Implementing Interfaces to Transport Services
draft-ietf-taps-impl-12
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (taps WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Anna Brunstrom , Tommy Pauly , Reese Enghardt , Philipp S. Tiesel , Michael Welzl | ||
| Last updated | 2022-07-13 (Latest revision 2022-03-07) | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | Informational | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
ARTART Early review
Ready with Nits
|
||
| Additional resources |
GitHub Repository
Mailing list discussion |
||
| Stream | WG state | Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead | |
| Associated WG milestone |
|
||
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-taps-impl-12
TAPS Working Group A. Brunstrom, Ed.
Internet-Draft Karlstad University
Intended status: Informational T. Pauly, Ed.
Expires: 8 September 2022 Apple Inc.
T. Enghardt
Netflix
P. Tiesel
SAP SE
M. Welzl
University of Oslo
7 March 2022
Implementing Interfaces to Transport Services
draft-ietf-taps-impl-12
Abstract
The Transport Services system enables applications to use transport
protocols flexibly for network communication and defines a protocol-
independent Transport Services Application Programming Interface
(API) that is based on an asynchronous, event-driven interaction
pattern. This document serves as a guide to implementation on how to
build such a system.
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 8 September 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
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. Implementing Connection Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Implementing Pre-Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Configuration-time errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Role of system policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Implementing Connection Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Structuring Candidates as a Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.1. Branch Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1.2. Branching Order-of-Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.3. Sorting Branches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2. Candidate Gathering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.1. Gathering Endpoint Candidates . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3. Candidate Racing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.3.1. Simultaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.3.2. Staggered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.3.3. Failover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.4. Completing Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.4.1. Determining Successful Establishment . . . . . . . . 20
4.5. Establishing multiplexed connections . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.6. Handling connectionless protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.7. Implementing listeners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.7.1. Implementing listeners for Connected Protocols . . . 22
4.7.2. Implementing listeners for Connectionless
Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.7.3. Implementing listeners for Multiplexed Protocols . . 22
5. Implementing Sending and Receiving Data . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.1. Sending Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.1.1. Message Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.1.2. Send Completion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.1.3. Batching Sends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.2. Receiving Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.3. Handling of data for fast-open protocols . . . . . . . . 26
6. Implementing Message Framers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.1. Defining Message Framers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.2. Sender-side Message Framing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.3. Receiver-side Message Framing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7. Implementing Connection Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
7.1. Pooled Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7.2. Handling Path Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
8. Implementing Connection Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
9. Cached State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
9.1. Protocol state caches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
9.2. Performance caches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
10. Specific Transport Protocol Considerations . . . . . . . . . 36
10.1. TCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
10.2. MPTCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
10.3. UDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
10.4. UDP-Lite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
10.5. UDP Multicast Receive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
10.6. SCTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
12.1. Considerations for Candidate Gathering . . . . . . . . . 45
12.2. Considerations for Candidate Racing . . . . . . . . . . 45
13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Appendix A. API Mapping Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Appendix B. Additional Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
B.1. Properties Affecting Sorting of Branches . . . . . . . . 50
Appendix C. Reasons for errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Appendix D. Existing Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
1. Introduction
The Transport Services architecture [I-D.ietf-taps-arch] defines a
system that allows applications to flexibly use transport networking
protocols. The API that such a system exposes to applications is
defined as the Transport Services API [I-D.ietf-taps-interface].
This API is designed to be generic across multiple transport
protocols and sets of protocols features.
This document serves as a guide to implementation on how to build a
system that provides a Transport Services API. It is the job of an
implementation of a Transport Services system to turn the requests of
an application into decisions on how to establish connections, and
how to transfer data over those connections once established. The
terminology used in this document is based on the Architecture
[I-D.ietf-taps-arch].
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
2. Implementing Connection Objects
The connection objects that are exposed to applications for Transport
Services are:
* the Preconnection, the bundle of Properties that describes the
application constraints on, and preferences for, the transport;
* the Connection, the basic object that represents a flow of data as
Messages in either direction between the Local and Remote
Endpoints;
* and the Listener, a passive waiting object that delivers new
Connections.
Preconnection objects should be implemented as bundles of properties
that an application can both read and write. A Preconnection object
influences a Connection only at one point in time: when the
Connection is created. Connection objects represent the interface
between the application and the implementation to manage transport
state, and conduct data transfer. During the process of
establishment (Section 4), the Connection will not be bound to a
specific transport protocol instance, since multiple candidate
Protocol Stacks might be raced.
Once a Preconnection has been used to create an outbound Connection
or a Listener, the implementation should ensure that the copy of the
properties held by the Connection or Listener cannot be mutated by
the application making changes to the original Preconnection object.
This may involve the implementation performing a deep-copy, copying
the object with all the objects that it references.
Once the Connection is established, Transport Services implementation
maps actions and events to the details of the chosen Protocol Stack.
For example, the same Connection object may ultimately represent a
single instance of one transport protocol (e.g., a TCP connection, a
TLS session over TCP, a UDP flow with fully-specified Local and
Remote Endpoints, a DTLS session, a SCTP stream, a QUIC stream, or an
HTTP/2 stream). The properties held by a Connection or Listener is
independent of other connections that are not part of the same
Connection Group.
Connection establishment is only a local operation for a Datagram
transport (e.g., UDP(-Lite)), which serves to simplify the local
send/receive functions and to filter the traffic for the specified
addresses and ports [RFC8085].
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
Once Initiate has been called, the Selection Properties and Endpoint
information are immutable (i.e, an application is not able to later
modify Selection Properties on the original Preconnection object).
Listener objects are created with a Preconnection, at which point
their configuration should be considered immutable by the
implementation. The process of listening is described in
Section 4.7.
3. Implementing Pre-Establishment
During pre-establishment the application specifies one or more
Endpoints to be used for communication as well as protocol
preferences and constraints via Selection Properties and, if desired,
also Connection Properties. Generally, Connection Properties should
be configured as early as possible, because they can serve as input
to decisions that are made by the implementation (e.g., the Capacity
Profile can guide usage of a protocol offering scavenger-type
congestion control).
The implementation stores these properties as a part of the
Preconnection object for use during connection establishment. For
Selection Properties that are not provided by the application, the
implementation must use the default values specified in the Transport
Services API ([I-D.ietf-taps-interface]).
3.1. Configuration-time errors
The Transport Services system should have a list of supported
protocols available, which each have transport features reflecting
the capabilities of the protocol. Once an application specifies its
Transport Properties, the transport system matches the required and
prohibited properties against the transport features of the available
protocols.
In the following cases, failure should be detected during pre-
establishment:
* A request by an application for Protocol Properties that cannot be
satisfied by any of the available protocols. For example, if an
application requires "Configure Reliability per Message", but no
such feature is available in any protocol the host running the
transport system on the host running the transport system this
should result in an error, e.g., when SCTP is not supported by the
operating system.
* A request by an application for Protocol Properties that are in
conflict with each other, i.e., the required and prohibited
properties cannot be satisfied by the same protocol. For example,
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
if an application prohibits "Reliable Data Transfer" but then
requires "Configure Reliability per Message", this mismatch should
result in an error.
To avoid allocating resources that are not finally needed, it is
important that configuration-time errors fail as early as possible.
3.2. Role of system policy
The properties specified during pre-establishment have a close
relationship to system policy. The implementation is responsible for
combining and reconciling several different sources of preferences
when establishing Connections. These include, but are not limited
to:
1. Application preferences, i.e., preferences specified during the
pre-establishment via Selection Properties.
2. Dynamic system policy, i.e., policy compiled from internally and
externally acquired information about available network
interfaces, supported transport protocols, and current/previous
Connections. Examples of ways to externally retrieve policy-
support information are through OS-specific statistics/
measurement tools and tools that reside on middleboxes and
routers.
3. Default implementation policy, i.e., predefined policy by OS or
application.
In general, any protocol or path used for a connection must conform
to all three sources of constraints. A violation that occurs at any
of the policy layers should cause a protocol or path to be considered
ineligible for use. For an example of application preferences
leading to constraints, an application may prohibit the use of
metered network interfaces for a given Connection to avoid user cost.
Similarly, the system policy at a given time may prohibit the use of
such a metered network interface from the application's process.
Lastly, the implementation itself may default to disallowing certain
network interfaces unless explicitly requested by the application and
allowed by the system.
It is expected that the database of system policies and the method of
looking up these policies will vary across various platforms. An
implementation should attempt to look up the relevant policies for
the system in a dynamic way to make sure it is reflecting an accurate
version of the system policy, since the system's policy regarding the
application's traffic may change over time due to user or
administrative changes.
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
4. Implementing Connection Establishment
The process of establishing a network connection begins when an
application expresses intent to communicate with a Remote Endpoint by
calling Initiate. (At this point, any constraints or requirements
the application may have on the connection are available from pre-
establishment.) The process can be considered complete once there is
at least one Protocol Stack that has completed any required setup to
the point that it can transmit and receive the application's data.
Connection establishment is divided into two top-level steps:
Candidate Gathering, to identify the paths, protocols, and endpoints
to use, and Candidate Racing (see Section 4.2.2 of
[I-D.ietf-taps-arch]), in which the necessary protocol handshakes are
conducted so that the transport system can select which set to use.
This document structures the candidates for racing as a tree as
terminological convention. While a a tree structure is not the only
way in which racing can be implemented, it does ease the illustration
of how racing works.
The most simple example of this process might involve identifying the
single IP address to which the implementation wishes to connect,
using the system's current default path (i.e., using the default
interface), and starting a TCP handshake to establish a stream to the
specified IP address. However, each step may also differ depending
on the requirements of the connection: if the endpoint is defined as
a hostname and port, then there may be multiple resolved addresses
that are available; there may also be multiple paths available, (in
this case using an interface other than the default system
interface); and some protocols may not need any transport handshake
to be considered "established" (such as UDP), while other connections
may utilize layered protocol handshakes, such as TLS over TCP.
Whenever an implementation has multiple options for connection
establishment, it can view the set of all individual connection
establishment options as a single, aggregate connection
establishment. The aggregate set conceptually includes every valid
combination of endpoints, paths, and protocols. As an example,
consider an implementation that initiates a TCP connection to a
hostname + port endpoint, and has two valid interfaces available (Wi-
Fi and LTE). The hostname resolves to a single IPv4 address on the
Wi-Fi network, and resolves to the same IPv4 address on the LTE
network, as well as a single IPv6 address. The aggregate set of
connection establishment options can be viewed as follows:
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
Aggregate [Endpoint: www.example.com:80] [Interface: Any] [Protocol: TCP]
|-> [Endpoint: 192.0.2.1:80] [Interface: Wi-Fi] [Protocol: TCP]
|-> [Endpoint: 192.0.2.1:80] [Interface: LTE] [Protocol: TCP]
|-> [Endpoint: 2001:DB8::1.80] [Interface: LTE] [Protocol: TCP]
Any one of these sub-entries on the aggregate connection attempt
would satisfy the original application intent. The concern of this
section is the algorithm defining which of these options to try,
when, and in what order.
During Candidate Gathering, an implementation first excludes all
protocols and paths that match a Prohibit or do not match all Require
properties. Then, the implementation will sort branches according to
Preferred properties, Avoided properties, and possibly other
criteria.
4.1. Structuring Candidates as a Tree
As noted above, the considereration of multiple candidates in a
gathering and racing process can be conceptually structured as a
tree; this terminological convention is used throughout this
document.
Each leaf node of the tree represents a single, coherent connection
attempt, with an endpoint, a network path, and a set of protocols
that can directly negotiate and send data on the network. Each node
in the tree that is not a leaf represents a connection attempt that
is either underspecified, or else includes multiple distinct options.
For example, when connecting on an IP network, a connection attempt
to a hostname and port is underspecified, because the connection
attempt requires a resolved IP address as its Remote Endpoint. In
this case, the node represented by the connection attempt to the
hostname is a parent node, with child nodes for each IP address.
Similarly, an implementation that is allowed to connect using
multiple interfaces will have a parent node of the tree for the
decision between the network paths, with a branch for each interface.
The example aggregate connection attempt above can be drawn as a tree
by grouping the addresses resolved on the same interface into
branches:
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
||
+==========================+
| www.example.com:80/Any |
+==========================+
// \\
+==========================+ +==========================+
| www.example.com:80/Wi-Fi | | www.example.com:80/LTE |
+==========================+ +==========================+
|| // \\
+====================+ +====================+ +======================+
| 192.0.2.1:80/Wi-Fi | | 192.0.2.1:80/LTE | | 2001:DB8::1.80/LTE |
+====================+ +====================+ +======================+
The rest of this section will use a notation scheme to represent this
tree. The parent (or trunk) node of the tree will be represented by
a single integer, such as "1". Each child of that node will have an
integer that identifies it, from 1 to the number of children. That
child node will be uniquely identified by concatenating its integer
to it's parents identifier with a dot in between, such as "1.1" and
"1.2". Each node will be summarized by a tuple of three elements:
endpoint, path (labeled here by interface), and protocol. The above
example can now be written more succinctly as:
1 [www.example.com:80, Any, TCP]
1.1 [www.example.com:80, Wi-Fi, TCP]
1.1.1 [192.0.2.1:80, Wi-Fi, TCP]
1.2 [www.example.com:80, LTE, TCP]
1.2.1 [192.0.2.1:80, LTE, TCP]
1.2.2 [2001:DB8::1.80, LTE, TCP]
When an implementation views this aggregate set of connection
attempts as a single connection establishment, it only will use one
of the leaf nodes to transfer data. Thus, when a single leaf node
becomes ready to use, then the entire connection attempt is ready to
use by the application. Another way to represent this is that every
leaf node updates the state of its parent node when it becomes ready,
until the trunk node of the tree is ready, which then notifies the
application that the connection as a whole is ready to use.
A connection establishment tree may be degenerate, and only have a
single leaf node, such as a connection attempt to an IP address over
a single interface with a single protocol.
1 [192.0.2.1:80, Wi-Fi, TCP]
A parent node may also only have one child (or leaf) node, such as a
when a hostname resolves to only a single IP address.
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
1 [www.example.com:80, Wi-Fi, TCP]
1.1 [192.0.2.1:80, Wi-Fi, TCP]
4.1.1. Branch Types
There are three types of branching from a parent node into one or
more child nodes. Any parent node of the tree must only use one type
of branching.
4.1.1.1. Derived Endpoints
If a connection originally targets a single endpoint, there may be
multiple endpoints of different types that can be derived from the
original. This creates an ordered list of the derived endpoints
according to application preference, system policy and expected
performance.
DNS hostname-to-address resolution is the most common method of
endpoint derivation. When trying to connect to a hostname endpoint
on a traditional IP network, the implementation should send DNS
queries for both A (IPv4) and AAAA (IPv6) records if both are
supported on the local interface. The algorithm for ordering and
racing these addresses should follow the recommendations in Happy
Eyeballs [RFC8305].
1 [www.example.com:80, Wi-Fi, TCP]
1.1 [2001:DB8::1.80, Wi-Fi, TCP]
1.2 [192.0.2.1:80, Wi-Fi, TCP]
1.3 [2001:DB8::2.80, Wi-Fi, TCP]
1.4 [2001:DB8::3.80, Wi-Fi, TCP]
DNS-Based Service Discovery [RFC6763] can also provide an endpoint
derivation step. When trying to connect to a named service, the
client may discover one or more hostname and port pairs on the local
network using multicast DNS [RFC6762]. These hostnames should each
be treated as a branch that can be attempted independently from other
hostnames. Each of these hostnames might resolve to one or more
addresses, which would create multiple layers of branching.
1 [term-printer._ipp._tcp.meeting.ietf.org, Wi-Fi, TCP]
1.1 [term-printer.meeting.ietf.org:631, Wi-Fi, TCP]
1.1.1 [31.133.160.18.631, Wi-Fi, TCP]
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
Applications can influence which derived endpoints are allowed and
preferred via Selection Properties set on the Preconnection. For
example, setting a preference for useTemporaryLocalAddress would
prefer the use of IPv6 over IPv4, and requiring
useTemporaryLocalAddress would eliminate IPv4 options, since IPv4
does not support temporary addresses.
4.1.1.2. Alternate Paths
If a client has multiple network paths available to it, e.g., a
mobile client with intefaces for both Wi-Fi and Cellular
connectivity, it can attempt a connection over any of the paths.
This represents a branch point in the connection establishment.
Similar to a derived endpoint, the paths should be ranked based on
preference, system policy, and performance. Attempts should be
started on one path (e.g., a specific interface), and then
successively on other paths (or interfaces) after delays based on
expected path round-trip-time or other available metrics.
1 [192.0.2.1:80, Any, TCP]
1.1 [192.0.2.1:80, Wi-Fi, TCP]
1.2 [192.0.2.1:80, LTE, TCP]
This same approach applies to any situation in which the client is
aware of multiple links or views of the network. A single interface
may be shared by multiple network paths, each with a coherent set of
addresses, routes, DNS server, and more. A path may also represent a
virtual interface service such as a Virtual Private Network (VPN).
The list of available paths should be constrained by any requirements
the application sets, as well as by the system policy.
4.1.1.3. Protocol Options
Differences in possible protocol compositions and options can also
provide a branching point in connection establishment. This allows
clients to be resilient to situations in which a certain protocol is
not functioning on a server or network.
This approach is commonly used for connections with optional proxy
server configurations. A single connection might have several
options available: an HTTP-based proxy, a SOCKS-based proxy, or no
proxy. These options should be ranked and attempted in succession.
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
1 [www.example.com:80, Any, HTTP/TCP]
1.1 [192.0.2.8:80, Any, HTTP/HTTP Proxy/TCP]
1.2 [192.0.2.7:10234, Any, HTTP/SOCKS/TCP]
1.3 [www.example.com:80, Any, HTTP/TCP]
1.3.1 [192.0.2.1:80, Any, HTTP/TCP]
This approach also allows a client to attempt different sets of
application and transport protocols that, when available, could
provide preferable features. For example, the protocol options could
involve QUIC [I-D.ietf-quic-transport] over UDP on one branch, and
HTTP/2 [RFC7540] over TLS over TCP on the other:
1 [www.example.com:443, Any, Any HTTP]
1.1 [www.example.com:443, Any, QUIC/UDP]
1.1.1 [192.0.2.1:443, Any, QUIC/UDP]
1.2 [www.example.com:443, Any, HTTP2/TLS/TCP]
1.2.1 [192.0.2.1:443, Any, HTTP2/TLS/TCP]
Another example is racing SCTP with TCP:
1 [www.example.com:80, Any, Any Stream]
1.1 [www.example.com:80, Any, SCTP]
1.1.1 [192.0.2.1:80, Any, SCTP]
1.2 [www.example.com:80, Any, TCP]
1.2.1 [192.0.2.1:80, Any, TCP]
Implementations that support racing protocols and protocol options
should maintain a history of which protocols and protocol options
successfully established, on a per-network and per-endpoint basis
(see Section 9.2). This information can influence future racing
decisions to prioritize or prune branches.
4.1.2. Branching Order-of-Operations
Branch types must occur in a specific order relative to one another
to avoid creating leaf nodes with invalid or incompatible settings.
In the example above, it would be invalid to branch for derived
endpoints (the DNS results for www.example.com) before branching
between interface paths, since there are situations when the results
will be different across networks due to private names or different
supported IP versions. Implementations must be careful to branch in
an order that results in usable leaf nodes whenever there are
multiple branch types that could be used from a single node.
The order of operations for branching should be:
1. Alternate Paths
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
2. Protocol Options
3. Derived Endpoints
where a lower number indicates higher precedence and therefore higher
placement in the tree. Branching between paths is the first in the
list because results across multiple interfaces are likely not
related to one another: endpoint resolution may return different
results, especially when using locally resolved host and service
names, and which protocols are supported and preferred may differ
across interfaces. Thus, if multiple paths are attempted, the
overall connection can be seen as a race between the available paths
or interfaces.
Protocol options are next checked in order. Whether or not a set of
protocol, or protocol-specific options, can successfully connect is
generally not dependent on which specific IP address is used.
Furthermore, the protocol stacks being attempted may influence or
altogether change the endpoints being used. Adding a proxy to a
connection's branch will change the endpoint to the proxy's IP
address or hostname. Choosing an alternate protocol may also modify
the ports that should be selected.
Branching for derived endpoints is the final step, and may have
multiple layers of derivation or resolution, such as DNS service
resolution and DNS hostname resolution.
For example, if the application has indicated both a preference for
WiFi over LTE and for a feature only available in SCTP, branches will
be first sorted accord to path selection, with WiFi at the top.
Then, branches with SCTP will be sorted to the top within their
subtree according to the properties influencing protocol selection.
However, if the implementation has current cache information that
SCTP is not available on the path over WiFi, there is no SCTP node in
the WiFi subtree. Here, the path over WiFi will be tried first, and,
if connection establishment succeeds, TCP will be used. So the
Selection Property of preferring WiFi takes precedence over the
Property that led to a preference for SCTP.
1. [www.example.com:80, Any, Any Stream]
1.1 [192.0.2.1:80, Wi-Fi, Any Stream]
1.1.1 [192.0.2.1:80, Wi-Fi, TCP]
1.2 [192.0.3.1:80, LTE, Any Stream]
1.2.1 [192.0.3.1:80, LTE, SCTP]
1.2.2 [192.0.3.1:80, LTE, TCP]
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
4.1.3. Sorting Branches
Implementations should sort the branches of the tree of connection
options in order of their preference rank, from most preferred to
least preferred. Leaf nodes on branches with higher rankings
represent connection attempts that will be raced first.
Implementations should order the branches to reflect the preferences
expressed by the application for its new connection, including
Selection Properties, which are specified in
[I-D.ietf-taps-interface].
In addition to the properties provided by the application, an
implementation may include additional criteria such as cached
performance estimates, see Section 9.2, or system policy, see
Section 3.2, in the ranking. Two examples of how Selection and
Connection Properties may be used to sort branches are provided
below:
* "Interface Instance or Type": If the application specifies an
interface type to be preferred or avoided, implementations should
accordingly rank the paths. If the application specifies an
interface type to be required or prohibited, an implementation is
expeceted to not include the non-conforming paths.
* "Capacity Profile": An implementation can use the Capacity Profile
to prefer paths that match an application's expected traffic
pattern. This match will use cached performance estimates, see
Section 9.2:
- Scavenger: Prefer paths with the highest expected available
capacity, but minimising impact on other traffic, based on the
observed maximum throughput;
- Low Latency/Interactive: Prefer paths with the lowest expected
Round Trip Time, based on observed round trip time estimates;
- Low Latency/Non-Interactive: Prefer paths with a low expected
Round Trip Time, but can tolerate delay variation;
- Constant-Rate Streaming: Prefer paths that are expected to
satisy the requested Stream Send or Stream Receive Bitrate,
based on the observed maximum throughput;
- Capacity-Seeking: Prefer adapting to paths to determine the
highest available capacity, based on the observed maximum
throughput.
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
Implementations process the Properties in the following order:
Prohibit, Require, Prefer, Avoid. If Selection Properties contain
any prohibited properties, the implementation should first purge
branches containing nodes with these properties. For required
properties, it should only keep branches that satisfy these
requirements. Finally, it should order the branches according to the
preferred properties, and finally use any avoided properties as a
tiebreaker. When ordering branches, an implementation can give more
weight to properties that the application has explicitly set, than to
the properties that are default.
The available protocols and paths on a specific system and in a
specific context can change; therefore, the result of sorting and the
outcome of racing may vary, even when using the same Selection and
Connection Properties. However, an implementation ought to provide a
consistent outcome to applications, e.g., by preferring protocols and
paths that are already used by existing Connections that specified
similar Properties.
4.2. Candidate Gathering
The step of gathering candidates involves identifying which paths,
protocols, and endpoints may be used for a given Connection. This
list is determined by the requirements, prohibitions, and preferences
of the application as specified in the Selection Properties.
4.2.1. Gathering Endpoint Candidates
Both Local and Remote Endpoint Candidates must be discovered during
connection establishment. To support Interactive Connectivity
Establishment (ICE) [RFC8445], or similar protocols that involve out-
of-band indirect signalling to exchange candidates with the Remote
Endpoint, it is important to query the set of candidate Local
Endpoints, and provide the protocol stack with a set of candidate
Remote Endpoints, before the Local Endpoint attempts to establish
connections.
4.2.1.1. Local Endpoint candidates
The set of possible Local Endpoints is gathered. In the simple case,
this merely enumerates the local interfaces and protocols, and
allocates ephemeral source ports. For example, a system that has
WiFi and Ethernet and supports IPv4 and IPv6 might gather four
candidate Local Endpoints (IPv4 on Ethernet, IPv6 on Ethernet, IPv4
on WiFi, and IPv6 on WiFi) that can form the source for a transient.
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
If NAT traversal is required, the process of gathering Local
Endpoints becomes broadly equivalent to the ICE candidate gathering
phase (see Section 5.1.1. of [RFC8445]). The endpoint determines its
server reflexive Local Endpoints (i.e., the translated address of a
Local Endpoint, on the other side of a NAT, e.g via a STUN sever
[RFC5389]) and relayed Local Endpoints (e.g., via a TURN server
[RFC5766] or other relay), for each interface and network protocol.
These are added to the set of candidate Local Endpoints for this
connection.
Gathering Local Endpoints is primarily a local operation, although it
might involve exchanges with a STUN server to derive server reflexive
Local Endpoints, or with a TURN server or other relay to derive
relayed Local Endpoints. However, it does not involve communication
with the Remote Endpoint.
4.2.1.2. Remote Endpoint Candidates
The Remote Endpoint is typically a name that needs to be resolved
into a set of possible addresses that can be used for communication.
Resolving the Remote Endpoint is the process of recursively
performing such name lookups, until fully resolved, to return the set
of candidates for the Remote Endpoint of this connection.
How this resolution is done will depend on the type of the Remote
Endpoint, and can also be specific to each Local Endpoint. A common
case is when the Remote Endpoint is a DNS name, in which case it is
resolved to give a set of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses representing that
name. Some types of Remote Endpoint might require more complex
resolution. Resolving the Remote Endpoint for a peer-to-peer
connection might involve communication with a rendezvous server,
which in turn contacts the peer to gain consent to communicate and
retrieve its set of candidate Local Endpoints, which are returned and
form the candidate remote addresses for contacting that peer.
Resolving the Remote Endpoint is not a local operation. It will
involve a directory service, and can require communication with the
Remote Endpoint to rendezvous and exchange peer addresses. This can
expose some or all of the candidate Local Endpoints to the Remote
Endpoint.
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
4.3. Candidate Racing
The primary goal of the Candidate Racing process is to successfully
negotiate a protocol stack to an endpoint over an interface to
connect a single leaf node of the tree with as little delay and as
few unnecessary connections attempts as possible. Optimizing these
two factors improves the user experience, while minimizing network
load.
This section covers the dynamic aspect of connection establishment.
The tree described above is a useful conceptual and architectural
model. However, an implementation is unable to know the full tree
before it is formed and many of the possible branches ultimately
might not be used.
There are three different approaches to racing the attempts for
different nodes of the connection establishment tree:
1. Simultaneous
2. Staggered
3. Failover
Each approach is appropriate in different use-cases and branch types.
However, to avoid consuming unnecessary network resources,
implementations should not use simultaneous racing as a default
approach.
The timing algorithms for racing should remain independent across
branches of the tree. Any timers or racing logic is isolated to a
given parent node, and is not ordered precisely with regards to other
children of other nodes.
4.3.1. Simultaneous
Simultaneous racing is when multiple alternate branches are started
without waiting for any one branch to make progress before starting
the next alternative. This means the attempts are effectively
simultaneous. Simultaneous racing should be avoided by
implementations, since it consumes extra network resources and
establishes state that might not be used.
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
4.3.2. Staggered
Staggered racing can be used whenever a single node of the tree has
multiple child nodes. Based on the order determined when building
the tree, the first child node will be initiated immediately,
followed by the next child node after some delay. Once that second
child node is initiated, the third child node (if present) will begin
after another delay, and so on until all child nodes have been
initiated, or one of the child nodes successfully completes its
negotiation.
Staggered racing attempts can proceed in parallel. Implementations
should not terminate an earlier child connection attempt upon
starting a secondary child.
If a child node fails to establish connectivity (as in Section 4.4.1)
before the delay time has expired for the next child, the next child
should be started immediately.
Staggered racing between IP addresses for a generic Connection should
follow the Happy Eyeballs algorithm described in [RFC8305].
[RFC8421] provides guidance for racing when performing Interactive
Connectivity Establishment (ICE).
Generally, the delay before starting a given child node ought to be
based on the length of time the previously started child node is
expected to take before it succeeds or makes progress in connection
establishment. Algorithms like Happy Eyeballs choose a delay based
on how long the transport connection handshake is expected to take.
When performing staggered races in multiple branch types (such as
racing between network interfaces, and then racing between IP
addresses), a longer delay may be chosen for some branch types. For
example, when racing between network interfaces, the delay should
also take into account the amount of time it takes to prepare the
network interface (such as radio association) and name resolution
over that interface, in addition to the delay that would be added for
a single transport connection handshake.
Since the staggered delay can be chosen based on dynamic information,
such as predicted round-trip time, implementations should define
upper and lower bounds for delay times. These bounds are
implementation-specific, and may differ based on which branch type is
being used.
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
4.3.3. Failover
If an implementation or application has a strong preference for one
branch over another, the branching node may choose to wait until one
child has failed before starting the next. Failure of a leaf node is
determined by its protocol negotiation failing or timing out; failure
of a parent branching node is determined by all of its children
failing.
An example in which failover is recommended is a race between a
protocol stack that uses a proxy and a protocol stack that bypasses
the proxy. Failover is useful in case the proxy is down or
misconfigured, but any more aggressive type of racing may end up
unnecessarily avoiding a proxy that was preferred by policy.
4.4. Completing Establishment
The process of connection establishment completes when one leaf node
of the tree has successfully completed negotiation with the Remote
Endpoint, or else all nodes of the tree have failed to connect. The
first leaf node to complete its connection is then used by the
application to send and receive data.
Successes and failures of a given attempt should be reported up to
parent nodes (towards the trunk of the tree). For example, in the
following case, if 1.1.1 fails to connect, it reports the failure to
1.1. Since 1.1 has no other child nodes, it also has failed and
reports that failure to 1. Because 1.2 has not yet failed, 1 is not
considered to have failed. Since 1.2 has not yet started, it is
started and the process continues. Similarly, if 1.1.1 successfully
connects, then it marks 1.1 as connected, which propagates to the
trunk node 1. At this point, the connection as a whole is considered
to be successfully connected and ready to process application data.
1 [www.example.com:80, Any, TCP]
1.1 [www.example.com:80, Wi-Fi, TCP]
1.1.1 [192.0.2.1:80, Wi-Fi, TCP]
1.2 [www.example.com:80, LTE, TCP]
...
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
If a leaf node has successfully completed its connection, all other
attempts should be made ineligible for use by the application for the
original request. New connection attempts that involve transmitting
data on the network ought not to be started after another leaf node
has already successfully completed, because the connection as a whole
has now been established. An implementation may choose to let
certain handshakes and negotiations complete in order to gather
metrics to influence future connections. Keeping additional
connections is generally not recommended since those attempts were
slower to connect and may exhibit less desirable properties.
4.4.1. Determining Successful Establishment
Implementations may select the criteria by which a leaf node is
considered to be successfully connected differently on a per-protocol
basis. If the only protocol being used is a transport protocol with
a clear handshake, like TCP, then the obvious choice is to declare
that node "connected" when the last packet of the three-way handshake
has been received. If the only protocol being used is an
connectionless protocol, like UDP, the implementation may consider
the node fully "connected" the moment it determines a route is
present, before sending any packets on the network, see further
Section 4.6.
For protocol stacks with multiple handshakes, the decision becomes
more nuanced. If the protocol stack involves both TLS and TCP, an
implementation could determine that a leaf node is connected after
the TCP handshake is complete, or it can wait for the TLS handshake
to complete as well. The benefit of declaring completion when the
TCP handshake finishes, and thus stopping the race for other branches
of the tree, is reduced burden on the network and Remote Endpoints
from further connection attempts that are likely to be abandoned. On
the other hand, by waiting until the TLS handshake is complete, an
implementation avoids the scenario in which a TCP handshake completes
quickly, but TLS negotiation is either very slow or fails altogether
in particular network conditions or to a particular endpoint. To
avoid the issue of TLS possibly failing, the implementation should
not generate a Ready event for the Connection until TLS is
established.
If all of the leaf nodes fail to connect during racing, i.e. none of
the configurations that satisfy all requirements given in the
Transport Properties actually work over the available paths, then the
transport system should notify the application with an InitiateError
event. An InitiateError event should also be generated in case the
transport system finds no usable candidates to race.
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
4.5. Establishing multiplexed connections
Multiplexing several Connections over a single underlying transport
connection requires that the Connections to be multiplexed belong to
the same Connection Group (as is indicated by the application using
the Clone call). When the underlying transport connection supports
multi-streaming, the Transport Services System can map each
Connection in the Connection Group to a different stream. Thus, when
the Connections that are offered to an application by the Transport
Services API are multiplexed, the Transport Services implementation
can establish a new Connection by simply beginning to use a new
stream of an already established transport Connection and there is no
need for a connection establishment procedure. This, then, also
means that there may not be any "establishment" message (like a TCP
SYN), but the application can simply start sending or receiving.
Therefore, when the Initiate action of a Transport Services API is
called without Messages being handed over, it cannot be guaranteed
that the Remote Endpoint will have any way to know about this, and
hence a passive endpoint's ConnectionReceived event might not be
called until data is received. Instead, calling the
ConnectionReceived event could be delayed until the first Message
arrives.
4.6. Handling connectionless protocols
While protocols that use an explicit handshake to validate a
Connection to a peer can be used for racing multiple establishment
attempts in parallel, connectionless protocols such as raw UDP do not
offer a way to validate the presence of a peer or the usability of a
Connection without application feedback. An implementation should
consider such a protocol stack to be established as soon as the
Transport Services system has selected a path on which to send data.
However, if a peer is not reachable over the network using the
connectionless protocol, or data cannot be exchanged for any other
reason, the application may want to attempt using another candidate
Protocol Stack. The implementation should maintain the list of other
candidate Protocol Stacks that were eligible to use.
4.7. Implementing listeners
When an implementation is asked to Listen, it registers with the
system to wait for incoming traffic to the Local Endpoint. If no
Local Endpoint is specified, the implementation should use an
ephemeral port.
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
If the Selection Properties do not require a single network interface
or path, but allow the use of multiple paths, the Listener object
should register for incoming traffic on all of the network interfaces
or paths that conform to the Properties. The set of available paths
can change over time, so the implementation should monitor network
path changes, and change the registration of the Listener across all
usable paths as appropriate. When using multiple paths, the Listener
is generally expected to use the same port for listening on each.
If the Selection Properties allow multiple protocols to be used for
listening, and the implementation supports it, the Listener object
should support receiving inbound connections for each eligible
protocol on each eligible path.
4.7.1. Implementing listeners for Connected Protocols
Connected protocols such as TCP and TLS-over-TCP have a strong
mapping between the Local and Remote Endpoints (four-tuple) and their
protocol connection state. These map into Connection objects.
Whenever a new inbound handshake is being started, the Listener
should generate a new Connection object and pass it to the
application.
4.7.2. Implementing listeners for Connectionless Protocols
Connectionless protocols such as UDP and UDP-lite generally do not
provide the same mechanisms that connected protocols do to offer
Connection objects. Implementations should wait for incoming packets
for connectionless protocols on a listening port and should perform
four-tuple matching of packets to either existing Connection objects
or the creation of new Connection objects. On platforms with
facilities to create a "virtual connection" for connectionless
protocols implementations should use these mechanisms to minimise the
handling of datagrams intended for already created Connection
objects.
4.7.3. Implementing listeners for Multiplexed Protocols
Protocols that provide multiplexing of streams into a single four-
tuple can listen both for entirely new connections (a new HTTP/2
stream on a new TCP connection, for example) and for new sub-
connections (a new HTTP/2 stream on an existing connection). If the
abstraction of Connection presented to the application is mapped to
the multiplexed stream, then the Listener should deliver new
Connection objects in the same way for either case. The
implementation should allow the application to introspect the
Connection Group marked on the Connections to determine the grouping
of the multiplexing.
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
5. Implementing Sending and Receiving Data
The most basic mapping for sending a Message is an abstraction of
datagrams, in which the transport protocol naturally deals in
discrete packets. Each Message here corresponds to a single
datagram. Generally, these will be short enough that sending and
receiving will always use a complete Message.
For protocols that expose byte-streams, the only delineation provided
by the protocol is the end of the stream in a given direction. Each
Message in this case corresponds to the entire stream of bytes in a
direction. These Messages may be quite long, in which case they can
be sent in multiple parts.
Protocols that provide the framing (such as length-value protocols,
or protocols that use delimiters) may support Message sizes that do
not fit within a single datagram. Each Message for framing protocols
corresponds to a single frame, which may be sent either as a complete
Message in the underlying protocol, or in multiple parts.
5.1. Sending Messages
The effect of the application sending a Message is determined by the
top-level protocol in the established Protocol Stack. That is, if
the top-level protocol provides an abstraction of framed messages
over a connection, the receiving application will be able to obtain
multiple Messages on that connection, even if the framing protocol is
built on a byte-stream protocol like TCP.
5.1.1. Message Properties
* Lifetime: this should be implemented by removing the Message from
the queue of pending Messages after the Lifetime has expired. A
queue of pending Messages within the transport system
implementation that have yet to be handed to the Protocol Stack
can always support this property, but once a Message has been sent
into the send buffer of a protocol, only certain protocols may
support removing a message. For example, an implementation cannot
remove bytes from a TCP send buffer, while it can remove data from
a SCTP send buffer using the partial reliability extension
[RFC8303]. When there is no standing queue of Messages within the
system, and the Protocol Stack does not support the removal of a
Message from the stack's send buffer, this property may be
ignored.
* Priority: this represents the ability to prioritize a Message over
other Messages. This can be implemented by the system re-ordering
Messages that have yet to be handed to the Protocol Stack, or by
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
giving relative priority hints to protocols that support
priorities per Message. For example, an implementation of HTTP/2
could choose to send Messages of different Priority on streams of
different priority.
* Ordered: when this is false, this disables the requirement of in-
order-delivery for protocols that support configurable ordering.
When the protocol stack does not support configurable ordering,
this property may be ignored.
* Safely Replayable: when this is true, this means that the Message
can be used by a transport mechanism that might transfer it
multiple times -- e.g., as a result of racing multiple transports
or as part of TCP Fast Open. Also, protocols that do not protect
against duplicated messages, such as UDP (when used directly,
without a protocol layered atop), can only be used with Messages
that are Safely Replayable. When a transport system is permitted
to replay messages, replay protection could be provided by the
application.
* Final: when this is true, this means that the sender will not send
any further messages. The Connection need not be closed (in case
the Protocol Stack supports half-close operation, like TCP). Any
messages sent after a Final message will result in a SendError.
* Corruption Protection Length: when this is set to any value other
than Full Coverage, it sets the minimum protection in protocols
that allow limiting the checksum length (e.g. UDP-Lite). If the
protocol stack does not support checksum length limitation, this
property may be ignored.
* Reliable Data Transfer (Message): When true, the property
specifies that the Message must be reliably transmitted. When
false, and if unreliable transmission is supported by the
underlying protocol, then the Message should be unreliably
transmitted. If the underlying protocol does not support
unreliable transmission, the Message should be reliably
transmitted.
* Message Capacity Profile Override: When true, this expresses a
wish to override the Generic Connection Property Capacity Profile
for this Message. Depending on the value, this can, for example,
be implemented by changing the DSCP value of the associated packet
(note that the guidelines in Section 6 of [RFC7657] apply; e.g.,
the DSCP value should not be changed for different packets within
a reliable transport protocol session or DCCP connection).
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
* No Fragmentation: When set, this property limits the message size
to the Maximum Message Size Before Fragmentation or Segmentation
(see Section 10.1.7 of [I-D.ietf-taps-interface]). Messages
larger than this size generate an error. Setting this avoids
transport-layer segmentation or network-layer fragmentation. When
used with transports running over IP version 4 the Don't Fragment
bit will be set to avoid on-path IP fragmentation ([RFC8304]).
5.1.2. Send Completion
The application should be notified whenever a Message or partial
Message has been consumed by the Protocol Stack, or has failed to
send. The time at which a Message is considered to have been
consumed by the Protocol Stack may vary depending on the protocol.
For example, for a basic datagram protocol like UDP, this may
correspond to the time when the packet is sent into the interface
driver. For a protocol that buffers data in queues, like TCP, this
may correspond to when the data has entered the send buffer. The
time at which a message failed to send is when Transport Services
implementation (including the Protocol Stack) has not successfully
sent the entire Message content or partial Message content on any
open candidate connection; this can depend on protocol-specific
timeouts.
5.1.3. Batching Sends
Since sending a Message may involve a context switch between the
application and the Transport Services system, sending patterns that
involve multiple small Messages can incur high overhead if each needs
to be enqueued separately. To avoid this, the application can
indicate a batch of Send actions through the API. When this is used,
the implementation can defer the processing of Messages until the
batch is complete.
5.2. Receiving Messages
Similar to sending, Receiving a Message is determined by the top-
level protocol in the established Protocol Stack. The main
difference with Receiving is that the size and boundaries of the
Message are not known beforehand. The application can communicate in
its Receive action the parameters for the Message, which can help the
Transport Services implementation know how much data to deliver and
when. For example, if the application only wants to receive a
complete Message, the implementation should wait until an entire
Message (datagram, stream, or frame) is read before delivering any
Message content to the application. This requires the implementation
to understand where messages end, either via a supplied deframer or
because the top-level protocol in the established Protocol Stack
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
preserves message boundaries. If the top-level protocol only
supports a byte-stream and no framers were supported, the application
can control the flow of received data by specifying the minimum
number of bytes of Message content it wants to receive at one time.
If a Connection finishes before a requested Receive action can be
satisfied, the Transport Services API should deliver any partial
Message content outstanding, or if none is available, an indication
that there will be no more received Messages.
5.3. Handling of data for fast-open protocols
Several protocols allow sending higher-level protocol or application
data during their protocol establishment, such as TCP Fast Open
[RFC7413] and TLS 1.3 [RFC8446]. This approach is referred to as
sending Zero-RTT (0-RTT) data. This is a desirable feature, but
poses challenges to an implementation that uses racing during
connection establishment.
The amount of data that can be sent as 0-RTT data varies by protocol
and can be queried by the application using the Maximum Message Size
Concurrent with Connection Establishment Connection Property. An
implementation can set this property according to the protocols that
it will race based on the given Selection Properties when the
application requests to establish a connection.
If the application has 0-RTT data to send in any protocol handshakes,
it needs to provide this data before the handshakes have begun. When
racing, this means that the data should be provided before the
process of connection establishment has begun. If the application
wants to send 0-RTT data, it must indicate this to the implementation
by setting the Safely Replayable send parameter to true when sending
the data. In general, 0-RTT data may be replayed (for example, if a
TCP SYN contains data, and the SYN is retransmitted, the data will be
retransmitted as well but may be considered as a new connection
instead of a retransmission). Also, when racing connections,
different leaf nodes have the opportunity to send the same data
independently. If data is truly safely replayable, this should be
permissible.
Once the application has provided its 0-RTT data, a Transport
Services implementation should keep a copy of this data and provide
it to each new leaf node that is started and for which a 0-RTT
protocol is being used.
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
It is also possible that protocol stacks within a particular leaf
node use 0-RTT handshakes without any safely replayable application
data. For example, TCP Fast Open could use a Client Hello from TLS
as its 0-RTT data, shortening the cumulative handshake time.
0-RTT handshakes often rely on previous state, such as TCP Fast Open
cookies, previously established TLS tickets, or out-of-band
distributed pre-shared keys (PSKs). Implementations should be aware
of security concerns around using these tokens across multiple
addresses or paths when racing. In the case of TLS, any given ticket
or PSK should only be used on one leaf node, since servers will
likely reject duplicate tickets in order to prevent replays (see
section-8.1 [RFC8446]). If implementations have multiple tickets
available from a previous connection, each leaf node attempt can use
a different ticket. In effect, each leaf node will send the same
early application data, yet encoded (encrypted) differently on the
wire.
6. Implementing Message Framers
Message Framers are functions that define simple transformations
between application Message data and raw transport protocol data. A
Framer can encapsulate or encode outbound Messages, and decapsulate
or decode inbound data into Messages.
While many protocols can be represented as Message Framers, for the
purposes of the Transport Services API, these are ways for
applications or application frameworks to define their own Message
parsing to be included within a Connection's Protocol Stack. As an
example, TLS is exposed as a protocol natively supported by the
Transport Services API, even though it could also serve the purpose
of framing data over TCP.
Most Message Framers fall into one of two categories:
* Header-prefixed record formats, such as a basic Type-Length-Value
(TLV) structure
* Delimiter-separated formats, such as HTTP/1.1.
Common Message Framers can be provided by a Transport Services
implementation, but an implementation ought to allow custom Message
Framers to be defined by the application or some other piece of
software. This section describes one possible API for defining
Message Framers as an example.
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
6.1. Defining Message Framers
A Message Framer is primarily defined by the code that handles events
for a framer implementation, specifically how it handles inbound and
outbound data parsing. The function that implements custom framing
logic will be referred to as the "framer implementation", which may
be provided by a Transport Services implementation or the application
itself. The Message Framer refers to the object or function within
the main Connection implementation that delivers events to the custom
framer implementation whenever data is ready to be parsed or framed.
The Transport Services implementation needs to ensure that all of the
events and actions taken on a Message Framer are synchronized to
ensure consistent behavior. For example, some of the actions defined
below (such as PrependFramer and StartPassthrough) modify how data
flows in a protocol stack, and require synchronization with sending
and parsing data in the Message Framer.
When a Connection establishment attempt begins, an event can be
delivered to notify the framer implementation that a new Connection
is being created. Similarly, a stop event can be delivered when a
Connection is being torn down. The framer implementation can use the
Connection object to look up specific properties of the Connection or
the network being used that may influence how to frame Messages.
MessageFramer -> Start(Connection)
MessageFramer -> Stop(Connection)
When a Message Framer generates a Start event, the framer
implementation has the opportunity to start writing some data prior
to the Connection delivering its Ready event. This allows the
implementation to communicate control data to the Remote Endpoint
that can be used to parse Messages.
MessageFramer.MakeConnectionReady(Connection)
Similarly, when a Message Framer generates a Stop event, the framer
implementation has the opportunity to write some final data or clear
up its local state before the Closed event is delivered to the
Application. The framer implementation can indicate that it has
finished with this.
MessageFramer.MakeConnectionClosed(Connection)
At any time if the implementation encounters a fatal error, it can
also cause the Connection to fail and provide an error.
MessageFramer.FailConnection(Connection, Error)
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
Should the framer implementation deem the candidate selected during
racing unsuitable, it can signal this to the Transport Services API
by failing the Connection prior to marking it as ready. If there are
no other candidates available, the Connection will fail. Otherwise,
the Connection will select a different candidate and the Message
Framer will generate a new Start event.
Before an implementation marks a Message Framer as ready, it can also
dynamically add a protocol or framer above it in the stack. This
allows protocols that need to add TLS conditionally, like STARTTLS
[RFC3207], to modify the Protocol Stack based on a handshake result.
otherFramer := NewMessageFramer()
MessageFramer.PrependFramer(Connection, otherFramer)
A Message Framer might also choose to go into a passthrough mode once
an initial exchange or handshake has been completed, such as the
STARTTLS case mentioned above. This can also be useful for proxy
protocols like SOCKS [RFC1928] or HTTP CONNECT [RFC7230]. In such
cases, a Message Framer implementation can intercept sending and
receiving of messages at first, but then indicate that no more
processing is needed.
MessageFramer.StartPassthrough()
6.2. Sender-side Message Framing
Message Framers generate an event whenever a Connection sends a new
Message.
MessageFramer -> NewSentMessage<Connection, MessageData, MessageContext, IsEndOfMessage>
Upon receiving this event, a framer implementation is responsible for
performing any necessary transformations and sending the resulting
data back to the Message Framer, which will in turn send it to the
next protocol. Implementations SHOULD ensure that there is a way to
pass the original data through without copying to improve
performance.
MessageFramer.Send(Connection, Data)
To provide an example, a simple protocol that adds a length as a
header would receive the NewSentMessage event, create a data
representation of the length of the Message data, and then send a
block of data that is the concatenation of the length header and the
original Message data.
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
6.3. Receiver-side Message Framing
In order to parse a received flow of data into Messages, the Message
Framer notifies the framer implementation whenever new data is
available to parse.
MessageFramer -> HandleReceivedData<Connection>
Upon receiving this event, the framer implementation can inspect the
inbound data. The data is parsed from a particular cursor
representing the unprocessed data. The application requests a
specific amount of data it needs to have available in order to parse.
If the data is not available, the parse fails.
MessageFramer.Parse(Connection, MinimumIncompleteLength, MaximumLength) -> (Data, MessageContext, IsEndOfMessage)
The framer implementation can directly advance the receive cursor
once it has parsed data to effectively discard data (for example,
discard a header once the content has been parsed).
To deliver a Message to the application, the framer implementation
can either directly deliver data that it has allocated, or deliver a
range of data directly from the underlying transport and
simultaneously advance the receive cursor.
MessageFramer.AdvanceReceiveCursor(Connection, Length)
MessageFramer.DeliverAndAdvanceReceiveCursor(Connection, MessageContext, Length, IsEndOfMessage)
MessageFramer.Deliver(Connection, MessageContext, Data, IsEndOfMessage)
Note that MessageFramer.DeliverAndAdvanceReceiveCursor allows the
framer implementation to earmark bytes as part of a Message even
before they are received by the transport. This allows the delivery
of very large Messages without requiring the implementation to
directly inspect all of the bytes.
To provide an example, a simple protocol that parses a length as a
header value would receive the HandleReceivedData event, and call
Parse with a minimum and maximum set to the length of the header
field. Once the parse succeeded, it would call AdvanceReceiveCursor
with the length of the header field, and then call
DeliverAndAdvanceReceiveCursor with the length of the body that was
parsed from the header, marking the new Message as complete.
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
7. Implementing Connection Management
Once a Connection is established, the Transport Services API allows
applications to interact with the Connection by modifying or
inspecting Connection Properties. A Connection can also generate
events in the form of Soft Errors.
The set of Connection Properties that are supported for setting and
getting on a Connection are described in [I-D.ietf-taps-interface].
For any properties that are generic, and thus could apply to all
protocols being used by a Connection, the Transport Services
implementation should store the properties in storage common to all
protocols, and notify all protocol instances in the Protocol Stack
whenever the properties have been modified by the application. For
protocol-specfic properties, such as the User Timeout that applies to
TCP, the Transport Services implementation only needs to update the
relevant protocol instance.
If an error is encountered in setting a property (for example, if the
application tries to set a TCP-specific property on a Connection that
is not using TCP), the action should fail gracefully. The
application may be informed of the error, but the Connection itself
should not be terminated.
The Transport Services API should allow protocol instances in the
Protocol Stack to pass up arbitrary generic or protocol-specific
errors that can be delivered to the application as Soft Errors.
These allow the application to be informed of ICMP errors, and other
similar events.
7.1. Pooled Connection
For applications that do not need in-order delivery of Messages, the
Transport Services implementation may distribute Messages of a single
Connection across several underlying transport connections or
multiple streams of multi-streaming connections between endpoints, as
long as all of these satisfy the Selection Properties. The Transport
Services implementation will then hide this connection management and
only expose a single Connection object, which we here call a "Pooled
Connection". This is in contrast to Connection Groups, which
explicitly expose combined treatment of Connections, giving the
application control over multiplexing, for example.
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
Pooled Connections can be useful when the application using the
Transport Services system implements a protocol such as HTTP, which
employs request/response pairs and does not require in-order delivery
of responses. This enables implementations of Transport Services
systems to realize transparent connection coalescing, connection
migration, and to perform per-message endpoint and path selection by
choosing among multiple underlying connections.
7.2. Handling Path Changes
When a path change occurs, e.g., when the IP address of an interface
changes or a new interface becomes available, the Transport Services
implementation is responsible for notifying the Protocol Instance of
the change. The path change may interrupt connectivity on a path for
an active connection or provide an opportunity for a transport that
supports multipath or migration to adapt to the new paths. Note
that, in the model of the Transport Services API, migration is
considered a part of multipath connectivity; it is just a limiting
policy on multipath usage. If the multipath Selection Property is
set to Disabled, migration is disallowed.
For protocols that do not support multipath or migration, the
Protocol Instances should be informed of the path change, but should
not be forcibly disconnected if the previously used path becomes
unavailable. There are many common user scenarios that can lead to a
path becoming temporarily unavailable, and then recovering before the
transport protocol reaches a timeout error. These are particularly
common using mobile devices. Examples include: an Ethernet cable
becoming unplugged and then plugged back in; a device losing a Wi-Fi
signal while a user is in an elevator, and reattaching when the user
leaves the elevator; and a user losing the radio signal while riding
a train through a tunnel. If the device is able to rejoin a network
with the same IP address, a stateful transport connection can
generally resume. Thus, while it is useful for a Protocol Instance
to be aware of a temporary loss of connectivity, the Transport
Services implementation should not aggressively close connections in
these scenarios.
If the Protocol Stack includes a transport protocol that supports
multipath connectivity, the Transport Services implementation should
also inform the Protocol Instance of potentially new paths that
become permissible based on the multipath Selection Property and the
multipath-policy Connection Property choices made by the application.
A protocol can then establish new subflows over new paths while an
active path is still available or, if migration is supported, also
after a break has been detected, and should attempt to tear down
subflows over paths that are no longer used. The Connection Property
multipath-policy of the Transport Services API allows an application
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
to indicate when and how different paths should be used. However,
detailed handling of these policies is still implementation-specific.
For example, if the multipath Selection Property is set to active,
the decision about when to create a new path or to announce a new
path or set of paths to the Remote Endpoint, e.g., in the form of
additional IP addresses, is implementation-specific. If the Protocol
Stack includes a transport protocol that does not support multipath,
but does support migrating between paths, the update to the set of
available paths can trigger the connection to be migrated.
In case of Pooled Connections Section 7.1, the Transport Services
implementation may add connections over new paths to the pool if
permissible based on the multipath policy and Selection Properties.
In case a previously used path becomes unavailable, the transport
system may disconnect all connections that require this path, but
should not disconnect the pooled connection object exposed to the
application. The strategy to do so is implementation-specific, but
should be consistent with the behavior of multipath transports.
8. Implementing Connection Termination
With TCP, when an application closes a connection, this means that it
has no more data to send (but expects all data that has been handed
over to be reliably delivered). However, with TCP only, "close" does
not mean that the application will stop receiving data. This is
related to TCP's ability to support half-closed connections.
SCTP is an example of a protocol that does not support such half-
closed connections. Hence, with SCTP, the meaning of "close" is
stricter: an application has no more data to send (but expects all
data that has been handed over to be reliably delivered), and will
also not receive any more data.
Implementing a protocol independent transport system means that the
exposed semantics must be the strictest subset of the semantics of
all supported protocols. Hence, as is common with all reliable
transport protocols, after a Close action, the application can expect
to have its reliability requirements honored regarding the data
provided to the Transport Services API, but it cannot expect to be
able to read any more data after calling Close.
Abort differs from Close only in that no guarantees are given
regarding any data that the application sent to the Transport
Services API before calling Abort.
As explained in Section 4.5, when a new stream is multiplexed on an
already existing connection of a Transport Protocol Instance, there
is no need for a connection establishment procedure. Because the
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
Connections that are offered by a Transport Services implementation
can be implemented as streams that are multiplexed on a transport
protocol's connection, it can therefore not be guaranteed an Initiate
action from one endpoint provokes a ConnectionReceived event at its
peer.
For Close (provoking a Finished event) and Abort (provoking a
ConnectionError event), the same logic applies: while it is desirable
to be informed when a peer closes or aborts a Connection, whether
this is possible depends on the underlying protocol, and no
guarantees can be given. With SCTP, the transport system can use the
stream reset procedure to cause a Finish event upon a Close action
from the peer [NEAT-flow-mapping].
9. Cached State
Beyond a single Connection's lifetime, it is useful for an
implementation to keep state and history. This cached state can help
improve future Connection establishment due to re-using results and
credentials, and favoring paths and protocols that performed well in
the past.
Cached state may be associated with different endpoints for the same
Connection, depending on the protocol generating the cached content.
For example, session tickets for TLS are associated with specific
endpoints, and thus should be cached based on a Connection's hostname
endpoint (if applicable). However, performance characteristics of a
path are more likely tied to the IP address and subnet being used.
9.1. Protocol state caches
Some protocols will have long-term state to be cached in association
with endpoints. This state often has some time after which it is
expired, so the implementation should allow each protocol to specify
an expiration for cached content.
Examples of cached protocol state include:
* The DNS protocol can cache resolution answers (A and AAAA queries,
for example), associated with a Time To Live (TTL) to be used for
future hostname resolutions without requiring asking the DNS
resolver again.
* TLS caches session state and tickets based on a hostname, which
can be used for resuming sessions with a server.
* TCP can cache cookies for use in TCP Fast Open.
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
Cached protocol state is primarily used during Connection
establishment for a single Protocol Stack, but may be used to
influence an implementation's preference between several candidate
Protocol Stacks. For example, if two IP address endpoints are
otherwise equally preferred, an implementation may choose to attempt
a connection to an address for which it has a TCP Fast Open cookie.
Applications can use the Transport Services API to request that a
Connection Group maintain a separate cache for protocol state.
Connections in the group will not use cached state from connections
outside the group, and connections outside the group will not use
state cached from connections inside the group. This may be
necessary, for example, if application-layer identifiers rotate and
clients wish to avoid linkability via trackable TLS tickets or TFO
cookies.
9.2. Performance caches
In addition to protocol state, Protocol Instances should provide data
into a performance-oriented cache to help guide future protocol and
path selection. Some performance information can be gathered
generically across several protocols to allow predictive comparisons
between protocols on given paths:
* Observed Round Trip Time
* Connection Establishment latency
* Connection Establishment success rate
These items can be cached on a per-address and per-subnet
granularity, and averaged between different values. The information
should be cached on a per-network basis, since it is expected that
different network attachments will have different performance
characteristics. Besides Protocol Instances, other system entities
may also provide data into performance-oriented caches. This could
for instance be signal strength information reported by radio modems
like Wi-Fi and mobile broadband or information about the battery-
level of the device. Furthermore, the system may cache the observed
maximum throughput on a path as an estimate of the available
bandwidth.
An implementation should use this information, when possible, to
influence preference between candidate paths, endpoints, and protocol
options. Eligible options that historically had significantly better
performance than others should be selected first when gathering
candidates (see Section 4.2) to ensure better performance for the
application.
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
The reasonable lifetime for cached performance values will vary
depending on the nature of the value. Certain information, like the
connection establishment success rate to a Remote Endpoint using a
given protocol stack, can be stored for a long period of time (hours
or longer), since it is expected that the capabilities of the Remote
Endpoint are not changing very quickly. On the other hand, the Round
Trip Time observed by TCP over a particular network path may vary
over a relatively short time interval. For such values, the
implementation should remove them from the cache more quickly, or
treat older values with less confidence/weight.
[I-D.ietf-tcpm-2140bis] provides guidance about sharing of TCP
Control Block information between connections on initialization.
10. Specific Transport Protocol Considerations
Each protocol that is supported by a Transport Services
implementation should have a well-defined API mapping. API mappings
for a protocol are important for Connections in which a given
protocol is the "top" of the Protocol Stack. For example, the
mapping of the Send function for TCP applies to Connections in which
the application directly sends over TCP.
Each protocol has a notion of Connectedness. Possible values for
Connectedness are:
* Connectionless. Connectionless protocols do not establish
explicit state between endpoints, and do not perform a handshake
during Connection establishment.
* Connected. Connected protocols establish state between endpoints,
and perform a handshake during Connection establishment. The
handshake may be 0-RTT to send data or resume a session, but
bidirectional traffic is required to confirm connectedness.
* Multiplexing Connected. Multiplexing Connected protocols share
properties with Connected protocols, but also explictly support
opening multiple application-level flows. This means that they
can support cloning new Connection objects without a new explicit
handshake.
Protocols also define a notion of Data Unit. Possible values for
Data Unit are:
* Byte-stream. Byte-stream protocols do not define any Message
boundaries of their own apart from the end of a stream in each
direction.
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
* Datagram. Datagram protocols define Message boundaries at the
same level of transmission, such that only complete (not partial)
Messages are supported.
* Message. Message protocols support Message boundaries that can be
sent and received either as complete or partial Messages. Maximum
Message lengths can be defined, and Messages can be partially
reliable.
Below, terms in capitals with a dot (e.g., "CONNECT.SCTP") refer to
the primitives with the same name in section 4 of [RFC8303]. For
further implementation details, the description of these primitives
in [RFC8303] points to section 3 of [RFC8303] and section 3 of
[RFC8304], which refers back to the relevant specifications for each
protocol. This back-tracking method applies to all elements of
[RFC8923] (see appendix D of [I-D.ietf-taps-interface]): they are
listed in appendix A of [RFC8923] with an implementation hint in the
same style, pointing back to section 4 of [RFC8303].
This document defines the API mappings for protocols defined in
[RFC8923]. Other protocol mappings can be provided as separate
documents, following the mapping template Appendix A.
10.1. TCP
Connectedness: Connected
Data Unit: Byte-stream
API mappings for TCP are as follows:
Connection Object: TCP connections between two hosts map directly to
Connection objects.
Initiate: CONNECT.TCP. Calling Initiate on a TCP Connection causes
it to reserve a local port, and send a SYN to the Remote Endpoint.
InitiateWithSend: CONNECT.TCP with parameter user message. Early
safely replayable data is sent on a TCP Connection in the SYN, as
TCP Fast Open data.
Ready: A TCP Connection is ready once the three-way handshake is
complete.
InitiateError: Failure of CONNECT.TCP. TCP can throw various errors
during connection setup. Specifically, it is important to handle
a RST being sent by the peer during the handshake.
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
ConnectionError: Once established, TCP throws errors whenever the
connection is disconnected, such as due to receiving a RST from
the peer.
Listen: LISTEN.TCP. Calling Listen for TCP binds a local port and
prepares it to receive inbound SYN packets from peers.
ConnectionReceived: TCP Listeners will deliver new connections once
they have replied to an inbound SYN with a SYN-ACK.
Clone: Calling Clone on a TCP Connection creates a new Connection
with equivalent parameters. These Connections, and Connections
generated via later calls to Clone on an Establied Connection,
form a Connection Group. To realize entanglement for these
Connections, with the exception of Connection Priority, changing a
Connection Property on one of them must affect the Connection
Properties of the others too. No guarantees of honoring the
Connection Property Connection Priority are given, and thus it is
safe for an implementation of a transport system to ignore this
property. When it is reasonable to assume that Connections
traverse the same path (e.g., when they share the same
encapsulation), support for it can also experimentally be
implemented using a congestion control coupling mechanism (see for
example [TCP-COUPLING] or [RFC3124]).
Send: SEND.TCP. TCP does not on its own preserve Message
boundaries. Calling Send on a TCP connection lays out the bytes
on the TCP send stream without any other delineation. Any Message
marked as Final will cause TCP to send a FIN once the Message has
been completely written, by calling CLOSE.TCP immediately upon
successful termination of SEND.TCP. Note that transmitting a
Message marked as Final should not cause the Closed event to be
delivered to the application, as it will still be possible to
receive data until the peer closes or aborts the TCP connection.
Receive: With RECEIVE.TCP, TCP delivers a stream of bytes without
any Message delineation. All data delivered in the Received or
ReceivedPartial event will be part of a single stream-wide Message
that is marked Final (unless a Message Framer is used).
EndOfMessage will be delivered when the TCP Connection has
received a FIN (CLOSE-EVENT.TCP) from the peer. Note that
reception of a FIN should not cause the Closed event to be
delivered to the application, as it will still be possible for the
application to send data.
Close: Calling Close on a TCP Connection indicates that the
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
Connection should be gracefully closed (CLOSE.TCP) by sending a
FIN to the peer. It will then still be possible to receive data
until the peer closes or aborts the TCP connection. The Closed
event will be issued upon reception of a FIN.
Abort: Calling Abort on a TCP Connection indicates that the
Connection should be immediately closed by sending a RST to the
peer (ABORT.TCP).
10.2. MPTCP
Connectedness: Connected
Data Unit: Byte-stream
the Transport Services API mappings for MPTCP are identical to TCP.
MPTCP adds support for multipath properties, such as "Multipath
Transport" and "Policy for using Multipath Transports".
10.3. UDP
Connectedness: Connectionless
Data Unit: Datagram
API mappings for UDP are as follows:
Connection Object: UDP connections represent a pair of specific IP
addresses and ports on two hosts.
Initiate: CONNECT.UDP. Calling Initiate on a UDP Connection causes
it to reserve a local port, but does not generate any traffic.
InitiateWithSend: Early data on a UDP Connection does not have any
special meaning. The data is sent whenever the Connection is
Ready.
Ready: A UDP Connection is ready once the system has reserved a
local port and has a path to send to the Remote Endpoint.
InitiateError: UDP Connections can only generate errors on
initiation due to port conflicts on the local system.
ConnectionError: Once in use, UDP throws "soft errors" (ERROR.UDP(-
Lite)) upon receiving ICMP notifications indicating failures in
the network.
Listen: LISTEN.UDP. Calling Listen for UDP binds a local port and
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
prepares it to receive inbound UDP datagrams from peers.
ConnectionReceived: UDP Listeners will deliver new connections once
they have received traffic from a new Remote Endpoint.
Clone: Calling Clone on a UDP Connection creates a new Connection
with equivalent parameters. The two Connections are otherwise
independent.
Send: SEND.UDP(-Lite). Calling Send on a UDP connection sends the
data as the payload of a complete UDP datagram. Marking Messages
as Final does not change anything in the datagram's contents.
Upon sending a UDP datagram, some relevant fields and flags in the
IP header can be controlled: DSCP (SET_DSCP.UDP(-Lite)), DF in
IPv4 (SET_DF.UDP(-Lite)) and ECN flag (SET_ECN.UDP(-Lite)).
Receive: RECEIVE.UDP(-Lite). UDP only delivers complete Messages to
Received, each of which represents a single datagram received in a
UDP packet. Upon receiving a UDP datagram, the ECN flag from the
IP header can be obtained (GET_ECN.UDP(-Lite)).
Close: Calling Close on a UDP Connection (ABORT.UDP(-Lite)) releases
the local port reservation.
Abort: Calling Abort on a UDP Connection (ABORT.UDP(-Lite)) is
identical to calling Close.
10.4. UDP-Lite
Connectedness: Connectionless
Data Unit: Datagram
The Transport Services API mappings for UDP-Lite are identical to
UDP. Properties that require checksum coverage are not supported by
UDP-Lite, such as "Corruption Protection Length", "Full Checksum
Coverage on Sending", "Required Minimum Corruption Protection
Coverage for Receiving", and "Full Checksum Coverage on Receiving".
10.5. UDP Multicast Receive
Connectedness: Connectionless
Data Unit: Datagram
API mappings for Receiving Multicast UDP are as follows:
Connection Object: Established UDP Multicast Receive connections
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
represent a pair of specific IP addresses and ports. The
"unidirectional receive" transport property is required, and the
Local Endpoint must be configured with a group IP address and a
port.
Initiate: Calling Initiate on a UDP Multicast Receive Connection
causes an immediate InitiateError. This is an unsupported
operation.
InitiateWithSend: Calling InitiateWithSend on a UDP Multicast
Receive Connection causes an immediate InitiateError. This is an
unsupported operation.
Ready: A UDP Multicast Receive Connection is ready once the system
has received traffic for the appropriate group and port.
InitiateError: UDP Multicast Receive Connections generate an
InitiateError if Initiate is called.
ConnectionError: Once in use, UDP throws "soft errors" (ERROR.UDP(-
Lite)) upon receiving ICMP notifications indicating failures in
the network.
Listen: LISTEN.UDP. Calling Listen for UDP Multicast Receive binds
a local port, prepares it to receive inbound UDP datagrams from
peers, and issues a multicast host join. If a Remote Endpoint
with an address is supplied, the join is Source-specific
Multicast, and the path selection is based on the route to the
Remote Endpoint. If a Remote Endpoint is not supplied, the join
is Any-source Multicast, and the path selection is based on the
outbound route to the group supplied in the Local Endpoint.
There are cases where it is required to open multiple connections for
the same address(es). For example, one Connection might be opened
for a multicast group to for a multicast control bus, and another
application later opens a separate Connection to the same group to
send signals to and/or receive signals from the common bus. In such
cases, the Transport Services system needs to explicitly enable re-
use of the same set of addresses (equivalent to setting SO_REUSEADDR
in the socket API).
ConnectionReceived: UDP Multicast Receive Listeners will deliver new
connections once they have received traffic from a new Remote
Endpoint.
Clone: Calling Clone on a UDP Multicast Receive Connection creates a
new Connection with equivalent parameters. The two Connections
are otherwise independent.
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
Send: SEND.UDP(-Lite). Calling Send on a UDP Multicast Receive
connection causes an immediate SendError. This is an unsupported
operation.
Receive: RECEIVE.UDP(-Lite). The Receive operation in a UDP
Multicast Receive connection only delivers complete Messages to
Received, each of which represents a single datagram received in a
UDP packet. Upon receiving a UDP datagram, the ECN flag from the
IP header can be obtained (GET_ECN.UDP(-Lite)).
Close: Calling Close on a UDP Multicast Receive Connection
(ABORT.UDP(-Lite)) releases the local port reservation and leaves
the group.
Abort: Calling Abort on a UDP Multicast Receive Connection
(ABORT.UDP(-Lite)) is identical to calling Close.
10.6. SCTP
Connectedness: Connected
Data Unit: Message
API mappings for SCTP are as follows:
Connection Object: Connection objects can be mapped to an SCTP
association or a stream in an SCTP association. Mapping
Connection objects to SCTP streams is called "stream mapping" and
has additional requirements as follows. The following explanation
assumes a client-server communication model.
Stream mapping requires an association to already be in place between
the client and the server, and it requires the server to understand
that a new incoming stream should be represented as a new Connection
Object by the Transport Services system. A new SCTP stream is
created by sending an SCTP message with a new stream id. Thus, to
implement stream mapping, the Transport Services API MUST provide a
newly created Connection Object to the application upon the reception
of such a message. The necessary semantics to implement a Transport
Services system Close and Abort primitives are provided by the stream
reconfiguration (reset) procedure described in [RFC6525]. This also
allows to re-use a stream id after resetting ("closing") the stream.
To implement this functionality, SCTP stream reconfiguration
[RFC6525] MUST be supported by both the client and the server side.
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
To avoid head-of-line blocking, stream mapping SHOULD only be
implemented when both sides support message interleaving [RFC8260].
This allows a sender to schedule transmissions between multiple
streams without risking that transmission of a large message on one
stream might block transmissions on other streams for a long time.
To avoid conflicts between stream ids, the following procedure is
recommended: the first Connection, for which the SCTP association has
been created, MUST always use stream id zero. All additional
Connections are assigned to unused stream ids in growing order. To
avoid a conflict when both endpoints map new Connections
simultaneously, the peer which initiated association MUST use even
stream ids whereas the remote side MUST map its Connections to odd
stream ids. Both sides maintain a status map of the assigned stream
ids. Generally, new streams SHOULD consume the lowest available
(even or odd, depending on the side) stream id; this rule is relevant
when lower ids become available because Connection objects associated
with the streams are closed.
SCTP stream mapping as described here has been implemented in a
research prototype; a desription of this implementation is given in
[NEAT-flow-mapping].
Initiate: If this is the only Connection object that is assigned to
the SCTP Association or stream mapping is not used, CONNECT.SCTP
is called. Else, unless the Selection Property
activeReadBeforeSend is Preferred or Required, a new stream is
used: if there are enough streams available, Initiate is a local
operation that assigns a new stream id to the Connection object.
The number of streams is negotiated as a parameter of the prior
CONNECT.SCTP call, and it represents a trade-off between local
resource usage and the number of Connection objects that can be
mapped without requiring a reconfiguration signal. When running
out of streams, ADD_STREAM.SCTP must be called.
InitiateWithSend: If this is the only Connection object that is
assigned to the SCTP association or stream mapping is not used,
CONNECT.SCTP is called with the "user message" parameter. Else, a
new stream is used (see Initiate for how to handle running out of
streams), and this just sends the first message on a new stream.
Ready: Initiate or InitiateWithSend returns without an error, i.e.
SCTP's four-way handshake has completed. If an association with
the peer already exists, stream mapping is used and enough streams
are available, a Connection Object instantly becomes Ready after
calling Initiate or InitiateWithSend.
InitiateError: Failure of CONNECT.SCTP.
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
ConnectionError: TIMEOUT.SCTP or ABORT-EVENT.SCTP.
Listen: LISTEN.SCTP. If an association with the peer already exists
and stream mapping is used, Listen just expects to receive a new
message with a new stream id (chosen in accordance with the stream
id assignment procedure described above).
ConnectionReceived: LISTEN.SCTP returns without an error (a result
of successful CONNECT.SCTP from the peer), or, in case of stream
mapping, the first message has arrived on a new stream (in this
case, Receive is also invoked).
Clone: Calling Clone on an SCTP association creates a new Connection
object and assigns it a new stream id in accordance with the
stream id assignment procedure described above. If there are not
enough streams available, ADD_STREAM.SCTP must be called.
Priority (Connection): When this value is changed, or a Message with
Message Property Priority is sent, and there are multiple
Connection objects assigned to the same SCTP association,
CONFIGURE_STREAM_SCHEDULER.SCTP is called to adjust the priorities
of streams in the SCTP association.
Send: SEND.SCTP. Message Properties such as Lifetime and Ordered
map to parameters of this primitive.
Receive: RECEIVE.SCTP. The "partial flag" of RECEIVE.SCTP invokes a
ReceivedPartial event.
Close: If this is the only Connection object that is assigned to the
SCTP association, CLOSE.SCTP is called, and the Closed event will be
delivered to the application upon the ensuing CLOSE-EVENT.SCTP.
Else, the Connection object is one out of several Connection objects
that are assigned to the same SCTP assocation, and RESET_STREAM.SCTP
must be called, which informs the peer that the stream will no longer
be used for mapping and can be used by future Initiate,
InitiateWithSend or Listen calls. At the peer, the event
RESET_STREAM-EVENT.SCTP will fire, which the peer must answer by
issuing RESET_STREAM.SCTP too. The resulting local RESET_STREAM-
EVENT.SCTP informs the Transport Services system that the stream id
can now be re-used by the next Initiate, InitiateWithSend or Listen
calls, and invokes a Closed event towards the application.
Abort: If this is the only Connection object that is assigned to the
SCTP association, ABORT.SCTP is called. Else, the Connection object
is one out of several Connection objects that are assigned to the
same SCTP assocation, and shutdown proceeds as described under Close.
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
11. IANA Considerations
RFC-EDITOR: Please remove this section before publication.
This document has no actions for IANA.
12. Security Considerations
[I-D.ietf-taps-arch] outlines general security consideration and
requirements for any system that implements the Transport Services
archtecture. [I-D.ietf-taps-interface] provides further discussion
on security and privacy implications of the Transport Services API.
This document provides additional guidance on implementation
specifics for the Transport Services API and as such the security
considerations in both of these documents apply. The next two
subsections discuss further considerations that are specific to
mechanisms specified in this document.
12.1. Considerations for Candidate Gathering
Implementations should avoid downgrade attacks that allow network
interference to cause the implementation to select less secure, or
entirely insecure, combinations of paths and protocols.
12.2. Considerations for Candidate Racing
See Section 5.3 for security considerations around racing with 0-RTT
data.
An attacker that knows a particular device is racing several options
during connection establishment may be able to block packets for the
first connection attempt, thus inducing the device to fall back to a
secondary attempt. This is a problem if the secondary attempts have
worse security properties that enable further attacks.
Implementations should ensure that all options have equivalent
security properties to avoid incentivizing attacks.
Since results from the network can determine how a connection attempt
tree is built, such as when DNS returns a list of resolved endpoints,
it is possible for the network to cause an implementation to consume
significant on-device resources. Implementations should limit the
maximum amount of state allowed for any given node, including the
number of child nodes, especially when the state is based on results
from the network.
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
13. Acknowledgements
This work has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020
research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 644334
(NEAT) 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.
This work has been supported by the Research Council of Norway under
its "Toppforsk" programme through the "OCARINA" project.
Thanks to Colin Perkins, Tom Jones, Karl-Johan Grinnemo, Gorry
Fairhurst, for their contributions to the design of this
specification. Thanks also to Stuart Cheshire, Josh Graessley, David
Schinazi, and Eric Kinnear for their implementation and design
efforts, including Happy Eyeballs, that heavily influenced this work.
14. References
14.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-taps-arch]
Pauly, T., Trammell, B., Brunstrom, A., Fairhurst, G., and
C. Perkins, "An Architecture for Transport Services", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-taps-arch-12, 3
January 2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-taps-arch-12>.
[I-D.ietf-taps-interface]
Trammell, B., Welzl, M., Enghardt, T., Fairhurst, G.,
Kuehlewind, M., Perkins, C., Tiesel, P. S., Wood, C. A.,
Pauly, T., and K. Rose, "An Abstract Application Layer
Interface to Transport Services", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-taps-interface-14, 3 January
2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
taps-interface-14>.
[RFC7413] Cheng, Y., Chu, J., Radhakrishnan, S., and A. Jain, "TCP
Fast Open", RFC 7413, DOI 10.17487/RFC7413, December 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7413>.
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
[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>.
[RFC8303] Welzl, M., Tuexen, M., and N. Khademi, "On the Usage of
Transport Features Provided by IETF Transport Protocols",
RFC 8303, DOI 10.17487/RFC8303, February 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8303>.
[RFC8304] Fairhurst, G. and T. Jones, "Transport Features of the
User Datagram Protocol (UDP) and Lightweight UDP (UDP-
Lite)", RFC 8304, DOI 10.17487/RFC8304, February 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8304>.
[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>.
[RFC8421] Martinsen, P., Reddy, T., and P. Patil, "Guidelines for
Multihomed and IPv4/IPv6 Dual-Stack Interactive
Connectivity Establishment (ICE)", BCP 217, RFC 8421,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8421, July 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8421>.
[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>.
[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>.
14.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-quic-transport]
Iyengar, J. and M. Thomson, "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed
and Secure Transport", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-quic-transport-34, 14 January 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-quic-
transport-34>.
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
[I-D.ietf-tcpm-2140bis]
Touch, J., Welzl, M., and S. Islam, "TCP Control Block
Interdependence", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-tcpm-2140bis-11, 12 April 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-
2140bis-11>.
[NEAT-flow-mapping]
"Transparent Flow Mapping for NEAT", IFIP NETWORKING 2017
Workshop on Future of Internet Transport (FIT 2017) ,
2017.
[RFC1928] Leech, M., Ganis, M., Lee, Y., Kuris, R., Koblas, D., and
L. Jones, "SOCKS Protocol Version 5", RFC 1928,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1928, March 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1928>.
[RFC3124] Balakrishnan, H. and S. Seshan, "The Congestion Manager",
RFC 3124, DOI 10.17487/RFC3124, June 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3124>.
[RFC3207] Hoffman, P., "SMTP Service Extension for Secure SMTP over
Transport Layer Security", RFC 3207, DOI 10.17487/RFC3207,
February 2002, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3207>.
[RFC5389] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing,
"Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5389, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5389>.
[RFC5766] Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using
Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to Session
Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5766,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5766, April 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5766>.
[RFC6525] Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., and P. Lei, "Stream Control
Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Stream Reconfiguration",
RFC 6525, DOI 10.17487/RFC6525, February 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6525>.
[RFC6762] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS", RFC 6762,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6762, February 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6762>.
[RFC6763] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service
Discovery", RFC 6763, DOI 10.17487/RFC6763, February 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6763>.
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
[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>.
[RFC7657] Black, D., Ed. and P. Jones, "Differentiated Services
(Diffserv) and Real-Time Communication", RFC 7657,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7657, November 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7657>.
[RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085,
March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8085>.
[RFC8260] Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., Loreto, S., and R. Seggelmann,
"Stream Schedulers and User Message Interleaving for the
Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 8260,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8260, November 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8260>.
[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>.
[TCP-COUPLING]
"ctrlTCP: Reducing Latency through Coupled, Heterogeneous
Multi-Flow TCP Congestion Control", IEEE INFOCOM Global
Internet Symposium (GI) workshop (GI 2018) , n.d..
Appendix A. API Mapping Template
Any protocol mapping for the Transport Services API should follow a
common template.
Connectedness: (Connectionless/Connected/Multiplexing Connected)
Data Unit: (Byte-stream/Datagram/Message)
Connection Object:
Initiate:
InitiateWithSend:
Ready:
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
InitiateError:
ConnectionError:
Listen:
ConnectionReceived:
Clone:
Send:
Receive:
Close:
Abort:
Appendix B. Additional Properties
This appendix discusses implementation considerations for additional
parameters and properties that could be used to enhance transport
protocol and/or path selection, or the transmission of messages given
a Protocol Stack that implements them. These are not part of the
interface, and may be removed from the final document, but are
presented here to support discussion within the TAPS working group as
to whether they should be added to a future revision of the base
specification.
B.1. Properties Affecting Sorting of Branches
In addition to the Protocol and Path Selection Properties discussed
in Section 4.1.3, the following properties under discussion can
influence branch sorting:
* Bounds on Send or Receive Rate: If the application indicates a
bound on the expected Send or Receive bitrate, an implementation
may prefer a path that can likely provide the desired bandwidth,
based on cached maximum throughput, see Section 9.2. The
application may know the Send or Receive Bitrate from metadata in
adaptive HTTP streaming, such as MPEG-DASH.
* Cost Preferences: If the application indicates a preference to
avoid expensive paths, and some paths are associated with a
monetary cost, an implementation should decrease the ranking of
such paths. If the application indicates that it prohibits using
expensive paths, paths that are associated with a cost should be
purged from the decision tree.
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
Appendix C. Reasons for errors
The Transport Services API [I-D.ietf-taps-interface] allows for the
several generic error types to specify a more detailed reason as to
why an error occurred. This appendix lists some of the possible
reasons.
* InvalidConfiguration: The transport properties and endpoints
provided by the application are either contradictory or
incomplete. Examples include the lack of a Remote Endpoint on an
active open or using a multicast group address while not
requesting a unidirectional receive.
* NoCandidates: The configuration is valid, but none of the
available transport protocols can satisfy the transport properties
provided by the application.
* ResolutionFailed: The remote or local specifier provided by the
application can not be resolved.
* EstablishmentFailed: The Transport Services system was unable to
establish a transport-layer connection to the Remote Endpoint
specified by the application.
* PolicyProhibited: The system policy prevents the transport system
from performing the action requested by the application.
* NotCloneable: The protocol stack is not capable of being cloned.
* MessageTooLarge: The message size is too big for the transport
system to handle.
* ProtocolFailed: The underlying protocol stack failed.
* InvalidMessageProperties: The message properties are either
contradictory to the transport properties or they can not be
satisfied by the transport system.
* DeframingFailed: The data that was received by the underlying
protocol stack could not be deframed.
* ConnectionAborted: The connection was aborted by the peer.
* Timeout: Delivery of a message was not possible after a timeout.
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
Appendix D. Existing Implementations
This appendix gives an overview of existing implementations, at the
time of writing, of transport systems that are (to some degree) in
line with this document.
* Apple's Network.framework:
- Network.framework is a transport-level API built for C,
Objective-C, and Swift. It a connect-by-name API that supports
transport security protocols. It provides userspace
implementations of TCP, UDP, TLS, DTLS, proxy protocols, and
allows extension via custom framers.
- Documentation: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/
network (https://developer.apple.com/documentation/network)
* NEAT and NEATPy:
- NEAT is the output of the European H2020 research project
"NEAT"; it is a user-space library for protocol-independent
communication on top of TCP, UDP and SCTP, with many more
features such as a policy manager.
- Code: https://github.com/NEAT-project/neat (https://github.com/
NEAT-project/neat)
- NEAT project: https://www.neat-project.org (https://www.neat-
project.org)
- NEATPy is a Python shim over NEAT which updates the NEAT API to
be in line with version 6 of the Transport Services API draft.
- Code: https://github.com/theagilepadawan/NEATPy
(https://github.com/theagilepadawan/NEATPy)
* PyTAPS:
- A TAPS implementation based on Python asyncio, offering
protocol-independent communication to applications on top of
TCP, UDP and TLS, with support for multicast.
- Code: https://github.com/fg-inet/python-asyncio-taps
(https://github.com/fg-inet/python-asyncio-taps)
Authors' Addresses
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft TAPS Implementation March 2022
Anna Brunstrom (editor)
Karlstad University
Universitetsgatan 2
651 88 Karlstad
Sweden
Email: anna.brunstrom@kau.se
Tommy Pauly (editor)
Apple Inc.
One Apple Park Way
Cupertino, California 95014,
United States of America
Email: tpauly@apple.com
Theresa Enghardt
Netflix
121 Albright Way
Los Gatos, CA 95032,
United States of America
Email: ietf@tenghardt.net
Philipp S. Tiesel
SAP SE
Konrad-Zuse-Ring 10
14469 Potsdam
Germany
Email: philipp@tiesel.net
Michael Welzl
University of Oslo
PO Box 1080 Blindern
0316 Oslo
Norway
Email: michawe@ifi.uio.no
Brunstrom, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 53]