CCNx Content Object Chunking
draft-irtf-icnrg-ccnxchunking-04
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D) that has been submitted to the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) stream.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Marc Mosko , Hitoshi Asaeda | ||
| Last updated | 2026-06-09 (Latest revision 2026-02-06) | ||
| Replaces | draft-mosko-icnrg-ccnxchunking | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | IRTF state | Waiting for Document Shepherd | |
| Consensus boilerplate | No | ||
| Document shepherd | David R. Oran | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2026-02-07 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | daveoran@orandom.net |
draft-irtf-icnrg-ccnxchunking-04
ICNRG M.E. Mosko
Internet-Draft
Updates: 8569, 8609 (if approved) H. Asaeda
Intended status: Experimental NICT
Expires: 11 August 2026 7 February 2026
CCNx Content Object Chunking
draft-irtf-icnrg-ccnxchunking-04
Abstract
This document specifies a chunking protocol for dividing a user
payload into CCNx Content Objects. It defines a name segment type to
identify each sequential chunk number and a Content Object field to
identify the last available chunk number. This includes
specification for the naming convention to use for the chunked
payload and a field added to a Content Object to represent the last
chunk of an object. This document updates RFC8569 and RFC8609.
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 11 August 2026.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Mosko & Asaeda Expires 11 August 2026 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CCNx chunking February 2026
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. CCNx Chunking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Protocol Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Cryptographic Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. TLV Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. ChunkNumber TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. EndChunkNumber and ChunkSize TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. CCNx Name Segment Type Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. CCNx Message Type Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
CCNx Content Objects [RFC8569] are sized to amortize cryptographic
operations over user data while simultaneously staying a reasonable
size for transport over today's networks. This means a Content
Object is usually within common UDP or jumbo Ethernet size. If a
publisher has a larger amount of data to associate with a single
Name, the data may be chunked with this chunking protocol. This
protocol uses state in the Name and in an optional field within the
Content Object. A chunked object may also have an external metadata
that describes the original pre-chunked object.
For example, a video file may be several gigabytes of data. To
publish the video, one would divide it up into transport-sized
Content Objects. Each Content Object would have a common name prefix
plus a chunk number.
CCNx uses two types of messages: Interests and Content Objects
[RFC8569]. An Interest carries the hierarchically structured Name of
a Content Object which serves as a request to return that object. A
Content Object contains the Name, the object's Payload, and the
cryptographic information used to bind the Name to the payload.
This document introduces three new protocol elements to CCNx by
updating [RFC8609].
*ChunkNumber* A new CCNx Name Segment TLV for conveying chunk
Mosko & Asaeda Expires 11 August 2026 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft CCNx chunking February 2026
numbers.
*EndChunkNumber* A new CCNx Message Type TLV for conveying the last
chunk number of the content.
*ChunkSize* A new CCNx Message Type TLV for specifying a constant
payload size.
Experiments employing ICN protocols like CCNx all require a
consistent way to represent objects larger than can be carried as a
single protocol message. This specification provides such
capabilities for simple cases where the flexibility of a Manifest
approach like that in FLIC [I-D.irtf-icnrg-flic] are not strictly
needed. Experiments will shed light on how to best optimize the
fetching of large objects using CCNx Interest/Data exchanges.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119]
[RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown
here.
3. CCNx Chunking
3.1. Protocol Specification
Chunking, as used in this specification, means serializing user data
into one or more chunks, each encapsulated in a CCNx Content Object.
A chunk is a contiguous byte range within the user data. One segment
in the Name of each Content Object represents the chunk number. A
field in the Content Object that a chunk is the last chunk of the
object Chunks are denoted by a serial counter, beginning at 0 and
incrementing by 1 for each contiguous chunk. Any Interest issued
with a chunk number higher than the last chunk number MUST be dropped
with no response.
This document introduces the new CCNx Name Segment TLV, ChunkNumber,
for conveying chunk numbers. The ChunkNumber is the serial order of
the chunks. It MUST begin at 0 and MUST be incremented by 1. The
value of the ChunkNumber TLV is a network byte order compact encoding
of the chunk number.
This document also introduces the new CCNx Message Type TLV,
EndChunkNumber. The EndChunkNumber indicates the last chunk number
of the chunked user data. It MUST be included in the Content Object
which is the last chunk of user data, where the ChunkNumber TLV value
Mosko & Asaeda Expires 11 August 2026 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft CCNx chunking February 2026
and the EndChunkNumber TLV value MUST be the same. The value of the
EndChunkNumber value is the same format as the ChunkNumber name
segment. For example, if 3000 bytes of user data is split with a
1200 byte block size, there will be 3 chunks: 0, 1, and 2. The
EndChunkNumber is 2.
The EndChunkNumber field MAY be present in any of the object's
chunks, such as to assist in pipelining Interests. It MAY be placed
repeatedly across multiple chunks to maximize the fetching
flexibility of a consumer.
The value of the EndChunkNumber MAY be increased by subsequent
EndChunkNumber fields. However, it SHOULD NOT be decreased. If a
publisher wishes to terminate creation of chunks before reaching the
last chunk, it should publish empty Content Objects to fill out to
the maximum EndChunkNumber ever published. These padding chunks MUST
contain the real last chunk number in the EndChunkNumber with an
empty Payload TLV. This mechanism for early termination is to
accommodate circumstances where a data creation by the producer ended
before expected.
It may occur that a publisher never includes an EndChunkNumber, and
thus has never published the last chunk. This may happen due to an
error or network conditions that do not allow finding the last chunk.
If a consumer times out trying to retrieve chunks, it SHOULD report
an error to the user and terminate. This is similar to a TCP client
not hearing a FIN.
If the user data fits within one Content Object and the publisher
uses the Chunking protocol, the publisher names the content with
"Chunk=0" and includes "EndChunkNumber=0" (assuming the Payload is in
the first chunk).
In addition, this document introduces the new CCNx Message Type TLV,
ChunkSize, for specifying a constant payload size. Chunking MAY use
a fixed block size, where only the last chunk MAY use a smaller block
size. This is required to allow a reader to seek to a specific byte
offset once it knows the block size. If the first (Chunk 0) object
has the field ChunkSize, then the series of chunked objects uses a
fixed payload size. ChunkSize MUST only appear in Chunk 0, if it is
used. The first chunk of user data (a chunk with a Payload TLV) may
not be chunk 0.
Any mismatch between the value of the length field of the payload TLV
and the the ChunkSize TLV is considered an error of chunk creation by
the producer. Such mismatched Data messages returned from a matching
Interest MUST be discarded by the consumer.
Mosko & Asaeda Expires 11 August 2026 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft CCNx chunking February 2026
Because of the possible use of a fixed block size, the inclusion of
certain cryptographic fields in the same Content Objects as user data
would throw off the ability to seek. Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED
that all required cryptographic data, such as public keys or key name
links, be included in the leading chunks before the first byte of
user data. User data SHOULD then run continuously. If the publisher
included ChunkSize in Chunk 0, then all Payload sizes must be of
ChunkSize except the last, which may be smaller.
Data produced using the chunking protocol may also be represented via
a Manifest (e.g., FLIC [I-D.irtf-icnrg-flic]). An advantage of using
a Manifest is that all cryptographic data is in the manifest, which
then links to each chunk via a full hash name. This means that the
chunked user data can devote all available Content Object bytes after
the name to the user data.
To summarize:
1. Every chunk MUST have a ChunkNumber name segment, beginning at 0
and incrementing by 1.
2. The leading chunks MAY have missing or empty Payload TLVs and
convey only cryptographic or other information.
3. The last chunk MUST have an EndChunkNumber TLV and the value MUST
be equal to the ChunkNumber TLV value.
4. Content Objects before the last chunk MAY have an EndChunkNumber
TLV with the expected last chunk number. These hints MAY be
updated in subsequent Content Objects but SHOULD NOT decrease.
5. If the last chunk has a ChunkNumber less than a previously
published EndChunkNumber, the publisher SHOULD pad out the chunks
with empty Content Objects that have the real last chunk number
in the EndChunkNumber.
6. An optional ChunkSize TLV MAY be in, and only in, Chunk 0. If it
is present, it indicates that all Payloads are the same number of
bytes, except the last chunk which may be smaller.
3.2. Cryptographic Material
Chunk 0 MAY include the public key or key name link used to verify
the chunked data. It is RECOMMENDED to use the same key for the
whole set of chunked data. If a publisher uses multiple keys, then
the public key or key name link for all keys SHOULD be in the leading
chunks before any user data. Each subsequent chunk only needs to
include the KeyId and signature.
Mosko & Asaeda Expires 11 August 2026 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft CCNx chunking February 2026
As noted above, using a Manifest eliminates the need for
cryptographic material in the user-data Content Objects.
3.3. Examples
Here are some examples of chunked Names using the Labeled Content
Identifier URI scheme in human readable form (ccnx:).
In this example, the content producer publishes a JPG that takes 4
Chunks. The EndChunkNumber is missing in the first content object
(Chunk 0), but is known and included when Chunk 1 is published. It
is omitted in Chunk 2, then appears in Chunk 3, where it is
mandatory.
ccnx:/Name=example.com/Name=picture.jpg/Chunk=0 --
ccnx:/Name=example.com/Name=picture.jpg/Chunk=1 EndChunkNumber=3
ccnx:/Name=example.com/Name=picture.jpg/Chunk=2 --
ccnx:/Name=example.com/Name=picture.jpg/Chunk=3 EndChunkNumber=3
In this example, the publisher is publishing an audio stream that
ends before expected so the publisher fills empty Content Objects out
to the maximum ChunkNumber, stating the correct EndChunkNumber.
Chunks 4, 5, and 6 do not contain any new user data.
ccnx:/Name=example.com/Name=talk.wav/Chunk=0 --
ccnx:/Name=example.com/Name=talk.wav/Chunk=1 EndChunkNumber=6
ccnx:/Name=example.com/Name=talk.wav/Chunk=2 --
ccnx:/Name=example.com/Name=talk.wav/Chunk=3 EndChunkNumber=3
ccnx:/Name=example.com/Name=talk.wav/Chunk=4 EndChunkNumber=3
ccnx:/Name=example.com/Name=talk.wav/Chunk=5 EndChunkNumber=3
ccnx:/Name=example.com/Name=talk.wav/Chunk=6 EndChunkNumber=3
4. TLV Types
This section specifies the TLV types used by CCNx chunking. TBA by
IANA (see Section 6).
4.1. ChunkNumber TLV
CCNx chunking defines one new CCNx Name Segment type in the IANA
Registry: ChunkNumber.
Mosko & Asaeda Expires 11 August 2026 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft CCNx chunking February 2026
+======+=========+==========+=======================================+
| Type | Abbrev | Name | Description |
+======+=========+==========+=======================================+
| TBA | T_CHUNK | Chunk | The Chunk number of the |
| by | | Number | associated Content Object. It is |
| IANA | | (Section | an unsigned integer in network |
| | | 4.1) | byte order without leading zeros. |
| | | | The value of zero is represented |
| | | | as the single byte %x00. |
+------+---------+----------+---------------------------------------+
Table 1: ChunkNumber
In ccnx: URI form, it is denoted as "Chunk", like the example shown
in Section 3.3.
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+---------------+--------------+
| T_CHUNK | Length |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+--------------+
| variable length integer /
+---------------+---------------+
Figure 1: ChunkNumber TLV
4.2. EndChunkNumber and ChunkSize TLVs
CCNx chunking defines two new CCNx Message types in the IANA
Registry: EndChunkNumber and ChunkSize.
Mosko & Asaeda Expires 11 August 2026 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft CCNx chunking February 2026
+======+==============+================+============================+
| Type | Abbrev | Name | Description |
+======+==============+================+============================+
| TBA | T_ENDCHUNK | EndChunkNumber | The value in the |
| by | | (Section 4.2) | EndChunkNumber TLV |
| IANA | | | indicates the last |
| | | | chunk number. It is |
| | | | an unsigned integer in |
| | | | network byte order |
| | | | without leading zeros. |
| | | | The value of zero is |
| | | | represented as the |
| | | | single byte %x00. |
+------+--------------+----------------+----------------------------+
| TBA | T_CHUNK_SIZE | ChunkSize | The fixed payload size |
| by | | (Section 4.2) | of user data up to the |
| IANA | | | last chunk. It MUST |
| | | | be a positive integer. |
+------+--------------+----------------+----------------------------+
Table 2: EndChunkNumber and ChunkSize
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+---------------+--------------+
| T_ENDCHUNK | Length |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+--------------+
| variable length integer /
+---------------+---------------+
Figure 2: EndChunkNumber TLV
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+---------------+--------------+
| T_CHUNK_SIZE | Length |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+--------------+
| variable length integer /
+---------------+---------------+
Figure 3: ChunkSize TLV
5. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Ken Calvert and David Oran for their
valuable comments and suggestions on this document.
Mosko & Asaeda Expires 11 August 2026 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft CCNx chunking February 2026
6. IANA Considerations
As per [RFC8126], this section makes an assignment in one existing
registry in the "Content-Centric Networking (CCNx)" registry group.
The registration procedure is "RFC Required".
6.1. CCNx Name Segment Type Registry
This document defines one message type, T_CHUNK, whose suggested
value is %x0005.
6.2. CCNx Message Type Registry
This document defines two message types, T_ENDCHUNK and T_CHUNK_SIZE,
whose suggested values are %x0008 and %0x0009, respectively.
7. Security Considerations
The addition of chunking for large application objects does not
affect the existing methods used in CCNx for authenticating user data
as it employs CCNx Content Objects identically to how they are
secured for non chunked data. Therefore, users of this chunking
protocol may employ any of the existing signing and encrypting
methods without additional considerations.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8569] Mosko, M., Solis, I., and C. Wood, "Content-Centric
Networking (CCNx) Semantics", RFC 8569,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8569, July 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8569>.
Mosko & Asaeda Expires 11 August 2026 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft CCNx chunking February 2026
[RFC8609] Mosko, M., Solis, I., and C. Wood, "Content-Centric
Networking (CCNx) Messages in TLV Format", RFC 8609,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8609, July 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8609>.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.irtf-icnrg-flic]
Tschudin, C., Wood, C. A., Mosko, M., and D. R. Oran,
"File-Like ICN Collections (FLIC)", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-irtf-icnrg-flic-07, 3 March 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-icnrg-
flic-07>.
Authors' Addresses
Marc Mosko
Kensington, California 94707
United States of America
Email: marc@mosko.org
Hitoshi Asaeda
National Institute of Information and Communications Technology
4-2-1 Nukui-Kitamachi, Tokyo
184-8795
Japan
Email: asaeda@nict.go.jp
Mosko & Asaeda Expires 11 August 2026 [Page 10]