, C., and J. Rosenberg, "Interactive
Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network
Address Translator (NAT) Traversal", draft-ietf-ice-
rfc5245bis-13 (work in progress), October 2017.

[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes]
Nandakumar, S., "A Framework for SDP Attributes when
Multiplexing", draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes-16
(work in progress), December 2016.

[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation] RFC 8445,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8445, July 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8445>.

[RFC8843] Holmberg, C., Alvestrand, H., and C. Jennings,
"Negotiating Media Multiplexing Using the Session
Description Protocol (SDP)", draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-
negotiation-39 (work in progress), August 2017.

14.2. RFC 8843,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8843, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8843>.

[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>.

12.2. Informative References

[ITU.T38] ITU-T, "Procedures for real-time Group 3 facsimile
communication over IP networks", Recommendation T.38,
September 2010, <https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-T.38/en>.

[RFC4474] Peterson, J. and C. Jennings, "Enhancements for
Authenticated Identity Management in the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4474,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4474, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4474>.

[RFC4572] Lennox, J., "Connection-Oriented Media Transport over the
Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol in the Session
Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 4572,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4572, July 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4572>.

[RFC5576] Lennox, J., Ott, J., and T. Schierl, "Source-Specific
Media Attributes in the Session Description Protocol
(SDP)", RFC 5576, DOI 10.17487/RFC5576, June 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5576>.

Internet-DrafSession Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answe October 2017

[RFC6083] Tuexen, M., Seggelmann, R., and E. Rescorla, "Datagram
Transport Layer Security (DTLS) for Stream Control
Transmission Protocol (SCTP)", RFC 6083,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6083, January 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6083>.

[RFC7983] Petit-Huguenin, M. and G. Salgueiro, "Multiplexing Scheme
Updates for Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)
Extension for Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)",
RFC 7983, DOI 10.17487/RFC7983, September 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7983>.

[I-D.ietf-stir-rfc4474bis]

[RFC8224] Peterson, J., Jennings, C., Rescorla, E., and C. Wendt,
"Authenticated Identity Management in the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP)", draft-ietf-stir-rfc4474bis-16
(work in progress), RFC 8224,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8224, February 2017.

[I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp] 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8224>.

[RFC8839] Petit-Huguenin, M., Keranen, Nandakumar, S., Holmberg, C., Keränen,
A., and S. Nandakumar, R. Shpount, "Session Description Protocol (SDP)
Offer/Answer
procedures Procedures for Interactive Connectivity
Establishment (ICE)", draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp-14 (work in
progress), October 2017.

[I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-uks] RFC 8839, DOI 10.17487/RFC8839,
January 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8839>.

[RFC8844] Thomson, M. and E. Rescorla, "Unknown Key Share Key-Share Attacks on
uses
Uses of Transport Layer Security TLS with the Session Description Protocol (SDP)", draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-uks-00
(work in progress), August 2017.

[ITU.T38.2010]
International Telecommunications Union, "Procedures
RFC 8844, DOI 10.17487/RFC8844, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8844>.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Justin Uberti, Martin Thomson, Paul Kyzivat, Jens Guballa,
Charles Eckel, Gonzalo Salgueiro, and Paul Jones for
real-time Group 3 facsimile communication over IP
networks", ITU-T Recommendation T.38, September 2010. providing
comments and suggestions on the document. Ben Campbell performed an
Area Director review. Paul Kyzivat performed a Gen-ART review.

Authors' Addresses

Christer Holmberg
Ericsson
Hirsalantie 11
FI-02420 Jorvas 02420
Finland

Email: christer.holmberg@ericsson.com

Internet-DrafSession Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answe October 2017

Roman Shpount
TurboBridge
4905 Del Ray Avenue, Suite 300
Bethesda, MD 20814
USA

Phone: +1 (240) 292-6632
United States of America

Email: rshpount@turbobridge.com