An Architecture for Transport Services
draft-ietf-taps-arch-13
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Tommy Pauly , Brian Trammell , Anna Brunstrom , Gorry Fairhurst , Colin Perkins | ||
| Last updated | 2022-09-26 (Latest revision 2022-06-27) | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead | |
| Associated WG milestone |
|
||
| Document shepherd | Michael Welzl | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | michawe@ifi.uio.no |
draft-ietf-taps-arch-13
TAPS Working Group T. Pauly, Ed.
Internet-Draft Apple Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track B. Trammell, Ed.
Expires: 29 December 2022 Google Switzerland GmbH
A. Brunstrom
Karlstad University
G. Fairhurst
University of Aberdeen
C. Perkins
University of Glasgow
27 June 2022
An Architecture for Transport Services
draft-ietf-taps-arch-13
Abstract
This document describes an architecture for exposing transport
protocol features to applications for network communication, a
Transport Services system. The Transport Services Application
Programming Interface (API) is based on an asynchronous, event-driven
interaction pattern. This API uses messages for representing data
transfer to applications, and describes how implementations can use
multiple IP addresses, multiple protocols, and multiple paths, and
provide multiple application streams. This document further defines
common terminology and concepts to be used in definitions of a
Transport Service API and a Transport Services implementation.
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/.
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 29 December 2022.
Pauly, et al. Expires 29 December 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft TAPS Architecture June 2022
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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
1.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Specification of Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. API Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Event-Driven API . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2. Data Transfer Using Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3. Flexible Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. API and Implementation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1. Provide Common APIs for Common Features . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2. Allow Access to Specialized Features . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3. Select Equivalent Protocol Stacks . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.4. Maintain Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. Transport Services Architecture and Concepts . . . . . . . . 13
4.1. Transport Services API Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.1.1. Endpoint Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.1.2. Connections and Related Objects . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.1.3. Pre-Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.1.4. Establishment Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.1.5. Data Transfer Objects and Actions . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.1.6. Event Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.1.7. Termination Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.1.8. Connection Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.2. Transport Services Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.2.1. Candidate Gathering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.2.2. Candidate Racing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.2.3. Separating Connection Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6. Security and Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Pauly, et al. Expires 29 December 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft TAPS Architecture June 2022
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1. Introduction
Many application programming interfaces (APIs) to perform transport
networking have been deployed, perhaps the most widely known and
imitated being the BSD Socket [POSIX] interface (Socket API). The
naming of objects and functions across these APIs is not consistent,
and varies depending on the protocol being used. For example,
sending and receiving streams of data is conceptually the same for
both an unencrypted Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) stream and
operating on an encrypted Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8446]
stream over TCP, but applications cannot use the same socket send()
and recv() calls on top of both kinds of connections. Similarly,
terminology for the implementation of transport protocols varies
based on the context of the protocols themselves: terms such as
"flow", "stream", "message", and "connection" can take on many
different meanings. This variety can lead to confusion when trying
to understand the similarities and differences between protocols, and
how applications can use them effectively.
The goal of the Transport Services architecture is to provide a
flexible and reusable architecture that provides a common interface
for transport protocols. As applications adopt this interface, they
will benefit from a wide set of transport features that can evolve
over time, and ensure that the system providing the interface can
optimize its behavior based on the application requirements and
network conditions, without requiring changes to the applications.
This flexibility enables faster deployment of new features and
protocols. It can also support applications by offering racing
mechanisms (attempting multiple IP addresses, protocols, or network
paths in parallel), which otherwise need to be implemented in each
application separately (see Section 4.2.2).
This document was developed in parallel with the specification of the
Transport Services API [I-D.ietf-taps-interface] and implementation
guidelines [I-D.ietf-taps-impl]. Although following the Transport
Services architecture does not require that all APIs and
implementations are identical, a common minimal set of features
represented in a consistent fashion will enable applications to be
easily ported from one system to another.
Pauly, et al. Expires 29 December 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft TAPS Architecture June 2022
1.1. Background
The Transport Services architecture is based on the survey of
services provided by IETF transport protocols and congestion control
mechanisms [RFC8095], and the distilled minimal set of the features
offered by transport protocols [RFC8923]. These documents identified
common features and patterns across all transport protocols developed
thus far in the IETF.
Since transport security is an increasingly relevant aspect of using
transport protocols on the Internet, this architecture also considers
the impact of transport security protocols on the feature-set exposed
by Transport Services [RFC8922].
One of the key insights to come from identifying the minimal set of
features provided by transport protocols [RFC8923] was that features
either require application interaction and guidance (referred to in
that document as Functional or Optimizing Features), or else can be
handled automatically by a system implementing Transport Services
(referred to as Automatable Features). Among the identified
Functional and Optimizing Features, some were common across all or
nearly all transport protocols, while others could be seen as
features that, if specified, would only be useful with a subset of
protocols, but would not harm the functionality of other protocols.
For example, some protocols can deliver messages faster for
applications that do not require messages to arrive in the order in
which they were sent. However, this functionality needs to be
explicitly allowed by the application, since reordering messages
would be undesirable in many cases.
1.2. Overview
This document describes the Transport Services architecture in three
sections:
* Section 2 describes how the API model of Transport Services
architecture differs from traditional socket-based APIs.
Specifically, it offers asynchronous event-driven interaction, the
use of messages for data transfer, and the flexibility to use
different transport protocols and paths without requiring major
changes to the application.
* Section 3 explains the fundamental requirements for a Transport
Services system. These principles are intended to make sure that
transport protocols can continue to be enhanced and evolve without
requiring significant changes by application developers.
Pauly, et al. Expires 29 December 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft TAPS Architecture June 2022
* Section 4 presents a diagram showing the Transport Services
architecture and defines the concepts that are used by both the
API [I-D.ietf-taps-interface] and implementation guidelines
[I-D.ietf-taps-impl]. The Preconnection allows applications to
configure Connection Properties.
* Section 4 also presents how an abstract Connection is used to
select a transport protocol instance such as TCP, UDP, or another
transport. The Connection represents an object that can be used
to send and receive messages.
1.3. Specification of Requirements
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.
2. API Model
The traditional model of using sockets for networking can be
represented as follows:
* Applications create connections and transfer data using the Socket
API.
* The Socket API provides the interface to the implementations of
TCP and UDP (typically implemented in the system's kernel).
* TCP and UDP in the kernel send and receive data over the available
network-layer interfaces.
* Sockets are bound directly to transport-layer and network-layer
addresses, obtained via a separate resolution step, usually
performed by a system-provided stub resolver.
Pauly, et al. Expires 29 December 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft TAPS Architecture June 2022
+-----------------------------------------------------+
| Application |
+-----------------------------------------------------+
| | |
+------------+ +------------+ +--------------+
| stub | | Stream API | | Datagram API |
| resolver | +------------+ +--------------+
+------------+ | |
+---------------------------------+
| TCP UDP |
| Kernel Networking Stack |
+---------------------------------+
|
+-----------------------------------------------------+
| Network Layer Interface |
+-----------------------------------------------------+
Figure 1: Socket API Model
The Transport Services architecture evolves this general model of
interaction, to both modernize the API surface presented to
applications by the transport layer and to enrich the capabilities of
the implementation below the API.
+-----------------------------------------------------+
| Application |
+-----------------------------------------------------+
|
+-----------------------------------------------------+
| Transport Services API |
+-----------------------------------------------------+
|
+-----------------------------------------------------+
| Transport Services Implementation |
| (Using: DNS, UDP, TCP, SCTP, DCCP, TLS, QUIC, etc) |
+-----------------------------------------------------+
|
+-----------------------------------------------------+
| Network Layer Interface |
+-----------------------------------------------------+
Figure 2: Transport Services API Model
Pauly, et al. Expires 29 December 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft TAPS Architecture June 2022
The Transport Services API [I-D.ietf-taps-interface] defines the
interface for an application to create Connections and transfer data.
It combines interfaces for multiple interaction patterns into a
unified whole. By combining name resolution with connection
establishment and data transfer in a single API, it allows for more
flexible implementations to provide path and transport protocol
agility on the application's behalf.
The Transport Services implementation [I-D.ietf-taps-impl] implements
the transport layer protocols and other functions needed to send and
receive data. It is is responsible for mapping the API to a specific
available transport protocol stack and managing the available network
interfaces and paths.
There are key differences between the Transport Services architecture
and the architecture of the Socket API: the API of the Transport
Services architecture is asynchronous and event-driven; it uses
messages for representing data transfer to applications; and it
describes how implementations can use multiple IP addresses, multiple
protocols, multiple paths, and provide multiple application streams.
2.1. Event-Driven API
Originally, the Socket API presented a blocking interface for
establishing connections and transferring data. However, most modern
applications interact with the network asynchronously. Emulation of
an asynchronous interface using the Socket API generally uses a try-
and-fail model. If the application wants to read, but data has not
yet been received from the peer, the call to read will fail. The
application then waits and can try again later.
In contrast to the Socket API, all interaction using the Transport
Services API is expected to be asynchronous. The API is defined
around an event-driven model (see Section 4.1.6) in order to model
this asynchronous interaction, though other forms of asynchronous
communication may be available to applications depending on the
platform implementing the interface.
For example, an application first issues a call to receive new data
from the connection. When delivered data becomes available, this
data is delivered to the application using asynchronous events that
contain the data. Error handling is also asynchronous; a failure to
send data results in an asynchronous error event.
This API also delivers events regarding the lifetime of a connection
and changes in the available network links, which were not previously
made explicit in the Socket API.
Pauly, et al. Expires 29 December 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft TAPS Architecture June 2022
Using asynchronous events allows for a more natural interaction model
when establishing connections and transferring data. Events in time
more closely reflect the nature of interactions over networks, as
opposed to how the Socket API represent network resources as file
system objects that may be temporarily unavailable.
Separate from events, callbacks are also provided for asynchronous
interactions with the API not directly related to events on the
network or network interfaces.
2.2. Data Transfer Using Messages
The Socket API provides a message interface for datagram protocols
like UDP, but provides an unstructured stream abstraction for TCP.
While TCP has the ability to send and receive data as a byte-stream,
most applications need to interpret structure within this byte-
stream. For example, HTTP/1.1 uses character delimiters to segment
messages over a byte-stream [RFC7230]; TLS record headers carry a
version, content type, and length [RFC8446]; and HTTP/2 uses frames
to segment its headers and bodies [RFC7540].
The Transport Services API represents data as messages, so that it
more closely matches the way applications use the network. Providing
a message-based abstraction provides many benefits, such as:
* the ability to associate deadlines with messages, for applications
that care about timing;
* the ability to control reliability, which messages to retransmit
when there is packet loss, and how best to make use of the data
that arrived;
* the ability to automatically assign messages and connections to
underlying transport connections to utilize multi-streaming and
pooled connections.
Allowing applications to interact with messages is backwards-
compatible with existing protocols and APIs because it does not
change the wire format of any protocol. Instead, it gives the
protocol stack additional information to allow it to make better use
of modern transport services, while simplifying the application's
role in parsing data. For protocols which natively use a streaming
abstraction, framers (Section 4.1.5) bridge the gap between the two
abstractions.
Pauly, et al. Expires 29 December 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft TAPS Architecture June 2022
2.3. Flexible Implementation
The Socket API for protocols like TCP is generally limited to
connecting to a single address over a single interface. It also
presents a single stream to the application. Software layers built
upon this API often propagate this limitation of a single-address
single-stream model. The Transport Services architecture is
designed:
* to handle multiple candidate endpoints, protocols, and paths;
* to support candidate protocol racing to select the most optimal
stack in each situation;
* to support multipath and multistreaming protocols;
* to provide state caching and application control over it.
A Transport Services implementation is intended to be flexible at
connection establishment time, considering many different options and
trying to select the most optimal combinations by racing them and
measuring the results (see Section 4.2.1 and Section 4.2.2). This
requires applications to provide higher-level endpoints than IP
addresses, such as hostnames and URLs, which are used by a Transport
Services implementation for resolution, path selection, and racing.
An implementation can further implement fallback mechanisms if
connection establishment of one protocol fails or performance is
detected to be unsatisfactory.
Information used in connection establishment (e.g. cryptographic
resumption tokens, information about usability of certain protocols
on the path, results of racing in previous connections) are cached in
the Transport Services implementation. Applications have control
over whether this information is used for a specific establishment,
in order to allow tradeoffs between efficiency and linkability.
Flexibility after connection establishment is also important.
Transport protocols that can migrate between multiple network-layer
interfaces need to be able to process and react to interface changes.
Protocols that support multiple application-layer streams need to
support initiating and receiving new streams using existing
connections.
Pauly, et al. Expires 29 December 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft TAPS Architecture June 2022
3. API and Implementation Requirements
A goal of the Transport Services architecture is to redefine the
interface between applications and transports in a way that allows
the transport layer to evolve and improve without fundamentally
changing the contract with the application. This requires a careful
consideration of how to expose the capabilities of protocols. This
architecture also encompasses system policies that can influence and
inform how transport protocols use a network path or interface.
There are several ways the Transport Services system can offer
flexibility to an application: it can provide access to transport
protocols and protocol features; it can use these protocols across
multiple paths that could have different performance and functional
characteristics; and it can communicate with different remote systems
to optimize performance, robustness to failure, or some other metric.
Beyond these, if the Transport Services API remains the same over
time, new protocols and features can be added to the Transport
Services implementation without requiring changes in applications for
adoption. Similarly, this can provide a common basis for utilizing
information about a network path or interface, enabling evolution
below the transport layer.
The normative requirements described in this section allow Transport
Services APIs and Transport Services implementation to provide this
functionality without causing incompatibility or introducing security
vulnerabilities.
3.1. Provide Common APIs for Common Features
Any functionality that is common across multiple transport protocols
SHOULD be made accessible through a unified set of calls using the
Transport Services API. As a baseline, any Transport Services API
SHOULD allow access to the minimal set of features offered by
transport protocols [RFC8923].
An application can specify constraints and preferences for the
protocols, features, and network interfaces it will use via
Properties. Properties are used by an application to declare its
preferences for how the transport service should operate at each
stage in the lifetime of a connection. Transport Properties are
subdivided into Selection Properties, which specify which paths and
protocol stacks can be used and are preferred by the application;
Connection Properties, which inform decisions made during connection
establishment and fine-tune the established connection; and Message
Properties, set on individual Messages.
Pauly, et al. Expires 29 December 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft TAPS Architecture June 2022
It is RECOMMENDED that the Transport Services API offers properties
that are common to multiple transport protocols. This enables a
Transport Services implementation to appropriately select between
protocols that offer equivalent features. Similarly, it is
RECOMMENDED that the Properties offered by the Transport Services API
are applicable to a variety of network layer interfaces and paths,
which permits racing of different network paths without affecting the
applications using the API. Each is expected to have a default
value.
It is RECOMMENDED that the default values for Properties are selected
to ensure correctness for the widest set of applications, while
providing the widest set of options for selection. For example,
since both applications that require reliability and those that do
not require reliability can function correctly when a protocol
provides reliability, reliability ought to be enabled by default. As
another example, the default value for a Property regarding the
selection of network interfaces ought to permit as many interfaces as
possible.
Applications using the Transport Services API are REQUIRED to be
robust to the automated selection provided by the Transport Services
implementation. This automated selection is constrained by the
properties and preferences expressed by the application and requires
applications to explictly set properties that define any necssary
constraints on protocol, path, and interface selection.
3.2. Allow Access to Specialized Features
There are applications that will need to control fine-grained details
of transport protocols to optimize their behavior and ensure
compatibility with remote systems. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that
the Transport Services API and the Transport Services implementation
permit more specialized protocol features to be used.
A specialized feature could be needed by an application only when
using a specific protocol, and not when using others. For example,
if an application is using TCP, it could require control over the
User Timeout Option for TCP; these options would not take effect for
other transport protocols. In such cases, the API ought to expose
the features in such a way that they take effect when a particular
protocol is selected, but do not imply that only that protocol could
be used. For example, if the API allows an application to specify a
preference to use the User Timeout Option, communication would not
fail when a protocol such as QUIC is selected.
Pauly, et al. Expires 29 December 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft TAPS Architecture June 2022
Other specialized features, however, can be strictly required by an
application and thus constrain the set of protocols that can be used.
For example, if an application requires support for automatic
handover or failover for a connection, only protocol stacks that
provide this feature are eligible to be used, e.g., protocol stacks
that include a multipath protocol or a protocol that supports
connection migration. A Transport Services API needs to allow
applications to define such requirements and constrain the options
available to a Transport Services implementation. Since such options
are not part of the core/common features, it will generally be simple
for an application to modify its set of constraints and change the
set of allowable protocol features without changing the core
implementation.
3.3. Select Equivalent Protocol Stacks
A Transport Services implementation can select Protocol Stacks based
on the Selection and Connection Properties communicated by the
application, along with any security parameters. If two different
Protocol Stacks can be safely swapped, or raced in parallel (see
Section 4.2.2), then they are considered to be "equivalent".
Equivalent Protocol Stacks are defined as stacks that can provide the
same Transport Properties and interface expectations as requested by
the application.
The following two examples show non-equivalent Protocol Stacks:
* If the application requires preservation of message boundaries, a
Protocol Stack that runs UDP as the top-level interface to the
application is not equivalent to a Protocol Stack that runs TCP as
the top-level interface. A UDP stack would allow an application
to read out message boundaries based on datagrams sent from the
remote system, whereas TCP does not preserve message boundaries on
its own, but needs a framing protocol on top to determine message
boundaries.
* If the application specifies that it requires reliable
transmission of data, then a Protocol Stack using UDP without any
reliability layer on top would not be allowed to replace a
Protocol Stack using TCP.
The following example shows equivalent Protocol Stacks:
* If the application does not require reliable transmission of data,
then a Protocol Stack that adds reliability could be regarded as
an equivalent Protocol Stack as long as providing this would not
conflict with any other application-requested properties.
Pauly, et al. Expires 29 December 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft TAPS Architecture June 2022
To ensure that security protocols are not incorrectly swapped, a
Transport Services implementation MUST only select Protocol Stacks
that meet application requirements ([RFC8922]). A Transport Services
implementation SHOULD only race Protocol Stacks where the transport
security protocols within the stacks are identical. A Transport
Services implementation MUST NOT automatically fall back from secure
protocols to insecure protocols, or to weaker versions of secure
protocols. A Transport Services implementation MAY allow
applications to explicitly specify which versions of a protocol ought
to be permitted, e.g., to allow a minimum version of TLS 1.2 in case
TLS 1.3 is not available.
3.4. Maintain Interoperability
It is important to note that neither the Transport Services API
[I-D.ietf-taps-interface] nor the guidelines for the Transport
Service implementation [I-D.ietf-taps-impl] define new protocols or
protocol capabilities that affect what is communicated across the
network. A Transport Services system MUST NOT require that a peer on
the other side of a connection uses the same API or implementation.
A Transport Services implementation acting as a connection initiator
is able to communicate with any existing endpoint that implements the
transport protocol(s) and all the required properties selected.
Similarly, a Transport Services implementation acting as a listener
can receive connections for any protocol that is supported from an
existing initiator that implements the protocol, independent of
whether the initiator uses the Transport Services architecture or
not.
A Transport Services system makes decisions that select protocols and
interfaces. In normal use, a given version of a Transport Services
system SHOULD result in consistent protocol and interface selection
decisions for the same network conditions given the same set of
Properties. This is intended to provide predictable outcomes to the
application using the API.
4. Transport Services Architecture and Concepts
This section and the remainder of this document describe the
architecture non-normatively. The concepts defined in this document
are intended primarily for use in the documents and specifications
that describe the Transport Services system. This includes the
architecture, the Transport Services API and the associated Transport
Services implementation. While the specific terminology can be used
in some implementations, it is expected that there will remain a
variety of terms used by running code.
Pauly, et al. Expires 29 December 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft TAPS Architecture June 2022
The architecture divides the concepts for Transport Services system
into two categories:
1. API concepts, which are intended to be exposed to applications;
and
2. System-implementation concepts, which are intended to be
internally used by a Transport Services implementation.
The following diagram summarizes the top-level concepts in the
architecture and how they relate to one another.
+-----------------------------------------------------+
| Application |
+-+----------------+------^-------+--------^----------+
| | | | |
pre- | data | events
establishment | transfer | |
| establishment | termination |
| | | | |
| +--v------v-------v+ |
+-v-------------+ Connection(s) +-------+----------+
| Transport +--------+---------+ |
| Services | |
| API | +-------------+ |
+------------------------+--+ Framer(s) |-----------+
| +-------------+
+------------------------|----------------------------+
| Transport | |
| System | +-----------------+ |
| Implementation | | Cached | |
| | | State | |
| (Candidate Gathering) | +-----------------+ |
| | |
| (Candidate Racing) | +-----------------+ |
| | | System | |
| | | Policy | |
| +----------v-----+ +-----------------+ |
| | Protocol | |
+-------------+ Stack(s) +----------------------+
+-------+--------+
V
Network Layer Interface
Figure 3: Concepts and Relationships in the Transport Services
Architecture
Pauly, et al. Expires 29 December 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft TAPS Architecture June 2022
4.1. Transport Services API Concepts
Fundamentally, a Transport Services API needs to provide connection
objects (Section 4.1.2) that allow applications to establish
communication, and then send and receive data. These could be
exposed as handles or referenced objects, depending on the chosen
programming language.
Beyond the connection objects, there are several high-level groups of
actions that any Transport Services API needs to provide:
* Pre-Establishment (Section 4.1.3) encompasses the properties that
an application can pass to describe its intent, requirements,
prohibitions, and preferences for its networking operations.
These properties apply to multiple transport protocols, unless
otherwise specified. Properties specified during Pre-
Establishment can have a large impact on the rest of the
interface: they modify how establishment occurs, they influence
the expectations around data transfer, and they determine the set
of events that will be supported.
* Establishment (Section 4.1.4) focuses on the actions that an
application takes on the connection objects to prepare for data
transfer.
* Data Transfer (Section 4.1.5) consists of how an application
represents the data to be sent and received, the functions
required to send and receive that data, and how the application is
notified of the status of its data transfer.
* Event Handling (Section 4.1.6) defines categories of notifications
which an application can receive during the lifetime of transport
objects. Events also provide opportunities for the application to
interact with the underlying transport by querying state or
updating maintenance options.
* Termination (Section 4.1.7) focuses on the methods by which data
transmission is stopped, and state is torn down in the transport.
The diagram below provides a high-level view of the actions and
events during the lifetime of a Connection object. Note that some
actions are alternatives (e.g., whether to initiate a connection or
to listen for incoming connections), while others are optional (e.g.,
setting Connection and Message Properties in Pre-Establishment) or
have been omitted for brevity and simplicity.
Pauly, et al. Expires 29 December 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft TAPS Architecture June 2022
Pre-Establishment : Established : Termination
----------------- : ----------- : -----------
: :
+-- Local Endpoint : Message :
+-- Remote Endpoint : Receive() | :
+-- Transport Properties : Send() | :
+-- Security Parameters : | :
| : | :
| InitiateWithSend() | Close() :
| +---------------+ Initiate() +-----+------+ Abort() :
+---+ Preconnection |------------->| Connection |-----------> Closed
+---------------+ Rendezvous() +------------+ :
Listen() | : | | :
| : | v :
v : | Connection :
+----------+ : | Ready :
| Listener |----------------------+ :
+----------+ Connection Received :
: :
Figure 4: The lifetime of a Connection object
4.1.1. Endpoint Objects
* Endpoint: An Endpoint represents an identifier for one side of a
transport connection. Endpoints can be Local Endpoints or Remote
Endpoints, and respectively represent an identity that the
application uses for the source or destination of a connection.
An Endpoint can be specified at various levels of abstraction. An
Endpoint at a higher level of abstraction (such as a hostname) can
be resolved to more concrete identities (such as IP addresses).
An endpoint may also represent a multicast group, in which case it
selects a multicast transport for communication.
* Remote Endpoint: The Remote Endpoint represents the application's
identifier for a peer that can participate in a transport
connection; for example, the combination of a DNS name for the
peer and a service name/port.
* Local Endpoint: The Local Endpoint represents the application's
identifier for itself that it uses for transport connections; for
example, a local IP address and port.
4.1.2. Connections and Related Objects
* Preconnection: A Preconnection object is a representation of a
Connection that has not yet been established. It has state that
describes parameters of the Connection: the Local Endpoint from
Pauly, et al. Expires 29 December 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft TAPS Architecture June 2022
which that Connection will be established, the Remote Endpoint
(Section 4.1.3) to which it will connect, and Transport Properties
that influence the paths and protocols a Connection will use. A
Preconnection can be either fully specified (representing a single
possible Connection), or it can be partially specified
(representing a family of possible Connections). The Local
Endpoint (Section 4.1.3) is required for a Preconnection used to
Listen for incoming Connections, but optional if it is used to
Initiate a Connection. The Remote Endpoint is required in a
Preconnection that used to Initiate a Connection, but is optional
if it is used to Listen for incoming Connections. The Local
Endpoint and the Remote Endpoint are both required if a peer-to-
peer Rendezvous is to occur based on the Preconnection.
* Transport Properties: Transport Properties allow the application
to express their requirements, prohibitions, and preferences and
configure a Transport Services system. There are three kinds of
Transport Properties:
- Selection Properties (Section 4.1.3): Selection Properties can
only be specified on a Preconnection.
- Connection Properties (Section 4.1.3): Connection Properties
can be specified on a Preconnection and changed on the
Connection.
- Message Properties (Section 4.1.5): Message Properties can be
specified as defaults on a Preconnection or a Connection, and
can also be specified during data transfer to affect specific
Messages.
* Connection: A Connection object represents one or more active
transport protocol instances that can send and/or receive Messages
between Local and Remote Endpoints. It is an abstraction that
represents the communication. The Connection object holds state
pertaining to the underlying transport protocol instances and any
ongoing data transfers. For example, an active Connection can
represent a connection-oriented protocol such as TCP, or can
represent a fully-specified 5-tuple for a connectionless protocol
such as UDP, where the Connection remains an abstraction at the
end points. It can also represent a pool of transport protocol
instances, e.g., a set of TCP and QUIC connections to equivalent
endpoints, or a stream of a multi-streaming transport protocol
instance. Connections can be created from a Preconnection or by a
Listener.
Pauly, et al. Expires 29 December 2022 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft TAPS Architecture June 2022
* Listener: A Listener object accepts incoming transport protocol
connections from Remote Endpoints and generates corresponding
Connection objects. It is created from a Preconnection object
that specifies the type of incoming Connections it will accept.
4.1.3. Pre-Establishment
* Selection Properties: The Selection Properties consist of the
properties that an application can set to influence the selection
of paths between the Local and Remote Endpoints, to influence the
selection of transport protocols, or to configure the behavior of
generic transport protocol features. These properties can take
the form of requirements, prohibitions, or preferences. Examples
of properties that influence path selection include the interface
type (such as a Wi-Fi connection, or a Cellular LTE connection),
requirements around the largest Message that can be sent, or
preferences for throughput and latency. Examples of properties
that influence protocol selection and configuration of transport
protocol features include reliability, multipath support, and fast
open support.
* Connection Properties: The Connection Properties are used to
configure protocol-specific options and control per-connection
behavior of a Transport Services implementation; for example, a
protocol-specific Connection Property can express that if TCP is
used, the implementation ought to use the User Timeout Option.
Note that the presence of such a property does not require that a
specific protocol will be used. In general, these properties do
not explicitly determine the selection of paths or protocols, but
can be used by an implementation during connection establishment.
Connection Properties are specified on a Preconnection prior to
Connection establishment, and can be modified on the Connection
later. Changes made to Connection Properties after Connection
establishment take effect on a best-effort basis.
* Security Parameters: Security Parameters define an application's
requirements for authentication and encryption on a Connection.
They are used by Transport Security protocols (such as those
described in [RFC8922]) to establish secure Connections. Examples
of parameters that can be set include local identities, private
keys, supported cryptographic algorithms, and requirements for
validating trust of remote identities. Security Parameters are
primarily associated with a Preconnection object, but properties
related to identities can be associated directly with endpoints.
4.1.4. Establishment Actions
Pauly, et al. Expires 29 December 2022 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft TAPS Architecture June 2022
* Initiate: The primary action that an application can take to
create a Connection to a Remote Endpoint, and prepare any required
local or remote state to enable the transmission of Messages. For
some protocols, this will initiate a client-to-server style
handshake; for other protocols, this will just establish local
state (e.g., with connectionless protocols such as UDP). The
process of identifying options for connecting, such as resolution
of the Remote Endpoint, occurs in response to the Initiate call.
* Listen: Enables a listener to accept incoming Connections. The
Listener will then create Connection objects as incoming
connections are accepted (Section 4.1.6). Listeners by default
register with multiple paths, protocols, and Local Endpoints,
unless constrained by Selection Properties and/or the specified
Local Endpoint(s). Connections can be accepted on any of the
available paths or endpoints.
* Rendezvous: The action of establishing a peer-to-peer connection
with a Remote Endpoint. It simultaneously attempts to initiate a
connection to a Remote Endpoint while listening for an incoming
connection from that endpoint. The process of identifying options
for the connection, such as resolution of the Remote Endpoint,
occurs in response to the Rendezvous call. As with Listeners, the
set of local paths and endpoints is constrained by Selection
Properties. If successful, the Rendezvous call returns a
Connection object to represent the established peer-to-peer
connection. The processes by which connections are initiated
during a Rendezvous action will depend on the set of Local and
Remote Endpoints configured on the Preconnection. For example, if
the Local and Remote Endpoints are TCP host candidates, then a TCP
simultaneous open [RFC0793] will be performed. However, if the
set of Local Endpoints includes server reflexive candidates, such
as those provided by STUN, a Rendezvous action will race
candidates in the style of the ICE algorithm [RFC8445] to perform
NAT binding discovery and initiate a peer-to-peer connection.
4.1.5. Data Transfer Objects and Actions
* Message: A Message object is a unit of data that can be
represented as bytes that can be transferred between two endpoints
over a transport connection. The bytes within a Message are
assumed to be ordered. If an application does not care about the
order in which a peer receives two distinct spans of bytes, those
spans of bytes are considered independent Messages.
* Message Properties: Message Properties are used to specify details
about Message transmission. They can be specified directly on
individual Messages, or can be set on a Preconnection or
Pauly, et al. Expires 29 December 2022 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft TAPS Architecture June 2022
Connection as defaults. These properties might only apply to how
a Message is sent (such as how the transport will treat
prioritization and reliability), but can also include properties
that specific protocols encode and communicate to the Remote
Endpoint. When receiving Messages, Message Properties can contain
information about the received Message, such as metadata generated
at the receiver and information signalled by the Remote Endpoint.
For example, a Message can be marked with a Message Property
indicating that it is the final message on a connection.
* Send: The action to transmit a Message over a Connection to the
Remote Endpoint. The interface to Send can accept Message
Properties specific to how the Message content is to be sent. The
status of the Send operation is delivered back to the sending
application in an Event (Section 4.1.6).
* Receive: An action that indicates that the application is ready to
asynchronously accept a Message over a Connection from a Remote
Endpoint, while the Message content itself will be delivered in an
Event (Section 4.1.6). The interface to Receive can include
Message Properties specific to the Message that is to be delivered
to the application.
* Framer: A Framer is a data translation layer that can be added to
a Connection to define how application-layer Messages are
transmitted over a transport stack. This is particularly relevant
when using a protocol that otherwise presents unstructured
streams, such as TCP.
4.1.6. Event Handling
The following categories of events can be delivered to an
application:
* Connection Ready: Signals to an application that a given
Connection is ready to send and/or receive Messages. If the
Connection relies on handshakes to establish state between peers,
then it is assumed that these steps have been taken.
* Connection Closed: Signals to an application that a given
Connection is no longer usable for sending or receiving Messages.
The event delivers a reason or error to the application that
describes the nature of the termination.
* Connection Received: Signals to an application that a given
Listener has received a Connection.
Pauly, et al. Expires 29 December 2022 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft TAPS Architecture June 2022
* Message Received: Delivers received Message content to the
application, based on a Receive action. This can include an error
if the Receive action cannot be satisfied due to the Connection
being closed.
* Message Sent: Notifies the application of the status of its Send
action. This might indicate a failure if the Message cannot be
sent, or an indication that the Message has been processed by the
Transport Services system.
* Path Properties Changed: Notifies the application that a property
of the Connection has changed that might influence how and where
data is sent and/or received.
4.1.7. Termination Actions
* Close: The action an application takes on a Connection to indicate
that it no longer intends to send data, is no longer willing to
receive data, and that the protocol should signal this state to
the Remote Endpoint if the transport protocol allows this. (Note
that this is distinct from the concept of "half-closing" a
bidirectional connection, such as when a FIN is sent in one
direction of a TCP connection. The end of a stream can also be
indicated using Message Properties when sending.)
* Abort: The action the application takes on a Connection to
indicate a Close and also indicate that a Transport Services
system should not attempt to deliver any outstanding data, and
immediately drop the connection. This is intended for immediate,
usually abnormal, termination of a connection.
4.1.8. Connection Groups
A Connection Group is a set of Connections that shares properties and
caches. A Connection Group represents state for managing Connections
within a single application, and does not require end-to-end protocol
signaling. For multiplexing transport protocols, only Connections
within the same Connection Group are allowed to be multiplexed
together.
When the API clones an existing Connection, this adds a new
Connection to the Connection Group. A change to one of the
Connection Properties on any Connection in the Connection Group
automatically changes the Connection Property for all others. All
Connections in a Connection Group share the same set of Connection
Properties except for the Connection Priority. These Connection
Properties are said to be entangled.
Pauly, et al. Expires 29 December 2022 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft TAPS Architecture June 2022
For multiplexing transport protocols, only Connections within the
same Connection Group are allowed to be multiplexed together.
Passive Connections can also be added to a Connection Group, e.g.,
when a Listener receives a new Connection that is just a new stream
of an already active multi-streaming protocol instance.
While Connection Groups are managed by the Transport Services system,
an application can define Connection Contexts to control caching
boundaries, as discussed in Section 4.2.3.
4.2. Transport Services Implementation
This section defines the key concepts of the Transport Services
architecture.
* Transport Service implementaion: This consists of all objects and
protocol instances used internally to a system or library to
implement the functionality needed to provide a transport service
across a network, as required by the abstract interface.
* Transport Service system: This consists of the Transport Service
implementaion and the Transport Services API.
* Path: Represents an available set of properties that a local
endpoint can use to communicate with a Remote Endpoint, such as
routes, addresses, and physical and virtual network interfaces.
* Protocol Instance: A single instance of one protocol, including
any state necessary to establish connectivity or send and receive
Messages.
* Protocol Stack: A set of Protocol Instances (including relevant
application, security, transport, or Internet protocols) that are
used together to establish connectivity or send and receive
Messages. A single stack can be simple (a single transport
protocol instance over IP), or it can be complex (multiple
application protocol streams going through a single security and
transport protocol, over IP; or, a multi-path transport protocol
over multiple transport sub-flows).
* Candidate Path: One path that is available to an application and
conforms to the Selection Properties and System Policy, of which
there can be several. Candidate Paths are identified during the
gathering phase (Section 4.2.1) and can be used during the racing
phase (Section 4.2.2).
Pauly, et al. Expires 29 December 2022 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft TAPS Architecture June 2022
* Candidate Protocol Stack: One Protocol Stack that can be used by
an application for a Connection, which there can be several
candidates. Candidate Protocol Stacks are identified during the
gathering phase (Section 4.2.1) and are started during the racing
phase (Section 4.2.2).
* System Policy: Represents the input from an operating system or
other global preferences that can constrain or influence how an
implementation will gather candidate paths and Protocol Stacks
(Section 4.2.1) and race the candidates during establishment
(Section 4.2.2). Specific aspects of the System Policy either
apply to all Connections or only certain ones, depending on the
runtime context and properties of the Connection.
* Cached State: The state and history that the implementation keeps
for each set of associated Endpoints that have been used
previously. This can include DNS results, TLS session state,
previous success and quality of transport protocols over certain
paths, as well as other information.
4.2.1. Candidate Gathering
* Candidate Path Selection: Candidate Path Selection represents the
act of choosing one or more paths that are available to use based
on the Selection Properties and any available Local and Remote
Endpoints provided by the application, as well as the policies and
heuristics of a Transport Services implementation.
* Candidate Protocol Selection: Candidate Protocol Selection
represents the act of choosing one or more sets of Protocol Stacks
that are available to use based on the Transport Properties
provided by the application, and the heuristics or policies within
the Transport Services implementation.
4.2.2. Candidate Racing
Connection establishment attempts for a set of candidates may be
performed simultaneously, synchronously, serially, or using some
combination of all of these. We refer to this process as racing,
borrowing terminology from Happy Eyeballs [RFC8305].
* Protocol Option Racing: Protocol Option Racing is the act of
attempting to establish, or scheduling attempts to establish,
multiple Protocol Stacks that differ based on the composition of
protocols or the options used for protocols.
Pauly, et al. Expires 29 December 2022 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft TAPS Architecture June 2022
* Path Racing: Path Racing is the act of attempting to establish, or
scheduling attempts to establish, multiple Protocol Stacks that
differ based on a selection from the available Paths. Since
different Paths will have distinct configurations for local
addresses and DNS servers, attempts across different Paths will
perform separate DNS resolution steps, which can lead to further
racing of the resolved Remote Endpoints.
* Remote Endpoint Racing: Remote Endpoint Racing is the act of
attempting to establish, or scheduling attempts to establish,
multiple Protocol Stacks that differ based on the specific
representation of the Remote Endpoint, such as a particular IP
address that was resolved from a DNS hostname.
4.2.3. Separating Connection Contexts
By default, stored properties of the implementation, such as cached
protocol state, cached path state, and heuristics, may be shared
(e.g. across multiple connections in an application). This provides
efficiency and convenience for the application, since the Transport
Services system can automatically optimize behavior.
The Transport Services API can allow applications to explicitly
define Connection Contexts that force separation of Cached State and
Protocol Stacks. For example, a web browser application could use
Connection Contexts with separate caches when implementing different
tabs. Possible reasons to isolate Connections using separate
Connection Contexts include:
* Privacy concerns about re-using cached protocol state that can
lead to linkability. Sensitive state could include TLS session
state [RFC8446] and HTTP cookies [RFC6265]. These concerns could
be addressed using Connection Contexts with separate caches, such
as for different browser tabs.
* Privacy concerns about allowing Connections to multiplex together,
which can tell a Remote Endpoint that all of the Connections are
coming from the same application. Using Connection Contexts
avoids the Connections being multiplexed in a HTTP/2 or QUIC
stream.
5. IANA Considerations
RFC-EDITOR: Please remove this section before publication.
This document has no actions for IANA.
Pauly, et al. Expires 29 December 2022 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft TAPS Architecture June 2022
6. Security and Privacy Considerations
The Transport Services architecture does not recommend use of
specific security protocols or algorithms. Its goal is to offer ease
of use for existing protocols by providing a generic security-related
interface. Each provided interface translates to an existing
protocol-specific interface provided by supported security protocols.
For example, trust verification callbacks are common parts of TLS
APIs; a Transport Services API exposes similar functionality
[RFC8922].
As described above in Section 3.3, if a Transport Services
implementation races between two different Protocol Stacks, both need
to use the same security protocols and options. However, a Transport
Services implementation can race different security protocols, e.g.,
if the application explicitly specifies that it considers them
equivalent.
The application controls whether information from previous racing
attempts, or other information about past communications that was
cached by the Transport Services system is used during establishment.
This allows applications to make tradeoffs between efficiency
(through racing) and privacy (via information that might leak from
the cache toward an on-path observer). Some applications have native
concepts (e.g. "incognito mode") that align with this functionality.
Applications need to ensure that they use security APIs
appropriately. In cases where applications use an interface to
provide sensitive keying material, e.g., access to private keys or
copies of pre-shared keys (PSKs), key use needs to be validated and
scoped to the intended protocols and roles. For example, if an
application provides a certificate to only be used as client
authentication for outbound TLS and QUIC connections, the Transport
Services system MUST NOT use this automatically in other contexts
(such as server authentication for inbound connections, or in other
another security protocol handshake that is not equivalent to TLS).
A Transport Services system must not automatically fall back from
secure protocols to insecure protocols, or to weaker versions of
secure protocols (see Section 3.3). For example, if an application
requests a specific version of TLS, but the desired version of TLS is
not available, its connection will fail. The Transport Services API
MAY allow applications to specify minimum versions that are allowed
to be used by the Transport Services system.
Pauly, et al. Expires 29 December 2022 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft TAPS Architecture June 2022
7. Acknowledgements
This work has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020
research and innovation programme under grant agreements No. 644334
(NEAT), No. 688421 (MAMI) and No 815178 (5GENESIS).
This work has been supported by Leibniz Prize project funds of DFG -
German Research Foundation: Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz-Preis 2011 (FKZ
FE 570/4-1).
This work has been supported by the UK Engineering and Physical
Sciences Research Council under grant EP/R04144X/1.
Thanks to Theresa Enghardt, Max Franke, Mirja Kuehlewind, Jonathan
Lennox, and Michael Welzl for the discussions and feedback that
helped shape the architecture described here. Particular thanks is
also due to Philipp S. Tiesel and Christopher A. Wood, who were
both co-authors of this architecture specification as it progressed
through the TAPS working group. Thanks as well to Stuart Cheshire,
Josh Graessley, David Schinazi, and Eric Kinnear for their
implementation and design efforts, including Happy Eyeballs, that
heavily influenced this work.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-taps-interface]
Trammell, B., Welzl, M., Enghardt, T., Fairhurst, G.,
Kuehlewind, M., Perkins, C., Tiesel, P. S., and T. Pauly,
"An Abstract Application Layer Interface to Transport
Services", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
taps-interface-15, 7 March 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-taps-
interface-15>.
[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>.
[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>.
8.2. Informative References
Pauly, et al. Expires 29 December 2022 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft TAPS Architecture June 2022
[I-D.ietf-taps-impl]
Brunstrom, A., Pauly, T., Enghardt, T., Tiesel, P. S., and
M. Welzl, "Implementing Interfaces to Transport Services",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-taps-impl-12,
7 March 2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-taps-impl-12>.
[POSIX] "IEEE Std. 1003.1-2008 Standard for Information Technology
-- Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX). Open
group Technical Standard: Base Specifications, Issue 7",
2008.
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc793>.
[RFC6265] Barth, A., "HTTP State Management Mechanism", RFC 6265,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6265, April 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6265>.
[RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7230>.
[RFC7540] Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)", RFC 7540,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7540>.
[RFC8095] Fairhurst, G., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and M. Kuehlewind,
Ed., "Services Provided by IETF Transport Protocols and
Congestion Control Mechanisms", RFC 8095,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8095, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8095>.
[RFC8305] Schinazi, D. and T. Pauly, "Happy Eyeballs Version 2:
Better Connectivity Using Concurrency", RFC 8305,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8305, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8305>.
[RFC8445] Keranen, A., Holmberg, C., and J. Rosenberg, "Interactive
Connectivity Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network
Address Translator (NAT) Traversal", RFC 8445,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8445, July 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8445>.
Pauly, et al. Expires 29 December 2022 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft TAPS Architecture June 2022
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8446>.
[RFC8922] Enghardt, T., Pauly, T., Perkins, C., Rose, K., and C.
Wood, "A Survey of the Interaction between Security
Protocols and Transport Services", RFC 8922,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8922, October 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8922>.
[RFC8923] Welzl, M. and S. Gjessing, "A Minimal Set of Transport
Services for End Systems", RFC 8923, DOI 10.17487/RFC8923,
October 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8923>.
Authors' Addresses
Tommy Pauly (editor)
Apple Inc.
One Apple Park Way
Cupertino, California 95014,
United States of America
Email: tpauly@apple.com
Brian Trammell (editor)
Google Switzerland GmbH
Gustav-Gull-Platz 1
CH- 8004 Zurich
Switzerland
Email: ietf@trammell.ch
Anna Brunstrom
Karlstad University
Universitetsgatan 2
651 88 Karlstad
Sweden
Email: anna.brunstrom@kau.se
Godred Fairhurst
University of Aberdeen
Fraser Noble Building
Aberdeen, AB24 3UE
Email: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
URI: http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/
Pauly, et al. Expires 29 December 2022 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft TAPS Architecture June 2022
Colin Perkins
University of Glasgow
School of Computing Science
Glasgow G12 8QQ
United Kingdom
Email: csp@csperkins.org
Pauly, et al. Expires 29 December 2022 [Page 29]