<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?> version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?> "rfc2629-xhtml.ent">

<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" number="8837"
     submissionType="IETF" consensus="true" category="std"
     docName="draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-18"
     ipr="trust200902"> ipr="trust200902" obsoletes="" updates="" xml:lang="en" tocInclude="true" symRefs="true" sortRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 2.45.2 -->
  <front>
    <title abbrev="WebRTC QoS">
      DSCP
      Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) Packet Markings for WebRTC QoS
    </title>
    <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8837"/>
    <author fullname="Paul E. Jones" initials="P." surname="Jones">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
      <address>
        <email>paulej@packetizer.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author fullname="Subha Dhesikan" initials="S." surname="Dhesikan">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
      <address>
        <email>sdhesika@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author fullname="Cullen Jennings" initials="C." surname="Jennings">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
      <address>
        <email>fluffy@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author fullname="Dan Druta" initials="D." surname="Druta">
      <organization>AT&amp;T</organization>
      <address>
        <email>dd5826@att.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date/>
    <date month="June" year="2020"/>

<!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search.
-->
<keyword>example</keyword>
    <abstract>
      <t>
        Many networks, such as service provider and enterprise networks,
        can provide different forwarding treatments for individual
        packets based on Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP)
        values on a per-hop basis.  This document provides the
        recommended DSCP values for web browsers to use for various
        classes of WebRTC Web Real-Time Communication (WebRTC) traffic.
      </t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <section title="Introduction"> numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>
        Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) <xref target="RFC2474"/> target="RFC2474" format="default"/>
        packet marking can help provide QoS in some environments.
        This specification provides default packet marking for browsers
        that support WebRTC applications, but does not change any advice
        or requirements in other IETF RFCs.  The contents of this
        specification are intended to be a simple set of implementation
        recommendations based on the previous RFCs.
      </t>
      <t>
        Networks where in which these DSCP markings are beneficial (likely to
        improve QoS for WebRTC traffic) include:
      </t>

      <t>
        <list style="numbers">
          <t>
      <ol spacing="normal" type="1">
        <li>
            Private, wide-area networks.  Network administrators have
            control over remarking packets and treatment of packets.
          </t>

          <t>
          </li>
        <li>
            Residential Networks.  If the congested link is the
            broadband uplink in a cable or DSL scenario, often residential
	    routers/NAT often support preferential treatment based
            on DSCP.
          </t>

          <t>
          </li>
        <li>
            Wireless Networks.  If the congested link is a local
            wireless network, marking may help.
          </t>
        </list>
      </t>
          </li>
      </ol>
      <t>
        There are cases where these DSCP markings do not help, help but,
        aside from possible priority inversion for "less than best
        effort "Less-than-Best-Effort
	traffic" (see Section 5), <xref target="dscp-mappings" format="default"/>), they seldom make things worse
        if packets are marked appropriately.
      </t>
      <t>
        DSCP values are are, in principle principle, site specific, specific with each site
        selecting its own code points for controlling per-hop-behavior per-hop behavior
        to influence the QoS for transport-layer flows.  However  However, in the
        WebRTC use cases, the browsers need to set them to something
        when there is no site specific site-specific information.  This document
        describes a subset of DSCP code point values drawn from existing
        RFCs and common usage for use with WebRTC applications.  These
        code points are intended to be the default values used by a
        WebRTC application.  While other values could be used, using a
        non-default value may result in unexpected per-hop behavior.  It
        is RECOMMENDED <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14> that WebRTC applications use non-default values
        only in private networks that are configured to use different
        values.
      </t>
      <t>

        This specification defines inputs that are provided by the
        WebRTC application hosted in the browser that aid the browser in
        determining how to set the various packet markings.  The
        specification also defines the mapping from abstract QoS
        policies (flow type, priority level) to those packet markings.
      </t>
    </section>
    <section title="Terminology"> numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Terminology</name>
        <t>
    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
        NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>",
    "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL NOT</bcp14>",
    "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>",
    "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>",
    "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and
        "OPTIONAL" "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to be
    interpreted as described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/>. target="RFC2119"/> <xref
    target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as
    shown here.
        </t>
      <t>
        The terms "browser" and "non-browser" are defined in
        <xref target="RFC7742"/> target="RFC7742" format="default"/> and carry the same meaning in this
        document.
      </t>
    </section>
    <section title="Relation numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Relation to Other Specifications"> Specifications</name>
      <t>
        This document is a complement to <xref target="RFC7657"/>, target="RFC7657" format="default"/>, which
        describes the interaction between DSCP and real-time
        communications.  That RFC covers the implications of using
        various DSCP values, particularly focusing on the Real-time
        Transport Protocol (RTP) <xref target="RFC3550"/> target="RFC3550" format="default"/> streams that
        are multiplexed onto a single transport-layer flow.
      </t>
      <t>
        There are a number of guidelines specified in
        <xref target="RFC7657"/> target="RFC7657" format="default"/> that apply to marking traffic sent by
        WebRTC applications, as it is common for multiple RTP streams to
        be multiplexed on the same transport-layer flow.  Generally, the
        RTP streams would be marked with a value as appropriate from
        <xref target="table-dscp"/>. target="tab-dscp" format="default"/>.  A WebRTC application might also
        multiplex data channel
        <xref target="I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel"/> target="RFC8831" format="default"/> traffic over the
        same 5-tuple as RTP streams, which would also be marked as per
        that table.  The guidance in <xref target="RFC7657"/> target="RFC7657" format="default"/> says that
        all data channel traffic would be marked with a single value
        that is typically different than from the value(s) used for RTP
        streams multiplexed with the data channel traffic over the same
        5-tuple, assuming RTP streams are marked with a value other than
        default forwarding
        Default Forwarding (DF).  This is expanded upon further in the
        next section.
      </t>
      <t>
        This specification does not change or override the advice in any
        other IETF RFCs about setting packet markings.  Rather, it
        simply selects a subset of DSCP values that is relevant in the
        WebRTC context.
      </t>
      <t>
        The DSCP value set by the endpoint is not trusted by the
        network.  In addition, the DSCP value may be remarked at any
        place in the network for a variety of reasons to any other DSCP
        value, including default forwarding (DF) the DF value to provide basic
        best effort
        best-effort service.  Even so, there is a benefit in to marking
        traffic even if it only benefits the first few hops.  The
        implications are discussed in Secton 3.2 of
        <xref target="RFC7657"/>. target="RFC7657" sectionFormat="of" section="3.2"/>.  Further, a mitigation for such action
        is through an authorization mechanism.  Such an authorization
        mechanism is outside the scope of this document.
      </t>
    </section>
    <section title="Inputs">
      <t> numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Inputs</name>
      <t>
<!-- [rfced] What is meant by "to this document"?  Is it "as described in this
document"?

Original:
   WebRTC applications send and receive two types of flows of
   significance to this document:

        <list style="symbols">
          <t>

-->
        WebRTC applications send and receive two types of flows of
        significance to this document:

      </t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
           media flows which that are RTP streams
            <xref target="I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage"/>
          </t>
          <t> target="RFC8834" format="default"/>
        </li>
        <li>
           data flows which that are data channels
            <xref target="I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel"/>
          </t>
        </list>
      </t> target="RFC8831" format="default"/>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>
        Each of the RTP streams and distinct data channels consists consist of
        all of the packets associated with an independent media entity,
        so an RTP stream or distinct data channel is not always
        equivalent to a transport-layer flow defined by a 5-tuple
        (source address, destination address, source port, destination
        port, and protocol).  There may be multiple RTP streams and data
        channels multiplexed over the same 5-tuple, with each having a
        different level of importance to the application and, therefore,
        potentially marked using different DSCP values than another RTP
        stream or data channel within the same transport-layer flow.
        (Note that there are restrictions with respect to marking
        different data channels carried within the same SCTP Stream Control
	Transmission Protocol (SCTP) association
        as outlined in <xref target="dscp-mappings"/>.) target="dscp-mappings" format="default"/>.)
      </t>
      <t>
        The following are the inputs provided by the WebRTC application
        to the browser:

        <list style="symbols">
          <t>

      </t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
            Flow Type: The application provides this input because it knows
            if the flow is audio, interactive video (<xref target="RFC4594" format="default"/>
          <xref target="RFC4594"/>
            <xref target="G.1010"/> target="G.1010" format="default"/>) with or without audio, or data.
          </t>

          <t>
          </li>
        <li>
            Application Priority: Another input is the relative
            importance of an RTP stream or data channel.  Many
            applications have multiple flows of the same Flow Type flow type and
            often
            some flows are often more important than others.  For
            example, in a video conference where there are usually audio
            and video flows, the audio flow may be more important than
            the video flow.  JavaScript applications can tell the
            browser whether a particular flow is high, medium, low of High, Medium, Low, or
            very low
            Very Low importance to the application.
          </t>
        </list>
      </t>
          </li>
      </ul>
      <t>
        <xref target="I-D.ietf-rtcweb-transports"/> target="RFC8835" format="default"/> defines in more
        detail what an individual flow is within the WebRTC
        context and priorities for media and data flows.
      </t>
      <t>
        Currently in WebRTC, media sent over RTP is assumed to be
        interactive <xref target="I-D.ietf-rtcweb-transports"/> target="RFC8835" format="default"/> and
        browser APIs do not exist to allow an application to to
        differentiate between interactive and non-interactive video.
      </t>
    </section>

    <section anchor="dscp-mappings" title="DSCP Mappings"> numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>DSCP Mappings</name>
      <t>
        The DSCP values for each flow type of interest to WebRTC based
        on application priority are shown in <xref target="table-dscp"/>. target="tab-dscp" format="default"/>.
        These values are based on the framework and recommended values in
        <xref target="RFC4594"/>. target="RFC4594" format="default"/>.  A web browser SHOULD <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> use these values
        to mark the appropriate media packets.  More information on EF Expedited
	Forwarding (EF)
        can be found in <xref target="RFC3246"/>. target="RFC3246" format="default"/>.  More information on
        AF
        Assured Forwarding (AF) can be found in <xref target="RFC2597"/>. target="RFC2597" format="default"/>.  DF is default
        forwarding Default Forwarding, which provides the basic best effort best-effort service
        <xref target="RFC2474"/>. target="RFC2474" format="default"/>.
      </t>
      <t>
<!-- [rfced] We are having trouble digesting this sentence.  Please consider
whether the suggested text is any more clear, or if there is a
better way to rephrase.

Original:
   WebRTC use of multiple DSCP values may encounter network blocking of
   packets with certain DSCP values.  See section 4.2

Perahps:
   WebRTC's use of multiple DSCP values may result in packets with certain DSCP
   values being blocked by a network.

-->

        WebRTC use of multiple DSCP values may encounter network blocking
        of packets with certain DSCP values.  See
        <xref target="I-D.ietf-rtcweb-transports"/> target="RFC8835" sectionFormat="of" section="4.2"/> for further
        discussion, including how WebRTC implementations establish and
        maintain connectivity when such blocking is encountered.
      </t>

      <texttable anchor="table-dscp"
                 title="Recommended
      <table anchor="tab-dscp" align="center">
        <name>Recommended DSCP Values for WebRTC Applications">
        <ttcol Applications</name>
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th align="center">Flow Type</ttcol>
        <ttcol Type</th>
            <th align="center">Very Low</ttcol>
        <ttcol align="center">Low</ttcol>
        <ttcol align="center">Medium</ttcol>
        <ttcol align="center">High</ttcol>
        <c>Audio</c>
        <c>CS1 (8)</c>
        <c>DF (0)</c>
        <c>EF (46)</c>
        <c>EF (46)</c>
        <c> </c>
        <c> </c>
        <c> </c>
        <c> </c>
        <c> </c>
        <c>Interactive Low</th>
            <th align="center">Low</th>
            <th align="center">Medium</th>
            <th align="center">High</th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td align="center">Audio</td>
            <td align="center">LE (1)</td>
            <td align="center">DF (0)</td>
            <td align="center">EF (46)</td>
            <td align="center">EF (46)</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="center"> </td>
            <td align="center"> </td>
            <td align="center"> </td>
            <td align="center"> </td>
            <td align="center"> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="center">Interactive Video with or without Audio</c>
        <c>CS1 (8)</c>
        <c>DF (0)</c>
        <c>AF42, Audio</td>
            <td align="center">LE (1)</td>
            <td align="center">DF (0)</td>
            <td align="center">AF42, AF43 (36, 38)</c>
        <c>AF41, 38)</td>
            <td align="center">AF41, AF42 (34, 36)</c>
        <c> </c>
        <c> </c>
        <c> </c>
        <c> </c>
        <c> </c>
        <c>Non-Interactive 36)</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="center"> </td>
            <td align="center"> </td>
            <td align="center"> </td>
            <td align="center"> </td>
            <td align="center"> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="center">Non-Interactive Video with or without Audio</c>
        <c>CS1 (8)</c>
        <c>DF (0)</c>
        <c>AF32, Audio</td>
            <td align="center">LE (1)</td>
            <td align="center">DF (0)</td>
            <td align="center">AF32, AF33 (28, 30)</c>
        <c>AF31, 30)</td>
            <td align="center">AF31, AF32 (26, 28)</c>
        <c> </c>
        <c> </c>
        <c> </c>
        <c> </c>
        <c> </c>
        <c>Data</c>
        <c>CS1 (8)</c>
        <c>DF (0)</c>
        <c>AF11</c>
        <c>AF21</c>
      </texttable> 28)</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="center"> </td>
            <td align="center"> </td>
            <td align="center"> </td>
            <td align="center"> </td>
            <td align="center"> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="center">Data</td>
            <td align="center">LE (1)</td>
            <td align="center">DF (0)</td>
            <td align="center">AF11</td>
            <td align="center">AF21</td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
      <t>
        The application priority, indicated by the columns "very low",
        "low", "Very Low",
        "Low", "Medium", and "high", "High", signifies the relative importance
        of the flow within the application.  It is an input that the
        browser receives to assist in selecting the DSCP value and
        adjusting the network transport behavior.
      </t>
      <t>
   The above table assumes that packets marked with CS1 LE are treated as
   lower effort (i.e., "less than best effort", effort"), such as the LE behavior
   described in <xref target="RFC3662"/>. target="RFC8622" format="default"/>.  However, the treatment of CS1 LE is
   implementation dependent.  If an implementation treats CS1 LE as other
   than "less than best effort", then the actual priority (or, more
   precisely, the per-hop-behavior) per-hop behavior) of the packets may be changed from
   what is intended.  It is common for CS1 LE to be treated the same as DF,
   so applications and browsers using CS1 LE cannot assume that CS1 LE will be
   treated differently than DF <xref target="RFC7657"/>.  However, it is also possible per
        <xref target="RFC2474"/> for target="RFC7657" format="default"/>.  During development of this
   document, the CS1 traffic to be given better
        treatment than DF, thus caution should DSCP was recommended for "very low" application
   priority traffic; implementations that followed that recommendation
   <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be exercised when
        electing updated to use CS1.  This is one the LE DSCP instead of the cases where marking
        packets using these recommendations can make things worse. CS1 DSCP.
      </t>
      <t>
        Implementers should also note that excess EF traffic is dropped.
        This could mean that a packet marked as EF may not get through,
        although the same packet marked with a different DSCP value would
        have gotten through.  This is not a flaw, but how excess EF
        traffic is intended to be treated.
      </t>
      <t>
        The browser SHOULD <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> first select the flow type of the flow.
        Within the flow type, the relative importance of the flow
        SHOULD
        <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be used to select the appropriate DSCP value.
      </t>
      <t>
        Currently, all WebRTC video is assumed to be interactive
        <xref target="I-D.ietf-rtcweb-transports"/>, target="RFC8835" format="default"/>, for which the
        Interactive Video
        interactive video DSCP values in Table 1 SHOULD <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be used.
        Browsers MUST NOT <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> use the AF3x DSCP values (for Non-Interactive
        Video non-interactive
        video in Table 1) for WebRTC applications.  Non-browser
        implementations of WebRTC MAY <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> use the AF3x DSCP values for video
        that is known not to be interactive, e.g., all video in a WebRTC
        video playback application that is not implemented  in a
        browser.
      </t>
      <t>
        The combination of flow type and application priority provides
        specificity and helps in selecting the right DSCP value for the
        flow.  All packets within a flow SHOULD <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> have the same application
        priority.  In some cases, the selected application priority cell
        may have multiple DSCP values, such as AF41 and AF42.  These offer
        different drop precedences.  The different drop precedence
        values provides provide additional granularity in classifying packets
        within a flow.  For example, in a video conference conference, the video
        flow may have medium application priority, thus either AF42 or
        AF43 may be selected.  More important video packets (e.g., a
        video picture or frame encoded without any dependency on any
        prior pictures or frames) might be marked with AF42 and less
        important packets (e.g., a video picture or frame encoded based
        on the content of one or more prior pictures or frames) might be
        marked with AF43 (e.g., receipt of the more important packets
        enables a video renderer to continue after one or more packets
        are lost).
      </t>
      <t>
        It is worth noting that the application priority is utilized by
        the coupled congestion control mechanism for media flows per
        <xref target="I-D.ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc"/> target="RFC8837" format="default"/> and the SCTP
        scheduler for data channel traffic per
        <xref target="I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel"/>. target="RFC8831" format="default"/>.
      </t>
      <t>
        For reasons discussed in Section 6 of
        <xref target="RFC7657"/>, target="RFC7657" sectionFormat="of" section="6"/>, if multiple flows are multiplexed
        using a reliable transport (e.g., TCP) TCP), then all of the packets
        for all flows multiplexed over that transport-layer flow MUST <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be
        marked using the same DSCP value.  Likewise, all WebRTC data
        channel packets transmitted over an SCTP association MUST <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be
        marked using the same DSCP value, regardless of how many data
        channels (streams) exist or what kind of traffic is carried over
        the various SCTP streams.  In the event that the browser wishes
        to change the DSCP value in use for an SCTP association, it MUST <bcp14>MUST</bcp14>
        reset the SCTP congestion controller after changing values.
        Frequent
        However, frequent changes in the DSCP value used for an SCTP association
        are discouraged, though, as this would defeat any attempts at
        effectively managing congestion.  It should also be noted that
        any change in DSCP value that results in a reset of the
        congestion controller puts the SCTP association back into slow
        start, which may have undesirable effects on application
        performance.
      </t>
      <t>
        For the data channel traffic multiplexed over an SCTP
        association, it is RECOMMENDED <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14> that the DSCP value selected be
        the one associated with the highest priority requested for all
        data channels multiplexed over the SCTP association.  Likewise,
        when multiplexing multiple flows over a TCP connection,
        the DCSP value selected should be the one associated with the
        highest priority requested for all multiplexed flows.
      </t>
      <t>
        If a packet enters a network that has no support for a flow
        type-application flow-type-application priority combination specified in
        <xref target="table-dscp"/>, target="tab-dscp" format="default"/>, then the network node at the edge
        will remark the DSCP value based on policies.  This could result
        in the flow not getting the network treatment it expects based
        on the original DSCP value in the packet.  Subsequently, if the
        packet enters a network that supports a larger number of these
        combinations, there may not be sufficient information in the
        packet to restore the original markings.  Mechanisms for
        restoring such original DSCP is outside the scope of this
        document.
      </t>
      <t>
        In summary, DSCP marking provides neither guarantees nor
        promised levels of service.  However, DSCP marking is expected
        to provide a statistical improvement in real-time service as a
        whole.  The service provided to a packet is dependent upon the
        network design along the path, as well as the network conditions
        at every hop.
      </t>
    </section>
    <section title="Security Considerations"> numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>
        Since the JavaScript application specifies the flow type and
        application priority that determine the media flow DSCP values
        used by the browser, the browser could consider application use
        of a large number of higher priority flows to be suspicious.
        If the server hosting the JavaScript application is compromised,
        many browsers within the network might simultaneously transmit
        flows with the same DSCP marking.  The DiffServ Diffserv architecture
        requires ingress traffic conditioning for reasons that include
        protecting the network from this sort of attack.
      </t>
      <t>
        Otherwise, this specification does not add any additional
        security implications beyond those addressed in the following
        DSCP-related specifications.  For security implications on use
        of DSCP, please refer to Section 7 of <xref target="RFC7657"/> target="RFC7657"
	sectionFormat="of" section="7"/>
        and Section 6 of <xref target="RFC4594"/>. target="RFC4594" sectionFormat="of" section="6"/>.  Please also see
        <xref target="I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security"/> target="RFC8826" format="default"/> as an additional
        reference.
      </t>
    </section>

    <section title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>
        This specification does not require any actions from IANA.
      </t> numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <t>This document has no IANA actions.</t>
    </section>

    <section title="Downward References"> numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Downward References</name>
      <t>
        This specification contains a downwards reference references to
        <xref target="RFC4594"/> target="RFC4594" format="default"/> and <xref target="RFC7657"/>. target="RFC7657" format="default"/>.  However,
        the parts of the former RFC RFCs used by this specification are
        sufficiently stable for this these downward reference. references.  The guidance
        in the latter RFC is necessary to understand the Diffserv
        technology used in this document and the motivation
        for the recommended DSCP values and procedures.
      </t>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references>
      <name>References</name>
      <references>
        <name>Normative References</name>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4594.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7657.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7742.xml"/>
	 <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"/>

<!-- draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel: 8831 -->
<reference anchor="RFC8831" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8831">
<front>
<title>WebRTC Data Channels</title>
<author initials="R" surname="Jesup" fullname="Randell Jesup">
  <organization/>
</author>
<author initials="S" surname="Loreto" fullname="Salvatore Loreto">
  <organization/>
</author>
<author initials="M" surname="Tüxen" fullname="Michael Tüxen">
  <organization/>
</author>
<date month='June' year='2020'/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8831"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8831"/>
</reference>

<!--draft-ietf-rtcweb-security: RFC 8826 -->
<reference anchor="RFC8826" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8826">
<front>
<title>Security Considerations for WebRTC</title>
<author initials='E.' surname='Rescorla' fullname='Eric Rescorla'>
  <organization/>
</author>
<date month='June' year='2020'/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8826"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8826"/>
</reference>

<!-- draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage; RFC 8834 -->
<reference anchor="RFC8834" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8834">
  <front>
    <title>Media Transport and Use of RTP in WebRTC</title>
    <author initials="C." surname="Perkins" fullname="Colin Perkins">
      <organization />
    </author>
    <author initials="M." surname="Westerlund" fullname="Magnus Westerlund">
      <organization />
    </author>
    <author initials="J." surname="Ott" fullname="Jörg Ott">
      <organization />
    </author>
    <date month="June" year="2020" />
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8834" />
  <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8834"/>
</reference>

<!-- draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-17: 8835 -->
<reference anchor="RFC8835" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8835">

  <front>
    <title>Transports for WebRTC</title>

    <author initials="H." surname="Alvestrand" fullname="Harald Alvestrand">
      <organization />
    </author>

    <date month="June" year="2020" />
  </front>
  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8835" />
  <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8835"/>

</reference>

<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8622.xml"/>
      </references>

      <references>
        <name>Informative References</name>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2474.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2597.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3246.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3550.xml"/>
<!-- [rfced] Please note that we have removed the reference for RFC 3662
because it no longer seemed necessary after updating the text per Section 12
of draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb-10 (as requested in the IESG note; see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8622/writeup/).  Please let us know if any
corrections are required.

   [RFC3662]  Bless, R., Nichols, K., and K. Wehrle, "A Lower Effort
              Per-Domain Behavior (PDB) for Differentiated Services",
              RFC 3662, DOI 10.17487/RFC3662, December 2003,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3662>.
-->
<!--
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3662.xml"/>
-->
<!-- draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos-18: 8837  -->
<reference anchor="RFC8837" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8837">
  <front>
    <title>Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) Packet Markings for
    WebRTC QoS</title>
    <author initials="P." surname="Jones" fullname="Paul Jones">
      <organization/>
    </author>
    <author initials="S." surname="Dhesikan" fullname="Subha Dhesikan">
      <organization/>
    </author>
    <author initials="C." surname="Jennings" fullname="Cullen Jennings">
      <organization/>
    </author>
    <author initials="D." surname="Druta" fullname="Dan Druta">
      <organization/>
    </author>
    <date month="June" year="2020"/>
  </front>
     <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8837" />
     <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8837"/>
</reference>

        <reference anchor="G.1010">
          <front>
            <title>End-user multimedia QoS categories</title>
            <author>
              <organization>ITU-T</organization>
            </author>
            <date month="November" year="2001"/>
          </front>
            <seriesInfo name="ITU-T" value="Recommendation G.1010"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
    </references>

    <section title="Acknowledgements"> numbered="false" toc="default">
      <name>Acknowledgements</name>
      <t>
        Thanks to David Black, Magnus Westerlund, Paolo Severini, Jim
        Hasselbrook, Joe Marcus, Erik Nordmark, Michael Tuexen, and
        Brian Carpenter <contact fullname="David Black"/>, <contact fullname="Magnus
	Westerlund"/>, <contact fullname="Paolo Severini"/>, <contact fullname="Jim
        Hasselbrook"/>, <contact fullname="Joe Marcus"/>, <contact fullname="Erik
	Nordmark"/>, <contact fullname="Michael Tüxen"/>, and
        <contact fullname="Brian Carpenter"/> for their invaluable input.
      </t>
    </section>
    <section title="Dedication"> numbered="false" toc="default">
      <name>Dedication</name>
      <t>
        This document is dedicated to the memory of James Polk, <contact fullname="James Polk"/>, a
        long-time friend and colleague.  James made important
        contributions to this specification, including serving initially
        as one of the primary authors.  The IETF global community mourns
        his loss and he will be missed dearly.
      </t>
    </section>

    <section title="Document History">
      <t>
        Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section.
      </t>

      <t>
        This document was originally an individual submission in RTCWeb WG.
        The RTCWeb working group selected it to be become a WG document.
        Later the transport ADs requested that this be moved to the TSVWG WG
        as that seemed to be a better match.
      </t>
    </section>

  </middle>

  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.4594'?>
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2119'?>
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.7657'?>
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.7742'?>
      <?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security'?>
      <?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-rtcweb-transports'?>
      <?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage'?>
      <?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel'?>
    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2474'?>
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2597'?>
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.3246'?>
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.3550'?>
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.3662'?>
      <?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-rmcat-coupled-cc'?>
      <reference anchor="G.1010">
        <front>
          <title>End-user multimedia QoS categories</title>
          <author>
            <organization>International Telecommunications Union</organization>
          </author>
          <date month="November" year="2001"/>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="Recommendation" value="ITU-T G.1010"/>
      </reference>
    </references>
  </back>
</rfc>