Delay-Tolerant Networking Bundle Protocol IANA Registries
draft-irtf-dtnrg-iana-bp-registries-02
The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 6255.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Marc Blanchet | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 (Latest revision 2011-02-25) | ||
| Replaces | draft-blanchet-dtnrg-iana-registries | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | Informational | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | IRTF state | (None) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 6255 (Informational) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Jari Arkko | ||
| IESG note | |||
| Send notices to | elwynd@dial.pipex.com |
draft-irtf-dtnrg-iana-bp-registries-02
Network Working Group M. Blanchet
Internet-Draft Viagenie
Intended status: Informational February 25, 2011
Expires: August 29, 2011
Delay-Tolerant Networks (DTN) Bundle Protocol IANA Registries
draft-irtf-dtnrg-iana-bp-registries-02.txt
Abstract
The DTNRG research group has defined many protocols such as Bundle
Protocol and Licklider. The specifications of these protocols
contain fields that are subject to a registry. For the purpose of
its research work, the group created adhoc registries. As the
specifications are stable and have multiple interoperable
implementations, the group would like to handoff the registries to
IANA for official custody. This document describes the actions
needed to be executed by IANA.
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 http://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 August 29, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://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
Blanchet Expires August 29, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DTN IANA Registries February 2011
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Treatment of Flag Fields Encoded using SDNVs . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Bundle Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Bundle Block Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Primary Bundle Protocol Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Bundle Processing Control Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.4. Block Processing Control Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.5. Bundle Status Report Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.6. Bundle Status Report Reason Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.7. Bundle Custody Signal Reason Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Blanchet Expires August 29, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DTN IANA Registries February 2011
1. Introduction
The DTNRG research group has defined many protocols[RFC4838] such as
Bundle Protocol[RFC5050] and Licklider[RFC5326]. The specifications
of these protocols contain fields that are subject to a registry.
For the purpose of its research work, the group created adhoc
registries [1]. As the specifications are stable and have multiple
interoperable implementations, the group would like to handoff the
registries to IANA for official custody. This document describes the
actions needed to be executed by IANA.
2. Treatment of Flag Fields Encoded using SDNVs
The DTN protocols use several extensible bit flag fields that are
encoded as Self-Delimiting Numeric Values (SDNVs) as defined in
Section 4.1 of [RFC5050]. For these fields, the registry specifies
the allocation and usage of bit positions within the unencoded field.
The SDNV encoding treats the ensemble of bits in the unencoded value
as a numeric value to be encoded on transmission and decoded on
reception as described in [RFC5050].
Processing of SDNV-encoded flags is discussed in
[I-D.irtf-dtnrg-sdnv].
Section 4.1 of [RFC5050] specifies that implementations are not
required to handle SDNVs with more than 64 bits in their unencoded
value. Accordingly SDNV encoded flag fields should be limited to 64
bit positions.
IANA Registry policies and wording used in this document are
described in [RFC5226].
3. Bundle Protocol
The Bundle Protocol(BP)[RFC5050] has fields requiring a registry
managed by IANA.
3.1. Bundle Block Types
The Bundle Protocol has a Bundle Block Type code field (section
4.5.2) [RFC5050]. An IANA registry shall be setup as follows.
The registration policy for this registry is:
0-191: Specification Required
Blanchet Expires August 29, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DTN IANA Registries February 2011
192-255: Private or experimental use. No assignment by IANA.
The Value range is: unsigned 8 bit integer.
Bundle Block Type Codes Registry
+--------------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+--------------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| 0 | Reserved | This document |
| 1 | Bundle Payload Block | [RFC5050] |
| 2-191 | Unassigned | |
| 192-255 | Private and/or experimental use | [RFC5050] |
+--------------+---------------------------------+---------------+
The value "0" was not defined in any document or in the adhoc
registry. As per concensus by the DNTRG research group, it is
reserved per this document.
3.2. Primary Bundle Protocol Version
The Bundle Protocol has a version field (section 4.5.1) [RFC5050].
An IANA registry shall be setup as follows.
The registration policy for this registry is: RFC Required
The Value range is: unsigned 8 bit integer.
Primary Bundle Protocol Version Registry
+-------+-------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+-------------+---------------+
| 0-5 | Reserved | This document |
| 6 | Assigned | [RFC5050] |
| 7-255 | Unassigned | |
+-------+-------------+---------------+
The value "0-5" was not defined in any document or in the adhoc
registry. As per concensus by the DNTRG research group, it is
reserved per this document.
3.3. Bundle Processing Control Flags
The Bundle Protocol has a Bundle Processing Control flags field
(section 4.2) [RFC5050] encoded as an SDNV(see section (Section 2)).
An IANA registry shall be setup as follows.
Blanchet Expires August 29, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DTN IANA Registries February 2011
The registration policy for this registry is: Specification Required
The Value range is: Variable length. Maximum number of flag bit
positions: 64
Bundle Processing Control Flags Registry
+--------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+
| Bit Position | Description | Reference |
| (right to left) | | |
+--------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+
| 0 | Bundle is a fragment | [RFC5050] |
| 1 | Application data unit is an | [RFC5050] |
| | administrative record | |
| 2 | Bundle must not be fragmented | [RFC5050] |
| 3 | Custody transfer is requested | [RFC5050] |
| 4 | Destination endpoint is a | [RFC5050] |
| | singleton | |
| 5 | Acknowledgement by application | [RFC5050] |
| | is requested | |
| 6 | Reserved | [RFC5050] |
| 7-8 | Class of service: priority | [RFC5050] |
| 9-13 | Class of service: reserved | [RFC5050] |
| 14 | Request reporting of bundle | [RFC5050] |
| | reception | |
| 15 | Request reporting of custody | [RFC5050] |
| | acceptance | |
| 16 | Request reporting of bundle | [RFC5050] |
| | forwarding | |
| 17 | Request reporting of bundle | [RFC5050] |
| | delivery | |
| 18 | Request reporting of bundle | [RFC5050] |
| | deletion | |
| 19 | Reserved | [RFC5050] |
| 20 | Reserved | [RFC5050] |
+--------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+
3.4. Block Processing Control Flags
The Bundle Protocol has a Block Processing Control flags field
(section 4.3) [RFC5050]. An IANA registry shall be setup as follows.
The registration policy for this registry is: Specification Required
The Value range is: Variable length. Maximum number of flag bit
positions: 64
Blanchet Expires August 29, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DTN IANA Registries February 2011
Block Processing Control Flags Registry
+--------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+
| Bit Position | Description | Reference |
| (right to left) | | |
+--------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+
| 0 | Block must be replicated in | [RFC5050] |
| | every fragment | |
| 1 | Transmit status report if block | [RFC5050] |
| | can't be processed | |
| 2 | Delete bundle if block can't be | [RFC5050] |
| | processed | |
| 3 | Last block | [RFC5050] |
| 4 | Discard block if it can't be | [RFC5050] |
| | processed | |
| 5 | Block was forwarded without | [RFC5050] |
| | being processed | |
| 6 | Block contains an EID-reference | [RFC5050] |
| | field | |
+--------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+
3.5. Bundle Status Report Flags
The Bundle Protocol has a Status Report Status Flag field(section
6.1.1) [RFC5050]. An IANA registry shall be setup as follows.
The registration policy for this registry is: RFC Required
The Value range is: 8 bits.
Bundle Status Report Flags Registry
+----------+----------------------------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+----------+----------------------------------------+---------------+
| 00000000 | Reserved | This document |
| 00000001 | Reporting node received bundle | [RFC5050] |
| 00000010 | Reporting node accepted custody of | [RFC5050] |
| | bundle | |
| 00000100 | Reporting node forwarded the bundle | [RFC5050] |
| 00001000 | Reporting node delivered the bundle | [RFC5050] |
| 00010000 | Reporting node deleted the bundle | [RFC5050] |
| 00100000 | Unassigned | |
| 01000000 | Unassigned | |
| 10000000 | Unassigned | |
+----------+----------------------------------------+---------------+
The value "00000000" was not defined in any document or in the adhoc
Blanchet Expires August 29, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DTN IANA Registries February 2011
registry. As per concensus by the DNTRG research group, it is
reserved per this document.
3.6. Bundle Status Report Reason Codes
The Bundle Protocol has a Bundle Status Report Reason Codes
field(section 6.1.1) [RFC5050]. An IANA registry shall be setup as
follows.
The registration policy for this registry is: Specification Required
The Value range is: unsigned 8 bit integer.
Bundle Status Report Reason Codes Registry
+-------+-------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+-------------------------------------------+---------------+
| 0 | No additional information | [RFC5050] |
| 1 | Lifetime expired | [RFC5050] |
| 2 | Forwarded over unidirectional link | [RFC5050] |
| 3 | Transmission canceled | [RFC5050] |
| 4 | Depleted storage | [RFC5050] |
| 5 | Destination endpoint ID unintelligible | [RFC5050] |
| 6 | No known route to destination from here | [RFC5050] |
| 7 | No timely contact with next node on route | [RFC5050] |
| 8 | Block unintelligible | [RFC5050] |
| 9-254 | Unassigned | |
| 255 | Reserved | This document |
+-------+-------------------------------------------+---------------+
The value "255" was not defined in any document or in the adhoc
registry. As per concensus by the DNTRG research group, it is
reserved per this document.
3.7. Bundle Custody Signal Reason Codes
The Bundle Protocol has a Bundle Custody Signal Reason Codes
field(section 6.1.2) [RFC5050]. An IANA registry shall be setup as
follows.
The registration policy for this registry is: Specification Required
The Value range is: unsigned 7 bit integer.
Blanchet Expires August 29, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DTN IANA Registries February 2011
Bundle Custody Signal Reason Codes Registry
+--------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+--------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| 0 | No additional information | [RFC5050] |
| 1-2 | Unassigned | |
| 3 | Redundant reception (reception by a | [RFC5050] |
| | node that is a custodial node for | |
| | this bundle) | |
| 4 | Depleted storage | [RFC5050] |
| 5 | Destination endpoint ID | [RFC5050] |
| | unintelligible | |
| 6 | No known route to destination from | [RFC5050] |
| | here | |
| 7 | No timely contact with next node on | [RFC5050] |
| | route | |
| 8 | Block unintelligible | [RFC5050] |
| 9-126 | Unassigned | |
| 127 | Reserved | This |
| | | document |
+--------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
The value "127" was not defined in any document or in the adhoc
registry. As per concensus by the DNTRG research group, it is
reserved per this document.
4. Security Considerations
This document requests the creation of registries managed by IANA.
There is no security issues involved. Refer to Security
Considerations of the referenced protocols.
5. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to create the registries as described in the
previous sections.
6. Acknowledgements
The editor would like to thank the following people who have provided
comments and suggestions to this document, in no specific order:
Stephen Farrell, Daniel Ellard, Scott Burleigh, Keith Scott, Elwyn
Davies.
Blanchet Expires August 29, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DTN IANA Registries February 2011
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC4838] Cerf, V., Burleigh, S., Hooke, A., Torgerson, L., Durst,
R., Scott, K., Fall, K., and H. Weiss, "Delay-Tolerant
Networking Architecture", RFC 4838, April 2007.
[RFC5050] Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, "Bundle Protocol
Specification", RFC 5050, November 2007.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[RFC5326] Ramadas, M., Burleigh, S., and S. Farrell, "Licklider
Transmission Protocol - Specification", RFC 5326,
September 2008.
7.2. Informative References
[I-D.irtf-dtnrg-sdnv]
Eddy, W. and E. Davies, "Using Self-Delimiting Numeric
Values in Protocols", draft-irtf-dtnrg-sdnv-09 (work in
progress), February 2011.
URIs
[1] <http://www.dtnrg.org/wiki/AssignedNamesAndNumbers>
Author's Address
Marc Blanchet
Viagenie
2875 boul. Laurier, suite D2-630
Quebec, QC G1V 2M2
Canada
Email: Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.ca
URI: http://viagenie.ca
Blanchet Expires August 29, 2011 [Page 9]