Skip to main content

The Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) Service Codes
draft-ietf-dccp-serv-codes-11

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-08-22
11 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Pasi Eronen
2012-08-22
11 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Jari Arkko
2012-08-22
11 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Ralph Droms
2012-08-22
11 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley
2009-06-12
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from Waiting on Authors
2009-06-03
11 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2009-06-03
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2009-06-03
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2009-06-03
11 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2009-06-03
11 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2009-06-03
11 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2009-06-03
11 Lars Eggert State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Lars Eggert
2009-06-02
11 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ralph Droms has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Ralph Droms
2009-05-27
11 Pasi Eronen [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pasi Eronen has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Pasi Eronen
2009-05-26
11 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dccp-serv-codes-11.txt
2009-05-22
11 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to Yes from Discuss by Jari Arkko
2009-05-22
10 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dccp-serv-codes-10.txt
2009-05-07
11 Cindy Morgan State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2009-05-07
11 Jari Arkko
[Ballot comment]
Also, gcc says "suggest parentheses around arithmetic
in operand of |".

The document says:

  o  It preserves the four bits of the …
[Ballot comment]
Also, gcc says "suggest parentheses around arithmetic
in operand of |".

The document says:

  o  It preserves the four bits of the final bytes of the Service Code,
      allowing mapping common series of Service Codes to adjacent ports,
      e.g. Foo1, and Foo2; and Fooa and Foob would be assigned adjacent
      ports.

True, but you maybe you should also mention that this only applies
on 0-9 and A-O and P-Z, not between them... because of the 4 bits and
how ASCII codes have been defined. E.g.,

SC:srva => 62481
SC:srvb => 62482
...
SC:srvn => 62494
SC:srvo => 62495
SC:srvp => 62464

That is, there is a discontinuity between O and P.
2009-05-07
11 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2009-05-07
11 Tim Polk
[Ballot comment]
I support Pasi's discuss regarding section 4.  If this content is important to this document, it needs to be reflected throughout (e.g, covered …
[Ballot comment]
I support Pasi's discuss regarding section 4.  If this content is important to this document, it needs to be reflected throughout (e.g, covered in the intro and security considerations...)
2009-05-07
11 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2009-05-07
11 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2009-05-07
11 Jari Arkko
[Ballot comment]
Also, gcc says "suggest parentheses around arithmetic
in operand of |".

The document says:

  o  It preserves the four bits of the …
[Ballot comment]
Also, gcc says "suggest parentheses around arithmetic
in operand of |".

The document says:

  o  It preserves the four bits of the final bytes of the Service Code,
      allowing mapping common series of Service Codes to adjacent ports,
      e.g. Foo1, and Foo2; and Fooa and Foob would be assigned adjacent
      ports.

True, but you maybe you should also mention that this only applies
on 0-9 and A-O and P-Z, not between them... because of the 4 bits and
how ASCII codes have been defined. E.g.,

SC:srva => 52481
SC:srvb => 52482
...
SC:srvn => 62494
SC:srvo => 62495
SC:srvp => 62464

That is, there is a discontinuity between O and P.
2009-05-07
11 Jari Arkko
[Ballot discuss]
I will vote Yes as soon as the following minor bug is fixed.

The code fragment

    int s_port; /* server port …
[Ballot discuss]
I will vote Yes as soon as the following minor bug is fixed.

The code fragment

    int s_port; /* server port */
    s_port = (sc[0]<<7)^(sc[1]<<5)^(sc[2]<<3)^sc[3] | 0xC000;
    if (s_port==0xFFFF) {s_port = 0xC000}

has a syntax error, the last line should read:

    if (s_port==0xFFFF) {s_port = 0xC000;}
2009-05-07
11 Jari Arkko
[Ballot comment]
The document says:

  o  It preserves the four bits of the final bytes of the Service Code,
      allowing mapping …
[Ballot comment]
The document says:

  o  It preserves the four bits of the final bytes of the Service Code,
      allowing mapping common series of Service Codes to adjacent ports,
      e.g. Foo1, and Foo2; and Fooa and Foob would be assigned adjacent
      ports.

True, but you maybe you should also mention that this only applies
on 0-9 and A-O and P-Z, not between them... because of the 4 bits and
how ASCII codes have been defined. E.g.,

SC:srva => 52481
SC:srvb => 52482
...
SC:srvn => 62494
SC:srvo => 62495
SC:srvp => 62464

That is, there is a discontinuity between O and P.
2009-05-07
11 Jari Arkko
[Ballot discuss]
The code fragment

    int s_port; /* server port */
    s_port = (sc[0]<<7)^(sc[1]<<5)^(sc[2]<<3)^sc[3] | 0xC000;
    if (s_port==0xFFFF) {s_port …
[Ballot discuss]
The code fragment

    int s_port; /* server port */
    s_port = (sc[0]<<7)^(sc[1]<<5)^(sc[2]<<3)^sc[3] | 0xC000;
    if (s_port==0xFFFF) {s_port = 0xC000}

has a syntax error, the last line should read:

    if (s_port==0xFFFF) {s_port = 0xC000;}

also, just a comment: gcc says "suggest parentheses around arithmetic
in operand of |".
2009-05-07
11 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2009-05-06
11 Robert Sparks
[Ballot comment]
Support Pasi's comment about section 4.

Also note that the URI for iperf in the references has not resolved since I started trying …
[Ballot comment]
Support Pasi's comment about section 4.

Also note that the URI for iperf in the references has not resolved since I started trying it a couple of days ago.
2009-05-06
11 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks
2009-05-06
11 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2009-05-06
11 Ralph Droms
[Ballot discuss]
I'm confused by sections 3.3, 3.3.1 and 3.3.2.  I understand the four cases in the bullet list in section 3.3.  However, I don't …
[Ballot discuss]
I'm confused by sections 3.3, 3.3.1 and 3.3.2.  I understand the four cases in the bullet list in section 3.3.  However, I don't understand exactly how section 3.3.1 explains the first two bullet list cases.  I also am mystified by the relationship between section 3.3.2 and the third bullet case.

If I'm understanding the cases and the mechanisms correctly, all three of the allowed cases could be explained easily by a sentence in section 3.3.1 along the lines of "The combination of the service code and server port disambiguates the requests as described in the first three bullet list items  in section 3.3."

I agree, at least in part, with Pasi's DISCUSS regarding the inclusion of section 4 in this document.  Inclusion of text defining service codes for some well-known services might be useful as an example - with, as Pasi points out, the inclusion of the appropriate references defining those services.  The performace benchmarking services belong in their own document.
2009-05-06
11 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Ralph Droms
2009-05-06
11 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley
2009-05-05
11 Cullen Jennings [Ballot comment]
support Tim's discuss
2009-05-05
11 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2009-05-05
11 Pasi Eronen
[Ballot discuss]
I have reviewed draft-ietf-dccp-serv-codes-09, and I have one question
that I'd like to discuss before recommending approval of the document:

Why does …
[Ballot discuss]
I have reviewed draft-ietf-dccp-serv-codes-09, and I have one question
that I'd like to discuss before recommending approval of the document:

Why does the text in Section 4 belong to this document?

All the text about describing the usage of Service Codes seems OK, but
defining Echo/Daytime/etc over DCCP seems beyond the scope of this
document, and is never mentioned in the abstract or introduction.

(And normally I would expect a document defining how to run X
over DCCP to have normative references to X, discuss the security
considerations of doing so, and so on -- all that is missing.)
2009-05-05
11 Pasi Eronen [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen
2009-05-04
11 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2009-05-04
11 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2009-05-04
11 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel
2009-04-28
11 Lars Eggert State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup by Lars Eggert
2009-04-28
11 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2009-04-28
09 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dccp-serv-codes-09.txt
2009-04-24
11 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Scott Kelly.
2009-04-21
11 Russ Housley [Ballot discuss]
I have not seen a response to the Gen-ART Review by David Black.  It
  was posted on April 14, 2009.
2009-04-21
11 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2009-04-17
11 Lars Eggert Telechat date was changed to 2009-05-07 from 2009-04-23 by Lars Eggert
2009-04-16
11 Lars Eggert State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Lars Eggert
2009-04-16
11 Lars Eggert gen-art review needs to be addressed
2009-04-16
11 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2009-04-14
11 Amanda Baber
IANA comments:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-dccp-serv-codes-08.txt, currently in
Last Call, and has the following comments:

Action 1 (section 6.1.1):

Upon approval of this document, …
IANA comments:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-dccp-serv-codes-08.txt, currently in
Last Call, and has the following comments:

Action 1 (section 6.1.1):

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
assignments in the "Well-Known Port Numbers" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers

Keyword Decimal Description References
------- ------- ----------- ----------
echo 7/dccp Echo SC:ECHO # IETF dccp WG,
[RFC-dccp-serv-codes-08]
daytime 13/dccp DayTime SC:DTIM # IETF dccp WG,
[RFC-dccp-serv-codes-08]
chatgen 19/dccp Chargen SC:CHAR # IETF dccp WG,
[RFC-dccp-serv-codes-08]
time 37/dccp Timeserver SC:TIME # IETF dccp WG,
[RFC-dccp-serv-codes-08]


Action 2 (section 6.1.1):

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
assignments in the "Registered Port Numbers" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers

Keyword Decimal Description References
------- ------- ----------- ----------
perf 5001/dccp iPerf SC:PERF # IETF dccp WG,
[RFC-dccp-serv-codes-08]


Action 3 (section 6.1.2):

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
assignments in the "Service Codes" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-codes/service-codes.xhtml

+----------+------+----+-------------------------------+----------+
| Service | ASCII|Port| Description | Ref |
| Code (SC)| Code | | | |
+----------+------+----+-------------------------------+----------+
|1162037327| ECHO | 7| Echo service | [RFC862] |
|0x4543484f| | | | |
|1146374477| DTIM | 13| Daytime server | [RFC867] |
|0x4454494d| | | | |
|1128808786| CHAR | 19| Character generator (chargen) | [RFC864] |
|0x43484152| | | | |
|1414090053| TIME | 37| Timeserver | [RFC868] |
|0x54494d45| | | | |
|1346720326| PERF |5001| iPerf |
[RFC-dccp-serv-codes-08] |
|0x50455246| | | | |
|1481655634| XPER | - | Generic Performance Service |
[RFC-dccp-serv-codes-08] |
|0x58504552| | | | |
+----------+------+----+-------------------------------+----------+


We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document.
2009-04-12
11 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov
2009-04-12
11 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
The document should have an informative reference for ASCII:

  [ANSI.X3-4.1986]  American National Standards Institute, "Coded
              …
[Ballot comment]
The document should have an informative reference for ASCII:

  [ANSI.X3-4.1986]  American National Standards Institute, "Coded
                    Character Set - 7-bit American Standard Code for
                    Information Interchange", ANSI X3.4, 1986.

Am I correct that the SC: convention can't be used to represent full range of Service Codes?
2009-04-03
11 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Scott Kelly
2009-04-03
11 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Scott Kelly
2009-04-02
11 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2009-04-02
11 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2009-04-02
11 Lars Eggert Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-04-23 by Lars Eggert
2009-04-02
11 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Lars Eggert
2009-04-02
11 Lars Eggert Ballot has been issued by Lars Eggert
2009-04-02
11 Lars Eggert Created "Approve" ballot
2009-04-02
11 Lars Eggert State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Lars Eggert
2009-04-02
11 Lars Eggert Last Call was requested by Lars Eggert
2009-04-02
11 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2009-04-02
11 (System) Last call text was added
2009-04-02
11 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2009-04-02
11 Lars Eggert State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Lars Eggert
2009-03-31
11 Cindy Morgan
> (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
> Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
> document and, in …
> (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
> Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
> document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
> version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?
>
> The WGLC was managed by Tom Phelan (co-chair).
> The Document Shepherd is Lars Eggert.
>
> (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG
> members
> and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
> any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
> have been performed?
>
> SC was discussed at IETF-72 (Dublin) with a view to WGLC; and again at
> IETF-73 (MPLS).
>
> Rev -06 of this draft was WGLC'ed for publishing as a PS on 25th
> August
> 2008 for 2 weeks, ending on 8th September. This document was judged by
> the WG as ready for publication.
>
> (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
> needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
> e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar
> with
> AAA, internationalization or XML?
>
> No.
>
> (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
> issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
> and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
> or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the
> document, or
> has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
> event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has
> indicated
> that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
> concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this
> document
> been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
> disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
> this issue.
>
> No.
>
> (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
> represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
> others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand
> and
> agree with it?
>
> The document received significant feedback resulting from WG
> discussion
> in versions prior to rev -05.
>
> Comments in the WGLC that resulted in corrections were received from:
> Alfred Hoenes
> Eddie Kohler
> Colin Perkins
> Tom Phelan
>
> (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated
> extreme
> discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
> separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.
> (It
> should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
> entered into the ID Tracker.)
>
> No.
>
> (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
> document satisfies all ID nits? (See
> http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
> http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
> not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the
> document
> met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
> Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?
>
> It passes the ID checklist, but has old-style boiler plate.
>
> (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
> informative? Are there normative references to documents
> that
> are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
> state? If such normative references exist, what is the
> strategy for their completion? Are there normative
> references
> that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
> so, list these downward references to support the Area
> Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].
>
> Yes.
>
> This document is referenced in draft-ietf-behave-dccp-02.txt, and
> relies
> on this as a normative reference
>
> (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
> consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
> of the document? If the document specifies protocol
> extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
> registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
> the document creates a new registry, does it define the
> proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
> procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
> reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
> document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
> conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the
> IESG
> can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?
>
> Done, and verified by DCCP WG (via Eddie Kohler).
>
> (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
> document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
> code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly
> in
> an automated checker?
>
> Not applicable.
>
> (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
> Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
> Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
> "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
> announcement contains the following sections:
> Technical Summary
> Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
> and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
> an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
> or introduction.
>
> This document describes the usage of Service Codes by the Datagram
> Congestion Control Protocol, RFC 4340. It motivates the setting
> of a
> Service Code by applications. Service Codes provide a method to
> identify the intended service/application to process a DCCP
> connection request. This provides improved flexibility in the use
> and
> assignment of port numbers for connection multiplexing. The use
> of a
> DCCP Service Code can also enable more explicit coordination of
> services with middleboxes (e.g. network address translators and
> firewalls). This document updates the specification provided in RFC
> 4340.
>
> Working Group Summary
> Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting?
> For
> example, was there controversy about particular points or
> were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
> rough?
>
> Document Quality
> Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
> Have a
> significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
> implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
> merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
> e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
> conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?
> If
> there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert
> review,
> what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media
> Type
> review, on what date was the request posted?
>
> There are existing implementations of DCCP that utilise Service Codes.
> Some implementors were involved in the WG discussion. Compliance of
> the
> implementation with the final Spec. has not been verified. No interops
> were performed.
>
> (end)
2009-03-31
11 Cindy Morgan Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested
2009-03-31
11 Cindy Morgan Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for draft-fairhurst-dccp-serv-codes.
2008-09-29
08 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dccp-serv-codes-08.txt
2008-09-19
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dccp-serv-codes-07.txt
2008-06-16
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dccp-serv-codes-06.txt
2008-04-22
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dccp-serv-codes-05.txt
2008-02-18
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dccp-serv-codes-04.txt
2007-11-18
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dccp-serv-codes-03.txt
2007-10-15
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dccp-serv-codes-02.txt
2007-10-02
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dccp-serv-codes-01.txt
2007-06-20
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dccp-serv-codes-00.txt