IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Question about support for RFC 6520 DTLS heartbeat

Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> Wed, 14 January 2015 08:49 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E6D91A6F96 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 00:49:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.561
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.561 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0G8vKFn0j8kB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 00:49:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-n.franken.de (drew.ipv6.franken.de [IPv6:2001:638:a02:a001:20e:cff:fe4a:feaa]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51A601A1B3A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 00:49:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.200] (p508F2A85.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.143.42.133]) (Authenticated sender: macmic) by mail-n.franken.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1C251C10435D; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 09:49:49 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
From: Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
In-Reply-To: <CAOW+2dsaAOmOS=VZe8VTRoSSjN0TAQzY2kXaOqHUCAf9jaA5Mw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 09:49:48 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DD273892-F62C-423C-A4FF-0BA8288A5454@lurchi.franken.de>
References: <CAOW+2dsaAOmOS=VZe8VTRoSSjN0TAQzY2kXaOqHUCAf9jaA5Mw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/fmp61QCcaofr3FObAKPeebCL0ak>
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Question about support for RFC 6520 DTLS heartbeat
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 08:49:55 -0000

On 14 Jan 2015, at 01:57, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Looking through IETF RTCWEB WG drafts (https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-rtcweb) and dependencies, "DTLS Heartbeat" RFC 6520 appears to be referenced only in draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps Section 5, in the context of PMTU discovery: 
> 
>    If path MTU discovery is performed by the DTLS layer, the method
>    described in [
> RFC4821
> ] MUST be used.  For probe packets, the
>    extension defined in [
> RFC6520] MUST be used.
> 
> Is it correct to conclude that existing implementations do not use the DTLS heartbeat other than for PMTU discovery? 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps-07
describes two options for SCTP over DTLS:
* DTLS does the PMTUD using DTLS heartbeats
* SCTP does the PMTUD using SCTP HEARTBEAT and PADDING chunks

My understanding is the RTCWeb uses the second option as described in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-13#section-5

Best regards
Michael 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email