Network Working Group W. Eddy
Internet-Draft Verizon
Expires: January 7, 2008 July 6, 2007
Using Self-Delimiting Numeric Values in Protocols
draft-eddy-dtn-sdnv-03
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 7, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Eddy Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Using SDNVs July 2007
Abstract
Self-Delimiting Numeric Values (SDNVs) have recently been introduced
as a field type within proposed Delay-Tolerant Networking protocols.
The basic goal of an SDNV is to hold a non-negative integer value of
arbitrary magnitude, without consuming much more space than
necessary. The primary motivation is to conserve the bits sent
across low-capacity or energy-intensive links typical of NASA deep-
space missions, with a secondary goal of allowing the protocol to
automatically adjust to unforseen usage scenarios. This can be
desirable in that it allows protocol designers to avoid making
difficult and potentially erroneous engineering decisions that may
have to be hacked around in the future. This document describes
formats and algorithms for SDNV encoding and decoding, and discusses
implementation and usage of SDNVs.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Problems with Fixed Value Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. SDNVs for DTN Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. SDNV Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Definition of SDNVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Basic Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. Encoding Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Decoding Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Comparison to Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix A. SNDV Python Source Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 21
Eddy Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Using SDNVs July 2007
1. Introduction
This section begins by describing a common problem encountered in
network protocol engineering. It then provides some background on
the Self-Delimiting Numeric Values (SDNVs) proposed for use in Delay-
Tolerant Networking (DTN) protocols, and motivates their potential
applicability in other networking protocols.
1.1. Problems with Fixed Value Fields
Protocol designers commonly face an optimization problem in
determining the proper size for header fields. There is a strong
desire to keep fields as small as possible, in order to reduce the
protocol's overhead on the wire, and also allow for fast processing.
Since protocols can be used many years (even decades) after they are
designed, and networking technology has tended to change rapidly, it
is not uncommon for the use, deployment, or performance of a
particular protocol to be limited or infringed upon by the length of
some header field being too short. Two well-known examples of this
phenomenon are the TCP advertised receive window, and the IPv4
address length.
TCP segments contain an advertised receive window field that is fixed
at 16 bits [RFC0793], encoding a maximum value of around 65
kilobytes. The purpose of this value is to provide flow control, by
allowing a receiver to specify how many sent bytes its peer can have
outstanding (unacknowledged) at any time, thus allowing the receiver
to limit its buffer size. As network speeds have grown by several
orders of magnitude since TCP's inception, the combination of the 65
kilobyte maximum advertised window and long round-trip times
prevented TCP senders from being able to acheive the high-rates that
the underlying network supported. This limitation was remedied
through the use of the Window Scale option [RFC1323], which provides
a multiplier for the advertised window field. However, the Window
Scale multiplier is fixed for the duration of the connection,
requires bi-directional support, and limits the precision of the
advertised receive window, so this is certainly a less-than-ideal
solution. Because of the field width limit in the original design
however, the Window Scale is necessary for TCP to reach high sending
rates.
An IPv4 address is fixed at 32 bits [RFC0791] (as a historical note,
earlier versions of the IP specification supported variable-length
addresses). Due to the way that subnetting and assignment of address
blocks was performed, the number of IPv4 addresses has been seen as a
limit to the growth of the Internet [Hain05]. Two divergent paths to
solve this problem have been the use of Network Address Translators
(NATs) and the development of IPv6. NATs have caused a number of
Eddy Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Using SDNVs July 2007
side-issues and problems [RFC2993], leading to increased complexity
and fragility, as well as forcing work-arounds to be engineered for
many other protocols to function within a NATed environment. The
IPv6 solution's transitional work has been underway for several
years, but has still only begun to have visible impact on the global
Internet.
Of course, in both the case of the TCP receive window and IPv4
address length, the field size chosen by the designers seemed like a
good idea at the time. The fields were more than big enough for the
originally perceived usage of the protocols, and yet were small
enough to allow the total headers to remain compact and relatively
easy and efficient to parse on machines of the time. The fixed sizes
that were defined represented a tradeoff between the scalability of
the protocol versus the overhead and efficiency of processing. In
both cases, these engineering decisions turned out to be painfully
incorrect.
1.2. SDNVs for DTN Protocols
In proposals for the DTN Bundle Protocol (BP) [SB05] and Licklider
Transmission Protocol (LTP) [RBF06], SDNVs have been used for several
fields including identifiers, payload/header lengths, and serial
(sequence) numbers. SDNVs were developed for use in these types of
fields, to avoid sending more bytes than needed, as well as avoiding
fixed sizes that may not end up being appropriate. For example,
since LTP is intended primarily for use in long-delay interplanetary
communications [BRF06], where links may be fairly low in capacity, it
is desirable to avoid the header overhead of routinely sending a 64-
bit field where a 16-bit field would suffice. Since many of the
nodes implementing LTP are expected to be beyond the current range of
human spaceflight, upgrading their on-board LTP implementations to
use longer values if the defined fields are found to be too short
would also be problematic. Furthermore, extensions similar in
mechanism to TCP's Window Scale option are unsuitable for use in DTN
protocols since due to high delays, DTN protocols must avoid
handshaking and configuration parameter negotiation to the greatest
extent possible. All of these reasons make the choice of SDNVs for
use in DTN protocols particularly wise.
1.3. SDNV Usage
In short, an SDNV is simply a way of representing non-negative
integers (both positive integers of arbitrary magnitude and 0),
without expending too-much unneccessary space. This definition
allows SDNVs to represent many common protocol header fields, such
as:
Eddy Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Using SDNVs July 2007
o Random identification fields as used in the IPsec Security
Parameters Index or in IP headers for fragment reassembly (Note:
the 16-bit IP ID field for fragment reassembly was recently found
to be too short in some environments [I-D.heffner-frag-harmful]),
o Sequence numbers as in TCP or SCTP,
o Values used in cryptographic algorithms such as RSA keys, Diffie-
Hellman key-agreement, or coordinates of points on elliptic
curves.
o Message lengths as used in file transfer protocols.
o Nonces and cookies.
o Etc.
The use of SDNVs rather than fixed length fields gives protocol
designers the ability to somewhat circumvent making difficult-to-
reverse field-sizing decisions, since the SDNV wire-format grows and
shrinks depending on the particular value encoded. SDNVs do not
necessarily provide optimal encodings for values of any particular
length, however they allow protocol designers to avoid potential
blunders in assigning fixed lengths, and remove the complexity
involved with either negotiating field lengths or constructing
protocol extensions.
To our knowledge, at this time, no protocols designed for use outside
of the DTN domain have proposed to use SDNVs, however there is no
inherent reason not to use SDNVs more broadly in the future. The two
examples cited here of fields that have proven too-small in general
Internet protocols are only a small sampling of the much larger set
of similar instances that the authors can think of.
Many protocols use a Type-Length-Value method for encoding variable
length strings (e.g. TCP's options format, or many of the fields in
IKEv2). An SDNV is equivalent to combining the length and value
portions of this type of field, with the overhead of the length
portion amortized out over the bytes of the value. The penalty paid
for this in an SDNV may be several extra bytes for long values (e.g.
1024 bit RSA keys). See Section 4 for further discussion and a
comparison.
As is shown in later sections, for large values, the current SDNV
scheme is fairly inefficient in terms of space (1/8 of the bits are
overhead) and not particularly easy to encode/decode in comparison to
alternatives. The best use of SDNVs may often be to define the
Length field of a TLV structure to be an SDNV whose value is the
Eddy Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Using SDNVs July 2007
length of the TLV's Value field. In this way, one can avoid forcing
large numbers from being directly encoded as an SDNV, yet retain the
extensibility that using SDNVs grants.
Eddy Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Using SDNVs July 2007
2. Definition of SDNVs
An early definition of the SDNV format bore resemblance to the ASN.1
[ASN1] Basic Encoding Rules (BER) [ASN1-BER] for lengths (Section
8.1.3 of X.690). The current SDNV format is the one used by ASN.1
BER for encoding tag identifiers greater than or equal to 31 (Section
8.1.2.4.2 of X.690). A comparison between the current SDNV format
and the early SDNV format is made in Section 4.
The currently-used format is very simple. Before encoding, an
integer is represented as a left-to-right bitstring beginning with
its most significant bit, and ending with its least signifcant bit.
On the wire, the bits are encoded into a series of bytes. The most
significant bit of each wire format byte specifies whether it is the
final byte of the encoded value (when it holds a 0), or not (when it
holds a 1). The remaining 7 bits of each byte in the wire format are
taken in-order from the integer's bitstring representation. If the
bitstring's length is not a multiple of 7, then the string is left-
padded with 0s.
For example:
o 1 (decimal) is represented by the bitstring "0000001" and encoded
as the single byte 0x01 (in hexadecimal)
o 128 is represented by the bitstring "10000001 00000000" and
encoded as the bytes 0x81 followed by 0x00.
o Other values can be found in the test vectors of the source code
in Appendix A
To be perfectly clear, and avoid potential interoperability issues
(as have occurred with ASN.1 BER time values), we explicitly state
two considerations regarding zero-padding. (1) When encoding SDNVs,
any leading (most significant) zero bits in the input number might be
discarded by the SDNV encoder. Protocols that use SDNVs should not
rely on leading-zeros being retained after encoding and decoding
operations. (2) When decoding SDNVs, the relevant number of leading
zeros required to pad up to a machine word or other natural data unit
might be added. These are put in the most-significant positions in
order to not change the value of the number.
Eddy Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Using SDNVs July 2007
3. Basic Algorithms
This section describes some simple algorithms for creating and
parsing SDNV fields. These may not be the most efficient algorithms
possible, however, they are easy to read, understand, and implement.
Appendix A contains Python source code implementing the routines
described here. Only SDNV's of the currently-used form are
considered in this section.
3.1. Encoding Algorithm
There is a very simple algorithm for the encoding operation that
converts a non-negative integer (n, of length 1+floor(log_2 n) bits)
into an SDNV. This algorithm takes n as its only argument and
returns a string of bytes:
o (Initial Step) Set the return value to a byte sharing the least
significant 7 bits of n, and with 0 in the most significant bit,
but do not return yet. Right shift n 7 bits and use this as the
new n value. If implemented using call-by-reference rather than
call-by-value, make a copy of n for local use at the start of the
function call.
o (Recursion Step) If n == 0, return. Otherwise, take the byte
0x80, and bitwise-or it with the 7 least significant bits left in
n. Set the return value to this result with the previous return
string appended to it. Set n to itself shifted right 7 bits
again. Repeat Recursion Step.
This encoding algorithm can easily be seen to have time complexity of
O(log_2 n), since it takes a number of steps equal to ceil(n/7), and
no additional space beyond the size of the result (8/7 log_2 n) is
required. One aspect of this algorithm is that it assumes strings
can be efficiently appended to new bytes. One way to implement this
is to allocate a buffer for the expected length of the result and
fill that buffer one byte at a time from the right end.
3.2. Decoding Algorithm
Decoding SNDVs is a more difficult operation than encoding them, due
to the fact that no bound on the resulting value is known until the
SDNV is parsed, at which point the value itself is already known.
This means that if space is allocated for decoding the value of an
SDNV into, it is never known whether this space will be overflowed
until it is 7 bits away from happening.
(Initial Step) Set the result to 0. Set a pointer to the beginning
of the SDNV.
Eddy Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Using SDNVs July 2007
(Recursion Step) Shift the result left 7 bits. Add the lower 7 bits
of the value at the pointer to the result. If the high-order bit
under the pointer is a 1, move the pointer right one byte and repeat
the Recursion Step, otherwise return the current value of the result.
This decoding algorithm takes no more additional space than what is
required for the result (7/8 the length of the SDNV) and the pointer.
The complication is that before the result can be left-shifted in the
Recursion Step, an implementation needs to first make sure that this
won't cause any bits to be lost, and re-allocate a larger piece of
memory for the result, if required. The pure time complexity is the
same as for the encoding algorithm given, but if re-allocation is
needed due to the inability to predict the size of the result, in
reality decoding may be slower.
Eddy Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Using SDNVs July 2007
4. Comparison to Alternatives
This section compares three alternative ways of implementing the
concept of SDNVs: (1) the TLV scheme commonly used in the Internet
family, and many other families of protocols, (2) the old style of
SDNVs (both the SDNV-8 and SDNV-16) defined in an early stage of
LTP's development [BRF04], and (3) the current SDNV format.
The TLV method uses two fixed-length fields to hold the Type" and
Length elements that then imply the syntax and semantics of the
"value" element. This is only similar to an SDNV in that the value
element can grow or shrink within the bounds capable of being
conveyed by the Length field. Two fundamental differences between
TLVs and SDNVs are that through the Type element, TLVs also contain
some notion of what their contents are semantically, while SDNVs are
simply generic non-negative integers, and protocol engineers still
have to pick fixed-lengths for the Type and Length fields in the TLV
format.
Some protocols use TLVs where the value conveyed within the Length
field needs to be decoded into the actual length of the Value field.
This may be accomplished through simple multiplication, left-
shifting, or a look-up table. In any case, this tactic limits the
granularity of the possible Value lengths, and can contribute some
degree of bloat if Values do not fit neatly within the available
decoded Lengths.
In the SDNV format originally used by LTP, parsing the first byte of
the SDNV told an implementation how much space was required to hold
the contained value. There were two different types of SDNVs defined
for different ranges of use. The SDNV-8 type could hold values up to
127 in a single byte, while the SDNV-16 type could hold values up to
32,767 in 2 bytes. Both formats could encode values requiring up to
N bytes in N+2 bytes, where N<127. The two major difference between
this old SDNV format and the currently-used SDNV format is that the
new format is not as easily decoded as the old format was, but the
new format also has absolutely no limitation on its length.
The advantage in ease of parsing that the old format manifests itself
in two aspects: (1) the size of the value is determinable ahead of
time, in a way equivalent to parsing a TLV, and (2) the actual value
is directly encoded and decoded, without shifting and masking bits as
is required in the new format. For these reasons, the old format
requires less computational overhead to deal with, but is also very
limited, in that it can only hold a 1024-bit number, at maximum.
Since according to IETF Best Current Practices, an asymmetric
cryptography key needed to last for a long term requires using moduli
of over 1228 bits [RFC3766], this could be seen as a severe
Eddy Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Using SDNVs July 2007
limitation of the old-style of SDNVs, which the currently-used style
does not suffer from.
Table 1 compares the maximum values that can be encoded into SDNVs of
various lengths using the old SDNV-8/16 method and the current SDNV
method. The only place in this table where SDNV-16 is used rather
than SDNV-8 is in the 2-byte row. Starting with a single byte, the
two methods are equivalent, but when using 2 bytes, the old method is
a more compact encoding by one-bit. From 3 to 7 bytes of length
though, the current SDNV format is more compact, since it only
requires one-bit per byte of overhead, whereas the old format used a
full byte. Thus, at 8 bytes, both schemes are equivalent in
efficiency since they both use 8 bits of overhead. Up to 129 bytes,
the old format is more compact than the current one, although after
this limit it becomes unusable.
Eddy Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Using SDNVs July 2007
+-------+---------------+-------------+---------------+-------------+
| Bytes | SDNV-8/16 | SDNV | SDNV-8/16 | SDNV |
| | Maximum Value | Maximum | Overhead Bits | Overhead |
| | | Value | | Bits |
+-------+---------------+-------------+---------------+-------------+
| 1 | 127 | 127 | 1 | 1 |
| | | | | |
| 2 | 32,767 | 16,383 | 1 | 2 |
| | | | | |
| 3 | 65,535 | 2,097,151 | 8 | 3 |
| | | | | |
| 4 | 2^24 - 1 | 2^28 - 1 | 8 | 4 |
| | | | | |
| 5 | 2^32 - 1 | 2^35 - 1 | 8 | 5 |
| | | | | |
| 6 | 2^40 - 1 | 2^42 - 1 | 8 | 6 |
| | | | | |
| 7 | 2^48 - 1 | 2^49 - 1 | 8 | 7 |
| | | | | |
| 8 | 2^56 - 1 | 2^56 - 1 | 8 | 8 |
| | | | | |
| 9 | 2^64 - 1 | 2^63 - 1 | 8 | 9 |
| | | | | |
| 10 | 2^72 - 1 | 2^70 - 1 | 8 | 10 |
| | | | | |
| 16 | 2^120 - 1 | 2^112 - 1 | 8 | 16 |
| | | | | |
| 32 | 2^248 - 1 | 2^224 - 1 | 8 | 32 |
| | | | | |
| 64 | 2^504 - 1 | 2^448 - 1 | 8 | 64 |
| | | | | |
| 128 | 2^1016 - 1 | 2^896 - 1 | 8 | 128 |
| | | | | |
| 129 | 2^1024 - 1 | 2^903 - 1 | 8 | 129 |
| | | | | |
| 130 | N/A | 2^910 - 1 | N/A | 130 |
| | | | | |
| 256 | N/A | 2^1792 - 1 | N/A | 256 |
+-------+---------------+-------------+---------------+-------------+
Table 1
In general, it seems like the most promising use of SDNVs may be to
define the Length field of a TLV structure to be an SDNV whose value
is the length of the TLV's Value field. This leverages the strengths
of the SDNV format and limits the effects of its weaknesses.
Eddy Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Using SDNVs July 2007
5. Security Considerations
The only security considerations with regards to SDNVs are that code
which parses SDNVs should have bounds-checking logic and be capable
of handling cases where an SDNV's value is beyond the code's ability
to parse. These precautions can prevent potential exploits involving
SDNV decoding routines.
Stephen Farrell noted that very early definitions of SDNVs also
allowed negative integers. This was considered a potential security
hole, since it could expose implementations to underflow attacks
during SDNV decoding. There is a precedent in that many existing TLV
decoders map the Length field to a signed integer and are vulnerable
in this way. An SDNV decoder should be based on unsigned types and
not have this issue.
Eddy Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Using SDNVs July 2007
6. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA considerations.
Eddy Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Using SDNVs July 2007
7. Acknowledgements
Scott Burleigh, Manikantan Ramadas, Michael Demmer, Stephen Farrell
and other members of the IRTF DTN Research Group contributed to the
development and usage of SDNVs in DTN protocols. George Jones and
Keith Scott from Mitre, Lloyd Wood, and Gerardo Izquierdo also
contributed useful comments on and criticisms of this document.
Work on this document was performed at NASA's Glenn Research Center,
in support of the NASA Space Communications Architecture Working
Group (SCAWG), NASA's Earth Science Technology Office (ESTO), and the
FAA/Eurocontrol Future Communications Study (FCS).
Eddy Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Using SDNVs July 2007
8. Informative References
[ASN1] ITU-T Rec. X.680, "Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1).
Specification of Basic Notation", ISO/IEC 8824-1:2002,
2002.
[ASN1-BER]
ITU-T Rec. X.690, "Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1).
Encoding Rules: Specification of Basic Encoding Rules
(BER), Canonical Encoding Rules (CER) and Distinguished
Encoding Rules (DER)", ISO/IEC 8825-1:2002, 2002.
[BRF04] Burleigh, S., Ramadas, M., and S. Farrell, "Licklider
Transmission Protocol", draft-irtf-dtnrg-ltp-00 (expired),
May 2004.
[BRF06] Burleigh, S., Ramadas, M., and S. Farrell, "Licklider
Transmission Protocol - Motivation",
draft-irtf-dtnrg-ltp-motivation-02 (work in progress),
March 2006.
[Hain05] Hain, T., "A Pragmatic Report on IPv4 Address Space
Consumption", Internet Protocol Journal Vol. 8, No. 3,
September 2005.
[I-D.heffner-frag-harmful]
Heffner, J., "IPv4 Reassembly Errors at High Data Rates",
draft-heffner-frag-harmful-05 (work in progress),
May 2007.
[RBF06] Ramadas, M., Burleigh, S., and S. Farrell, "Licklider
Transmission Protocol - Specification",
draft-irtf-dtnrg-ltp-04 (work in progress), March 2006.
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
September 1981.
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, September 1981.
[RFC1323] Jacobson, V., Braden, B., and D. Borman, "TCP Extensions
for High Performance", RFC 1323, May 1992.
[RFC2993] Hain, T., "Architectural Implications of NAT", RFC 2993,
November 2000.
[RFC3766] Orman, H. and P. Hoffman, "Determining Strengths For
Public Keys Used For Exchanging Symmetric Keys", BCP 86,
Eddy Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Using SDNVs July 2007
RFC 3766, April 2004.
[SB05] Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, "Bundle Protocol
Specification", draft-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-spec-04 (work in
progress), November 2005.
Eddy Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Using SDNVs July 2007
Appendix A. SNDV Python Source Code
# sdnv_decode() takes a string argument s, which is assumed to be an
# SDNV. The function returns a pair of the non-negative integer n
# that is the numeric value encoded in the SDNV, and and integer l
# that is the distance parsed into the input string. If the slen
# argument is not given (or is not a non-zero number) then, s is
# parsed up to the first byte whose high-order bit is 0 -- the
# length of the SDNV portion of s does not have to be pre-computed
# by calling code. If the slen argument is given as a non-zero
# value, then slen bytes of s are parsed. The value for n of -1 is
# returned for any type of parsing error.
#
# NOTE: In python, integers can be of arbitrary size. In other
# languages, such as C, SDNV-parsing routines should take
# precautions to avoid overflow (e.g. by using the Gnu MP library,
# or similar).
#
def sdnv_decode(s, slen=0):
n = long(0)
for i in range(0, len(s)):
v = ord(s[i])
n = n<<7
n = n + (v & 0x7F)
if v>>7 == 0:
slen = i+1
break
elif i == len(s)-1 or (slen != 0 and i > slen):
n = -1 # reached end of input without seeing end of SDNV
return (n, slen)
# sdnv_encode() returns the SDNV-encoded string that represents n.
# An empty string is returned if n is not a non-negative integer
def sdnv_encode(n):
r = ""
# validate input
if n >= 0 and (type(n) in [type(int(1)), type(long(1))]):
flag = 0
done = False
while not done:
# encode lowest 7 bits from n
newbits = n & 0x7F
n = n>>7
r = chr(newbits + flag) + r
if flag == 0:
flag = 0x80
if n == 0:
done = True
Eddy Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Using SDNVs July 2007
return r
# test cases from LTP and BP internet-drafts, only print failures
def sdnv_test():
tests = [(0xABC, chr(0x95) + chr(0x3C)),
(0x1234, chr(0xA4) + chr (0x34)),
(0x4234, chr(0x81) + chr(0x84) + chr(0x34)),
(0x7F, chr(0x7F))]
for tp in tests:
# test encoding function
if sdnv_encode(tp[0]) != tp[1]:
print "sdnv_encode fails on input %s" % hex(tp[0])
# test decoding function
if sdnv_decode(tp[1])[0] != tp[0]:
print "sdnv_decode fails on input %s, giving %s" % \
(hex(tp[0]), sdnv_decode(tp[1]))
Eddy Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Using SDNVs July 2007
Author's Address
Wesley M. Eddy
Verizon Federal Network Systems
NASA Glenn Research Center
21000 Brookpark Rd, MS 54-5
Cleveland, OH 44135
Phone: 216-433-6682
Email: weddy@grc.nasa.gov
Eddy Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Using SDNVs July 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Eddy Expires January 7, 2008 [Page 21]