< draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-10.txt		draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-11.txt >
	BFCPBIS Working Group V. Pascual		BFCPBIS Working Group V. Pascual
	Internet-Draft Oracle		Internet-Draft Oracle
	Intended status: Standards Track A. Roman		Intended status: Standards Track A. Roman
	Expires: December 16, 2016 Quobis		Expires: April 19, 2017 Quobis
	S. Cazeaux		S. Cazeaux
	France Telecom Orange		France Telecom Orange
	G. Salgueiro		G. Salgueiro
	R. Ravindranath		R. Ravindranath
	Cisco		Cisco
	S. Garcia Murillo		S. Garcia Murillo
	Medooze		Medooze
	June 14, 2016		October 16, 2016
	The WebSocket Protocol as a Transport for the Binary Floor Control		The WebSocket Protocol as a Transport for the Binary Floor Control
	Protocol (BFCP)		Protocol (BFCP)
	draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-10		draft-ietf-bfcpbis-bfcp-websocket-11
	Abstract		Abstract
	The WebSocket protocol enables two-way realtime communication between		The WebSocket protocol enables two-way realtime communication between
	clients and servers. This document specifies a new WebSocket sub-		clients and servers. This document specifies a new WebSocket sub-
	protocol as a reliable transport mechanism between Binary Floor		protocol as a reliable transport mechanism between Binary Floor
	Control Protocol (BFCP) entities to enable usage of BFCP in new		Control Protocol (BFCP) entities to enable usage of BFCP in new
	scenarios.		scenarios.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	skipping to change at page 1, line 43 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 43 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on December 16, 2016.		This Internet-Draft will expire on April 19, 2017.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2016 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		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 2, line 33 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 33 ¶
	4.2. BFCP Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		4.2. BFCP Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	5. Transport Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		5. Transport Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	6. SDP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		6. SDP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	6.1. Transport Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		6.1. Transport Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	6.2. SDP Media Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		6.2. SDP Media Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	7. SDP Offer/Answer Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		7. SDP Offer/Answer Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	7.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		7.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	7.2. Example Usage of 'wss-uri' SDP Attribute . . . . . . . . 7		7.2. Example Usage of 'wss-uri' SDP Attribute . . . . . . . . 7
	8. Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		8. Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	10.1. Registration of the WebSocket BFCP Sub-Protocol . . . . 10		10.1. Registration of the WebSocket BFCP Sub-Protocol . . . . 10
	10.2. Registration of the 'TCP/WS/BFCP' and 'TCP/WSS/BFCP' SDP		10.2. Registration of the 'TCP/WS/BFCP' and 'TCP/WSS/BFCP' SDP
	'proto' Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		'proto' Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	The WebSocket [RFC6455] protocol enables two-way message exchange		The WebSocket [RFC6455] protocol enables two-way message exchange
	between clients and servers on top of a persistent TCP connection,		between clients and servers on top of a persistent TCP connection,
	optionally secured with Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC5246].		optionally secured with Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC5246].
	The initial protocol handshake makes use of Hypertext Transfer		The initial protocol handshake makes use of Hypertext Transfer
	Protocol (HTTP) [RFC7230] semantics, allowing the WebSocket protocol		Protocol (HTTP) [RFC7230] semantics, allowing the WebSocket protocol
	skipping to change at page 5, line 11 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 11 ¶
	protocol layered on top of a WebSocket connection. This document		protocol layered on top of a WebSocket connection. This document
	specifies the WebSocket BFCP sub-protocol for carrying BFCP messages		specifies the WebSocket BFCP sub-protocol for carrying BFCP messages
	over a WebSocket connection.		over a WebSocket connection.
	4.1. Handshake		4.1. Handshake
	The BFCP WebSocket Client and BFCP WebSocket Server negotiate usage		The BFCP WebSocket Client and BFCP WebSocket Server negotiate usage
	of the WebSocket BFCP sub-protocol during the WebSocket handshake		of the WebSocket BFCP sub-protocol during the WebSocket handshake
	procedure as defined in Section 1.3 of [RFC6455]. The Client MUST		procedure as defined in Section 1.3 of [RFC6455]. The Client MUST
	include the value "bfcp" in the Sec-WebSocket-Protocol header in its		include the value "bfcp" in the Sec-WebSocket-Protocol header in its
	handshake request. The 101 reply from the Server MUST contain "bfcp"		handshake request. The 101 reply from the Server MUST contain "BFCP"
	in its corresponding Sec-WebSocket-Protocol header.		in its corresponding Sec-WebSocket-Protocol header.
	Below is an example of a WebSocket handshake in which the Client		Below is an example of a WebSocket handshake in which the Client
	requests the WebSocket BFCP sub-protocol support from the Server:		requests the WebSocket BFCP sub-protocol support from the Server:
	GET / HTTP/1.1		GET / HTTP/1.1
	Host: bfcp-ws.example.com		Host: bfcp-ws.example.com
	Upgrade: websocket		Upgrade: websocket
	Connection: Upgrade		Connection: Upgrade
	Sec-WebSocket-Key: dGhlIHNhbXBsZSBub25jZQ==		Sec-WebSocket-Key: dGhlIHNhbXBsZSBub25jZQ==
	skipping to change at page 6, line 21 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 21 ¶
	WebSocket [RFC6455] provides a reliable transport and therefore the		WebSocket [RFC6455] provides a reliable transport and therefore the
	BFCP WebSocket sub-protocol defined by this document also provides		BFCP WebSocket sub-protocol defined by this document also provides
	reliable BFCP transport. Thus, client and server transactions using		reliable BFCP transport. Thus, client and server transactions using
	WebSocket for transport MUST follow the procedures for reliable		WebSocket for transport MUST follow the procedures for reliable
	transports as defined in [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis] and		transports as defined in [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis] and
	[I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis].		[I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis].
	BFCP WebSocket clients cannot receive incoming WebSocket connections		BFCP WebSocket clients cannot receive incoming WebSocket connections
	initiated by any other peer. This means that a BFCP WebSocket client		initiated by any other peer. This means that a BFCP WebSocket client
	MUST actively initiate a connection towards a BFCP WebSocket server.		MUST actively initiate a connection towards a BFCP WebSocket server.
			The BFCP server is a server, on the Internet, and thus doesn't need
			ICE and thus the clients always initiate connection to it, and the
			clients only validate its certificate and the clients do not include
			their certificate in TLS ClientHello.
	Each BFCP message MUST be carried within a single WebSocket message,		Each BFCP message MUST be carried within a single WebSocket message,
	and a WebSocket message MUST NOT contain more than one BFCP message.		and a WebSocket message MUST NOT contain more than one BFCP message.
	6. SDP Considerations		6. SDP Considerations
	6.1. Transport Negotiation		6.1. Transport Negotiation
	Rules to generate an 'm' line for a BFCP stream are described in		Rules to generate an 'm' line for a BFCP stream are described in
	[I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis], Section 3		[I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis], Section 3
	skipping to change at page 8, line 49 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 49 ¶
	Section 9 of [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis] states that BFCP clients		Section 9 of [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis] states that BFCP clients
	and floor control servers SHOULD authenticate each other prior to		and floor control servers SHOULD authenticate each other prior to
	accepting messages, and RECOMMENDS that mutual TLS/DTLS		accepting messages, and RECOMMENDS that mutual TLS/DTLS
	authentication be used. However, browser-based WebSocket clients		authentication be used. However, browser-based WebSocket clients
	have no control over the use of TLS in the WebSocket API [WS-API], so		have no control over the use of TLS in the WebSocket API [WS-API], so
	it is RECOMMENDED that standard Web-based methods for client and		it is RECOMMENDED that standard Web-based methods for client and
	server authentication are used, as follows.		server authentication are used, as follows.
	When a BFCP WebSocket client connects to a BFCP WebSocket server, it		When a BFCP WebSocket client connects to a BFCP WebSocket server, it
	SHOULD use TCP/WSS as its transport. The WebSocket client SHOULD		SHOULD use TCP/WSS as its transport. The WebSocket client MUST
	inspect the TLS certificate offered by the server and verify that it		follow the procedures in [RFC7525] while setting up TLS connection
	is valid.		with webSocket server. The BFCP client validates the server by means
			of verifying server certificate and this requires wss-uri contains a
			hostname. a=fingerprint is not used here in the verification process.
	Since the WebSocket API does not distinguish between certificate		Since the WebSocket API does not distinguish between certificate
	errors and other kinds of failure to establish a connection, it is		errors and other kinds of failure to establish a connection, it is
	expected that browser vendors will warn end users directly of any		expected that browser vendors will warn end users directly of any
	kind of problem with the server certificate.		kind of problem with the server certificate.
	A floor control server that receives a message over TCP/WS can		A floor control server that receives a message over TCP/WS can
	request the use of TCP/WSS by generating an Error message, as		request the use of TCP/WSS by generating an Error message, as
	described in Section 13.8 of [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis], with an		described in Section 13.8 of [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis], with an
	Error code with a value of 9 (use TLS).		Error code with a value of 9 (use TLS).
	Prior to sending BFCP requests, a BFCP WebSocket client connects to a		Prior to sending BFCP requests, a BFCP WebSocket client connects to a
	BFCP WebSocket server and performs the connection handshake. As		BFCP WebSocket server and performs the connection handshake. As
	described in Section 3 the handshake procedure involves a HTTP GET		described in Section 3 the handshake procedure involves a HTTP GET
	method request from the client and a response from the server		method request from the client and a response from the server
	including an HTTP 101 status code.		including an HTTP 101 status code.
	In order to authorize the WebSocket connection, the BFCP WebSocket		In order to authorize the WebSocket connection, the BFCP WebSocket
	server MAY inspect any cookie [RFC6265] headers present in the HTTP		server SHOULD inspect any cookie [RFC6265] headers present in the
	GET request. For many web applications the value of such a cookie is		HTTP GET request. For many web applications the value of such a
	provided by the web server once the user has authenticated themselves		cookie is provided by the web server once the user has authenticated
	to the web server, which could be done by many existing mechanisms.		themselves to the web server, which could be done by many existing
	As an alternative method, the BFCP WebSocket Server could request		mechanisms. As an alternative method, the BFCP WebSocket Server
	HTTP authentication by replying to the Client's GET method request		could request HTTP authentication by replying to the Client's GET
	with a HTTP 401 status code. The WebSocket protocol [RFC6455] covers		method request with a HTTP 401 status code. The WebSocket protocol
	this usage in Section 4.1:		[RFC6455] covers this usage in Section 4.1:
	If the status code received from the server is not 101, the		If the status code received from the server is not 101, the
	WebSocket client stack handles the response per HTTP [RFC7230]		WebSocket client stack handles the response per HTTP [RFC7230]
	procedures, in particular the client might perform authentication		procedures, in particular the client might perform authentication
	if it receives 401 status code.		if it receives 401 status code.
	9. Security Considerations		9. Security Considerations
	Considerations from [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis],		Considerations from [I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis],
	[I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis] and RFC5018 [RFC5018] apply.		[I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis] and RFC5018 [RFC5018] apply.
	BFCP relies on lower-layer security mechanisms to provide replay and		BFCP relies on lower-layer security mechanisms to provide replay and
	integrity protection and confidentiality. It is RECOMMENDED that the		integrity protection and confidentiality. It is RECOMMENDED that the
	BFCP traffic transported over a WebSocket communication be protected		BFCP traffic transported over a WebSocket communication be protected
	by using a secure WebSocket connection (using TLS [RFC5246] over		by using a secure WebSocket connection (using TLS [RFC5246] over
	TCP).		TCP). The security model here is a typical webserver-client model
			where the client validates the server certificate and then connects
			to the server.
	10. IANA Considerations		10. IANA Considerations
	10.1. Registration of the WebSocket BFCP Sub-Protocol		10.1. Registration of the WebSocket BFCP Sub-Protocol
	This specification requests IANA to register the WebSocket BFCP sub-		This specification requests IANA to register the WebSocket BFCP sub-
	protocol under the "WebSocket Subprotocol Name" Registry with the		protocol under the "WebSocket Subprotocol Name" Registry with the
	following data:		following data:
	Subprotocol Identifier: bfcp		Subprotocol Identifier: bfcp
	Subprotocol Common Name: WebSocket Transport for BFCP (Binary Floor		Subprotocol Common Name: WebSocket Transport for BFCP (Binary Floor
	Control Protocol)		Control Protocol)
	skipping to change at page 10, line 42 ¶		skipping to change at page 10, line 45 ¶
	Figure 1: Values for the SDP 'proto' Field		Figure 1: Values for the SDP 'proto' Field
	[[NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: Please change XXXX to the number assigned to		[[NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: Please change XXXX to the number assigned to
	this specification, and remove this paragraph on publication.]]		this specification, and remove this paragraph on publication.]]
	11. Acknowledgements		11. Acknowledgements
	The authors want to thank Robert Welbourn, from Acme Packet, who made		The authors want to thank Robert Welbourn, from Acme Packet, who made
	significant contributions to the first version of this document.		significant contributions to the first version of this document.
	This work benefited from the thorough review and constructive		This work benefited from the thorough review and constructive
	comments of Charles Eckel, Christer Holmberg and Paul Kyzivat.		comments of Charles Eckel, Christer Holmberg, Paul Kyzivat and Dan
			Wing.
	12. References		12. References
	12.1. Normative References		12.1. Normative References
	[I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis]		[I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis]
	Camarillo, G., Drage, K., Kristensen, T., Ott, J., and C.		Camarillo, G., Drage, K., Kristensen, T., Ott, J., and C.
	Eckel, "The Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP)", draft-		Eckel, "The Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP)", draft-
	ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-16 (work in progress), November		ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-16 (work in progress), November
	2015.		2015.
	[I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri]		[I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri]
	R, R. and G. Salgueiro, "Session Description Protocol		R, R. and G. Salgueiro, "Session Description Protocol
	skipping to change at page 11, line 14 ¶		skipping to change at page 11, line 15 ¶
	[I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis]		[I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis]
	Camarillo, G., Drage, K., Kristensen, T., Ott, J., and C.		Camarillo, G., Drage, K., Kristensen, T., Ott, J., and C.
	Eckel, "The Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP)", draft-		Eckel, "The Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP)", draft-
	ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-16 (work in progress), November		ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-16 (work in progress), November
	2015.		2015.
	[I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri]		[I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri]
	R, R. and G. Salgueiro, "Session Description Protocol		R, R. and G. Salgueiro, "Session Description Protocol
	(SDP) WebSocket Connection URI Attribute", draft-ietf-		(SDP) WebSocket Connection URI Attribute", draft-ietf-
	bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-04 (work in progress), May 2016.		bfcpbis-sdp-ws-uri-05 (work in progress), July 2016.
	[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,		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[RFC4145] Yon, D. and G. Camarillo, "TCP-Based Media Transport in		[RFC4145] Yon, D. and G. Camarillo, "TCP-Based Media Transport in
	the Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 4145,		the Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 4145,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC4145, September 2005,		DOI 10.17487/RFC4145, September 2005,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4145>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4145>.
	skipping to change at page 11, line 40 ¶		skipping to change at page 11, line 41 ¶
	[RFC6455] Fette, I. and A. Melnikov, "The WebSocket Protocol",		[RFC6455] Fette, I. and A. Melnikov, "The WebSocket Protocol",
	RFC 6455, DOI 10.17487/RFC6455, December 2011,		RFC 6455, DOI 10.17487/RFC6455, December 2011,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6455>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6455>.
	12.2. Informative References		12.2. Informative References
	[I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis]		[I-D.ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis]
	Camarillo, G., Kristensen, T., and P. Jones, "Session		Camarillo, G., Kristensen, T., and P. Jones, "Session
	Description Protocol (SDP) Format for Binary Floor Control		Description Protocol (SDP) Format for Binary Floor Control
	Protocol (BFCP) Streams", draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-13		Protocol (BFCP) Streams", draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-16
	(work in progress), February 2016.		(work in progress), September 2016.
	[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security		[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
	(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,		(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,		DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
	[RFC6265] Barth, A., "HTTP State Management Mechanism", RFC 6265,		[RFC6265] Barth, A., "HTTP State Management Mechanism", RFC 6265,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC6265, April 2011,		DOI 10.17487/RFC6265, April 2011,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6265>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6265>.
	[RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer		[RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
	Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",		Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
	RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,		RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.
			[RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre,
			"Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
			Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
			(DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May
			2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>.
	[WS-API] W3C and I. Hickson, Ed., "The WebSocket API", May 2012.		[WS-API] W3C and I. Hickson, Ed., "The WebSocket API", May 2012.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Victor Pascual		Victor Pascual
	Oracle		Oracle
	Email: victor.pascual.avila@oracle.com		Email: victor.pascual.avila@oracle.com
	Anton Roman		Anton Roman
End of changes. 17 change blocks.
	24 lines changed or deleted		39 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/