Update to the ipn URI scheme
draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update-10
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (dtn WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Rick Taylor , Edward J. Birrane | ||
| Last updated | 2024-03-18 (Latest revision 2024-02-21) | ||
| Replaces | draft-taylor-dtn-ipn-update | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | Proposed Standard | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
ARTART Last Call review
(of
-09)
by Marco Tiloca
Ready w/nits
SECDIR Last Call Review due 2024-02-12
Incomplete
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Scott Burleigh | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2023-12-11 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Waiting for AD Go-Ahead | |
| Action Holder |
Erik Kline
34
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Erik Kline | ||
| Send notices to | sburleig.sb@gmail.com | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed |
draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update-10
Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networking R. Taylor
Internet-Draft Ori Industries
Updates: [9171, 7116] (if approved) E. Birrane
Intended status: Standards Track JHU/APL
Expires: 24 August 2024 21 February 2024
Update to the ipn URI scheme
draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update-10
Abstract
This document updates both the specification of the ipn URI scheme
previously defined in RFC 7116 and the rules for encoding of these
URIs when used as an Endpoint Identifier (EID) in Bundle Protocol
Version 7 (BPv7) as defined in RFC 9171. These updates clarify the
structure and behavior of the ipn URI scheme, define encodings of ipn
scheme URIs, and establish the registries necessary to manage this
scheme.
About This Document
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
The latest revision of this draft can be found at
https://ricktaylor.github.io/ipn2/draft-taylor-dtn-ipn-update.html.
Status information for this document may be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dtn-ipn-update/.
Discussion of this document takes place on the Delay/Disruption
Tolerant Networking Working Group mailing list (mailto:dtn@ietf.org),
which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dtn/.
Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/ricktaylor/ipn2.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Taylor & Birrane Expires 24 August 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ipn-update February 2024
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 24 August 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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 (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Core Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. The Null ipn URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Allocator Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.1. Allocator Identifier Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.2. The Default Allocator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Node Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.1. Fully-qualified Node Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. Special Node Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4.1. The Zero Node Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4.2. LocalNode ipn URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4.3. Private Use Node Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5. Service Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Textual Encoding of ipn URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Usage of ipn URIs with BPv7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. Uniqueness Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. The Null Endpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. BPv7 Node ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.4. LocalNode ipn EIDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.5. Private Use ipn EIDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.6. Well-known Service Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.7. Administrative Endpoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Encoding ipn URIs with BPv7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. ipn EID CBOR Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Taylor & Birrane Expires 24 August 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ipn-update February 2024
6.1.1. Two-Element Scheme-Specific Encoding . . . . . . . . 14
6.1.2. Three-Element Scheme-Specific Encoding . . . . . . . 15
6.2. ipn EID CBOR Decoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.3. ipn EID Matching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Special Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.1. Scheme Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.2. Late Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.1. Reliability and consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.2. Malicious construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.3. Back-end transcoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.4. Local and Private Use ipn EIDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.5. Sensitive information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.6. Semantic attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.1. 'ipn' Scheme URI Allocator Identifiers registry . . . . . 19
9.1.1. Guidance for Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9.2. 'ipn' Scheme URI Default Allocator Node Numbers
registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9.3. 'ipn' Scheme URI Well-known Service Numbers for BPv7
registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9.3.1. Guidance for Designated Experts . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Appendix A. ipn URI Scheme Text Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Appendix B. ipn URI Scheme Text Representation Examples . . . . 25
B.1. Using the Default Allocator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
B.2. Using a non-default Allocator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
B.3. The Null ipn URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
B.4. A LocalNode ipn URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Appendix C. ipn URI Scheme CBOR Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Appendix D. ipn URI Scheme CBOR Encoding Examples . . . . . . . 27
D.1. Using the Default Allocator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
D.2. Using a non-default Allocator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
D.3. The 'null' Endpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1. Introduction
The ipn URI scheme was originally defined in [RFC7116] as a way to
identify network nodes and node services using concisely-encoded
integers that can be processed faster and with fewer resources than
other verbose identifier schemes. The scheme was designed for use
with the experimental Bundle Protocol version 6 (BPv6, [RFC5050]) and
IPN was defined as an acronym for the term "InterPlanetary Network"
in reference to its intended use for deep-space networking. Since
Taylor & Birrane Expires 24 August 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ipn-update February 2024
then, the efficiency benefit of integer identifiers makes ipn scheme
URIs useful for any networks operating with limited power, bandwidth,
and/or compute budget. Therefore, the term IPN is now used as a non-
acronymous name.
Similar to the experimental BPv6, the standardized Bundle Protocol
version 7 (BPv7, [RFC9171]) codifies support for the use of the ipn
URI scheme for the specification of bundle Endpoint Identifiers
(EIDs). The publication of BPv7 has resulted in operational
deployments of BPv7 nodes for both terrestrial and non-terrestrial
use cases. This includes BPv7 networks operating over the
terrestrial Internet and BPv7 networks operating in self-contained
environments behind a shared administrative domain. The growth in
the number and scale of deployments of BPv7 DTNs has been accompanied
by a growth in the usage of the ipn URI scheme which has highlighted
areas to improve the structure, moderation, and management of this
scheme.
By updating [RFC7116] and [RFC9171], this document updates the
specification of the ipn URI scheme, in a backwards-compatible way,
to provide needed improvements both in the scheme itself and its
usage to specify EIDs with BPv7. Specifically, this document
introduces a hierarchical structure for the assignment of ipn scheme
URIs, clarifies the behavior and interpretation of ipn scheme URIs,
defines efficient encodings of ipn scheme URIs, and updates/defines
the registries associated for this scheme.
Although originally developed by the deep space community for use
with Bundle Protocol, the ipn URI scheme is sufficiently generic to
be used in other environments where a concise unique representation
of a resource on a particular node is required.
It is important to remember that, like most other URI schemes, the
ipn URI scheme defines a unique identifier of a resource, and does
not include any topological information describing how to route
messages to that resource.
2. Conventions and Definitions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
For the remainder of this document, the term "ipn URI" is used to
refer to a URI that uses the ipn scheme.
Taylor & Birrane Expires 24 August 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ipn-update February 2024
3. Core Concepts
Every ipn URI, no matter whether it is expressed with the textual
representation or a binary encoding, MUST be considered as a tuple of
the following three components:
* The Allocator Identifier
* The Node Number
* The Service Number
The Allocator Identifier indicates the entity responsible for
assigning Node Numbers to individual resource nodes, maintaining
uniqueness whilst avoiding the need for a single registry for all
assigned Node Numbers. See Allocator Identifiers (Section 3.2).
The Node Number is a shared identifier assigned to all ipn URIs for
resources co-located on a single node. See Node Numbers
(Section 3.3).
The Service Number is an identifier to distinguish between resources
on a given node. See Service Numbers (Section 3.5).
The combination of these three components guarantees that every
correctly constructed ipn URI uniquely identifies a single resource.
Additionally, the combination of the Allocator Identifier and the
Node Number provides a mechanism to uniquely identify the node on
which a particular resource is expected to exist. See
Fully-qualified Node Number (Section 3.3.1).
3.1. The Null ipn URI
It has been found that there is value in defining a unique 'null' ipn
URI to indicate "nowhere". This ipn URI is termed the "Null ipn
URI", and has all three components: Allocator Identifier, Node
Number, and Service Number, set to the value zero (0). No resource
identified by Null ipn URI exists, and any such resource is therefore
by definition unreachable.
3.2. Allocator Identifiers
An Allocator is any organization that wishes to assign Node Numbers
for use with the ipn URI scheme, and has the facilities and
governance to manage a public registry of assigned Node Numbers. The
authorization to assign these numbers is provided through the
assignment of an Allocator Identifier by IANA. Regardless of other
attributes of an Allocator, such as a name, point of contact, or
Taylor & Birrane Expires 24 August 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ipn-update February 2024
other identifying information, Allocators are identified by Allocator
Identifiers: a unique, unsigned integer.
The Allocator Identifier MUST be the sole mechanism used to identify
the Allocator that has assigned the Node Number in an ipn URI. An
Allocator may have multiple assigned Allocator Identifiers, but a
given Allocator Identifier MUST only be associated with a single
Allocator.
A new IANA "'ipn' Scheme URI Allocator Identifiers" registry is
defined for the registration of Allocator Identifiers, see 'ipn'
Scheme URI Allocator Identifiers registry (Section 9.1). Although
the uniqueness of Allocator Identifiers is required to enforce
uniqueness of ipn URIs, some identifiers are explicitly reserved for
experimentation or future use.
Each Allocator assigns Node Numbers according to its own policies,
without risk of creating an identical ipn URI, as permitted by the
rules in the Node Numbers (Section 3.3) section of this document.
Other than ensuring that any Node Numbers it allocates are unique
amongst all Node Numbers it assigns, an Allocator does not need to
coordinate its allocations with other Allocators.
If a system does not require interoperable deployment of ipn scheme
URIs, then the Private Use Node Number range, reserved by the Default
Allocator (Section 3.2.2) for this purpose SHOULD be used.
3.2.1. Allocator Identifier Ranges
Some organizations with internal hierarchies may wish to delegate the
allocation of Node Numbers to one or more of their sub-organizations.
Rather than assigning unique Allocator Identifiers to each sub-
organization on a first-come first-served basis, there are
operational benefits in assigning Allocator Identifiers to such an
organization in a structured way so that an external observer can
detect that a group of Allocator Identifiers are organizationally
associated.
An Allocator Identifier range is a set of consecutive Allocator
Identifiers associated with the same Allocator. Each individual
Allocator Identifier in a given range SHOULD be assigned to a
distinct sub-organization of the Allocator. Assigning identifiers in
this way allows external observers both to associate individual
Allocator Identifiers with a single organization and to usefully
differentiate amongst sub-organizations.
Taylor & Birrane Expires 24 August 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ipn-update February 2024
The practice of associating a consecutive range of numbers with a
single organization is inspired by the Classless Inter-domain Routing
assignment of Internet Addresses described in [RFC4632]. In that
assignment scheme, an organization (such as an Internet Service
Provider) is assigned a network prefix such that all addresses
sharing that same prefix are considered to be associated with that
organization.
Each Allocator Identifier range is identified by the first Allocator
Identifier in the range and the number of consecutive identifiers in
the range.
Allocator Identifier ranges differ from CIDR addresses in two
important ways.
1. Allocator Identifiers are used to identify organizations and are
not, themselves, addresses.
2. Allocator Identifiers may be less than 32 bits in length.
In order to differentiate between Allocator Identifier ranges using
efficient bitwise operations, all ranges MUST be of a size S that is
a power of 2, and for a given range of length N bits, with S = 2^N,
the least-significant N bits of the first Allocator Identifier MUST
be all 0.
An example of the use of Allocator Identifier ranges for four
organizations (A, B, C, and D) is as follows:
+==============+=============+=============+=====================+
| Organization | Range (dec) | Range (hex) | Range Length (Bits) |
+==============+=============+=============+=====================+
| Org A | 974848 .. | 0xEE000 .. | 7 bits |
| | 974975 | 0xEE07F | |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Org B | 974976 .. | 0xEE080 .. | 4 bits |
| | 974991 | 0xEE08F | |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Org C | 974992 .. | 0xEE090 .. | 1 bit |
| | 974993 | 0xEE091 | |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Org D | 974994 | 0xEE092 | 0 bits |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+---------------------+
Table 1: Allocator Identifier Range Assignment Example
Taylor & Birrane Expires 24 August 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ipn-update February 2024
With these assignments, any Allocator Identifier whose most-
significant 25 bits match 0xEE000 belong to organization A.
Similarly, any Allocator Identifier whose most-significant 28 bits
match 0xEE080 belong to organization B, and any Allocator Identifier
whose most-significant 31 bits are 0xEE090 belong to organization C.
Organisation D has a single Allocator Identifier, and hence a range
of bit-length 0.
3.2.2. The Default Allocator
As of the publication of [RFC7116], the only organization permitted
to assign Node Numbers was the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
(IANA) which assigned Node Numbers via the IANA "CBHE Node Numbers"
registry. This means that all ipn URIs created prior to the addition
of Allocator Identifiers are assumed to have Node Number allocations
that comply with the IANA "CBHE Node Numbers" registry.
The presumption that, unless otherwise specified, Node Numbers are
allocated by IANA from a specific registry is formalized in this
update to the ipn URI scheme by designating IANA as the Default
Allocator, and by assigning the Allocator Identifier zero (0) in the
'ipn' Scheme URI Allocator Identifiers registry (Section 9.1) to the
Default Allocator. In any case where an encoded ipn URI does not
explicitly include an Allocator Identifier, an implementation MUST
assume that the Node Number has been allocated by the Default
Allocator.
A new IANA "'ipn' Scheme URI Default Allocator Node Numbers" registry
is defined to control the allocation of Node Numbers values by the
Default Allocator. This new registry inherits behaviours and
existing assignments from the IANA "CBHE Node Numbers" registry, and
reserves some other values as defined in the Special Node Numbers
(Section 3.4) section below.
3.3. Node Numbers
A Node Number identifies a node that hosts a resource in the context
of an Allocator. A Node Number is an unsigned integer. A single
Node Number assigned by a single Allocator MUST refer to a single
node.
All Node Number assignments, by all Allocators, MUST be in the range
0 to 2^32-1.
It is RECOMMENDED that Node Number zero (0) not be assigned by an
Allocator to avoid confusion with the Null ipn URI (Section 3.1).
Taylor & Birrane Expires 24 August 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ipn-update February 2024
3.3.1. Fully-qualified Node Numbers
One of the advantages of ipn URIs is the ability to easily split the
identity of a particular service from the node upon which the service
exists. For example a message received from one particular ipn URI
may require a response to be sent to a different service on the same
node that sent the original message. Historically the identifier of
the sending node has been colloquially referred to as the "node
number" or "node identifier".
To avoid future confusion, when referring to the identifier of a
particular node the term "Fully-qualified Node Number" (FQNN) MUST be
used to refer to the combination of the Node Number component and
Allocator Identifier component of an ipn URI that uniquely identifies
a particular node. In other words, an FQNN is the unique identifier
of a particular node that supports services identified by ipn URIs.
In the examples in this document, FQNNs are written as (Allocator
Identifier, Node Number), e.g., (977000,100) is the FQNN for a node
assigned Node Number 100 by an Allocator with Allocator Identifier
977000.
3.4. Special Node Numbers
Some special-case Node Numbers are defined by the Default Allocator,
see 'ipn' Scheme URI Default Allocator Node Numbers registry
(Section 9.2).
3.4.1. The Zero Node Number
The Default Allocator assigns the use of Node Number zero (0) solely
for identifying the Null ipn URI (Section 3.1).
This means that any ipn URI with a zero (0) Allocator Identifier and
a zero (0) Node Number, but a non-zero Service Number component is
invalid. Such ipn URIs MUST NOT be composed, and processors of such
ipn URIs MUST consider them as the Null ipn URI.
3.4.2. LocalNode ipn URIs
The Default Allocator reserves Node Number 2^32-1 (0xFFFFFFFFF) to
specify resources on the local node, rather than on any specific
individual node.
This means that any ipn URI with a zero (0) Allocator Identifier and
a Node Number of 2^32-1 refers to a service on the local bundle node.
This form of ipn URI is termed a "LocalNode ipn URI".
Taylor & Birrane Expires 24 August 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ipn-update February 2024
3.4.3. Private Use Node Numbers
The Default Allocator provides a range of Node Numbers that are
reserved for "Private Use", as defined in [RFC8126].
Any ipn URI with a zero (0) Allocator Identifier and a Node Number
reserved for "Private Use" is not guaranteed to be unique beyond a
single administrative domain. An administrative domain, as used
here, is defined as the set of nodes that share a unique allocation
of FQNNs from the "Private Use" range. These FQNNs can be considered
to be functionally similar to "Private Address Space" IPv4 addresses,
as defined in [RFC1918].
Because of this lack of uniqueness, any implementation of a protocol
using ipn URIs that resides on the border between administrative
domains must have suitable mechanisms in place to prevent protocol
units using such "Private Use" Node Numbers to cross between
different administrative domains.
3.5. Service Numbers
A Service Number is an unsigned integer that identifies a particular
service operating on a node. A service in this case is some logical
function that requires its own resource identifier to distinguish it
from other functions operating on the same node.
4. Textual Encoding of ipn URIs
All ipn scheme URIs comply with [RFC3986], and are therefore
represented by scheme identifier, and a scheme-specific part. The
scheme identifier is: ipn, and the scheme-specific parts are
represented as a sequence of numeric components separated with the
'.' character. It is formally defined in Appendix A (Appendix A),
and can be informally considered as:
ipn:[<allocator-identifier>.]<node-number>.<service-number>
To keep the text representation concise, the follow rules apply:
1. All leading 0 characters MUST be omitted. A single '0' is valid.
2. If the Allocator Identifier is zero (0), then the <allocator-
identifier> and '.' MUST be omitted.
3. If the Allocator Identifier is zero (0), and the Node Number is
2^32-1, i.e., the URI is a LocalNode ipn URI (Section 3.4.2),
then the character '!' MAY be used instead of the digits
4294967295, although both forms are valid encodings.
Taylor & Birrane Expires 24 August 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ipn-update February 2024
Examples of the textual representation of ipn URIs can be found in
Appendix B (Appendix B).
5. Usage of ipn URIs with BPv7
From the earliest days of experimentation with the Bundle Protocol
there has been a need to identify the source and destination of a
bundle. The IRTF BPv6 experimental specification termed the logical
source or destination of a bundle as an "Endpoint" identified by an
"Endpoint Identifier" (EID). BPv6 EIDs are formatted as URIs. This
definition and representation of EIDs was carried forward from the
IRTF BPv6 specification to the IETF BPv7 specification. BPv7
additionally defined an IANA registry called the "Bundle Protocol URI
Scheme Types" registry which identifies those URI schemes than might
be used to represent EIDs. The ipn URI scheme is one such URI
scheme.
This section identifies the behavior and interpretation of ipn scheme
URIs that MUST be followed when using this URI scheme to represent
EIDs in BPv7. An ipn URI used as a BPv7 or BPv6 EID is termed an
"ipn EID".
5.1. Uniqueness Constraints
An ipn EID MUST identify a singleton endpoint. The bundle processing
node that is the sole member of that endpoint MUST be the node
identified by the Fully-qualified Node Number (Section 3.3.1) of the
node.
A single bundle processing node MAY have multiple ipn EIDs associated
with it. However, all ipn EIDs that share any single FQNN MUST refer
to the same bundle processing node.
For example, ipn:977000.100.1, ipn:977000.100.2, and ipn:977000.100.3
MUST all refer to services registered on the bundle processing node
identified with FQNN (977000,100). None of these EIDs could be
registered on any other bundle processing node.
5.2. The Null Endpoint
Section 3.2 of [RFC9171] defines the concept of the 'null' endpoint,
which is an endpoint that has no members and which is identified by a
special 'null' EID.
Within the ipn URI scheme, the 'null' EID is represented by the Null
ipn URI (Section 3.1). This means that the URIs dtn:none
(Section 4.2.5.1.1 of [RFC9171]) and ipn:0.0 both refer to the BPv7
'null' endpoint.
Taylor & Birrane Expires 24 August 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft ipn-update February 2024
5.3. BPv7 Node ID
Section 4.2.5.2 of [RFC9171] introduces the concept of a "Node ID"
that has the same format as an EID and that uniquely identifies a
bundle processing node.
Any ipn EID can serve as a "Node ID" for the bundle processing node
identified by its Fully-qualified Node Number (Section 3.3.1). That
is, any ipn EID of the form ipn:A.B.C may be used as the Source Node
ID of any bundle created by the bundle processing node identified by
the FQNN (A,B).
5.4. LocalNode ipn EIDs
When a LocalNode ipn URI (Section 3.4.2) is used as a BPv7 or BPv6
EID, it is termed a "LocalNode ipn EID".
Because a LocalNode ipn EID only has meaning on the local bundle
node, any such EID MUST be considered 'non-routeable'. This means
that any bundle using a LocalNode ipn EID as a bundle source or
bundle destination MUST NOT be allowed to leave the local node.
Equally, all externally received bundles featuring LocalNode EIDs as
a bundle source or bundle destination MUST be discarded as invalid.
LocalNode ipn EIDs SHOULD NOT be present in any other part of a
bundle that is transmitted off of the local node. For example, a
LocalNode ipn EID SHOULD NOT be used as a Bundle Protocol Security
[RFC9172] security source EID for a bundle transmitted from the local
bundle node, because such a source EID would have no meaning at a
downstream bundle node.
5.5. Private Use ipn EIDs
Bundles destined for EIDs that use an ipn URI with a Fully-qualified
Node Number (Section 3.3.1) that is within the "Private Use" range of
the Default Allocator (Section 3.2.2) are not universally unique, and
therefore are only valid within the scope of the current
administrative domain. This means that any bundle using a Private
Use ipn EID as a bundle source or bundle destination MUST NOT be
allowed to cross administrative domains. All implementations that
could be deployed as a gateway between administrative domains MUST be
sufficiently configurable to ensure that this is enforced, and
operators MUST ensure correct configuration.
Taylor & Birrane Expires 24 August 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft ipn-update February 2024
Private Use ipn EIDs SHOULD NOT be present in any other part of a
bundle that is destined for another administrative domain when the
lack of uniqueness prevents correct operation. For example, a
Private Use ipn EID SHOULD NOT be used as a Bundle Protocol Security
[RFC9172] security source EID for a bundle, when the bundle is
destined for a different administrative domain.
5.6. Well-known Service Numbers
It is convenient for BPv7 services that have a public specification
and wide adoption to be identified by a pre-agreed default Service
Number, so that unless extra configuration is applied, such services
can be sensibly assumed to be operating on the well-known Service
Number on a particular node.
If a different service uses the number, or the service uses a
different number, BPv7 will continue to operate, but some
configuration may be required to make the individual service
operational.
A new IANA "'ipn' Scheme URI Well-known Service Numbers for BPv7"
registry is defined for the registration of well-known BPv7 Service
Numbers, see 'ipn' Scheme URI Well-known Service Numbers for BPv7
registry (Section 9.3). This registry records the assignments of
Service Numbers for well-known services, and also explicitly reserves
ranges for both experimentation and private use.
5.7. Administrative Endpoints
The service identified by a Service Number of zero (0) MUST be
interpreted as the Administrative Endpoint of the node, as defined in
Section 3.2 of [RFC9171].
Non-zero Service Numbers MUST NOT be used to identify the
Administrative Endpoint of a bundle node in an ipn EID.
6. Encoding ipn URIs with BPv7
Section 4.2.5.1 of [RFC9171] requires that any URI scheme used to
represent BPv7 EIDs MUST define how the scheme-specific part of the
URI scheme is encoded with CBOR [RFC8949]. To meet this requirement,
this section describes the CBOR encoding and decoding approach for
ipn EIDs. The formal definition of these encodings is presented in
Appendix C (Appendix C).
While there is a single, canonical, textual representation of an ipn
URI, there may exist multiple encodings for that URI. For example,
Section 2.1 of [RFC3986] defines a percent-encoding mechanism for a
Taylor & Birrane Expires 24 August 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft ipn-update February 2024
URI text string. Alternatively, Section 3.4.5.3 of [RFC8949] allows
for the encoding of URIs as CBOR text strings identified with a CBOR
tag value of 32.
6.1. ipn EID CBOR Encoding
Generic URI approaches to encoding ipn EIDs are unlikely to be
efficient because they do not consider the underlying structure of
the ipn URI scheme. Since the creation of the ipn URI scheme was
motivated by the need for concise identification and rapid
processing, the encoding of ipn EIDs maintains these properties.
Fundamentally, [RFC9171] ipn EIDs are represented as a sequence of
identifiers. In the text syntax, the numbers are separated with the
'.' delimiter; in CBOR, this ordered series of numbers can be
represented by an array. Therefore, when encoding ipn EIDs for use
with BPv7, the scheme-specific part of an ipn URI MUST be represented
as a CBOR array of either two (2) or three (3) elements. Each
element of the array MUST be encoded as a single CBOR unsigned
integer.
The structure and mechanisms of the two-element and three-element
encodings are described below, and examples of the different
encodings are provided in Appendix D (Appendix D).
6.1.1. Two-Element Scheme-Specific Encoding
In the two-element scheme-specific encoding of an ipn EID, the first
element of the array is an encoding of the Fully-qualified Node
Number (Section 3.3.1) and the second element of the array is the ipn
EID Service Number.
The FQNN encoding MUST be a 64 bit unsigned integer constructed in
the following way:
1. The least significant 32 bits MUST represent the Node Number
associated with the ipn EID.
2. The most significant 32 bits MUST represent the Allocator
Identifier associated with the ipn EID.
For example the ipn EID of ipn:977000.100.1 has an FQNN of
(977000,100) which would be encoded as 0xEE86800000064. The
resulting two-element array [0xEE86800000064, 0x01] would be encoded
in CBOR as the 11 octet value 0x821B000EE8680000006401.
Taylor & Birrane Expires 24 August 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft ipn-update February 2024
The two-element scheme-specific encoding provides for backwards
compatibility with the encoding provided in Section 4.2.5.1.2 of
[RFC9171]. When used in this way, the encoding of the FQNN replaces
the use of the "Node Number" that was specified in RFC9171. When the
Node Number is allocated by the Default Allocator (Section 3.2.2),
the encoding of the FQNN and the RFC9171 encoding of the "Node
Number" are identical.
This encoding scheme MUST be implemented by any BPv7 bundle
processing node that supports ipn URIs for the representation of BPv7
EIDs.
6.1.2. Three-Element Scheme-Specific Encoding
In the three-element scheme-specific encoding of an ipn EID, the
first element of the array is the Allocator Identifier, the second
element of the array is the Node Number, and the third element of the
array is the Service Number.
For example, the ipn EID of ipn:977000.100.1 would result in the
three-element array of [977000,100,1] which would be encoded in CBOR
as the 9 octet value 0x831A000EE868186401.
The three-element scheme-specific encoding allows for a more
efficient representation of ipn EIDs using smaller Allocator
Identifiers.
When encoding an ipn EID using the Default Allocator (Section 3.2.2)
with this encoding scheme, the first element of the array MUST be the
value zero (0). In this case using the two-element encoding will
result in a more concise CBOR representation, and it is RECOMMENDED
that implementations do so.
6.2. ipn EID CBOR Decoding
The presence of different scheme-specific encodings does not
introduce any decoding ambiguity.
An ipn EID CBOR decoder can reconstruct an ipn EID using the
following logic. In this description, the term enc_eid refers to the
CBOR encoded ipn EID, and the term ipn_eid refers to the decoded ipn
EID.
Taylor & Birrane Expires 24 August 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft ipn-update February 2024
if enc_eid.len() == 3
{
ipn_eid.allocator_identifier := enc_eid[0];
ipn_eid.node_number := enc_eid[1];
ipn_eid.service_number := enc_eid[2];
}
else if enc_eid.len() == 2
{
ipn_eid.allocator_identifier := enc_eid[0] >> 32;
ipn_eid.node_number := enc_eid[0] & (2^32-1);
ipn_eid.service_number := enc_eid[1];
}
6.3. ipn EID Matching
Regardless of whether the two-element or three-element scheme-
specific encoding is used, ipn EID matching MUST be performed on the
decoded EID information itself. Different encodings of the same ipn
EID MUST be treated as equivalent when performing EID-specific
functions.
For example, the ipn EID of ipn:977000.100.1 can be represented as
either the two-element encoding of 0x821B000EE8680000006401 or the
three-element encoding of 0x831A000EE868186401. While message
integrity and other syntax-based checks may treat these values
differently, any EID-based comparisons MUST treat these values the
same - as representing the ipn EID ipn:977000.100.1.
7. Special Considerations
The ipn URI scheme provides a compact and hierarchical mechanism for
identifying services on network nodes. There is a significant amount
of utility in the ipn URI scheme approach to identification.
However, implementers should take into consideration the following
observations on the use of the ipn URI scheme.
7.1. Scheme Compatibility
The ipn scheme update that has been presented in this document
preserves backwards compatibility with any ipn URI scheme going back
to the provisional definition of the ipn scheme in the experimental
Compressed Bundle Header Encoding [RFC6260] specification in 2011.
This means that any ipn URI that was valid prior to the publication
of this update remains a valid ipn URI.
Taylor & Birrane Expires 24 August 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft ipn-update February 2024
Similarly, the two-element scheme-specific encoding (Section 6.1.1)
is also backwards compatible with the encoding of ipn URIs provided
in [RFC9171]. Any existing RFC9171-compliant implementation will
produce an ipn URI encoding in compliance with this specification.
The introduction of optional non-default Allocator Identifiers and a
three-element scheme-specific encoding make this ipn URI scheme
update not forwards compatible. Existing software for which support
of this update is desired MUST be updated to be able to process non-
default Allocator Identifiers and three-element scheme-specific
encodings. It is RECOMMENDED that BPv7 implementations upgrade to
process these new features to benefit from the scalability provided
by Allocator Identifiers and the encoding efficiencies provided by
the three-element encoding.
7.2. Late Binding
[RFC9171] mandates the concept of "late binding" of an EID, whereby
the address of the destination of a bundle is resolved from its
identifier hop-by-hop as it transits a DTN. This per-hop binding of
identifiers to addresses underlines the fact that EIDs are purely
names, and should not carry any implicit or explicit information
concerning the current location or reachability of an identified node
and service. This removes the need to rename a node as its location
changes.
The concept of "late binding" is preserved in this ipn URI scheme.
Elements of an ipn URI SHOULD NOT be regarded as carrying information
relating to location, reachability, or other addressing/routing
concern.
An example of incorrect behaviour would be to assume that a given
Allocator assigns Node Numbers derived from link-layer addresses and
to interpret the Node Number component of an ipn URI directly as a
link-layer address. No matter the mechanism an Allocator uses for
the assignment of Node Numbers, they remain just numbers, without
additional meaning.
8. Security Considerations
This section updates the security considerations from
Section 4.2.5.1.2 of [RFC9171] to account for the inclusion of
Allocator Identifiers in the ipn URI scheme when used with BPv7.
Taylor & Birrane Expires 24 August 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft ipn-update February 2024
8.1. Reliability and consistency
None of the BPv7 endpoints identified by ipn EIDs are guaranteed to
be reachable at any time, and the identity of the processing entities
operating on those endpoints is never guaranteed by the Bundle
Protocol itself. Verification of the signature provided by the Block
Integrity Block targeting the bundle's primary block, as defined by
Bundle Protocol Security [RFC9172], is required for this purpose.
8.2. Malicious construction
Malicious construction of a conformant ipn URI is limited to the
malicious selection of Allocator Identifiers, Node Numbers, and
Service Numbers. That is, a maliciously constructed ipn EID could be
used to direct a bundle to an endpoint that might be damaged by the
arrival of that bundle or, alternatively, to declare a false source
for a bundle and thereby cause incorrect processing at a node that
receives the bundle. In both cases (and indeed in all bundle
processing), the node that receives a bundle should verify its
authenticity and validity before operating on it in any way.
8.3. Back-end transcoding
The limited expressiveness of URIs of the ipn scheme effectively
eliminates the possibility of threat due to errors in back-end
transcoding.
8.4. Local and Private Use ipn EIDs
Both LocalNode (Section 3.4.2) and Private Use (Section 3.4.3) ipn
URIs present a risk to the stability of deployed BPv7 networks. If
either type of ipn URI are allowed to propagate beyond the domain in
which they are valid, then the required uniqueness of ipn URIs no
longer holds, and this fact can be abused by a malicious node to
prevent the correct functioning of the network as a whole.
See LocalNode ipn EIDs (Section 5.4) and Private Use ipn EIDs
(Section 5.5) for required behaviours to mitigate against this form
of abuse.
8.5. Sensitive information
Because ipn URIs are used only to represent the numeric identities of
resources, the risk of disclosure of sensitive information due to
interception of these URIs is minimal. Examination of ipn URIs could
be used to support traffic analysis; where traffic analysis is a
plausible danger, bundles should be conveyed by secure convergence-
layer protocols that do not expose endpoint IDs.
Taylor & Birrane Expires 24 August 2024 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft ipn-update February 2024
8.6. Semantic attacks
The simplicity of ipn URI scheme syntax minimizes the possibility of
misinterpretation of a URI by a human user.
9. IANA Considerations
The following sections detail requests to IANA for the creation of
two new registries, and the renaming of an existing registry.
IANA is requested to update the reference to the 'ipn' scheme is the
"Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Schemes" registry to this
document.
IANA is requested to add the new registries, and relocate the
existing registries under the "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
Schemes" protocol registry.
9.1. 'ipn' Scheme URI Allocator Identifiers registry
IANA is requested to create a new registry entitled "'ipn' Scheme URI
Allocator Identifiers". The registration policy for this registry,
using terms defined in [RFC8126], is:
+================+==================================================+
| Range | Registration Policy |
+================+==================================================+
| 0 .. 2^16-1 | Expert Review, Single Allocator Identifiers only |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| 2^16 .. | Expert Review |
| 2^30-1 | |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| 2^30 .. | Experimental Use |
| 2^31-1 | |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| 2^31 .. | Reserved, Future Expansion |
| 2^32-1 | |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| >= 2^32 | Reserved |
+----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
Table 2: 'ipn' Scheme URI Numbering Allocator Identifiers
registration policies
Taylor & Birrane Expires 24 August 2024 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft ipn-update February 2024
Each entry in this registry associates one or more Allocator
Identifiers with a single organization. Within the registry, the
organization is identified using the "Name" and "Point of Contact"
fields. It is expected that each identified organization publishes
some listing of allocated node numbers - the pointer to which is
listed in the "Reference" field of the registry.
Note that the “Single Allocator Identifiers only” language in
Registration Policy for this registry indicates that, within the
indicated range, the allocation of a sequence of consecutive
Allocator identifiers to a single organization is prohibited. IANA
is requested to note this in the registration policy for this
registry.
The initial values for the registry are:
+=================+========+=========+========+===========+=========+
| Name | Range | Range | Range | Reference | Point |
| | (dec) | (hex) | Length | | of |
| | | | (Bits) | | Contact |
+=================+========+=========+========+===========+=========+
| Default | 0 | 0x0 | 0 | This | IANA |
| Allocator | | | | document | |
| (Section | | | | | |
| 3.2.2) | | | | | |
+-----------------+--------+---------+--------+-----------+---------+
| Example | 974848 | 0xEE000 | 12 | This | IANA |
| Range | .. | .. | bits | document | |
| | 978943 | 0xEEFFF | | | |
+-----------------+--------+---------+--------+-----------+---------+
Table 3: 'ipn' Scheme URI Allocator Identifiers initial values
The "Example Range" is assigned for use in examples in documentation
and sample code.
9.1.1. Guidance for Designated Experts
Due to the nature of the CBOR encoding used for Allocator Identifiers
with BPv7, Allocator Identifiers with a low value number are encoded
more efficiently than larger numbers. This makes low value Allocator
Identifiers more desirable than larger Allocator Identifiers, and
therefore care must be taken when assigning Allocator Identifier
ranges to ensure that a single applicant is not granted a large
swathe of highly desirable numbers at the expense of other
applicants. To this end, Designated Experts are strongly recommended
to familiarize themselves with the CBOR encoding of unsigned integers
in [RFC8949].
Taylor & Birrane Expires 24 August 2024 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft ipn-update February 2024
9.2. 'ipn' Scheme URI Default Allocator Node Numbers registry
IANA is requested to rename the "CBHE Node Numbers" registry defined
in Section 3.2.1 of [RFC7116] to the "'ipn' Scheme URI Default
Allocator Node Numbers" registry.
The registration policy for this registry, using terms defined in
[RFC8126], is updated to be:
+================+=================================================+
| Range | Registration Policy |
+================+=================================================+
| 0 | Reserved for the Null ipn URI (Section 3.1) |
+----------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| 1 .. 2^14-1 | Private Use |
+----------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| 2^14 .. 2^32-2 | Expert Review |
+----------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| 2^32-1 | Reserved for LocalNode ipn URIs (Section 3.4.2) |
+----------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| >= 2^32 | Invalid |
+----------------+-------------------------------------------------+
Table 4: 'ipn' Scheme URI Default Allocator Node Numbers
registration policies
As IANA is requested to only rename the registry, all existing
registrations will remain.
9.3. 'ipn' Scheme URI Well-known Service Numbers for BPv7 registry
IANA is requested to create a new registry entitled "'ipn' Scheme URI
Well-known Service Numbers for BPv7" registry. The registration
policy for this registry, using terms defined in [RFC8126], is:
Taylor & Birrane Expires 24 August 2024 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft ipn-update February 2024
+===========+=================================+
| Range | Registration Policy |
+===========+=================================+
| 0 | Reserved for the Administrative |
| | Endpoint (Section 5.7) |
+-----------+---------------------------------+
| 1..127 | Private Use |
+-----------+---------------------------------+
| 128..255 | Standards Action |
+-----------+---------------------------------+
| 0x0100 .. | Private Use |
| 0x7FFF | |
+-----------+---------------------------------+
| 0x8000 .. | Specification Required |
| 0xFFFF | |
+-----------+---------------------------------+
| 2^16 .. | Private Use |
| 2^32-1 | |
+-----------+---------------------------------+
| >= 2^32 | Reserved for future expansion |
+-----------+---------------------------------+
Table 5: 'ipn' Scheme URI Well-known
Service Numbers for BPv7 registration
policies
The initial values for the registry are:
+===========+========================+===============+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+===========+========================+===============+
| 0 | The Administrative | [RFC9171], |
| | Endpoint (Section 5.7) | This document |
+-----------+------------------------+---------------+
| 0xEEE0 .. | Example Range | This document |
| 0xEEEF | | |
+-----------+------------------------+---------------+
Table 6: 'ipn' Scheme URI Well-known Service
Numbers for BPb7 initial values
The "Example Range" is assigned for use in examples in documentation
and sample code.
Taylor & Birrane Expires 24 August 2024 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft ipn-update February 2024
9.3.1. Guidance for Designated Experts
This registry is intended to record the default Service Numbers for
well-known, interoperable services available and of use to the entire
BPv7 community, hence all ranges not marked for Private Use MUST have
a corresponding publicly available specification describing how one
interfaces with the service.
Services that are specific to a particular deployment or co-operation
may require a registry to reduce administrative burden, but do not
require an entry in this registry.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5234>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
[RFC8610] Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data
Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to
Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and
JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC8610,
June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8610>.
[RFC8949] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8949>.
Taylor & Birrane Expires 24 August 2024 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft ipn-update February 2024
[RFC9171] Burleigh, S., Fall, K., and E. Birrane, III, "Bundle
Protocol Version 7", RFC 9171, DOI 10.17487/RFC9171,
January 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9171>.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.
J., and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private
Internets", BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918,
February 1996, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1918>.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3986>.
[RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
(CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, DOI 10.17487/RFC4632, August
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4632>.
[RFC5050] Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, "Bundle Protocol
Specification", RFC 5050, DOI 10.17487/RFC5050, November
2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5050>.
[RFC6260] Burleigh, S., "Compressed Bundle Header Encoding (CBHE)",
RFC 6260, DOI 10.17487/RFC6260, May 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6260>.
[RFC7116] Scott, K. and M. Blanchet, "Licklider Transmission
Protocol (LTP), Compressed Bundle Header Encoding (CBHE),
and Bundle Protocol IANA Registries", RFC 7116,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7116, February 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7116>.
[RFC9172] Birrane, III, E. and K. McKeever, "Bundle Protocol
Security (BPSec)", RFC 9172, DOI 10.17487/RFC9172, January
2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9172>.
Appendix A. ipn URI Scheme Text Syntax
The text syntax of an ipn URI MUST comply with the following ABNF
[RFC5234] syntax, and reiterates the core ABNF syntax rule for DIGIT
defined by that specification:
Taylor & Birrane Expires 24 August 2024 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft ipn-update February 2024
ipn-uri = "ipn:" ipn-hier-part
ipn-hier-part = fqnn "." service-number
fqnn = "!" / allocator-part
allocator-part = [allocator-identifier "."] node-number
allocator-identifier = non-zero-number
node-number = number
service-number = number
number = "0" / non-zero-number
non-zero-number = (%x31-39 *DIGIT)
DIGIT = %x30-39
Appendix B. ipn URI Scheme Text Representation Examples
This section provides some example ipn URIs in their textual
representation.
B.1. Using the Default Allocator
Consider the ipn URI identifying Service Number 2 on Node Number 1
allocated by the Default Allocator (Section 3.2.2) (0).
The complete seven character representation of this URI would be as
follows:
ipn:1.2
B.2. Using a non-default Allocator
Consider the ipn URI identifying Service Number 3 on Node Number 1
allocated by Allocator 977000.
The complete 14 character representation of this URI would be as
follows:
ipn:977000.1.3
Taylor & Birrane Expires 24 August 2024 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft ipn-update February 2024
B.3. The Null ipn URI
The Null ipn URI (Section 3.1) is represented as:
ipn:0.0
B.4. A LocalNode ipn URI
Consider the ipn URI identifying Service Number 7 on the local node.
The complete seven character representation of this URI would be as
follows:
ipn:!.7
Appendix C. ipn URI Scheme CBOR Encoding
A BPv7 endpoint identified by an ipn URI, when encoded in Concise
Binary Object Representation (CBOR) [RFC8949], MUST comply with the
following Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL) [RFC8610]
specification:
eid = $eid .within eid-structure
eid-structure = [
uri-code: uint,
SSP: any
]
; ... Syntax for other uri-code values defined in RFC9171 ...
$eid /= [
uri-code: 2,
SSP: ipn-ssp2 / ipn-ssp3
]
ipn-ssp2 = [
fqnn: uint, ; packed value
service-number: uint
]
ipn-ssp3 = [
authority-number: uint .lt 4294967296,
node-number: uint .lt 4294967296,
service-number: uint
]
Note: The node-number component will be the numeric representation of
the concatenation of the Allocator Identifier and Node Number when
the 2-element encoding scheme has been used.
Taylor & Birrane Expires 24 August 2024 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft ipn-update February 2024
Appendix D. ipn URI Scheme CBOR Encoding Examples
This section provides some example CBOR encodings of ipn EIDs.
D.1. Using the Default Allocator
Consider the ipn EID ipn:1.1. This textual representation of an ipn
EID identifies Service Number 1 on Node Number 1 allocated by the
Default Allocator (Section 3.2.2) (0).
The complete five octet encoding of this EID using the two-element
scheme-specific encoding would be as follows:
82 # 2-Element Endpoint Encoding
02 # uri-code: 2 (IPN URI scheme)
82 # 2 Element ipn EID scheme-specific encoding
01 # Node Number
01 # Service Number
The complete six octet encoding of this EID using the three-element
scheme-specific encoding would be as follows:
82 # 2-Element Endpoint Encoding
02 # uri-code: 2 (IPN URI scheme)
83 # 3 Element ipn EID scheme-specific encoding
00 # Default Allocator
01 # Node Number
01 # Service Number
D.2. Using a non-default Allocator
Consider the ipn EID ipn:977000.1.1. This textual representation of
an ipn EID identifies Service Number 1 on Node Number 1 allocated by
Allocator 977000.
The complete thirteen octet encoding of this EID using the two-
element scheme-specific encoding would be as follows:
82 # 2-Element Endpoint Encoding
02 # uri-code: 2 (IPN URI scheme)
82 # 2 Element ipn EID scheme-specific encoding
1B 000EE86800000001 # Fully-qualified Node Number
01 # Service Number
The complete ten octet encoding of this EID using the three-element
scheme-specific encoding would be as follows:
Taylor & Birrane Expires 24 August 2024 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft ipn-update February 2024
82 # 2-Element Endpoint Encoding
02 # uri-code: 2 (IPN URI scheme)
83 # 3 Element ipn EID scheme-specific encoding
1A 000EE868 # Allocator Identifier
01 # Node Number
01 # Service Number
D.3. The 'null' Endpoint
The 'null' EID of ipn:0.0 can be encoded in the following ways:
The complete five octet encoding of the 'null' ipn EID using the two-
element scheme-specific encoding would be as follows:
82 # 2-Element Endpoint Encoding
02 # uri-code: 2 (IPN URI scheme)
82 # 2 Element ipn EID scheme-specific encoding
00 # Node Number
00 # Service Number
The complete six octet encoding of the 'null'' ipn EID using the
three-element scheme-specific encoding would be as follows:
82 # 2-Element Endpoint Encoding
02 # uri-code: 2 (IPN URI scheme)
83 # 3 Element ipn EID scheme-specific encoding
00 # Default Allocator
00 # Node Number
00 # Service Number
Acknowledgments
The following DTNWG participants contributed technical material, use
cases, and critical technical review for this URI scheme update:
Scott Burleigh of the IPNGROUP, Keith Scott, Brian Sipos of the Johns
Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Jorge Amodio of LJCV
Electronics, and Ran Atkinson.
Additionally, the authors wish to thank members of the CCSDS SIS-DTN
working group at large who provided useful review and commentary on
this document and its implications for the future of networked space
exploration.
Authors' Addresses
Rick Taylor
Ori Industries
Email: rick.taylor@ori.co
Taylor & Birrane Expires 24 August 2024 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft ipn-update February 2024
Ed Birrane
JHU/APL
Email: Edward.Birrane@jhuapl.edu
Taylor & Birrane Expires 24 August 2024 [Page 29]