Network Working Group Ott
Internet-Draft TZI, Universitaet Bremen
Expires: August 8, 2001 Perkins
USC Information Sciences Institute
Kutscher
TZI, Universitaet Bremen
February 7, 2001
A Message Bus for Local Coordination
draft-ietf-mmusic-mbus-transport-04.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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."
To view the entire list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories, see
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 8, 2001.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
The local Message Bus (Mbus) is a simple message-oriented
coordination infrastructure for group communication within groups of
co-located application entities. The Message Bus comprises three
logically distinct parts: a message transport infrastructure, a
structured message hierarchy, and a general purpose addressing
scheme. This document specifies message addressing, transport, and
security procedures and defines the message syntax for the Mbus. It
does not define application oriented semantics and procedures for
using the message bus.
This document is a product of the Multiparty Multimedia Session
Control (MMUSIC) working group of the Internet Engineering Task
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
Force. Comments are solicited and should be addressed to the working
group's mailing list at confctrl@isi.edu and/or the authors.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1 Application Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 Terminology for requirement specifications . . . . . . . . . 4
2. General Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Common Formal Syntax Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1 Mandatory Address Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Message Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1 Message Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2 Message Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.3 Command Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.1 Local Multicast/Broadcast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.1.1 Mbus multicast groups for IPv4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.1.2 Mbus multicast groups for IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.1.3 Use of Broadcast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.1.4 Mbus Port Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.2 Directed Unicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9. Awareness of other Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9.1 Hello Message Transmission Interval . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9.1.1 Calculating the Interval for Hello Messages . . . . . . . . 24
9.1.2 Initialization of Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9.1.3 Adjusting the Hello Message Interval when the Number of
Entities increases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9.1.4 Adjusting the Hello Message Interval when the Number of
Entities decreases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9.1.5 Expiration of hello timers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9.2 Calculating the Timeout for Hello Messages . . . . . . . . . 26
10. Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10.1 mbus.hello . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10.2 mbus.bye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10.3 mbus.ping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
10.4 mbus.quit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
10.5 mbus.waiting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
10.6 mbus.go . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
11. Constants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
12. Mbus Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
12.1 Security Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
12.2 Encryption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
12.3 Message Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
12.4 Procedures for Senders and Receivers . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
13. Mbus Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
13.1 File based parameter storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
13.2 Registry based parameter storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
14. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
15. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
A. About References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
B. Limitations and Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
1. Introduction
1.1 Application Scenarios
The implementation of multiparty multimedia conferencing systems is
one example where a simple coordination infrastructure can be
useful: In a variety of conferencing scenarios, a local
communication channel can provide conference-related information
exchange between co-located but otherwise independent application
entities, for example those taking part in application sessions that
belong to the same conference. In loosely coupled conferences such a
mechanism allows for coordination of applications entities to e.g.
implement synchronization between media streams or to configure
entities without user interaction. It can also be used to implement
tightly coupled conferences enabling a conference controller to
enforce conference wide control within an end system.
1.2 Purpose
Three components constitute the message bus: the low level message
passing mechanisms, a command syntax and naming hierarchy, and the
addressing scheme.
The purpose of this document is to define the characteristics of the
lower level Mbus message passing mechanism which is common to all
Mbus implementations. This includes the specification of
o the generic Mbus message format;
o the addressing concept for application entities (note that
concrete addressing schemes are to be defined by application
specific profiles);
o the transport mechanisms to be employed for conveying messages
between (co-located) application entities;
o the security concept to prevent misuse of the Message Bus (as
taking control of another user's conferencing environment);
o the details of the Mbus message syntax; and
o a set of mandatory application independent commands that are used
for bootstrapping Mbus sessions.
1.3 Terminology for requirement specifications
In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119[1] and
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
indicate requirement levels for compliant Mbus implementations.
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
2. General Outline
Local coordination involves a widely varying number of entities:
some messages (such as membership information, floor control
notifications, dissemination of conference state changes, etc.) may
need to be destined for all local application entities. Messages may
also be targeted at a certain application class (e.g. all
whiteboards or all audio tools) or agent type (e.g. all user
interfaces rather than all media engines). Or there may be any
(application- or message- specific) subgrouping defining the
intended recipients, e.g. messages related to media synchronization.
Finally, there will be messages that are directed to a single
entity, for example, specific configuration settings that a
conference controller sends to a application entity or
query-response exchanges between any local server and its clients.
The Mbus concept as presented here satisfies these different
communication models by defining different message transport
mechanisms (defined in Section 7) and by providing a flexible
addressing scheme (defined in Section 5).
Furthermore, Mbus messages exchanged between application entities
may have different reliability requirements (which are typically
derived from their semantics). Some messages will have a rather
informational character conveying ephemeral state information (which
is refreshed/updated periodically), such as the volume meter level
of an audio receiver entity to be displayed by its user interface
agent. Certain Mbus messages (such as queries for parameters or
queries to local servers) may require a response from the peer(s)
thereby providing an explicit acknowledgment at the semantic level
on top of the Mbus. Other messages will modify the application or
conference state and hence it is crucial that they do not get lost.
The latter type of message has to be delivered reliably to the
recipient, whereas message of the first type do not require
reliability mechanisms at the Mbus transport layer. For messages
confirmed at the application layer it is up to the discretion of the
application whether or not to use a reliable transport underneath.
In some cases, application entities will want to tailor the degree
of reliability to their needs, others will want to rely on the
underlying transport to ensure delivery of the messages -- and this
may be different for each Mbus message. The Mbus message passing
mechanism specified in this document provides a maximum of
flexibility by providing reliable transmission achieved through
transport-layer acknowledgments (in case of point-to-point
communications only) as well as unreliable message passing (for
unicast, local multicast, and local broadcast). We address this
topic in Section 5.
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
Finally, accidental or malicious disturbance of Mbus communications
through messages originated by applications from other users needs
to be prevented. Accidental reception of Mbus messages from other
users may occur if either two users share the same host for
conferencing or are using end systems spread across the same network
link: in either case, the used Mbus multicast address and the port
number may be identical leading to reception of the other party's
Mbus messages in addition to a user's own ones. Malicious
disturbance may happen because of applications multicasting (e.g. at
a global scope) or unicasting Mbus messages. To eliminate the
possibility of receiving unwanted Mbus messages, the Mbus protocol
contains message digests for authentication. Furthermore, the Mbus
allows for encryption to ensure privacy and thus enable using the
Mbus for local key distribution and other functions potentially
sensitive to eavesdropping. This document defines the framework for
configuring Mbus applications with regard to security parameters in
Section 13.
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
3. Common Formal Syntax Rules
This section contains some definitions of common ABNF [12] syntax
elements that are later referenced by other definitions in this
document:
base64 = base64_terminal /
( 1*(4base64_CHAR) [base64_terminal] )
base64_char = UPALPHA / LOALPHA / DIGIT / "+" / "/"
;; Case-sensitive
base64_terminal = (2base64_char "==") / (3base64_char "=")
UPALPHA = %x41-5A ;; Uppercase: A-Z
LOALPHA = %x61-7A ;; Lowercase: a-z
ALPHA = %x41-5A / %x61-7A ; A-Z / a-z
CHAR = %x01-7F
; any 7-bit US-ASCII character,
excluding NUL
OCTET = %x00-FF
; 8 bits of data
CR = %x0D
; carriage return
CRLF = CR LF
; Internet standard newline
DIGIT = %x30-39
; 0-9
DQUOTE = %x22
; " (Double Quote)
HTAB = %x09
; horizontal tab
LF = %x0A
; linefeed
LWSP = *(WSP / CRLF WSP)
; linear white space (past newline)
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
SP = %x20
; space
WSP = SP / HTAB
; white space
Taken from RFC 2234 [12] and RFC 2554 [13].
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
4. Message Format
A Mbus message comprises a header and a body. The header is used to
indicate how and where a message should be delivered, the body
provides information and commands to the destination entity. The
following information is included in the header:
A fixed ProtocolID field identifies the version of the message
bus protocol used. The protocol defined in this document is
"mbus/1.0" (case-sensitive).
A sequence number (SeqNum) is contained in each message. The
first message sent by a source SHOULD have SeqNum equal to zero,
and it MUST increment by one for each message sent by that
source. A single sequence number is used for all messages from a
source, irrespective of the intended recipients and the
reliability mode selected. SeqNums are decimal numbers in ASCII
representation.
The TimeStamp field is also contained in each message and SHOULD
contain a decimal number representing the time at message
construction in milliseconds since 00:00:00, UTC, January 1,
1970.
A MessageType field indicates the kind of message being sent. The
value "R" indicates that the message is to be transmitted
reliably and MUST be acknowledged by the recipient, "U" indicates
an unreliable message which MUST NOT be acknowledged.
The SrcAddr field identifies the sender of a message. This MUST
be a complete address, with all address elements specified. The
addressing scheme is described in Section 5.
The DestAddr field identifies the intended recipient(s) of the
message. This field MAY contain wildcards by omitting address
element and hence address any number (including zero) of
application entities. The addressing scheme is described in
Section 5.
The AckList field comprises a list of SeqNums for which this
message is an acknowledgment. See Section 8 for details.
The header is followed by the message body which contains zero or
more commands to be delivered to the destination entity. The syntax
for a complete message is given in Section 6.
If multiple commands are contained within the same Mbus message
payload, they MUST to be delivered to the Mbus application in the
same sequence in which they appear in the message payload.
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
5. Addressing
Each entity on the message has a unique Mbus address that is used to
identify the entity. Senders and receivers of messages are
identified by their Mbus addresses. Mbus addresses are sequences of
address elements that are tag/value pairs. The tag and the value are
separated by a colon and tag/value pairs are separated by
whitespace, like this:
(tag:value tag:value ...)
The formal ABNF syntax definition for Mbus addresses and their
elements is as follows:
mbus_address = "(" *address_element ")"
address_element = *WSP address_tag ":" address_value *WSP
address_tag = 1*32(ALPHA)
address_value = 1*64(%x21-7F)
; any 7-bit US-ASCII character
; excluding white space
; and control characters
Note that this and other ABNF definitions in this document use the
core rules defined in Section 3.
Each entity has a fixed sequence of address elements constituting
its address and MUST only process messages sent to addresses that
either match all elements or consist of a subset of its own address
elements. Each element value in this subset must match the
correspoding value of the receiver's address element value. The
order of address elements in an address sequence is not relevant.
For example, an entity with an address of:
(conf:test media:audio module:engine app:rat id:4711-1@134.102.218.45)
will process messages sent to
(media:audio module:engine)
and
(module:engine)
but must ignore messages sent to
(conf:test media:audio module:engine app:rat id:123-4@134.102.218.45 foo:bar)
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
and
(foo:bar)
A message that should be processed by all entities requires an empty
set of address elements.
5.1 Mandatory Address Elements
Each Mbus entity MUST provide one mandatory address element that
allows to identify the entity. The element name is "id" and the
value MUST be be composed of the following components:
o The IP address of the interface that is used for sending messages
to the Mbus. For IPv4 this the address in decimal dotted
notation. For IPv6 the interface-ID-part of an address in textual
representation as specified in RFC 2373[3] MUST be used. In this
specification, this part is called the "host-ID".
o An identifier ("entity-ID") that is unique within the scope of a
single host-ID. The entity comprises two parts. For systems where
the concept of a process ID is applicable it is RECOMMENDED this
identifier be composed using a process-ID and a per-process
disambiguator for different Mbus entities of a process. If a
process ID is not available, this part of the entity-ID may be
randomly chosen (it is recommended that at least a 32 bit random
number is chosen). Both numbers are represented in decimal
textual form and MUST be separated by a '-' character.
Note that the entity-ID cannot be the port number of the endpoint
used for sending messages to the Mbus because implementations MAY
use the common Mbus port number for sending to and receiving from
the multicast group (as specified in Section 7). The total
identifier has the following structure:
id-element = "id:" id-value
id-value = entity-id "@" host-id
entity-id = 1*10DIGIT "-" 1*5DIGIT
host-id = (IPv4address / IPv6address)
Please refer to [3] for productions of IPv4address and IPv6address.
An example for an id element:
id:4711-99@134.102.218.45
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
6. Message Syntax
6.1 Message Encoding
All messages MUST use the UTF-8 character encoding. Note that US
ASCII is a subset of UTF-8 and requires no additional encoding, and
that a message encoded with UTF-8 will not contain zero bytes.
Each Message MAY be encrypted using a secret key algorithm as
defined in Section 12.
6.2 Message Header
The fields in the header are separated by white space characters,
and followed by CRLF. The format of the header is as follows:
msg_header = "mbus/1.0" 1*WSP SeqNum 1*WSP TimeStamp 1*WSP
MessageType 1*WSP SrcAddr 1*WSP DestAddr 1*WSP AckList
The header fields are explained in Message Format (Section 4). Here
are the ABNF syntax definitions for the header fields:
SeqNum = 1*10DIGIT
TimeStamp = 1*10DIGIT
MessageType = "R" / "U"
ScrAddr = mbus_address
DestAddr = mbus_address
AckList = "(" *(1*DIGIT)) ")"
See Section 5 for a definition of "mbus_address".
The syntax definition of a complete message is as follows:
mbus_message = msg_header *1(CRLF msg_payload)
msg_payload = mbus_command *(CRLF mbus_command)
The definition of production rules for Mbus command is given below.
6.3 Command Syntax
The header is followed by zero, or more, commands to be delivered to
the application(s) indicated by the DestAddr field. Each message
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
comprises a command followed by a list of zero, or more, parameters,
and is followed by a newline.
command ( parameter parameter ... )
Syntactically, the command name MUST be a `symbol' as defined in the
following table. The parameters MAY be any data type drawn from the
following table:
val = Integer / Float / String / List / Symbol / Data
Integer = *1"-" 1*DIGIT
Float = *1"-" 1*DIGIT "." 1*DIGIT
String = DQUOTE *CHAR DQUOTE
; see below for escape characters
List = "(" *(val *(1*WSP val)) ")"
Symbol = ALPHA *(ALPHA / DIGIT / "_" / "-" / ".")
Data = "<" *base64 ">"
Boolean values are encoded as an integer, with the value of zero
representing false, and non-zero representing true.
String parameters in the payload MUST be enclosed in the double
quote (") character. Within strings, the escape character is the
backslash (\), and the following escape sequences are defined:
+----------------+-----------+
|Escape Sequence | Meaning |
+----------------+-----------+
| \\ | \ |
| \" | " |
| \n | newline |
+----------------+-----------+
List parameters do not have to be homogeneous lists, i.e. they can
contain parameters of varying types.
Opaque data is represented as Base64-encoded (see RFC1521[6])
character strings surrounded by "< " and "> "
The ABNF syntax definition for Mbus commands is as follows:
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
mbus_command = command_name arglist
command_name = ALPHA *(ALPHA / DIGIT / "_" / ".")
arglist = "(" *(*WSP parameter *WSP) ")"
parameter = Integer / Float / String / List
Symbol / Data
Command names SHOULD be constructed using hierarchical names to
group conceptually related commands under a common hierarchy. The
delimiter between names in the hierarchy is "." (dot). Application
profiles MUST NOT define commands starting with "mbus.".
The Mbus addressing scheme defined in Section 5 provides for
specifying incomplete addresses by omitting certain elements of an
address element list, enabling entities to send commands to a group
of Mbus entities. Therefore all command names SHOULD be unambiguous
in a way that it is possible to interpret or ignore them without
considering the message's address.
A set of commands within a certain hierarchy that MUST be understood
by every entity is defined in Messages (Section 10).
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
7. Transport
All messages are transmitted as UDP messages, with two possible
alternatives:
1. Local multicast/broadcast:
This transport class MUST be used for all messages that are not
sent to a fully qualified target address. It MAY also be used
for messages that are sent to a fully qualified target address.
It MUST be provided by conforming implementations. See Section
7.1 for details.
2. Directed unicast:
This transport class MAY be used for messages that are sent to a
fully qualified destination address. It is OPTIONAL and does not
have to be provided by conforming implementations.
Messages are transmitted in UDP datagrams, a maximum message size of
64 KBytes MUST NOT be exceeded. It is RECOMMENDED that applications
using a non host-local scope do not exceed a message size of the
network's MTU.
Note that "unicast", "multicast" and "broadcast" mean IP-Unicast,
IP-Multicast and IP-Broadcast respectively. It is possible to send
an Mbus message that is addressed to a single entity using
IP-multicast. This specification deals with both Mbus over UDP/IPv4
and Mbus over UDP/IPv6.
7.1 Local Multicast/Broadcast
In general, the Mbus uses multicast with a limited scope for message
transport. Two different Mbus multicast scopes are defined:
1. host-local
2. link-local
Participants of an Mbus session have to know the multicast address
in advance -- it cannot be negotiated during the session since it is
already needed for any communication between the participants. I can
also not be allocated prior to an Mbus session because there would
be no mechanism to announce the allocated address to all potential
Mbus participants. Therefore the multicast address cannot be
allocated dynamically, e.g. using multicast address allocation
protocols, but has to be assigned statically. This document defines
the use of statically assigned addresses and also provides a
specification of how an Mbus session can be configured to use
non-standard addresses (see Section 13).
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
An Mbus session can be configured to use either one of the mentioned
scopes. The following sections specify the use of multicast
addresses for IPv4 and IPv6.
7.1.1 Mbus multicast groups for IPv4
For IPv4, there are two address ranges for "local scope" multicast:
The IPv4 Local Scope -- 239.255.0.0/16 239.255.0.0/16 is the minimal
enclosing scope for administratively scoped multicast (as defined
by RFC 2365[10]) and not further divisible -- its exact extent is
site dependent. Allocating a statically assigned address in this
scope would require to allocate a scope relative multicast
address (the high order /24 in every scoped region is reserved
for relative assignments), because the main address space is to
be assigned dynamically, e.g. by using address allocation
protocols.
The IPv4 statically assigned link-local scope -- 224.0.0.0/24
224.0.0.0/24 is the address range for statically assigned
multicast address for link-local multicast. Multicast routers
should not forward any multicast datagram with destination
addresses in this range, regardless of its TTL.
Because of the unexact extent of 239.255.0.0/16 scopes and the fact
that the only way to allocate a static address is the use of an
assigned scope relative address the Mbus uses an multicast address
from the statically assigned link-local scope (224.0.0.0/24).
Host-local Mbus scope in an IPv4 environment MUST be implemented by
using an IPv4 link-local address and an IP-Multicast-TTL of zero.
Link-local Mbus scope in an IPv4 environment MUST be implemented by
using an IPv4 link-ocal Scope address and an IP-Multicast-TTL
greater than zero.
The IPv4 link-local multicast address has yet to be assigned (see
Section 15).
7.1.2 Mbus multicast groups for IPv6
IPv6 has different address ranges for different multicast scopes and
distinguishes node local and link local scopes, that are implemented
as a set of address prefixes for the different address ranges (RFC
2373[18]). The link-local prefix is FF02, the node-local prefix is
FF01. A permanently assigned multicast address will be used for Mbus
multicast communication, i.e. an address that is independent of the
scope value and that can be used for all scopes. Implementations for
IPv6 MUST use the scope independent address and the appropriate
prefix for the selected scope. For host-local Mbus communication the
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
IPv6 node-local scope prefix MUST be used, for link-local Mbus
communication the IPv6 link-local scope prefix MUST be used.
The permanent IPv6 multicast addresses has yet to be assigned (see
Section 15).
If a single application system is distributed across several
co-located hosts, link local scope SHOULD be used for multicasting
Mbus messages that potentially have recipients on the other hosts.
The Mbus protocol is not intended (and hence deliberately not
designed) for communication between hosts not on the same link. See
Section 13 for specifications of Mbus configuration mechanisms.
7.1.3 Use of Broadcast
In situations where multicast is not available, broadcast MAY be
used instead. In these cases an IP broadcast address for the
connected network SHOULD be used for sending. The node-local
broadcast address for IPv6 is FF01:0:0:0:0:0:0:1, the link-local
broadcast address for IPv6 is FF02:0:0:0:0:0:0:1. For IPv4, the
generic broadcast address (for link-local broadcast) is
255.255.255.255. It is RECOMMENDED that IPv4-implementations use the
generic broadcast address and a TTL of zero for host-local
broadcast.
Broadcast MUST NOT be used in situations where multicast is
available and supported by all systems participating in an Mbus
session.
See Section 13 for specifications of how to configure the use of
broadcast.
7.1.4 Mbus Port Number
There will also be a fixed, registered port number that all Mbus
entities MUST use. Until the address and port number are assigned
the values given in Section 15 SHOULD be used.
7.2 Directed Unicast
Directed unicast (via UDP) to the port of a specific application is
an alternative transport class. Directed unicast is an OPTIONAL
optimization and MAY be used by Mbus implementations for delivering
messages addressed at a single application entity only -- the
address of which the Mbus implementation has learned from other
message exchanges before. Note that the DestAddr field of such
messages MUST still be filled in properly. Every Mbus entity SHOULD
use a unique endpoint address for every message it sends to the Mbus
multicast group or to individual receiving entities. A unique
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
endpoint address is a tuple consisting of the entity's IP address
and a port number, where the port number is different from the
standard Mbus port number (yet to be assigned, see Section 15).
Messages MUST only be sent via unicast if the Mbus target address is
unique and if the sending entity can verify that the receiving
entity uses a unique endpoint address. The latter can be verified by
considering the last message received from that entity. (Note that
several Mbus entities, say within the same process, may share a
common transport address; in this case, the contents of the
destination address field is used to further dispatch the message.
Given the definition of "unique endpoint address" above the use of a
shared endpoint address and a dispatcher still allows other Mbus
entities to send unicast messages to one of the entities that share
the endpoint address. So this can be considered an implementation
detail.)
Messages with an empty target address list MUST always be sent to
all Mbus entities (via multicast if available).
The following algorithm can be used by sending entities to determine
whether an Mbus address is unique considering the current set of
Mbus entities:
let ta=the target address;
iterate through the set of all
currently known Mbus addresses {
let ti=the address in each iteration;
count the addresses for which
the predicate isSubsetOf(ta,ti) yields true;
}
If the count of matching addresses is exactly 1 the address is
unique. The following algorithm can be used for the predicate
isSubsetOf, that checks whether the second message matches the
first according to the rules specified in Section 5. (A match
means that a receiving entity that uses the second Mbus address
must also process received messages with the first address as a
target address.)
isSubsetOf(addr a1,a2) yields true, iff
every address element of a1 is contained
in a2's address element list
An address element is contained in an address element list if the
list contains an element that is equal to the first address
element. An address element is considered equal to another
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
address element if it provides the same values for both of the
two address element fields (key and value).
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
8. Reliability
While most messages are expected to be sent using unreliable
transport, it may be necessary to deliver some messages reliably.
Reliability can be selected on a per message basis by means of the
MessageType field. Reliable delivery is supported for messages with
a single recipient only; i.e., all components of the DestAddr field
have to be specified. An entity can thus only send reliable messages
to known addresses, i.e. it can only send reliable messages to
entities that have announced their existence on the Mbus (e.g. by
means of mbus.hello() messages (Section 10.1)). A sending entity
MUST NOT send a message reliably if the target address is not
unique. (See Transport (Section 7) for the specification of an
algorithm to determine whether an address is unique.) A receiving
entity MUST only process and acknowledge a reliable message if the
destination address exactly matches its own source address (the
destination address MUST NOT be a subset of the source address).
Disallowing reliable message delivery for messages sent to multi-
ple destinations is motivated by simplicity of the implementation as
well as the protocol. Although ACK implosions are not really an
issue and losses are exptected to be rare, achieving reliability for
such messages would require full knowledge of the membership for
each subgroup which is deemed too much effort. The desired effect
can be achieved by application layers by sending individual reliable
messages to each fully qualified destination address, if the
membership information for the Mbus session is available.
Each message is tagged with a message sequence number. If the
MessageType is "R", the sender expects an acknowledgment from the
recipient within a short period of time. If the acknowledgment is
not received within this interval, the sender SHOULD retransmit the
message (with the same message sequence number), increase the
timeout, and restart the timer. Messages MUST be retransmitted a
small number of times (see below) before the transmission or the
recipient is considered to have failed. If the message is not
delivered successfully, the sending application is notified. In this
case, it is up to this application to determine the specific actions
(if any) to be taken.
Reliable messages are acknowledged by adding their SeqNum to the
AckList field of a message sent to the originator of the reliable
message. Multiple acknowledgments MAY be sent in a single message.
It is possible to either piggy-back the AckList onto another message
sent to the same destination, or to send a dedicated acknowledgment
message, with no commands in the message payload part.
The precise procedures are as follows:
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
Sender: A sender A of a reliable message M to receiver B SHOULD
transmit the message via IP-multicast or via IP-unicast, keep a
copy of M, initialize a retransmission counter N to '1', and
start a retransmission timer T (initialized to T_r). If an
acknowledgment is received from B, timer T MUST be cancelled and
the copy of M is discarded. If T expires, the message M SHOULD be
retransmitted, the counter N SHOULD be incremented by one, and
the timer SHOULD be restarted (set to N*T_r). If N exceeds the
retransmission threshold N_r, the transmission is assumed to have
failed, further retransmission attempts MUST NOT be undertaken,
the copy of M SHOULD be discarded, and the sending application
SHOULD be notified.
Receiver: A receiver B of a reliable message from a sender A SHOULD
acknowledge reception of the message within a time period T_c <
T_r. This MAY be done by means of a dedicated acknowledgment
message or by piggy-backing the acknowledgment on another message
addressed only to A.
Receiver optimization: In a simple implementation, B may choose to
immediately send a dedicated acknowledgment message. However, for
efficiency, it could add the SeqNum of the received message to a
sender-specific list of acknowledgments; if the added SeqNum is
the first acknowledgment in the list, B SHOULD start an
acknowledgment timer TA (initialized to T_c). When the timer
expires, B SHOULD create a dedicated acknowledgment message and
send it to A. If B is to transmit another Mbus message addressed
only to A, it should piggy-back the acknowledgments onto this
message and cancel TA. In either case, B should store a copy of
the acknowledgment list as a single entry in the per- sender copy
list, keep this entry for a period T_k, and empty the
acknowledgment list. In case any of the messages kept in an entry
of the copy list is received again from A, the entire
acknowledgment list stored in this entry is scheduled for
(re-)transmission following the above rules.
Constants and Algorithms: The following constants and algorithms
SHOULD be used by implementations:
T_r=100ms
N_r=3
T_c=70ms
T_k=((N_r)*(N_r+1)/2)*T_r
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
9. Awareness of other Entities
Before Mbus entities can communicate with one another, they need to
mutually find out about their existence. After this bootstrap
procedure that each Mbus entity goes through all other entities
listening to the same Mbus know about the newcomer and the newcomer
has learned about all the other entities. Furthermore entities need
to be able to to notice the failure (or leaving) of other entities.
Any Mbus entity MUST announce its presence (on the Mbus) after
starting up. This is to be done repeatedly throughout its lifetime
to address the issues of startup sequence: Entities should always
become aware of other entities independent of the order of starting.
Each Mbus entity MUST maintain the number of Mbus session members
and continously update this number according to any observed
changes. The mechanisms of how the existence and the leaving of
other entities can be detected are dedicated Mbus messages for
entity awareness: mbus.hello (Section 10.1) and mbus.bye (Section
10.2). Each Mbus protocol implementation MUST periodically send
mbus.hello messages that are used by other entities to monitor the
existence of that entity. If an entity has not received mbus.hello
messages for a certain time (see Section 9.2) from an entity the
respective entity is considered to have left the Mbus and MUST be
excluded from the set of currently known entities. Upon the
reception of a mbus.bye messages the respective entity is considered
to have left the Mbus as well and MUST be excluded from the set of
currently known entities immediately.
Each Mbus entity MUST send hello messages after startup to the Mbus.
After transmission of the hello message, it shall start a timer
after the expiration of which the next hello message is to be
transmitted. Transmission of hello messages MUST NOT be stopped
unless the entity detaches from the Mbus. The interval for sending
hello messages is depending on the current number of entities in an
Mbus group and can thus change dynamically in order to avoid
congestion due to many entities sending hello messages at a constant
high rate.
Section 9.1 specifies the calculation of hello message intervals
that MUST be used by protocol implementations. Using the values that
are calculated for obtaining the current hello message timer, the
timeout for received hello messages is calculated in Section 9.2.
Section 10 specifies the command synopsis for the corresponding Mbus
messages.
9.1 Hello Message Transmission Interval
Since Mbus sessions may vary in size concerning the number of
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
entities care must be taken to allow the Mbus protocol to scale well
over different numbers of entities automatically. The average rate
at which hello messages are received would increase linearly to the
number of entities in a session if the sending interval was set to a
fixed value. Given a interval of 1 second this would mean that an
entity taking part in an Mbus session with n entities would receive
n hello messages per second. Assuming all entities resided on one
host this would lead to n*n messages that have to be processed per
second -- which is obviously not a viable solution for larger
groups. It is therefore necessary to deploy dynamically adapted
hello message intervals taking varying numbers of entities into
account. In the following we specify an algorithm that MUST be used
by implementations to calculate the interval for hello messages
considering the observed number of Mbus entities.
The algorithm features the following characteristics:
o The number of hello messages that are received by a single entity
in a certain time unit remains approximately constant as the
number of entities changes.
o The effective interval that is used by a specific Mbus entity is
randomized in order to avoid unintentional synchronization of
hello messages within an Mbus session. The first hello message of
an entity is also delayed by a certain random amount of time.
o A timer reconsideration mechanism is deployed in order to adapt
the interval more appropriately in situations where a rapid
change of the number of entities is observed. This is useful when
an entity joins an Mbus sessions and is still learning of the
existence of other entities or when a larger number of entities
leaves the Mbus at once.
9.1.1 Calculating the Interval for Hello Messages
The following names for values are used in the calculation specified
below (all time values in milliseconds):
hello_p: The last time a hello message has been sent by a Mbus
entity.
hello_now: The current time
hello_d: The deterministic calculated interval between hello
messages.
hello_e: The effective (randomized) interval between hello messages.
hello_n: The time for the next scheduled transmission of a hello
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
message.
entities_p: The numbers of entities at the time hello_n has been
last recomputed.
entities: The number of currently known entities.
The interval between hello messages MUST be calculated as follows:
The number of currently known entities is multiplied by
c_hello_factor, yielding the interval between hello messages in
milliseconds. This is the deterministic calculated interval,
denominated hello_d. The minimum value for hello_d is c_hello_min.
Thus hello_d=max(c_hello_min,c_hello_factor * entities). Section 9
provides a specification of how to obtain the number of currently
known entities. Section 11 provides values for the constants
c_hello_factor and c_hello_min.
The effective interval hello_e that is to be used by individual
entities is calculated by multiplying hello_d with a randomly chosen
number between c_hello_dither_min and c_hello_dither_max (see
Section 11).
hello_n, the time for the next hello message in milliseconds is set
to hello_e + hello_now.
9.1.2 Initialization of Values
Upon joining a session a protocol implementation sets hello_p,
hello_now to 0 and entities, entities_p to 1 (the current Mbus
entity itself) and then calculates the time for the next hello
message as specified in Section 9.1.1. The next hello message is
scheduled for transmission at hello_n.
9.1.3 Adjusting the Hello Message Interval when the Number of Entities
increases
When the existence of a new entity is observed by a protocol
implementation the number of currently known entities is updated. No
further action concerning the calculation of the hello message
interval is required. The reconsideration of the timer interval
takes place when the current timer for the next hello message
expires (see Section 9.1.5).
9.1.4 Adjusting the Hello Message Interval when the Number of Entities
decreases
Upon realizing that an entity has left the Mbus the number of
currently known entities is updated and the following algorithm
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
should be used to reconsider the timer interval for hello messages:
1. The value for hello_n is updated by setting hello_n to
hello_now + (entities/entities_p)*(hello_n - hello_now)
2. The value for hello_p is updated by setting hello_p to
hello_now - (entities/entities_p)*(hello_now - hello_p)
3. The currently active timer for the next hello messages is
cancelled and a new timer is started for hello_n.
4. entities_p is set to entities.
9.1.5 Expiration of hello timers
When the hello message timer expires, the protocol implementation
MUST perform the following operations:
The hello interval hello_e is computed as specified in Section
9.1.1.
If
1. hello_e + hello_p is less than or equal to hello_now, a hello
message is transmitted. hello_p is set to hello_now, hello_e
is calculated again as specified in Section 9.1.1 and hello_n
is set to hello_e + hello_now.
2. else if hello_e + hello_p is greater than hello_now, hello_n
is set to hello_e + hello_p. A new timer for the next hello
message is started to expire at hello_n. No hello message is
transmitted.
entities_p is set to entities.
9.2 Calculating the Timeout for Hello Messages
Whenever an Mbus entity has not heard for a time span of
c_hello_dead*(hello_d*c_hello_dither_max) milliseconds from another
Mbus entity it may consider this entity to have failed (or have quit
silently). The number of the currently known entities MUST be
updated accordingly. Note that no need for any further action is
necessarily implied from this observation.
Section 9.1.1 specifies how to obtain hello_d. Section 11 defines
values for the constants c_hello_dead and c_hello_dither_max.
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
10. Messages
This section defines some basic application independent messages
that MUST be understood by all implementations. This specification
does not contain application specific messages which are to be
defined outside of the basic Mbus protocol specification.
An Mbus entity should be able to indicate that it is waiting for a
certain event to happen (similar to a P() operation on a semaphore
but without creating external state somewhere). In conjunction with
this, an Mbus entity should be capable of indicating to another
entity that this condition is now satisfied (similar to a
semaphore's V() operation).
An appropriate commend set to implement the aforementioned concepts
is presented in the following sections.
10.1 mbus.hello
Syntax:
mbus.hello(parameters...)
Parameters: see below
HELLO messages MUST be sent unreliably to all Mbus entities.
Each Mbus entity learns about other Mbus entities by observing their
HELLO messages and tracking the sender address of each message and
can thus calculate the current number of entities.
HELLO messages MUST be sent periodically in dynamically calculated
intervals as specified in Section 9.
Upon startup the first HELLO message MUST be sent after a delay
hello_delay, where hello_delay be a randomly chosen number between 0
and c_hello_min (see Section 11).
10.2 mbus.bye
Syntax:
Parameters: - none -
An Mbus entity that is about to terminate (or "detach" from the
Mbus) SHOULD announce this by transmitting a BYE message.
The BYE message MUST be sent unreliably to all entities.
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
10.3 mbus.ping
Syntax:
Parameters: - none -
mbus.ping can be used to solicit other entities to signal their
existence by replying with a mbus.hello message. Each protocol
implementation MUST understand mbus.ping and reply with a mbus.hello
message. The reply hello message MUST be delayed for hello_delay
milliseconds, where hello_delay be a randomly chosen number between
0 and c_hello_min (see Section 11).
As specified in Section 10.1 hello messages MUST be sent unreliably
to all Mbus entities. This is also the case for replies to ping
messages. An entity that replies to mbus.ping with mbus.hello should
stop any outstanding timers for hello messages after sending the
hello message and schedule a new timer event for the subsequent
hello message. (Note that using the variables and the algorithms of
Section 9.1.1 this can be achieved by setting hello_p to hello_now.)
mbus.ping allows a new entity to quickly check for other entities
without having to wait for the regular individual hello messages. By
specifying a target address the new entity can restrict the
solicitation for hello messages to a subset of entities it is
interested in.
10.4 mbus.quit
Syntax:
mbus.quit()
Parameters: - none -
The QUIT message is used to request other entities to terminate
themselves (and detach from the Mbus). Whether this request is
honoured by receiving entities or not is up to the discretion of the
application.
The QUIT message can be multicast or sent reliably via unicast to a
single Mbus entity or a group of entities.
10.5 mbus.waiting
Syntax:
mbus.waiting(condition)
Parameters:
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
symbol condition
The condition parameter is used to indicate that the entity
transmitting this message is waiting for a particular event to
occur.
The WAITING messages may be broadcast to all Mbus entities,
multicast to an arbitrary subgroup, or unicast to a particular peer.
Transmission of the WAITING message MUST be unreliable and hence has
to be repeated at an application-defined interval (until the
condition is satisfied).
If an application wants to indicate that it is waiting for several
conditions to be met, several WAITING messages are sent (possibly
included in the same Mbus payload). Note that HELLO and WAITING
messages may also be transmitted in a single Mbus payload.
10.6 mbus.go
Syntax:
mbus.go(condition)
Parameters:
symbol condition
This parameter specifies which condition is met.
The GO message is sent by an Mbus entity to "unblock" another Mbus
entity -- the latter of which has indicated that it is waiting for a
certain condition to be met. Only a single condition can be
specified per GO message. If several conditions are satisfied
simultaneously multiple GO messages MAY be combined in a single Mbus
payload.
The GO message MUST be sent reliably via unicast to the Mbus entity
to unblock.
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
11. Constants
The following values for timers and counters mentioned in this
document SHOULD be used by implementations:
+-------------------+------------------------+--------------+
|Timer / Counter | Value | Unit |
+-------------------+------------------------+--------------+
|c_hello_factor | 200 | - |
|c_hello_min | 1000 | milliseconds |
|c_hello_dither_min | 0.9 | - |
|c_hello_dither_max | 1.1 | - |
|c_hello_dead | 5 | - |
+-------------------+------------------------+--------------+
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
12. Mbus Security
12.1 Security Model
In order to prevent accidental or malicious disturbance of Mbus
communications through messages originated by applications from
other users, message authentication is deployed (Section 12.3). For
each message a digest is calculated based on the value of a shared
secret key value. Receivers of messages can check if the sender
belongs to the same Mbus security domain by re-calculating the
digest and comparing it to the received value. Only if both values
are equal the messages must be processed further. In order to allow
different simultaneous Mbus sessions at a given scope and to
compensate defective implementations of host local multicast message
authentication MUST be provided by conforming implementations.
Privacy of Mbus message transport can be achieved by optionally
using symmetric encryption methods (Section 12.2). Each message can
be encrypted using an additional shared secret key and a symmetric
encryption algorithm. Encryption is OPTIONAL for applications, i.e.
it is allowed to configure an Mbus domain not to use encryption. But
conforming implementations MUST provide the possibility to use
message encryption (see below).
Message authentication and encryption can be parameterized by
certain values, e.g. by the algorithms to apply or by the keys to
use. These parameters (amongst others) are defined in an Mbus
configuration entity that is accessible to all Mbus entities that
participate in an Mbus session. In order to achieve interoperability
conforming implementations SHOULD consider the given Mbus
configuration entity. Section 13 defines the mandatory and optional
parameters as well as storage procedures for different platforms.
Only in cases where none of the options for configuration entities
mentioned in Section 13 is applicable alternative methods of
configuring Mbus protocol entities MAY be deployed.
The algorithms and procedures for applying encryption and
authentication techniques are specified in the following sections.
12.2 Encryption
Encryption of messages is OPTIONAL, that means, an Mbus MAY be
configured not to use encryption.
Implementations can choose between different encryption algorithms.
Either AES [17], DES [15], 3DES (triple DES) [15] or IDEA [21]
SHOULD be used for encryption. Implementations MUST at least provide
AES and it is RECOMMENDED that they support the other algorithms as
well.
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
For algorithms requiring en/decryption data to be padded to certain
boundaries octets with a value of 0 SHOULD be used for padding
characters. The padding characters MUST be appended after
calculating the message digest when encoding and MUST be erased
before recalculating the message digest when decoding.
The length of the encryption keys is determined by the currently
used encryption algorithm. This means, the configured encryption key
MUST NOT be shorter than the native key length for the currently
configured algorithm.
DES implementations MUST use the DES Cipher Block Chaining (CBC)
mode. DES keys (56 bits) MUST be encoded as 8 octets as described in
RFC1423[11], resulting in 12 Base64-encoded characters. IDEA uses
128-bit keys (24 Base64-encoded characters). AES can use either
128-bit, 192-bit or 256-bit keys. For Mbus encryption only 128-bit
keys (24 Base64-encoded characters) MUST be used.
12.3 Message Authentication
For authentication of messages, hashed message authentication codes
(HMACs) as described in RFC2104[4] are deployed. In general,
implementations can choose between a number of digest algorithms.
For Mbus authentication, the HMAC algorithm MUST be applied in the
following way:
The keyed hash value is calculated using the HMAC algorithm
specified in RFC2104[4]. The concrete hash algorithm and the
secret hash key MUST be obtained from the Mbus configuration (see
Section 13).
The keyed hash values (see RFC2104[4]) MUST be truncated to 96
bits (12 octets).
Subsequently, the resulting 12 octets MUST be Base64-encoded,
resulting in 16 Base64-encoded characters (see RFC1521[6]).
Either MD5 [14] or SHA-1 [16] SHOULD be used for message
authentication codes (MACs). An implementation MAY provide MD5,
whereas SHA-1 MUST be implemented.
The length of the hash keys is determined by the selected hashing
algorithm. This means, the configured hash key MUST NOT be shorter
than the native key length for the currently configured algorithm.
12.4 Procedures for Senders and Receivers
The mandatory subset of algorithms that MUST be provided by
implementations is AES and SHA-1.
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
See Section 13 for a specification of notations for Base64-strings.
A sender MUST apply the following operations to a message that is to
be sent:
1. If encryption is enabled, the message MUST be encrypted using
the configured algorithm and the configured encryption key.
Padding (adding extra-characters) for block-ciphers MUST be
applied as specified in Section 12.2. If encryption is not
enabled, the message is left unchanged.
2. Subsequently, a message authentication code (MAC) for the
encrypted message MUST be calculated using the configured
HMAC-algorithm and the configured hash key.
3. The MAC MUST then be converted to Base64 encoding, resulting in
12 Base64-charcters as specified in Section 12.3.
4. At last, the sender MUST construct the final message by placing
the encrypted message after the base64-encoded MAC and a CRLF.
The ABNF definition for the final message is as follows:
final_msg = MsgDigest CRLF encr_msg
MsgDigest = base64
encr_msg = *OCTET
A receiver MUST apply the following operations to a message that it
has received:
1. Separate the base64-encoded MAC from the encypted message and
decode the MAC.
2. Re-calculate the MAC for the message using the configured
HMAC-algorithm and the configured hash key.
3. Compare the original MAC with re-calculated MAC. If they differ,
the message MUST NOT be decrypted and parsed further.
4. If encryption is enabled, the message MUST be decrypted using
the confiured algorithm and the configured encryption key.
Trailing octets with a value of 0 MUST be deleted.
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
13. Mbus Configuration
An implementation MUST be configurable by the following parameters:
Configuration version
The version number of the given configuration entity. Version
numbers allow implementations to check if they can process the
entries of a given configuration entity. Version number are
integer values. The version number for the version specified
here is 1.
Encryption key
The secret key used for message encryption.
Hash key
The hash key used for message authentication.
Scope
The multicast scope to be used for sent messages.
The upper parameters are mandatory and MUST be present in every Mbus
configuration entity.
The following parameters are optional. When they are present they
MUST be honoured but when they are not present implementations
SHOULD fall back to the predefined default values (as defined in
Transport (Section 7)):
Address
The non-standard multicast address to use for message
transport.
Use of Broadcast
It can be specified whether broadcast should be used. If
broadcast has been configured implementations SHOULD use the
network broadcast address (as specified in Section 7.1.3)
instead of the standard multicast address.
Port Number
The non-standard port number to use for message transport.
Two distinct facilities for parameter storage are considered: For
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
Unix-like systems a configuration file SHOULD be used and for
Windows-95/98/NT/2000 systems a set of registry entries is defined
that SHOULD be used. For other systems it is RECOMMENDED that the
file-based configuration mechanism is used.
The syntax of the values for the respective parameter entries
remains the same for both configuration facilities. The following
defines a set of ABNF (see RFC2234[12]) productions that are later
referenced for the definitions for the configuration file syntax and
registry entries:
algo-id = "NOENCR" / "AES" / "DES" / "3DES" / "IDEA" /
"HMAC-MD5-96" / "HMAC-SHA1-96"
scope = "HOSTLOCAL" / "LINKLOCAL"
key = base64
version_number = 1*10DIGIT
key_value = "(" algo-id "," key ")"
address = IPv4address / IPv6address / "BROADCAST"
port = 1*5DIGIT
Given the definition above, a key entry MUST be specified using this
notation:
"("algo-id","base64string")"
algo-id is one of the character strings specified above. For
algo-id==``NOENCR'' the other fields are ignored. The delimiting
commas MUST always be present though.
A Base64 string consists of the characters defined in the Base64
char-set (see RFC1521[6]) including all eventual padding characters,
i.e. the length of a Base64-string is always a multiple of 4.
The scope parameter is used to configure an IP-Multicast scope and
may be set to either "HOSTLOCAL" or "LINKLOCAL". Implementations
SHOULD choose an appropriate IP-Multicast scope depending on the
value of this parameter and construct an effective IP-Address
considering the specifications of Section 7.1.
The use of broadcast is configured by providing the value
"BROADCAST" for the address field. If broadcast has been configured,
implementations SHOULD use the network broadcast address for the
used IP version instead of the standard multicast address.
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
The version_number parameter specifies a version number for the used
configuration entity.
13.1 File based parameter storage
The file name for an Mbus configuration file is ".mbus" in the
user's home-directory. If an environment variable called MBUS is
defined implementations SHOULD interpret the value of this variable
as a fully qualified file name that is to be used for the
configuration file. Implementations MUST ensure that this file has
appropriate file permissions that prevent other users to read or
write it. The file MUST exist before a conference is initiated. Its
contents MUST be UTF-8 encoded and MUST be structured as follows:
mbus-file = mbus-topic LF *(entry LF)
mbus-topic = "[MBUS]"
entry = 1*(version_info / hashkey_info
/ encryptionkey_info / scope_info
/ port_info / address_info)
version_info = "CONFIG_VERSION=" version_number
hashkey_info = "HASHKEY=" key_value
encrkey_info = "ENCRYPTIONKEY=" key_value
scope_info = "SCOPE=" scope
port_info = "PORT=" port
address_info = "ADDRESS=" address
The following entries are defined: CONFIG_VERSION, HASHKEY,
ENCRYPTIONKEY, SCOPE, PORT, ADDRESS.
The entries CONFIG_VERSION, HASHKEY and ENCRYPTIONKEY are mandatory,
they MUST be present in every Mbus configuration file. The order of
entries is not significant.
An example Mbus configuration file:
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
[MBUS]
CONFIG_VERSION=1
HASHKEY=(HMAC-MD5-96,MTIzMTU2MTg5MTEy)
ENCRYPTIONKEY=(DES,MTIzMTU2MQ==)
SCOPE=HOSTLOCAL
ADDRESS=224.255.222.239
PORT=47000
13.2 Registry based parameter storage
For systems lacking the concept of a user's home-directory as a
place for configuration files the suggested database for
configuration settings (e.g. the Windows9x-, Windows NT-, Windows
2000-registry) SHOULD be used. The hierarchy for Mbus related
registry entries is as follows:
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Mbone Applications\Mbus
The entries in this hierarchy section are:
+---------------+--------+----------------+
|Name | Type | ABNF production|
+---------------+--------+----------------|
|CONFIG_VERSION | DWORD | version_number |
|HASHKEY | String | key_value |
|ENCRYPTIONKEY | String | key_value |
|SCOPE | String | scope |
|ADDRESS | String | address |
|PORT | DWORD | port |
+---------------+--------+----------------+
The same syntax for key values as for the file based configuration
facility MUST be used.
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
14. Security Considerations
The Mbus security mechanisms are specified in Section 12.1.
It should be noted that the Mbus transport specification defines a
mandatory baseline set of algorithms that have to be supported by
implementations. This baseline set is intended to provide reasonable
security by mandating algorithms and key lengths that are currently
considered to be cryptographically strong enough.
However, in order to allow for efficiency it is allowable to use
cryptographically weaker algorithms, for example HMAC-MD5 instead of
HMAC-SHA1. Furthermore, encryption can be turned off completely if
privacy is provided by other means or not considered important for a
certain application.
Users of the Mbus should therefore be aware of the selected security
configuration and should check if it meets the security demands for
a given application. Since every implementation MUST provide the
cryptographically strong algorithm it should always be possible to
configure an Mbus in a way that secure communication with
authentication and privacy is ensured.
In any way, application developers should be aware of incorrect IP
implementations that do not conform to RFC 1122[2] and do send
datagrams with TTL values of zero, resulting in Mbus messages sent
to the local network link although a user might have selected host
local scope in the Mbus configuration. When using of
administratively scoped multicast users cannot always assume the
presence of correctly configured boundary routers. In these cases
the use of encryption SHOULD be considered if privacy is desired.
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
15. IANA Considerations
The IANA is requested to assign a link-local IPv4 multicast address
from the address space 224.0.0.0/24, an IPv6 permanent multicast
address and a port number. For the time being the tentative IPv4
multicast address 239.255.255.247 and the port number 47000
(decimal) SHOULD be used.
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997.
[2] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Communication
Layers", RFC 1122, October 1989.
[3] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998.
[4] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M. and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-Hashing
for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, February 1997.
[5] Crocker, D.H., "STANDARD FOR THE FORMAT OF ARPA INTERNET TEXT
MESSAGES", August 1982.
[6] Borenstein, N. and N. Freed, "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions) Part One: Mechanisms for Specifying and Describing
the Format of Internet Message Bodies", RFC 1521, September
1993.
[7] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R. and V. Jacobsen,
"RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", RFC
1889, January 1996.
[8] Handley, M., Schulzrinne, H., Schooler, E. and J. Rosenberg,
"SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 2543, March 1999.
[9] Handley, M. and V. Jacobsen, "SDP: Session Description
Protocol", RFC 2327, April 1998.
[10] Meyer, D., "Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", RFC 2365,
July 1998.
[11] Balenson, D., "Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic
Mail: Part III: Algorithms, Modes, and Identifiers", RFC 1423,
February 1993.
[12] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997.
[13] Myers, J., "SMTP Service Extension for Authentication", RFC
2554, March 1999.
[14] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC 1321,
April 1992.
[15] U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE/National Institute of Standards
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
and Technology, "Data Encryption Standard (DES)", FIPS PUB
46-3, Category Computer Security, Subcategory Cryptography,
October 1999.
[16] U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE/National Institute of Standards
and Technology, "Secure Hash Standard", FIPS PUB 180-1, April
1995.
[17] Daemen, J.D. and V.R. Rijmen, "AES Proposal: Rijndael", March
1999.
[18] Hinden, R.M. and S.E. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998.
[19] Handley, M., Crowcroft, J., Bormann, C. and J. Ott, "The
Internet Multimedia Conferencing Architecture", Internet Draft
draft-ietf-mmusic-confarch-03.txt, status: non-normative, July
2000.
[20] Ott, J., Perkins, C. and D. Kutscher, "Requirements for Local
Conference Control", Internet Draft
draft-ietf-mmusic-mbus-req-00.txt, status: non-normative,
December 1999.
[21] Schneier, B., "Applied Cryptography", Edition 2, Publisher
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., status: non-normative, 1996.
[22] distributed.net, "Project DES", WWW
http://www.distributed.net/des/, status: non-normative, 1999.
Authors' Addresses
Joerg Ott
TZI, Universitaet Bremen
Bibliothekstr. 1
Bremen 28359
Germany
Phone: +49.421.201-7028
Fax: +49.421.218-7000
EMail: jo@tzi.uni-bremen.de
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
Colin Perkins
USC Information Sciences Institute
4350 N. Fairfax Drive #620
Arlington VA 22203
USA
EMail: csp@isi.edu
Dirk Kutscher
TZI, Universitaet Bremen
Bibliothekstr. 1
Bremen 28359
Germany
Phone: +49.421.218-7595
Fax: +49.421.218-7000
EMail: dku@tzi.uni-bremen.de
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
Appendix A. About References
Please note that the list of references contains normative as well
as non-normative references. Each Non-normative references is marked
as "status: non-normative". All unmarked references are normative.
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
Appendix B. Limitations and Future Work
The Mbus is a light-weight local coordination mechanism and
deliberately not designed for larger scope coordination. It is
expected to be used on a single node or -- at most -- on a single
network link.
Therefore the Mbus protocol does not contain features that would be
required to qualify it for the use over the global Internet:
There are no mechanisms to provide congestion control. The issue
of congestion control is a general problem for multicast
protocols. The Mbus allows for un-acknowledged messages that are
sent unreliably, for example as event notifications, from one
entity to another. Since negative acknowledgements are not
defined there is no way the sender could realize that it is
flooding another entity or congesting a low bandwidth network
segment.
The reliability mechanism, i.e. the retransmission timers, are
designed to provide effective, responsive message transport on
local links but are not suited to cope with larger delays that
could be introduced from router queues etc.
Some experiments are currently underway to test the applicability of
bridges between different distributed Mbus domains without changing
the basic protocol semantics. Since the use of such bridges should
be orthogonal to the basic Mbus protocol definitions and since these
experiments are still work in progress there is no mention of this
concept in this specification.
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft A Message Bus for Local Coordination February 2001
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implmentation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Ott, et. al. Expires August 8, 2001 [Page 45]
