Requirements for the design of a Substrate Protocol for User Datagrams (SPUD)
draft-trammell-spud-req-03

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2016-04-29
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html 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: October 31, 2016                                 April 29, 2016

 Requirements for the design of a Substrate Protocol for User Datagrams
                                 (SPUD)
                       draft-trammell-spud-req-03

Abstract

   We have 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 October 31, 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
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of

Trammell & Kuehlewind   Expires October 31, 2016                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft              SPUD requirements                 April 2016

   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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Functional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.1.  Grouping of Packets (into "tubes")  . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Bidirectionality of Tubes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.1.  Signaling of Per-Tube Properties  . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.2.  Path to Receiver Signaling under Sender Control . . . . .   8
     6.3.  Receiver to Sender Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.4.  Direct Path to Sender Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.5.  Tube Start and End Signaling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.6.  Common Transport Semantic Signaling . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.7.  Declarative signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.8.  Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.9.  Common Vocabulary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.10. Additional Per-Packet Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Security Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     7.1.  Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     7.2.  Authentication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.3.  Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.4.  Encrypted Feedback  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.5.  Preservation of Security Properties . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.6.  Protection against trivial abuse  . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     7.7.  Continuum of trust among endpoints and middleboxes  . . .  12
   8.  Technical Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     8.1.  Middlebox Traversal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     8.2.  Low Overhead in Network Processing  . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     8.3.  Implementability in User-Space  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     8.4.  Incremental Deployability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     8.5.  No unnecessary restrictions on the superstrate  . . . . .  14
     8.6.  Minimal additional start-up latency . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     8.7.  Minimal header overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     8.8.  Minimal non-productive traffic  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     8.9.  Endpoint Control  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     8.10. On Reliability, Fragmentation, MTU, and Duplication . . .  15
Show full document text