Requirements for the design of a Substrate Protocol for User Datagrams (SPUD)
draft-trammell-spud-req-02

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2016-03-11
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                   B. Trammell, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                        M. Kuehlewind, Ed.
Intended status: Informational                                ETH Zurich
Expires: September 12, 2016                               March 11, 2016

 Requirements for the design of a Substrate Protocol for User Datagrams
                                 (SPUD)
                       draft-trammell-spud-req-02

Abstract

   The Substrate Protocol for User Datagrams (SPUD) BoF session at the
   IETF 92 meeting in Dallas in March 2015 identified the potential need
   for a UDP-based encapsulation protocol to allow explicit cooperation
   with middleboxes while using new, encrypted transport protocols.
   This document proposes an initial set of requirements for such a
   protocol, and discusses tradeoffs to be made in further refining
   these requirements.

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 September 12, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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

Trammell & Kuehlewind  Expires September 12, 2016               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft              SPUD requirements                 March 2016

   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.  Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Functional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.1.  Grouping of Packets (into "tubes")  . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.2.  Endpoint to Path Signaling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.3.  Path to Endpoint Signaling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.4.  Tube Start and End Signaling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.5.  Declarative signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.6.  Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Security Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.1.  Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.2.  Authentication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.3.  Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.4.  Encrypted Feedback  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.5.  Preservation of Security Properties . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.6.  Proof a device is on-path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.7.  Protection against trivial abuse  . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Technical Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.1.  Middlebox Traversal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.2.  Low Overhead in Network Processing  . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.3.  Implementability in User-Space  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.4.  Incremental Deployability in an Untrusted, Unreliable
           Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     7.5.  No unnecessary restrictions on the superstrate  . . . . .  12
     7.6.  Minimal additional start-up latency . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     7.7.  Minimal header overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     7.8.  Minimal non-productive traffic  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     7.9.  Endpoint control over reverse-path middlebox signaling  .  13
     7.10. Reliability, Fragmentation, MTU, and Duplication  . . . .  13
     7.11. Interoperability with non-encapsulated superstrates . . .  13
   8.  Open questions and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     8.1.  Property binding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     8.2.  Tradeoffs in integrity protection . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
Show full document text