RFC 6336 PROPOSED STANDARD APPLICATIONS · REGISTRY
IANA Registry for Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) Options
Creating a registry for Interactive Connectivity Establishment options.
RFC EDITOR
Westerlund, M. and C. Perkins, "IANA Registry for Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) Options", RFC 6336, DOI 10.17487/RFC6336, July 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6336>.
BIBTEX
@misc{rfc6336,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 6336,
howpublished = {RFC 6336},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC6336},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6336},
author = {M. Westerlund and C. Perkins},
title = {{IANA Registry for Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) Options}},
pagetotal = 5,
year = 2011,
month = jul,
} LINEAGE · FROM THE RFC INDEXOpen full graph →
RFC text
Contents
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Westerlund Request for Comments: 6336 Ericsson Updates: 5245 C. Perkins Category: Standards Track University of Glasgow ISSN: 2070-1721 July 2011 IANA Registry for Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) Options Abstract It has been identified that "Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols" (RFC 5245) is missing a registry for ICE options. This document defines this missing IANA registry and updates RFC 5245. Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6336. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction ....................................................2 2. Requirements Language ...........................................2 3. IANA Considerations .............................................3 3.1. ICE Options ................................................3 4. Security Considerations .........................................3 5. Acknowledgements ................................................4 6. References ......................................................4 6.1. Normative References .......................................4 6.2. Informative References .....................................4 1. Introduction "Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols" [RFC5245] defines a concept of ICE options. However, the ICE RFC fails to create an IANA registry for ICE options. As one ICE option is under specification in [ECN-FOR-RTP], there is now a need to create the registry. RFC 5245 says: "ICE provides for extensibility by allowing an offer or answer to contain a series of tokens that identify the ICE extensions used by that agent. If an agent supports an ICE extension, it MUST include the token defined for that extension in the ice-options attribute". Thus, as future extensions are defined, these ICE options need to be registered with IANA to ensure non-conflicting identification. The ICE option identifiers are used in signalling between the ICE endpoints to negotiate extension support. RFC 5245 defines one method of signalling these ICE options, using the Session Description Protocol (SDP) with Offer/Answer [RFC3264]. This document updates the ICE specification [RFC5245] to define the "Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) Options" registry. 2. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 3. IANA Considerations This document defines a registry "Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) Options" for ICE options that can be used in the SDP "ice-options" attribute or other signalling parameters carrying the ICE options. 3.1. ICE Options An ICE option identifier MUST fulfill the ABNF [RFC5234] syntax for "ice-option-tag" as specified in [RFC5245]. This syntax is reproduced here for simplicity, but the authoritative definition is in the ICE RFC: ice-option-tag = 1*ice-char ice-char = ALPHA / DIGIT / "+" / "/" ICE options are of unlimited length according to the syntax; however, they are RECOMMENDED to be no longer than 20 characters. This is to reduce message sizes and allow for efficient parsing. Registration of an ICE option in the "Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) Options" registry is done using the Specification Required policy as defined in "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC5226]. A registration request MUST include the following information: o The ICE option identifier to be registered o Name, Email, and Address of a contact person for the registration o Organization or individuals having the change control o Short description of the ICE extension to which the option relates o Reference(s) to the specification defining the ICE option and the related extensions This document registers no ICE option. 4. Security Considerations As this document defines an IANA registry for an already existing concept, there are no new security considerations. 5. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the people who reviewed the document and provided feedback: Flemming Andreasen, Mykyta Yevstifeyev, Amanda Baber, and Brian Carpenter. 6. References 6.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008. [RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed., and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008. [RFC5245] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245, April 2010. 6.2. Informative References [ECN-FOR-RTP] Westerlund, M., Johansson, I., Perkins, C., O'Hanlon, P., and K. Carlberg, "Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) for RTP over UDP", Work in Progress, July 2011. [RFC3264] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, June 2002. Authors' Addresses Magnus Westerlund Ericsson Farogatan 6 SE-164 80 Kista Sweden Phone: +46 10 714 82 87 EMail: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com Colin Perkins University of Glasgow School of Computing Science Glasgow G12 8QQ United Kingdom EMail: csp@csperkins.org
AI ELI5
On this page
PROBLEMRFC 5245 defined the concept of ICE options for extending the Interactive Connectivity Establishment protocol but did not create an IANA registry for them.
MECHANISMRFC 6336 creates the ICE Options registry with Specification Required policy, allowing new options to be registered as extensions are defined.
WHY IT MATTERSICE options are now centrally managed, enabling structured extensions to the ICE protocol.
§1Introduction
Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) is a protocol for establishing connections between peers across Network Address Translators and firewalls. RFC 5245 defined a concept of ICE options to allow for extensibility: agents can signal support for extensions using option tokens. However, RFC 5245 did not create an IANA registry for these option tokens. As extensions like Explicit Congestion Notification for RTP began to specify ICE options, a registry became necessary to prevent conflicts.
ICE is a technology for connecting programs through routers and firewalls. The inventors planned to let people add optional features, but forgot to make an official list.
§2The Registry
RFC 6336 creates the Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) Options registry at IANA. ICE option identifiers follow ABNF syntax as specified in RFC 5245, using alphanumeric characters and the symbols + and /. They are recommended to be no longer than 20 characters. New registrations use the Specification Required policy, meaning a registration request must include the option identifier, contact information, organization, a description of the extension, and references to the specification defining it. RFC 6336 itself does not register any options, leaving the registry empty for future use.
The registry has rules for what names are allowed and how to request permission to add a new option. It starts out empty, waiting for the first optional add-on to be registered.
§3Status
RFC 6336 is a Proposed Standard that updates RFC 5245. It was obsoleted by RFC 8839. The ICE Options registry continues to be maintained by IANA.
This RFC added the official list of ICE add-ons. A newer RFC (8839) has since updated the rules.
§4References
[RFC5245]RFC 5245Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245, April 2010.April 2010[RFC5226]RFC 5226Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008.May 2008[RFC5234]RFC 5234Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.January 2008[RFC3264]RFC 3264Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264, June 2002.July 2002