rfc9443.original   rfc9443.txt 
AVTCORE Working Group B. Aboba Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) B. Aboba
INTERNET-DRAFT Microsoft Corporation Request for Comments: 9443 Microsoft Corporation
Updates: 7983, 5764 G. Salgueiro Updates: 5764, 7983 G. Salgueiro
Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Expires: September 30, 2023 C. Perkins ISSN: 2070-1721 C. Perkins
University of Glasgow University of Glasgow
26 March 2023 July 2023
Multiplexing Scheme Updates for QUIC Multiplexing Scheme Updates for QUIC
draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc7983bis-09.txt
Abstract Abstract
RFC 7983 defines a scheme for a Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) RFC 7983 defines a scheme for a Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP)
receiver to demultiplex Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS), receiver to demultiplex Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS),
Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN), Secure Real-time Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN), Secure Real-time
Transport Protocol (SRTP) / Secure Real-time Transport Control Transport Protocol (SRTP) / Secure Real-time Transport Control
Protocol (SRTCP), ZRTP and Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Protocol (SRTCP), ZRTP, and Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN)
Channel packets arriving on a single port. This document updates RFC channel packets arriving on a single port. This document updates RFC
7983 and RFC 5764 to also allow QUIC packets to be multiplexed on a 7983 and RFC 5764 to also allow QUIC packets to be multiplexed on a
single receiving socket. single receiving socket.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
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 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 30, 2023. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9443.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights publication of this document. Please review these documents
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Terminology
2. Multiplexing of TURN Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Multiplexing of TURN Channels
3. Updates to RFC 7983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Updates to RFC 7983
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Security Considerations
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. IANA Considerations
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. References
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.1. Normative References
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.2. Informative References
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Acknowledgments
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
"Multiplexing Scheme Updates for Secure Real-time Transport Protocol "Multiplexing Scheme Updates for Secure Real-time Transport Protocol
(SRTP) Extension for Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)" (SRTP) Extension for Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)"
[RFC7983] defines a scheme for a Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) [RFC7983] defines a scheme for a Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP)
[RFC3550] receiver to demultiplex DTLS [RFC9147], Session Traversal [RFC3550] receiver to demultiplex DTLS [RFC9147], Session Traversal
Utilities for NAT (STUN) [RFC8489], Secure Real-time Transport Utilities for NAT (STUN) [RFC8489], Secure Real-time Transport
Protocol (SRTP) / Secure Real-time Transport Control Protocol (SRTCP) Protocol (SRTP) / Secure Real-time Transport Control Protocol (SRTCP)
[RFC3711], ZRTP [RFC6189] and Traversal Using Relays around NAT [RFC3711], ZRTP [RFC6189], and Traversal Using Relays around NAT
(TURN) Channel packets arriving on a single port. This document (TURN) channel packets arriving on a single port. This document
updates [RFC7983] and "Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) updates [RFC7983] and "Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)
Extension to Establish Keys for the Secure Real-time Transport Extension to Establish Keys for the Secure Real-time Transport
Protocol (SRTP)" [RFC5764] to also allow QUIC [RFC9000] to be Protocol (SRTP)" [RFC5764] to also allow QUIC [RFC9000] to be
multiplexed on the same port. multiplexed on the same port.
The multiplexing scheme described in this document supports multiple The multiplexing scheme described in this document supports multiple
use cases. Peer-to-peer QUIC in WebRTC scenarios, described in use cases. In the WebRTC scenarios described in [P2P-QUIC] and
[P2P-QUIC] [P2P-QUIC-TRIAL], transports audio and video over SRTP, [P2P-QUIC-TRIAL], SRTP transports audio and video while peer-to-peer
alongside QUIC, used for data exchange. For this use case, SRTP QUIC is used for data exchange. For this use case, SRTP [RFC3711] is
[RFC3711] is keyed using DTLS-SRTP [RFC5764] and therefore SRTP/SRTCP keyed using DTLS-SRTP [RFC5764]; therefore, SRTP/SRTCP [RFC3550],
[RFC3550], STUN, TURN, DTLS and QUIC need to be multiplexed on the STUN, TURN, DTLS, and QUIC need to be multiplexed on the same port.
same port. Were SRTP to be keyed using QUIC-SRTP (not yet Were SRTP to be keyed using QUIC-SRTP (not yet specified), SRTP/
specified), SRTP/SRTCP, STUN, TURN and QUIC would need to be SRTCP, STUN, TURN, and QUIC would need to be multiplexed on the same
multiplexed on the same port. Where QUIC is used for peer-to-peer port. Where QUIC is used for peer-to-peer transport of data as well
transport of data as well as RTP/RTCP [I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-over-quic] as RTP/RTCP [RTP-OVER-QUIC], STUN, TURN, and QUIC need to be
STUN, TURN and QUIC need to be multiplexed on the same port. multiplexed on the same port.
While the scheme described in this document is compatible with QUIC While the scheme described in this document is compatible with QUIC
version 2 [I-D.ietf-quic-v2], it is not compatible with QUIC bit version 2 [RFC9369], it is not compatible with QUIC bit greasing
greasing [RFC9287]. As a result, endpoints that wish to use [RFC9287]. As a result, endpoints that wish to use multiplexing on
multiplexing on their socket MUST NOT send the grease_quic_bit their socket MUST NOT send the grease_quic_bit transport parameter.
transport parameter.
1.1. Terminology 1.1. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
2. Multiplexing of TURN Channels 2. Multiplexing of TURN Channels
TURN channels are an optimization where data packets are exchanged TURN channels are an optimization where data packets are exchanged
with a 4-byte prefix instead of the standard 36-byte STUN overhead with a 4-byte prefix instead of the standard 36-byte STUN overhead
(see Section 3.5 of [RFC8656]). [RFC7983] allocates the values from (see Section 3.5 of [RFC8656]). [RFC7983] allocates the values from
64 to 79 in order to allow TURN channels to be demultiplexed when the 64 to 79 in order to allow TURN channels to be demultiplexed when the
TURN Client does the channel binding request in combination with the TURN client does the channel binding request in combination with the
demultiplexing scheme described in [RFC7983]. demultiplexing scheme described in [RFC7983].
In the absence of QUIC bit greasing, the first octet of a QUIC packet In the absence of QUIC bit greasing, the first octet of a QUIC packet
(e.g. a short header packet in QUIC v1 or v2) may fall in the range (e.g. a short header packet in QUIC v1 or v2) may fall in the range
64 to 127, thereby overlapping with the allocated range for TURN 64 to 127, thereby overlapping with the allocated range for TURN
channels of 64 to 79. However, in practice this overlap does not channels of 64 to 79. However, in practice this overlap does not
represent a problem. TURN channel packets will only be received from represent a problem. TURN channel packets will only be received from
a TURN server to which TURN allocation and channel-binding requests a TURN server to which TURN allocation and channel-binding requests
have been sent. Therefore, a TURN client receiving packets from the have been sent. Therefore, a TURN client receiving packets from the
source IP address and port of a TURN server only needs to source IP address and port of a TURN server only needs to
disambiguate STUN (i.e. regular TURN) packets from TURN channel disambiguate STUN (i.e., regular TURN) packets from TURN channel
packets; (S)RTP, (S)RTCP, ZRTP, DTLS or QUIC packets will not be sent packets; (S)RTP, (S)RTCP, ZRTP, DTLS, or QUIC packets will not be
from a source IP address and port that had previously responded to sent from a source IP address and port that had previously responded
TURN allocation or channel-binding requests. to TURN allocation or channel-binding requests.
As a result, if the source IP address and port of a packet does not As a result, if the source IP address and port of a packet do not
match that of a responding TURN server, a packet with a first octet match that of a responding TURN server, a packet with a first octet
of 64 to 127 can be unambiguously demultiplexed as QUIC. of 64 to 127 can be unambiguously demultiplexed as QUIC.
3. Updates to RFC 7983 3. Updates to RFC 7983
This document updates the text in Section 7 of [RFC7983] (which in This document updates the text in Section 7 of [RFC7983] (which in
turn updates [RFC5764]) as follows: turn updates [RFC5764]) as follows:
OLD TEXT OLD TEXT
The process for demultiplexing a packet is as follows. The receiver | The process for demultiplexing a packet is as follows. The
looks at the first byte of the packet. If the value of this byte is | receiver looks at the first byte of the packet. If the value of
in between 0 and 3 (inclusive), then the packet is STUN. If the | this byte is in between 0 and 3 (inclusive), then the packet is
value is between 16 and 19 (inclusive), then the packet is ZRTP. If | STUN. If the value is between 16 and 19 (inclusive), then the
the value is between 20 and 63 (inclusive), then the packet is DTLS. | packet is ZRTP. If the value is between 20 and 63 (inclusive),
If the value is between 64 and 79 (inclusive), then the packet is | then the packet is DTLS. If the value is between 64 and 79
TURN Channel. If the value is in between 128 and 191 (inclusive), | (inclusive), then the packet is TURN Channel. If the value is in
then the packet is RTP (or RTCP, if both RTCP and RTP are being | between 128 and 191 (inclusive), then the packet is RTP (or RTCP,
multiplexed over the same destination port). If the value does not | if both RTCP and RTP are being multiplexed over the same
match any known range, then the packet MUST be dropped and an alert | destination port). If the value does not match any known range,
MAY be logged. This process is summarized in Figure 3. | then the packet MUST be dropped and an alert MAY be logged. This
| process is summarized in Figure 3.
+----------------+ |
| [0..3] -+--> forward to STUN | +----------------+
| | | | [0..3] -+--> forward to STUN
| [16..19] -+--> forward to ZRTP | | |
| | | | [16..19] -+--> forward to ZRTP
packet --> | [20..63] -+--> forward to DTLS | | |
| | | packet --> | [20..63] -+--> forward to DTLS
| [64..79] -+--> forward to TURN Channel | | |
| | | | [64..79] -+--> forward to TURN Channel
| [128..191] -+--> forward to RTP/RTCP | | |
+----------------+ | | [128..191] -+--> forward to RTP/RTCP
| +----------------+
Figure 3: The DTLS-SRTP receiver's packet demultiplexing algorithm. |
| Figure 3: The DTLS-SRTP receiver's packet demultiplexing algorithm.
END OLD TEXT END OLD TEXT
NEW TEXT
The process for demultiplexing a packet is as follows. The receiver
looks at the first byte of the packet. If the value of this byte is
between 0 and 3 (inclusive), then the packet is STUN. If the value
is between 16 and 19 (inclusive), then the packet is ZRTP. If the
value is between 20 and 63 (inclusive), then the packet is DTLS. If
the value is between 128 and 191 (inclusive) then the packet is RTP
(or RTCP, if both RTCP and RTP are being multiplexed over the same
destination port). If the value is between 80 and 127 (inclusive)
or between 192 and 255 (inclusive) then the packet is QUIC. If the
value is between 64 and 79 (inclusive) and the packet has a source
IP address and port of a responding TURN server, then the packet
is TURN channel; if the source IP address and port is not that of
a responding TURN server, then the packet is QUIC.
If the value does not match any known range, then the packet MUST
be dropped and an alert MAY be logged. This process is summarized
in Figure 3.
+----------------+
| [0..3] -+--> forward to STUN
| |
| [4..15] -+--> DROP
| |
| [16..19] -+--> forward to ZRTP
| |
packet --> | [20..63] -+--> forward to DTLS
| |
| [64..79] -+--> forward to TURN Channel
| | (if from TURN server), else QUIC
| [80..127] -+--> forward to QUIC
| |
| [128..191] -+--> forward to RTP/RTCP
| |
| [192..255] -+--> forward to QUIC
+----------------+
Figure 3: The receiver's packet demultiplexing algorithm. NEW TEXT
Note: Endpoints that wish to demultiplex QUIC MUST NOT send the | The process for demultiplexing a packet is as follows. The
grease_quic_bit transport parameter, described in | receiver looks at the first byte of the packet. If the value of
[RFC9287]. | this byte is between 0 and 3 (inclusive), then the packet is STUN.
| If the value is between 16 and 19 (inclusive), then the packet is
| ZRTP. If the value is between 20 and 63 (inclusive), then the
| packet is DTLS. If the value is between 128 and 191 (inclusive),
| then the packet is RTP (or RTCP, if both RTCP and RTP are being
| multiplexed over the same destination port). If the value is
| between 80 and 127 (inclusive) or between 192 and 255 (inclusive),
| then the packet is QUIC. If the value is between 64 and 79
| (inclusive) and the packet has a source IP address and port of a
| responding TURN server, then the packet is TURN channel; if the
| source IP address and port are not that of a responding TURN
| server, then the packet is QUIC.
|
| If the value does not match any known range, then the packet MUST
| be dropped and an alert MAY be logged. This process is summarized
| in Figure 3.
|
| +----------------+
| | [0..3] -+--> forward to STUN
| | |
| | [4..15] -+--> DROP
| | |
| | [16..19] -+--> forward to ZRTP
| | |
| packet --> | [20..63] -+--> forward to DTLS
| | |
| | [64..79] -+--> forward to TURN Channel
| | | (if from TURN server), else QUIC
| | [80..127] -+--> forward to QUIC
| | |
| | [128..191] -+--> forward to RTP/RTCP
| | |
| | [192..255] -+--> forward to QUIC
| +----------------+
|
| Figure 3: The receiver's packet demultiplexing algorithm.
|
| Note: Endpoints that wish to demultiplex QUIC MUST NOT send the
| grease_quic_bit transport parameter, as described in [RFC9287].
END NEW TEXT END NEW TEXT
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
The solution discussed in this document could potentially introduce The solution discussed in this document could potentially introduce
some additional security issues beyond those described in [RFC7983]. some additional security issues beyond those described in [RFC7983].
These additional concerns are described below. These additional concerns are described below.
In order to support multiplexing of QUIC, this document adds logic to In order to support multiplexing of QUIC, this document adds logic to
the scheme defined in [RFC7983]. If mis-implemented, the logic could the scheme defined in [RFC7983]. If misimplemented, the logic could
potentially mis-classify packets, exposing protocol handlers to potentially misclassify packets, exposing protocol handlers to
unexpected input. unexpected input.
When QUIC is used solely for data exchange, the TLS-within-QUIC When QUIC is used solely for data exchange, the TLS-within-QUIC
exchange [RFC9001] derives keys used solely to protect QUIC data exchange [RFC9001] derives keys used solely to protect QUIC data
packets. If properly implemented, this should not affect the packets. If properly implemented, this should not affect the
transport of SRTP nor the derivation of SRTP keys via DTLS-SRTP. transport of SRTP or the derivation of SRTP keys via DTLS-SRTP.
However, if a future specification were to define use of the TLS- However, if a future specification were to define use of the TLS-
within-QUIC exchange to derive SRTP keys, both transport and SRTP key within-QUIC exchange to derive SRTP keys, both transport and SRTP key
derivation could be adversely impacted by a vulnerability in the QUIC derivation could be adversely impacted by a vulnerability in the QUIC
implementation. implementation.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
In the TLS ContentType registry, IANA will replace references to RFC In the "TLS ContentType" registry, IANA replaced references to
7983 with references to this document. [RFC7983] with references to this document.
6. References 6. References
6.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550, July Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550,
2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>. July 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>.
[RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K. [RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
RFC 3711, DOI 10.17487/RFC3711, March 2004, RFC 3711, DOI 10.17487/RFC3711, March 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3711>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3711>.
[RFC5764] McGrew, D. and E. Rescorla, "Datagram Transport Layer [RFC5764] McGrew, D. and E. Rescorla, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for the Secure Security (DTLS) Extension to Establish Keys for the Secure
Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 5764, DOI Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 5764,
10.17487/RFC5764, May 2010, <http://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC5764, May 2010,
editor.org/info/rfc5764>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5764>.
[RFC7983] Petit-Huguenin, M. and G. Salgueiro, "Multiplexing Scheme [RFC7983] Petit-Huguenin, M. and G. Salgueiro, "Multiplexing Scheme
Updates for Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) Updates for Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)
Extension for Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)", Extension for Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)",
RFC 7983, DOI 10.17487/RFC7983, September 2016, RFC 7983, DOI 10.17487/RFC7983, September 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7983>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7983>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
Key Words", RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8489] Petit-Huguenin, M., Salgueiro, G., Rosenberg, J., Wing, D., [RFC8489] Petit-Huguenin, M., Salgueiro, G., Rosenberg, J., Wing,
Mahy, R. and P. Matthews, "Session Traversal Utilities for D., Mahy, R., and P. Matthews, "Session Traversal
NAT (STUN)", RFC 8489, DOI 10.17487/RFC8489, February 2020, Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 8489, DOI 10.17487/RFC8489,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8489>. February 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8489>.
[RFC8656] Reddy, T., Johnston, A., Matthews, P. and J. Rosenberg, [RFC8656] Reddy, T., Ed., Johnston, A., Ed., Matthews, P., and J.
"Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions Rosenberg, "Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN):
to Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 8656, Relay Extensions to Session Traversal Utilities for NAT
DOI 10.17487/RFC8656, February 2020, <https://www.rfc- (STUN)", RFC 8656, DOI 10.17487/RFC8656, February 2020,
editor.org/info/rfc8656>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8656>.
[RFC9000] Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based [RFC9000] Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000, DOI Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000,
10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,
editor.org/info/rfc9000>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9000>.
[RFC9001] Thomson, M., Ed. and S. Turner, Ed., "Using TLS to Secure [RFC9001] Thomson, M., Ed. and S. Turner, Ed., "Using TLS to Secure
QUIC", RFC 9001, DOI 10.17487/RFC9001, May 2021, QUIC", RFC 9001, DOI 10.17487/RFC9001, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9001>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9001>.
[RFC9147] Rescorla, E., Tschofenig, H., and N. Modadugu, "The [RFC9147] Rescorla, E., Tschofenig, H., and N. Modadugu, "The
Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version
1.3", RFC 9147, DOI 10.17487/RFC9147, April 2022, 1.3", RFC 9147, DOI 10.17487/RFC9147, April 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9147>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9147>.
[RFC9287] Thomson, M., "Greasing the QUIC Bit", RFC 9287, DOI [RFC9287] Thomson, M., "Greasing the QUIC Bit", RFC 9287,
10.17487/RFC9287, August 2022, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC9287, August 2022,
editor.org/info/rfc9287>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9287>.
6.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-avtcore-rtp-over-quic] [P2P-QUIC] Thatcher, P., Aboba, B., and R. Raymond, "QUIC API For
Ott, J. and M. Engelbart, "RTP over QUIC", draft-ietf- Peer-to-Peer Connections", W3C Community Group Draft
avtcore-rtp-over-quic (work in progress), October 24, 2022. Report, commit 50d79c0, 20 May 2023,
<https://www.w3.org/p2p-webtransport/>.
[I-D.ietf-quic-v2] [P2P-QUIC-TRIAL]
Duke, M., "QUIC Version 2", draft-ietf-quic-v2 (work in Hampson, S., "RTCQuicTransport Coming to an Origin Trial
progress), December 15, 2022. Near You (Chrome 73)", January 2019,
<https://developer.chrome.com/blog/rtcquictransport-api/>.
[RFC6189] Zimmermann, P., Johnston, A., Ed., and J. Callas, "ZRTP: [RFC6189] Zimmermann, P., Johnston, A., Ed., and J. Callas, "ZRTP:
Media Path Key Agreement for Unicast Secure RTP", RFC 6189, Media Path Key Agreement for Unicast Secure RTP",
DOI 10.17487/RFC6189, April 2011, <http://www.rfc- RFC 6189, DOI 10.17487/RFC6189, April 2011,
editor.org/info/rfc6189>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6189>.
[P2P-QUIC] Thatcher, P., Aboba, B. and R. Raymond, "QUIC API For Peer- [RFC9369] Duke, M., "QUIC Version 2", RFC 9369,
to-Peer Connections", W3C ORTC Community Group Draft (work DOI 10.17487/RFC9369, May 2023,
in progress), 23 May 2021, <https://github.com/w3c/p2p- <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9369>.
webtransport>
[P2P-QUIC-TRIAL] [RTP-OVER-QUIC]
Hampson, S., "RTCQuicTransport Coming to an Origin Trial Ott, J., Engelbart, M., and S. Dawkins, "RTP over QUIC",
Near You (Chrome 73)", January 2019, Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-
<https://developers.google.com/web/updates/ over-quic-04, 10 July 2023,
2019/01/rtcquictransport-api> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-avtcore-
rtp-over-quic-04>.
Acknowledgments Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Martin Thomson, Roni Even, Jonathan Lennox and We would like to thank Martin Thomson, Roni Even, Jonathan Lennox,
other participants in the IETF QUIC and AVTCORE working groups for and other participants in the IETF QUIC and AVTCORE Working Groups
their discussion of the QUIC multiplexing issue, and their input for their discussion of the QUIC multiplexing issue, and their input
relating to potential solutions. relating to potential solutions.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Bernard Aboba Bernard Aboba
Microsoft Corporation Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052 Redmond, WA 98052
United States of America United States of America
Email: bernard.aboba@gmail.com
Email: bernard.aboba@gmail.com
Gonzalo Salgueiro Gonzalo Salgueiro
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
7200-12 Kit Creek Road 7200-12 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
United States of America United States of America
Email: gsalguei@cisco.com Email: gsalguei@cisco.com
Colin Perkins Colin Perkins
School of Computing Science School of Computing Science
University of Glasgow University of Glasgow
Glasgow G12 8QQ Glasgow
G12 8QQ
United Kingdom United Kingdom
Email: csp@csperkins.org Email: csp@csperkins.org
 End of changes. 48 change blocks. 
210 lines changed or deleted 208 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.