TAPS M. Welzl
Internet-Draft S. Gjessing
Intended status: Informational University of Oslo
Expires: February 21, 2019 August 20, 2018
A Minimal Set of Transport Services for End Systems
draft-ietf-taps-minset-05
Abstract
This draft recommends a minimal set of Transport Services offered by
end systems, and gives guidance on choosing among the available
mechanisms and protocols. It is based on the set of transport
features in RFC 8303.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 21, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. The Minimal Set of Transport Features . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. ESTABLISHMENT, AVAILABILITY and TERMINATION . . . . . . . 5
3.2. MAINTENANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.1. Connection groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.2. Individual connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3. DATA Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3.1. Sending Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3.2. Receiving Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Deriving the minimal set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.1. Step 1: Categorization -- The Superset of Transport
Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.1.1. CONNECTION Related Transport Features . . . . . . . . 17
A.1.2. DATA Transfer Related Transport Features . . . . . . 33
A.2. Step 2: Reduction -- The Reduced Set of Transport
Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
A.2.1. CONNECTION Related Transport Features . . . . . . . . 40
A.2.2. DATA Transfer Related Transport Features . . . . . . 41
A.3. Step 3: Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
A.3.1. Sending Messages, Receiving Bytes . . . . . . . . . . 42
A.3.2. Stream Schedulers Without Streams . . . . . . . . . . 43
A.3.3. Early Data Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
A.3.4. Sender Running Dry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
A.3.5. Capacity Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
A.3.6. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
A.3.7. Packet Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Appendix B. Revision information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
1. Introduction
The task of a transport system is to offer transport services to its
applications, i.e. the applications running on top of the transport
system. Ideally, it does so without statically binding applications
to particular transport protocols. Currently, the set of transport
services that most applications use is based on TCP and UDP (and
protocols that are layered on top of them); this limits the ability
for the network stack to make use of features of other transport
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
protocols. For example, if a protocol supports out-of-order message
delivery but applications always assume that the network provides an
ordered bytestream, then the network stack can not immediately
deliver a message that arrives out-of-order: doing so would break a
fundamental assumption of the application. The net result is
unnecessary head-of-line blocking delay.
By exposing the transport services of multiple transport protocols, a
transport system can make it possible to use these services without
having to statically bind an application to a specific transport
protocol. The first step towards the design of such a system was
taken by [RFC8095], which surveys a large number of transports, and
[RFC8303] as well as [RFC8304], which identify the specific transport
features that are exposed to applications by the protocols TCP,
MPTCP, UDP(-Lite) and SCTP as well as the LEDBAT congestion control
mechanism. This memo is based on these documents and follows the
same terminology (also listed below). Because the considered
transport protocols conjointly cover a wide range of transport
features, there is reason to hope that the resulting set (and the
reasoning that led to it) will also apply to many aspects of other
transport protocols that may be in use today, or may be designed in
the future.
The number of transport features of current IETF transports is large,
and exposing all of them has a number of disadvantages: generally,
the more functionality is exposed, the less freedom a transport
system has to automate usage of the various functions of its
available set of transport protocols. Some functions only exist in
one particular protocol, and if an application used them, this would
statically tie the application to this protocol, limiting the
flexibility of the transport system. Also, if the number of exposed
features is exceedingly large, a transport system might become very
difficult to use for an application programmer. Taking [RFC8303] as
a basis, this document therefore develops a minimal set of transport
features, removing the ones that could get in the way of transport
flexibility but keeping the ones that must be retained for
applications to benefit from useful transport functionality.
Applications use a wide variety of APIs today. The transport
features in the minimal set in this document must be reflected in
*all* network APIs in order for the underlying functionality to
become usable everywhere. For example, it does not help an
application that talks to a library which offers its own
communication interface if the underlying Berkeley Sockets API is
extended to offer "unordered message delivery", but the library only
exposes an ordered bytestream. Both the Berkeley Sockets API and the
library would have to expose the "unordered message delivery"
transport feature (alternatively, there may be ways for certain types
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
of libraries to use this transport feature without exposing it, based
on knowledge about the applications -- but this is not the general
case). In most situations, in the interest of being as flexible and
efficient as possible, the best choice will be for a library to
expose at least all of the transport features that are recommended as
a "minimal set" here.
This "minimal set" can be implemented "one-sided" over TCP. This
means that a sender-side transport system can talk to a standard TCP
receiver, and a receiver-side transport system can talk to a standard
TCP sender. If certain limitations are put in place, the "minimal
set" can also be implemented "one-sided" over UDP.
2. Terminology
Transport Feature: a specific end-to-end feature that the transport
layer provides to an application. Examples include
confidentiality, reliable delivery, ordered delivery, message-
versus-stream orientation, etc.
Transport Service: a set of Transport Features, without an
association to any given framing protocol, which provides a
complete service to an application.
Transport Protocol: an implementation that provides one or more
different transport services using a specific framing and header
format on the wire.
Transport Service Instance: an arrangement of transport protocols
with a selected set of features and configuration parameters that
implements a single transport service, e.g., a protocol stack (RTP
over UDP).
Application: an entity that uses the transport layer for end-to-end
delivery data across the network (this may also be an upper layer
protocol or tunnel encapsulation).
Application-specific knowledge: knowledge that only applications
have.
Endpoint: an entity that communicates with one or more other
endpoints using a transport protocol.
Connection: shared state of two or more endpoints that persists
across messages that are transmitted between these endpoints.
Connection Group: a set of connections which share the same
configuration (configuring one of them causes all other
connections in the same group to be configured in the same way).
We call connections that belong to a connection group "grouped",
while "ungrouped" connections are not a part of a connection
group.
Socket: the combination of a destination IP address and a
destination port number.
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
Moreover, throughout the document, the protocol name "UDP(-Lite)" is
used when discussing transport features that are equivalent for UDP
and UDP-Lite; similarly, the protocol name "TCP" refers to both TCP
and MPTCP.
3. The Minimal Set of Transport Features
Based on the categorization, reduction, and discussion in Appendix A,
this section describes a minimal set of transport features that end
systems should offer. The described transport system can be
implemented over TCP. Elements of the system that are not marked
with "!UDP" can also be implemented over UDP.
The arguments laid out in Appendix A.3 ("discussion") were used to
make the final representation of the minimal set as short, simple and
general as possible. There may be situations where these arguments
do not apply -- e.g., implementers may have specific reasons to
expose multi-streaming as a visible functionality to applications, or
the restrictive open / close semantics may be problematic under some
circumstances. In such cases, the representation in Appendix A.2
("reduction") should be considered.
As in Appendix A, Appendix A.2 and [RFC8303], we categorize the
minimal set of transport features as 1) CONNECTION related
(ESTABLISHMENT, AVAILABILITY, MAINTENANCE, TERMINATION) and 2) DATA
Transfer related (Sending Data, Receiving Data, Errors). Here, the
focus is on connections that the transport system offers as an
abstraction to the application, as opposed to connections of
transport protocols that the transport system uses.
3.1. ESTABLISHMENT, AVAILABILITY and TERMINATION
A connection must first be "created" to allow for some initial
configuration to be carried out before the transport system can
actively or passively establish communication with a remote endpoint.
All configuration parameters in Section 3.2 can be used initially,
although some of them may only take effect when a connection has been
established with a chosen transport protocol. Configuring a
connection early helps a transport system make the right decisions.
For example, grouping information can influence the transport system
to implement a connection as a stream of a multi-streaming protocol's
existing association or not.
For ungrouped connections, early configuration is necessary because
it allows the transport system to know which protocols it should try
to use. In particular, a transport system that only makes a one-time
choice for a particular protocol must know early about strict
requirements that must be kept, or it can end up in a deadlock
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
situation (e.g., having chosen UDP and later be asked to support
reliable transfer). As an example description of how to correctly
handle these cases, we provide the following decision tree (this is
derived from Appendix A.2.1 excluding authentication, as explained in
Section 7):
- Will it ever be necessary to offer any of the following?
* Reliably transfer data
* Notify the peer of closing/aborting
* Preserve data ordering
Yes: SCTP or TCP can be used.
- Is any of the following useful to the application?
* Choosing a scheduler to operate between connections
in a group, with the possibility to configure a priority
or weight per connection
* Configurable message reliability
* Unordered message delivery
* Request not to delay the acknowledgement (SACK) of a message
Yes: SCTP is preferred.
No:
- Is any of the following useful to the application?
* Hand over a message to reliably transfer (possibly
multiple times) before connection establishment
* Suggest timeout to the peer
* Notification of Excessive Retransmissions (early
warning below abortion threshold)
* Notification of ICMP error message arrival
Yes: TCP is preferred.
No: SCTP and TCP are equally preferable.
No: all protocols can be used.
- Is any of the following useful to the application?
* Specify checksum coverage used by the sender
* Specify minimum checksum coverage required by receiver
Yes: UDP-Lite is preferred.
No: UDP is preferred.
Note that this decision tree is not optimal for all cases. For
example, if an application wants to use "Specify checksum coverage
used by the sender", which is only offered by UDP-Lite, and
"Configure priority or weight for a scheduler", which is only offered
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
by SCTP, the above decision tree will always choose UDP-Lite, making
it impossible to use SCTP's schedulers with priorities between
grouped connections. We caution implementers to be aware of the full
set of trade-offs, for which we recommend consulting the list in
Appendix A.2.1 when deciding how to initialize a connection.
To summarize, the following parameters serve as input for the
transport system to help it choose and configure a suitable protocol:
o Reliability: a boolean that should be set to true when any of the
following will be useful to the application: reliably transfer
data; notify the peer of closing/aborting; preserve data ordering.
o Checksum coverage: a boolean to specify whether it will be useful
to the application to specify checksum coverage when sending or
receiving.
o Configure message priority: a boolean that should be set to true
when any of the following per-message configuration or
prioritization mechanisms will be useful to the application:
choosing a scheduler to operate between grouped connections, with
the possibility to configure a priority or weight per connection;
configurable message reliability; unordered message delivery;
requesting not to delay the acknowledgement (SACK) of a message.
o Early message timeout notifications: a boolean that should be set
to true when any of the following will be useful to the
application: hand over a message to reliably transfer (possibly
multiple times) before connection establishment; suggest timeout
to the peer; notification of excessive retransmissions (early
warning below abortion threshold); notification of ICMP error
message arrival.
Once a connection is created, it can be queried for the maximum
amount of data that an application can possibly expect to have
reliably transmitted before or during transport connection
establishment (with zero being a possible answer) (see
Section 3.2.1). An application can also give the connection a
message for reliable transmission before or during connection
establishment (!UDP); the transport system will then try to transmit
it as early as possible. An application can facilitate sending a
message particularly early by marking it as "idempotent" (see
Section 3.3.1); in this case, the receiving application must be
prepared to potentially receive multiple copies of the message
(because idempotent messages are reliably transferred, asking for
idempotence is not necessary for systems that support UDP).
After creation, a transport system can actively establish
communication with a peer, or it can passively listen for incoming
connection requests. Note that active establishment may or may not
trigger a notification on the listening side. It is possible that
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
the first notification on the listening side is the arrival of the
first data that the active side sends (a receiver-side transport
system could handle this by continuing to block a "Listen" call,
immediately followed by issuing "Receive", for example; callback-
based implementations could simply skip the equivalent of "Listen").
This also means that the active opening side is assumed to be the
first side sending data.
A transport system can actively close a connection, i.e. terminate it
after reliably delivering all remaining data to the peer (if reliable
data delivery was requested earlier (!UDP)), in which case the peer
is notified that the connection is closed. Alternatively, a
connection can be aborted without delivering outstanding data to the
peer. In case reliable or partially reliable data delivery was
requested earlier (!UDP), the peer is notified that the connection is
aborted. A timeout can be configured to abort a connection when data
could not be delivered for too long (!UDP); however, timeout-based
abortion does not notify the peer application that the connection has
been aborted. Because half-closed connections are not supported,
when a host implementing a transport system receives a notification
that the peer is closing or aborting the connection (!UDP), its peer
may not be able to read outstanding data. This means that
unacknowledged data residing a transport system's send buffer may
have to be dropped from that buffer upon arrival of a "close" or
"abort" notification from the peer.
3.2. MAINTENANCE
A transport system must offer means to group connections, but it
cannot guarantee truly grouping them using the transport protocols
that it uses (e.g., it cannot be guaranteed that connections become
multiplexed as streams on a single SCTP association when SCTP may not
be available). The transport system must therefore ensure that
group- versus non-group-configurations are handled correctly in some
way (e.g., by applying the configuration to all grouped connections
even when they are not multiplexed, or informing the application
about grouping success or failure).
As a general rule, any configuration described below should be
carried out as early as possible to aid the transport system's
decision making.
3.2.1. Connection groups
The following transport features and notifications (some directly
from Appendix A.2, some new or changed, based on the discussion in
Appendix A.3) automatically apply to all grouped connections:
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
(!UDP) Configure a timeout: this can be done with the following
parameters:
o A timeout value for aborting connections, in seconds
o A timeout value to be suggested to the peer (if possible), in
seconds
o The number of retransmissions after which the application should
be notifed of "Excessive Retransmissions"
Configure urgency: this can be done with the following parameters:
o A number to identify the type of scheduler that should be used to
operate between connections in the group (no guarantees given).
Schedulers are defined in [RFC8260].
o A "capacity profile" number to identify how an application wants
to use its available capacity. Choices can be "lowest possible
latency at the expense of overhead" (which would disable any
Nagle-like algorithm), "scavenger", or values that help determine
the DSCP value for a connection (e.g. similar to table 1 in
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos]).
o A buffer limit (in bytes); when the sender has less than the
provided limit of bytes in the buffer, the application may be
notified. Notifications are not guaranteed, and it is optional
for a transport system to support buffer limit values greater than
0. Note that this limit and its notification should operate
across the buffers of the whole transport system, i.e. also any
potential buffers that the transport system itself may use on top
of the transport's send buffer.
Following Appendix A.3.7, these properties can be queried:
o The maximum message size that may be sent without fragmentation
via the configured interface. This is optional for a transport
system to offer, and may return an error ("not available"). It
can aid applications implementing Path MTU Discovery.
o The maximum transport message size that can be sent, in bytes.
Irrespective of fragmentation, there is a size limit for the
messages that can be handed over to SCTP or UDP(-Lite); because
the service provided by a transport system is independent of the
transport protocol, it must allow an application to query this
value -- the maximum size of a message in an Application-Framed-
Bytestream (see Appendix A.3.1). This may also return an error
when data is not delimited ("not available").
o The maximum transport message size that can be received from the
configured interface, in bytes (or "not available").
o The maximum amount of data that can possibly be sent before or
during connection establishment, in bytes.
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
In addition to the already mentioned closing / aborting notifications
and possible send errors, the following notifications can occur:
o Excessive Retransmissions: the configured (or a default) number of
retransmissions has been reached, yielding this early warning
below an abortion threshold.
o ICMP Arrival (parameter: ICMP message): an ICMP packet carrying
the conveyed ICMP message has arrived.
o ECN Arrival (parameter: ECN value): a packet carrying the conveyed
ECN value has arrived. This can be useful for applications
implementing congestion control.
o Timeout (parameter: s seconds): data could not be delivered for s
seconds.
o Drain: the send buffer has either drained below the configured
buffer limit or it has become completely empty. This is a generic
notification that tries to enable uniform access to
"TCP_NOTSENT_LOWAT" as well as the "SENDER DRY" notification (as
discussed in Appendix A.3.4 -- SCTP's "SENDER DRY" is a special
case where the threshold (for unsent data) is 0 and there is also
no more unacknowledged data in the send buffer).
3.2.2. Individual connections
Configure priority or weight for a scheduler, as described in
[RFC8260].
Configure checksum usage: this can be done with the following
parameters, but there is no guarantee that any checksum limitations
will indeed be enforced (the default behavior is "full coverage,
checksum enabled"):
o A boolean to enable / disable usage of a checksum when sending
o The desired coverage (in bytes) of the checksum used when sending
o A boolean to enable / disable requiring a checksum when receiving
o The required minimum coverage (in bytes) of the checksum when
receiving
3.3. DATA Transfer
3.3.1. Sending Data
When sending a message, no guarantees are given about the
preservation of message boundaries to the peer; if message boundaries
are needed, the receiving application at the peer must know about
them beforehand (or the transport system cannot use TCP). Note that
an application should already be able to hand over data before the
transport system establishes a connection with a chosen transport
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
protocol. Regarding the message that is being handed over, the
following parameters can be used:
o Reliability: this parameter is used to convey a choice of: fully
reliable with congestion control (!UDP), unreliable without
congestion control, unreliable with congestion control (!UDP),
partially reliable with congestion control (see [RFC3758] and
[RFC7496] for details on how to specify partial reliability)
(!UDP). The latter two choices are optional for a transport
system to offer and may result in full reliability. Note that
applications sending unreliable data without congestion control
should themselves perform congestion control in accordance with
[RFC2914].
o (!UDP) Ordered: this boolean parameter lets an application choose
between ordered message delivery (true) and possibly unordered,
potentially faster message delivery (false).
o Bundle: a boolean that expresses a preference for allowing to
bundle messages (true) or not (false). No guarantees are given.
o DelAck: a boolean that, if false, lets an application request that
the peer would not delay the acknowledgement for this message.
o Fragment: a boolean that expresses a preference for allowing to
fragment messages (true) or not (false), at the IP level. No
guarantees are given.
o (!UDP) Idempotent: a boolean that expresses whether a message is
idempotent (true) or not (false). Idempotent messages may arrive
multiple times at the receiver (but they will arrive at least
once). When data is idempotent it can be used by the receiver
immediately on a connection establishment attempt. Thus, if data
is handed over before the transport system establishes a
connection with a chosen transport protocol, stating that a
message is idempotent facilitates transmitting it to the peer
application particularly early.
An application can be notified of a failure to send a specific
message. There is no guarantee of such notifications, i.e. send
failures can also silently occur.
3.3.2. Receiving Data
A receiving application obtains an "Application-Framed Bytestream"
(AFra-Bytestream); this concept is further described in
Appendix A.3.1). In line with TCP's receiver semantics, an AFra-
Bytestream is just a stream of bytes to the receiver. If message
boundaries were specified by the sender, a receiver-side transport
system implementing only the minimum set of transport services
defined here will still not inform the receiving application about
them (this limitation is only needed for transport systems that are
implemented to directly use TCP).
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
Different from TCP's semantics, if the sending application has
allowed that messages are not fully reliably transferred, or
delivered out of order, then such re-ordering or unreliability may be
reflected per message in the arriving data. Messages will always
stay intact - i.e. if an incomplete message is contained at the end
of the arriving data block, this message is guaranteed to continue in
the next arriving data block.
4. Conclusion
By decoupling applications from transport protocols, a transport
system provides a different abstraction level than the Berkeley
sockets interface. As with high- vs. low-level programming
languages, a higher abstraction level allows more freedom for
automation below the interface, yet it takes some control away from
the application programmer. This is the design trade-off that a
transport system developer is facing, and this document provides
guidance on the design of this abstraction level. Some transport
features are currently rarely offered by APIs, yet they must be
offered or they can never be used ("functional" transport features).
Other transport features are offered by the APIs of the protocols
covered here, but not exposing them in an API would allow for more
freedom to automate protocol usage in a transport system. The
minimal set presented in this document is an effort to find a middle
ground that can be recommended for transport systems to implement, on
the basis of the transport features discussed in [RFC8303].
5. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all the participants of the TAPS
Working Group and the NEAT and MAMI research projects for valuable
input to this document. We especially thank Michael Tuexen for help
with connection connection establishment/teardown and Gorry Fairhurst
for his suggestions regarding fragmentation and packet sizes, and
Spencer Dawkins for his extremely detailed and constructive review.
This work has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020
research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 644334
(NEAT).
6. IANA Considerations
XX RFC ED - PLEASE REMOVE THIS SECTION XXX
This memo includes no request to IANA.
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
7. Security Considerations
Authentication, confidentiality protection, and integrity protection
are identified as transport features by [RFC8095]. As currently
deployed in the Internet, these features are generally provided by a
protocol or layer on top of the transport protocol; no current full-
featured standards-track transport protocol provides all of these
transport features on its own. Therefore, these transport features
are not considered in this document, with the exception of native
authentication capabilities of TCP and SCTP for which the security
considerations in [RFC5925] and [RFC4895] apply. The minimum
requirements for a secure transport system are discussed in a
separate document (Section 5 of [I-D.ietf-taps-transport-security]).
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC8303] Welzl, M., Tuexen, M., and N. Khademi, "On the Usage of
Transport Features Provided by IETF Transport Protocols",
RFC 8303, DOI 10.17487/RFC8303, February 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8303>.
8.2. Informative References
[COBS] Cheshire, S. and M. Baker, "Consistent Overhead Byte
Stuffing", September 1997,
<http://stuartcheshire.org/papers/COBSforToN.pdf>.
[I-D.ietf-taps-transport-security]
Pauly, T., Perkins, C., Rose, K., and C. Wood, "A Survey
of Transport Security Protocols", draft-ietf-taps-
transport-security-01 (work in progress), May 2018.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos]
Jones, P., Dhesikan, S., Jennings, C., and D. Druta, "DSCP
Packet Markings for WebRTC QoS", draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-
qos-18 (work in progress), August 2016.
[LBE-draft]
Bless, R., "A Lower Effort Per-Hop Behavior (LE PHB)",
Internet-draft draft-tsvwg-le-phb-03, February 2018.
[RFC2914] Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41,
RFC 2914, DOI 10.17487/RFC2914, September 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2914>.
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
[RFC3758] Stewart, R., Ramalho, M., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., and P.
Conrad, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
Partial Reliability Extension", RFC 3758,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3758, May 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3758>.
[RFC4895] Tuexen, M., Stewart, R., Lei, P., and E. Rescorla,
"Authenticated Chunks for the Stream Control Transmission
Protocol (SCTP)", RFC 4895, DOI 10.17487/RFC4895, August
2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4895>.
[RFC4987] Eddy, W., "TCP SYN Flooding Attacks and Common
Mitigations", RFC 4987, DOI 10.17487/RFC4987, August 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4987>.
[RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10.17487/RFC5925,
June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5925>.
[RFC7305] Lear, E., Ed., "Report from the IAB Workshop on Internet
Technology Adoption and Transition (ITAT)", RFC 7305,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7305, July 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7305>.
[RFC7413] Cheng, Y., Chu, J., Radhakrishnan, S., and A. Jain, "TCP
Fast Open", RFC 7413, DOI 10.17487/RFC7413, December 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7413>.
[RFC7496] Tuexen, M., Seggelmann, R., Stewart, R., and S. Loreto,
"Additional Policies for the Partially Reliable Stream
Control Transmission Protocol Extension", RFC 7496,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7496, April 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7496>.
[RFC8095] Fairhurst, G., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and M. Kuehlewind,
Ed., "Services Provided by IETF Transport Protocols and
Congestion Control Mechanisms", RFC 8095,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8095, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8095>.
[RFC8260] Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., Loreto, S., and R. Seggelmann,
"Stream Schedulers and User Message Interleaving for the
Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 8260,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8260, November 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8260>.
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
[RFC8304] Fairhurst, G. and T. Jones, "Transport Features of the
User Datagram Protocol (UDP) and Lightweight UDP (UDP-
Lite)", RFC 8304, DOI 10.17487/RFC8304, February 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8304>.
[WWDC2015]
Lakhera, P. and S. Cheshire, "Your App and Next Generation
Networks", Apple Worldwide Developers Conference 2015, San
Francisco, USA, June 2015,
<https://developer.apple.com/videos/wwdc/2015/?id=719>.
Appendix A. Deriving the minimal set
We approach the construction of a minimal set of transport features
in the following way:
1. Categorization (Appendix A.1): the superset of transport features
from [RFC8303] is presented, and transport features are
categorized for later reduction.
2. Reduction (Appendix A.2): a shorter list of transport features is
derived from the categorization in the first step. This removes
all transport features that do not require application-specific
knowledge or would result in semantically incorrect behavior if
they were implemented over TCP or UDP.
3. Discussion (Appendix A.3): the resulting list shows a number of
peculiarities that are discussed, to provide a basis for
constructing the minimal set.
4. Construction (Section 3): Based on the reduced set and the
discussion of the transport features therein, a minimal set is
constructed.
A.1. Step 1: Categorization -- The Superset of Transport Features
Following [RFC8303], we divide the transport features into two main
groups as follows:
1. CONNECTION related transport features
- ESTABLISHMENT
- AVAILABILITY
- MAINTENANCE
- TERMINATION
2. DATA Transfer related transport features
- Sending Data
- Receiving Data
- Errors
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
We assume that applications have no specific requirements that need
knowledge about the network, e.g. regarding the choice of network
interface or the end-to-end path. Even with these assumptions, there
are certain requirements that are strictly kept by transport
protocols today, and these must also be kept by a transport system.
Some of these requirements relate to transport features that we call
"Functional".
Functional transport features provide functionality that cannot be
used without the application knowing about them, or else they violate
assumptions that might cause the application to fail. For example,
ordered message delivery is a functional transport feature: it cannot
be configured without the application knowing about it because the
application's assumption could be that messages always arrive in
order. Failure includes any change of the application behavior that
is not performance oriented, e.g. security.
"Change DSCP" and "Disable Nagle algorithm" are examples of transport
features that we call "Optimizing": if a transport system
autonomously decides to enable or disable them, an application will
not fail, but a transport system may be able to communicate more
efficiently if the application is in control of this optimizing
transport feature. These transport features require application-
specific knowledge (e.g., about delay/bandwidth requirements or the
length of future data blocks that are to be transmitted).
The transport features of IETF transport protocols that do not
require application-specific knowledge and could therefore be
utilized by a transport system on its own without involving the
application are called "Automatable".
Finally, some transport features are aggregated and/or slightly
changed from [RFC8303] in the description below. These transport
features are marked as "ADDED". The corresponding transport features
are automatable, and they are listed immediately below the "ADDED"
transport feature.
In this description, transport services are presented following the
nomenclature "CATEGORY.[SUBCATEGORY].SERVICENAME.PROTOCOL",
equivalent to "pass 2" in [RFC8303]. We also sketch how functional
or optimizing transport features can be implemented by a transport
system. The "minimal set" derived in this document is meant to be
implementable "one-sided" over TCP, and, with limitations, UDP.
Hence, for all transport features that are categorized as
"functional" or "optimizing", and for which no matching TCP and/or
UDP primitive exists in "pass 2" of [RFC8303], a brief discussion on
how to implement them over TCP and/or UDP is included.
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
We designate some transport features as "automatable" on the basis of
a broader decision that affects multiple transport features:
o Most transport features that are related to multi-streaming were
designated as "automatable". This was done because the decision
on whether to use multi-streaming or not does not depend on
application-specific knowledge. This means that a connection that
is exhibited to an application could be implemented by using a
single stream of an SCTP association instead of mapping it to a
complete SCTP association or TCP connection. This could be
achieved by using more than one stream when an SCTP association is
first established (CONNECT.SCTP parameter "outbound stream
count"), maintaining an internal stream number, and using this
stream number when sending data (SEND.SCTP parameter "stream
number"). Closing or aborting a connection could then simply free
the stream number for future use. This is discussed further in
Appendix A.3.2.
o All transport features that are related to using multiple paths or
the choice of the network interface were designated as
"automatable". Choosing a path or an interface does not depend on
application-specific knowledge. For example, "Listen" could
always listen on all available interfaces and "Connect" could use
the default interface for the destination IP address.
A.1.1. CONNECTION Related Transport Features
ESTABLISHMENT:
o Connect
Protocols: TCP, SCTP, UDP(-Lite)
Functional because the notion of a connection is often reflected
in applications as an expectation to be able to communicate after
a "Connect" succeeded, with a communication sequence relating to
this transport feature that is defined by the application
protocol.
Implementation: via CONNECT.TCP, CONNECT.SCTP or CONNECT.UDP(-
Lite).
o Specify which IP Options must always be used
Protocols: TCP, UDP(-Lite)
Automatable because IP Options relate to knowledge about the
network, not the application.
o Request multiple streams
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
Protocols: SCTP
Automatable because using multi-streaming does not require
application-specific knowledge.
Implementation: see Appendix A.3.2.
o Limit the number of inbound streams
Protocols: SCTP
Automatable because using multi-streaming does not require
application-specific knowledge.
Implementation: see Appendix A.3.2.
o Specify number of attempts and/or timeout for the first
establishment message
Protocols: TCP, SCTP
Functional because this is closely related to potentially assumed
reliable data delivery for data that is sent before or during
connection establishment.
Implementation: Using a parameter of CONNECT.TCP and CONNECT.SCTP.
Implementation over UDP: Do nothing (this is irrelevant in case of
UDP because there, reliable data delivery is not assumed).
o Obtain multiple sockets
Protocols: SCTP
Automatable because the usage of multiple paths to communicate to
the same end host relates to knowledge about the network, not the
application.
o Disable MPTCP
Protocols: MPTCP
Automatable because the usage of multiple paths to communicate to
the same end host relates to knowledge about the network, not the
application.
Implementation: via a boolean parameter in CONNECT.MPTCP.
o Configure authentication
Protocols: TCP, SCTP
Functional because this has a direct influence on security.
Implementation: via parameters in CONNECT.TCP and CONNECT.SCTP.
With TCP, this allows to configure Master Key Tuples (MKTs) to
authenticate complete segments (including the TCP IPv4
pseudoheader, TCP header, and TCP data). With SCTP, this allows
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
to specify which chunk types must always be authenticated.
Authenticating only certain chunk types creates a reduced level of
security that is not supported by TCP; to be compatible, this
should therefore only allow to authenticate all chunk types. Key
material must be provided in a way that is compatible with both
[RFC4895] and [RFC5925].
Implementation over UDP: Not possible (UDP does not offer this
functionality).
o Indicate (and/or obtain upon completion) an Adaptation Layer via
an adaptation code point
Protocols: SCTP
Functional because it allows to send extra data for the sake of
identifying an adaptation layer, which by itself is application-
specific.
Implementation: via a parameter in CONNECT.SCTP.
Implementation over TCP: not possible (TCP does not offer this
functionality).
Implementation over UDP: not possible (UDP does not offer this
functionality).
o Request to negotiate interleaving of user messages
Protocols: SCTP
Automatable because it requires using multiple streams, but
requesting multiple streams in the CONNECTION.ESTABLISHMENT
category is automatable.
Implementation: via a parameter in CONNECT.SCTP.
o Hand over a message to reliably transfer (possibly multiple times)
before connection establishment
Protocols: TCP
Functional because this is closely tied to properties of the data
that an application sends or expects to receive.
Implementation: via a parameter in CONNECT.TCP.
Implementation over UDP: not possible (UDP does not provide
reliability).
o Hand over a message to reliably transfer during connection
establishment
Protocols: SCTP
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
Functional because this can only work if the message is limited in
size, making it closely tied to properties of the data that an
application sends or expects to receive.
Implementation: via a parameter in CONNECT.SCTP.
Implementation over TCP: not possible (TCP does not allow
identification of message boundaries because it provides a byte
stream service)
Implementation over UDP: not possible (UDP is unreliable).
o Enable UDP encapsulation with a specified remote UDP port number
Protocols: SCTP
Automatable because UDP encapsulation relates to knowledge about
the network, not the application.
AVAILABILITY:
o Listen
Protocols: TCP, SCTP, UDP(-Lite)
Functional because the notion of accepting connection requests is
often reflected in applications as an expectation to be able to
communicate after a "Listen" succeeded, with a communication
sequence relating to this transport feature that is defined by the
application protocol.
ADDED. This differs from the 3 automatable transport features
below in that it leaves the choice of interfaces for listening
open.
Implementation: by listening on all interfaces via LISTEN.TCP (not
providing a local IP address) or LISTEN.SCTP (providing SCTP port
number / address pairs for all local IP addresses). LISTEN.UDP(-
Lite) supports both methods.
o Listen, 1 specified local interface
Protocols: TCP, SCTP, UDP(-Lite)
Automatable because decisions about local interfaces relate to
knowledge about the network and the Operating System, not the
application.
o Listen, N specified local interfaces
Protocols: SCTP
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
Automatable because decisions about local interfaces relate to
knowledge about the network and the Operating System, not the
application.
o Listen, all local interfaces
Protocols: TCP, SCTP, UDP(-Lite)
Automatable because decisions about local interfaces relate to
knowledge about the network and the Operating System, not the
application.
o Specify which IP Options must always be used
Protocols: TCP, UDP(-Lite)
Automatable because IP Options relate to knowledge about the
network, not the application.
o Disable MPTCP
Protocols: MPTCP
Automatable because the usage of multiple paths to communicate to
the same end host relates to knowledge about the network, not the
application.
o Configure authentication
Protocols: TCP, SCTP
Functional because this has a direct influence on security.
Implementation: via parameters in LISTEN.TCP and LISTEN.SCTP.
Implementation over TCP: With TCP, this allows to configure Master
Key Tuples (MKTs) to authenticate complete segments (including the
TCP IPv4 pseudoheader, TCP header, and TCP data). With SCTP, this
allows to specify which chunk types must always be authenticated.
Authenticating only certain chunk types creates a reduced level of
security that is not supported by TCP; to be compatible, this
should therefore only allow to authenticate all chunk types. Key
material must be provided in a way that is compatible with both
[RFC4895] and [RFC5925].
Implementation over UDP: not possible (UDP does not offer
authentication).
o Obtain requested number of streams
Protocols: SCTP
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
Automatable because using multi-streaming does not require
application-specific knowledge.
Implementation: see Appendix A.3.2.
o Limit the number of inbound streams
Protocols: SCTP
Automatable because using multi-streaming does not require
application-specific knowledge.
Implementation: see Appendix A.3.2.
o Indicate (and/or obtain upon completion) an Adaptation Layer via
an adaptation code point
Protocols: SCTP
Functional because it allows to send extra data for the sake of
identifying an adaptation layer, which by itself is application-
specific.
Implementation: via a parameter in LISTEN.SCTP.
Implementation over TCP: not possible (TCP does not offer this
functionality).
Implementation over UDP: not possible (UDP does not offer this
functionality).
o Request to negotiate interleaving of user messages
Protocols: SCTP
Automatable because it requires using multiple streams, but
requesting multiple streams in the CONNECTION.ESTABLISHMENT
category is automatable.
Implementation: via a parameter in LISTEN.SCTP.
MAINTENANCE:
o Change timeout for aborting connection (using retransmit limit or
time value)
Protocols: TCP, SCTP
Functional because this is closely related to potentially assumed
reliable data delivery.
Implementation: via CHANGE_TIMEOUT.TCP or CHANGE_TIMEOUT.SCTP.
Implementation over UDP: not possible (UDP is unreliable and there
is no connection timeout).
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
o Suggest timeout to the peer
Protocols: TCP
Functional because this is closely related to potentially assumed
reliable data delivery.
Implementation: via CHANGE_TIMEOUT.TCP.
Implementation over UDP: not possible (UDP is unreliable and there
is no connection timeout).
o Disable Nagle algorithm
Protocols: TCP, SCTP
Optimizing because this decision depends on knowledge about the
size of future data blocks and the delay between them.
Implementation: via DISABLE_NAGLE.TCP and DISABLE_NAGLE.SCTP.
Implementation over UDP: do nothing (UDP does not implement the
Nagle algorithm).
o Request an immediate heartbeat, returning success/failure
Protocols: SCTP
Automatable because this informs about network-specific knowledge.
o Notification of Excessive Retransmissions (early warning below
abortion threshold)
Protocols: TCP
Optimizing because it is an early warning to the application,
informing it of an impending functional event.
Implementation: via ERROR.TCP.
Implementation over UDP: do nothing (there is no abortion
threshold).
o Add path
Protocols: MPTCP, SCTP
MPTCP Parameters: source-IP; source-Port; destination-IP;
destination-Port
SCTP Parameters: local IP address
Automatable because the usage of multiple paths to communicate to
the same end host relates to knowledge about the network, not the
application.
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
o Remove path
Protocols: MPTCP, SCTP
MPTCP Parameters: source-IP; source-Port; destination-IP;
destination-Port
SCTP Parameters: local IP address
Automatable because the usage of multiple paths to communicate to
the same end host relates to knowledge about the network, not the
application.
o Set primary path
Protocols: SCTP
Automatable because the usage of multiple paths to communicate to
the same end host relates to knowledge about the network, not the
application.
o Suggest primary path to the peer
Protocols: SCTP
Automatable because the usage of multiple paths to communicate to
the same end host relates to knowledge about the network, not the
application.
o Configure Path Switchover
Protocols: SCTP
Automatable because the usage of multiple paths to communicate to
the same end host relates to knowledge about the network, not the
application.
o Obtain status (query or notification)
Protocols: SCTP, MPTCP
SCTP parameters: association connection state; destination
transport address list; destination transport address reachability
states; current local and peer receiver window size; current local
congestion window sizes; number of unacknowledged DATA chunks;
number of DATA chunks pending receipt; primary path; most recent
SRTT on primary path; RTO on primary path; SRTT and RTO on other
destination addresses; MTU per path; interleaving supported yes/no
MPTCP parameters: subflow-list (identified by source-IP; source-
Port; destination-IP; destination-Port)
Automatable because these parameters relate to knowledge about the
network, not the application.
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
o Specify DSCP field
Protocols: TCP, SCTP, UDP(-Lite)
Optimizing because choosing a suitable DSCP value requires
application-specific knowledge.
Implementation: via SET_DSCP.TCP / SET_DSCP.SCTP / SET_DSCP.UDP(-
Lite)
o Notification of ICMP error message arrival
Protocols: TCP, UDP(-Lite)
Optimizing because these messages can inform about success or
failure of functional transport features (e.g., host unreachable
relates to "Connect")
Implementation: via ERROR.TCP or ERROR.UDP(-Lite).
o Obtain information about interleaving support
Protocols: SCTP
Automatable because it requires using multiple streams, but
requesting multiple streams in the CONNECTION.ESTABLISHMENT
category is automatable.
Implementation: via STATUS.SCTP.
o Change authentication parameters
Protocols: TCP, SCTP
Functional because this has a direct influence on security.
Implementation: via SET_AUTH.TCP and SET_AUTH.SCTP.
Implementation over TCP: With SCTP, this allows to adjust key_id,
key, and hmac_id. With TCP, this allows to change the preferred
outgoing MKT (current_key) and the preferred incoming MKT
(rnext_key), respectively, for a segment that is sent on the
connection. Key material must be provided in a way that is
compatible with both [RFC4895] and [RFC5925].
Implementation over UDP: not possible (UDP does not offer
authentication).
o Obtain authentication information
Protocols: SCTP
Functional because authentication decisions may have been made by
the peer, and this has an influence on the necessary application-
level measures to provide a certain level of security.
Implementation: via GET_AUTH.SCTP.
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
Implementation over TCP: With SCTP, this allows to obtain key_id
and a chunk list. With TCP, this allows to obtain current_key and
rnext_key from a previously received segment. Key material must
be provided in a way that is compatible with both [RFC4895] and
[RFC5925].
Implementation over UDP: not possible (UDP does not offer
authentication).
o Reset Stream
Protocols: SCTP
Automatable because using multi-streaming does not require
application-specific knowledge.
Implementation: see Appendix A.3.2.
o Notification of Stream Reset
Protocols: STCP
Automatable because using multi-streaming does not require
application-specific knowledge.
Implementation: see Appendix A.3.2.
o Reset Association
Protocols: SCTP
Automatable because deciding to reset an association does not
require application-specific knowledge.
Implementation: via RESET_ASSOC.SCTP.
o Notification of Association Reset
Protocols: STCP
Automatable because this notification does not relate to
application-specific knowledge.
o Add Streams
Protocols: SCTP
Automatable because using multi-streaming does not require
application-specific knowledge.
Implementation: see Appendix A.3.2.
o Notification of Added Stream
Protocols: STCP
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
Automatable because using multi-streaming does not require
application-specific knowledge.
Implementation: see Appendix A.3.2.
o Choose a scheduler to operate between streams of an association
Protocols: SCTP
Optimizing because the scheduling decision requires application-
specific knowledge. However, if a transport system would not use
this, or wrongly configure it on its own, this would only affect
the performance of data transfers; the outcome would still be
correct within the "best effort" service model.
Implementation: using SET_STREAM_SCHEDULER.SCTP.
Implementation over TCP: do nothing (streams are not available in
TCP, but no guarantee is given that this transport feature has any
effect).
Implementation over UDP: do nothing (streams are not available in
UDP, but no guarantee is given that this transport feature has any
effect).
o Configure priority or weight for a scheduler
Protocols: SCTP
Optimizing because the priority or weight requires application-
specific knowledge. However, if a transport system would not use
this, or wrongly configure it on its own, this would only affect
the performance of data transfers; the outcome would still be
correct within the "best effort" service model.
Implementation: using CONFIGURE_STREAM_SCHEDULER.SCTP.
Implementation over TCP: do nothing (streams are not available in
TCP, but no guarantee is given that this transport feature has any
effect).
Implementation over UDP: do nothing (streams are not available in
UDP, but no guarantee is given that this transport feature has any
effect).
o Configure send buffer size
Protocols: SCTP
Automatable because this decision relates to knowledge about the
network and the Operating System, not the application (see also
the discussion in Appendix A.3.4).
o Configure receive buffer (and rwnd) size
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
Protocols: SCTP
Automatable because this decision relates to knowledge about the
network and the Operating System, not the application.
o Configure message fragmentation
Protocols: SCTP
Automatable because fragmentation relates to knowledge about the
network and the Operating System, not the application.
Implementation: by always enabling it with
CONFIG_FRAGMENTATION.SCTP and auto-setting the fragmentation size
based on network or Operating System conditions.
o Configure PMTUD
Protocols: SCTP
Automatable because Path MTU Discovery relates to knowledge about
the network, not the application.
o Configure delayed SACK timer
Protocols: SCTP
Automatable because the receiver-side decision to delay sending
SACKs relates to knowledge about the network, not the application
(it can be relevant for a sending application to request not to
delay the SACK of a message, but this is a different transport
feature).
o Set Cookie life value
Protocols: SCTP
Functional because it relates to security (possibly weakened by
keeping a cookie very long) versus the time between connection
establishment attempts. Knowledge about both issues can be
application-specific.
Implementation over TCP: the closest specified TCP functionality
is the cookie in TCP Fast Open; for this, [RFC7413] states that
the server "can expire the cookie at any time to enhance security"
and section 4.1.2 describes an example implementation where
updating the key on the server side causes the cookie to expire.
Alternatively, for implementations that do not support TCP Fast
Open, this transport feature could also affect the validity of SYN
cookies (see Section 3.6 of [RFC4987]).
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
Implementation over UDP: not possible (UDP does not offer this
functionality).
o Set maximum burst
Protocols: SCTP
Automatable because it relates to knowledge about the network, not
the application.
o Configure size where messages are broken up for partial delivery
Protocols: SCTP
Functional because this is closely tied to properties of the data
that an application sends or expects to receive.
Implementation over TCP: not possible (TCP does not offer
identification of message boundaries).
Implementation over UDP: not possible (UDP does not fragment
messages).
o Disable checksum when sending
Protocols: UDP
Functional because application-specific knowledge is necessary to
decide whether it can be acceptable to lose data integrity.
Implementation: via SET_CHECKSUM_ENABLED.UDP.
Implementation over TCP: do nothing (TCP does not offer to disable
the checksum, but transmitting data with an intact checksum will
not yield a semantically wrong result).
o Disable checksum requirement when receiving
Protocols: UDP
Functional because application-specific knowledge is necessary to
decide whether it can be acceptable to lose data integrity.
Implementation: via SET_CHECKSUM_REQUIRED.UDP.
Implementation over TCP: do nothing (TCP does not offer to disable
the checksum, but transmitting data with an intact checksum will
not yield a semantically wrong result).
o Specify checksum coverage used by the sender
Protocols: UDP-Lite
Functional because application-specific knowledge is necessary to
decide for which parts of the data it can be acceptable to lose
data integrity.
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
Implementation: via SET_CHECKSUM_COVERAGE.UDP-Lite.
Implementation over TCP: do nothing (TCP does not offer to limit
the checksum length, but transmitting data with an intact checksum
will not yield a semantically wrong result). Implementation over
UDP: if checksum coverage is set to cover payload data, do
nothing. Else, either do nothing (transmitting data with an
intact checksum will not yield a semantically wrong result), or
use the transport feature "Disable checksum when sending".
o Specify minimum checksum coverage required by receiver
Protocols: UDP-Lite
Functional because application-specific knowledge is necessary to
decide for which parts of the data it can be acceptable to lose
data integrity.
Implementation: via SET_MIN_CHECKSUM_COVERAGE.UDP-Lite.
Implementation over TCP: do nothing (TCP does not offer to limit
the checksum length, but transmitting data with an intact checksum
will not yield a semantically wrong result). Implementation over
UDP: if checksum coverage is set to cover payload data, do
nothing. Else, either do nothing (transmitting data with an
intact checksum will not yield a semantically wrong result), or
use the transport feature "Disable checksum requirement when
receiving".
o Specify DF field
Protocols: UDP(-Lite)
Optimizing because the DF field can be used to carry out Path MTU
Discovery, which can lead an application to choose message sizes
that can be transmitted more efficiently.
Implementation: via MAINTENANCE.SET_DF.UDP(-Lite) and
SEND_FAILURE.UDP(-Lite).
Implementation over TCP: do nothing (with TCP, the sending
application is not in control of transport message sizes, making
this functionality irrelevant).
o Get max. transport-message size that may be sent using a non-
fragmented IP packet from the configured interface
Protocols: UDP(-Lite)
Optimizing because this can lead an application to choose message
sizes that can be transmitted more efficiently.
Implementation over TCP: do nothing (this information is not
available with TCP).
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
o Get max. transport-message size that may be received from the
configured interface
Protocols: UDP(-Lite)
Optimizing because this can, for example, influence an
application's memory management.
Implementation over TCP: do nothing (this information is not
available with TCP).
o Specify TTL/Hop count field
Protocols: UDP(-Lite)
Automatable because a transport system can use a large enough
system default to avoid communication failures. Allowing an
application to configure it differently can produce notifications
of ICMP error message arrivals that yield information which only
relates to knowledge about the network, not the application.
o Obtain TTL/Hop count field
Protocols: UDP(-Lite)
Automatable because the TTL/Hop count field relates to knowledge
about the network, not the application.
o Specify ECN field
Protocols: UDP(-Lite)
Automatable because the ECN field relates to knowledge about the
network, not the application.
o Obtain ECN field
Protocols: UDP(-Lite)
Optimizing because this information can be used by an application
to better carry out congestion control (this is relevant when
choosing a data transmission transport service that does not
already do congestion control).
Implementation over TCP: do nothing (this information is not
available with TCP).
o Specify IP Options
Protocols: UDP(-Lite)
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
Automatable because IP Options relate to knowledge about the
network, not the application.
o Obtain IP Options
Protocols: UDP(-Lite)
Automatable because IP Options relate to knowledge about the
network, not the application.
o Enable and configure a "Low Extra Delay Background Transfer"
Protocols: A protocol implementing the LEDBAT congestion control
mechanism
Optimizing because whether this service is appropriate or not
depends on application-specific knowledge. However, wrongly using
this will only affect the speed of data transfers (albeit
including other transfers that may compete with the transport
system's transfer in the network), so it is still correct within
the "best effort" service model.
Implementation: via CONFIGURE.LEDBAT and/or SET_DSCP.TCP /
SET_DSCP.SCTP / SET_DSCP.UDP(-Lite) [LBE-draft].
Implementation over TCP: do nothing (TCP does not support LEDBAT
congestion control, but not implementing this functionality will
not yield a semantically wrong behavior).
Implementation over UDP: do nothing (UDP does not offer congestion
control).
TERMINATION:
o Close after reliably delivering all remaining data, causing an
event informing the application on the other side
Protocols: TCP, SCTP
Functional because the notion of a connection is often reflected
in applications as an expectation to have all outstanding data
delivered and no longer be able to communicate after a "Close"
succeeded, with a communication sequence relating to this
transport feature that is defined by the application protocol.
Implementation: via CLOSE.TCP and CLOSE.SCTP.
Implementation over UDP: not possible (UDP is unreliable and hence
does not know when all remaining data is delivered; it does also
not offer to cause an event related to closing at the peer).
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
o Abort without delivering remaining data, causing an event
informing the application on the other side
Protocols: TCP, SCTP
Functional because the notion of a connection is often reflected
in applications as an expectation to potentially not have all
outstanding data delivered and no longer be able to communicate
after an "Abort" succeeded. On both sides of a connection, an
application protocol may define a communication sequence relating
to this transport feature.
Implementation: via ABORT.TCP and ABORT.SCTP.
Implementation over UDP: not possible (UDP does not offer to cause
an event related to aborting at the peer).
o Abort without delivering remaining data, not causing an event
informing the application on the other side
Protocols: UDP(-Lite)
Functional because the notion of a connection is often reflected
in applications as an expectation to potentially not have all
outstanding data delivered and no longer be able to communicate
after an "Abort" succeeded. On both sides of a connection, an
application protocol may define a communication sequence relating
to this transport feature.
Implementation: via ABORT.UDP(-Lite).
Implementation over TCP: stop using the connection, wait for a
timeout.
o Timeout event when data could not be delivered for too long
Protocols: TCP, SCTP
Functional because this notifies that potentially assumed reliable
data delivery is no longer provided.
Implementation: via TIMEOUT.TCP and TIMEOUT.SCTP.
Implementation over UDP: do nothing (this event will not occur
with UDP).
A.1.2. DATA Transfer Related Transport Features
A.1.2.1. Sending Data
o Reliably transfer data, with congestion control
Protocols: TCP, SCTP
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
Functional because this is closely tied to properties of the data
that an application sends or expects to receive.
Implementation: via SEND.TCP and SEND.SCTP.
Implementation over UDP: not possible (UDP is unreliable).
o Reliably transfer a message, with congestion control
Protocols: SCTP
Functional because this is closely tied to properties of the data
that an application sends or expects to receive.
Implementation: via SEND.SCTP.
Implementation over TCP: via SEND.TCP. With SEND.TCP, message
boundaries will not be identifiable by the receiver, because TCP
provides a byte stream service.
Implementation over UDP: not possible (UDP is unreliable).
o Unreliably transfer a message
Protocols: SCTP, UDP(-Lite)
Optimizing because only applications know about the time
criticality of their communication, and reliably transfering a
message is never incorrect for the receiver of a potentially
unreliable data transfer, it is just slower.
ADDED. This differs from the 2 automatable transport features
below in that it leaves the choice of congestion control open.
Implementation: via SEND.SCTP or SEND.UDP(-Lite).
Implementation over TCP: use SEND.TCP. With SEND.TCP, messages
will be sent reliably, and message boundaries will not be
identifiable by the receiver.
o Unreliably transfer a message, with congestion control
Protocols: SCTP
Automatable because congestion control relates to knowledge about
the network, not the application.
o Unreliably transfer a message, without congestion control
Protocols: UDP(-Lite)
Automatable because congestion control relates to knowledge about
the network, not the application.
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
o Configurable Message Reliability
Protocols: SCTP
Optimizing because only applications know about the time
criticality of their communication, and reliably transfering a
message is never incorrect for the receiver of a potentially
unreliable data transfer, it is just slower.
Implementation: via SEND.SCTP.
Implementation over TCP: By using SEND.TCP and ignoring this
configuration: based on the assumption of the best-effort service
model, unnecessarily delivering data does not violate application
expectations. Moreover, it is not possible to associate the
requested reliability to a "message" in TCP anyway.
Implementation over UDP: not possible (UDP is unreliable).
o Choice of stream
Protocols: SCTP
Automatable because it requires using multiple streams, but
requesting multiple streams in the CONNECTION.ESTABLISHMENT
category is automatable. Implementation: see Appendix A.3.2.
o Choice of path (destination address)
Protocols: SCTP
Automatable because it requires using multiple sockets, but
obtaining multiple sockets in the CONNECTION.ESTABLISHMENT
category is automatable.
o Ordered message delivery (potentially slower than unordered)
Protocols: SCTP
Functional because this is closely tied to properties of the data
that an application sends or expects to receive.
Implementation: via SEND.SCTP.
Implementation over TCP: By using SEND.TCP. With SEND.TCP,
messages will not be identifiable by the receiver.
Implementation over UDP: not possible (UDP does not offer any
guarantees regarding ordering).
o Unordered message delivery (potentially faster than ordered)
Protocols: SCTP, UDP(-Lite)
Functional because this is closely tied to properties of the data
that an application sends or expects to receive.
Implementation: via SEND.SCTP.
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
Implementation over TCP: By using SEND.TCP and always sending data
ordered: based on the assumption of the best-effort service model,
ordered delivery may just be slower and does not violate
application expectations. Moreover, it is not possible to
associate the requested delivery order to a "message" in TCP
anyway.
o Request not to bundle messages
Protocols: SCTP
Optimizing because this decision depends on knowledge about the
size of future data blocks and the delay between them.
Implementation: via SEND.SCTP.
Implementation over TCP: By using SEND.TCP and DISABLE_NAGLE.TCP
to disable the Nagle algorithm when the request is made and enable
it again when the request is no longer made. Note that this is
not fully equivalent because it relates to the time of issuing the
request rather than a specific message.
Implementation over UDP: do nothing (UDP never bundles messages).
o Specifying a "payload protocol-id" (handed over as such by the
receiver)
Protocols: SCTP
Functional because it allows to send extra application data with
every message, for the sake of identification of data, which by
itself is application-specific.
Implementation: SEND.SCTP.
Implementation over TCP: not possible (this functionality is not
available in TCP).
Implementation over UDP: not possible (this functionality is not
available in UDP).
o Specifying a key id to be used to authenticate a message
Protocols: SCTP
Functional because this has a direct influence on security.
Implementation: via a parameter in SEND.SCTP.
Implementation over TCP: This could be emulated by using
SET_AUTH.TCP before and after the message is sent. Note that this
is not fully equivalent because it relates to the time of issuing
the request rather than a specific message.
Implementation over UDP: not possible (UDP does not offer
authentication).
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
o Request not to delay the acknowledgement (SACK) of a message
Protocols: SCTP
Optimizing because only an application knows for which message it
wants to quickly be informed about success / failure of its
delivery.
Implementation over TCP: do nothing (TCP does not offer this
functionality, but ignoring this request from the application will
not yield a semantically wrong behavior).
Implementation over UDP: do nothing (UDP does not offer this
functionality, but ignoring this request from the application will
not yield a semantically wrong behavior).
A.1.2.2. Receiving Data
o Receive data (with no message delimiting)
Protocols: TCP
Functional because a transport system must be able to send and
receive data.
Implementation: via RECEIVE.TCP.
Implementation over UDP: do nothing (UDP only works on messages;
these can be handed over, the application can still ignore the
message boundaries).
o Receive a message
Protocols: SCTP, UDP(-Lite)
Functional because this is closely tied to properties of the data
that an application sends or expects to receive.
Implementation: via RECEIVE.SCTP and RECEIVE.UDP(-Lite).
Implementation over TCP: not possible (TCP does not support
identification of message boundaries).
o Choice of stream to receive from
Protocols: SCTP
Automatable because it requires using multiple streams, but
requesting multiple streams in the CONNECTION.ESTABLISHMENT
category is automatable.
Implementation: see Appendix A.3.2.
o Information about partial message arrival
Protocols: SCTP
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
Functional because this is closely tied to properties of the data
that an application sends or expects to receive.
Implementation: via RECEIVE.SCTP.
Implementation over TCP: do nothing (this information is not
available with TCP).
Implementation over UDP: do nothing (this information is not
available with UDP).
A.1.2.3. Errors
This section describes sending failures that are associated with a
specific call to in the "Sending Data" category (Appendix A.1.2.1).
o Notification of send failures
Protocols: SCTP, UDP(-Lite)
Functional because this notifies that potentially assumed reliable
data delivery is no longer provided.
ADDED. This differs from the 2 automatable transport features
below in that it does not distinugish between unsent and
unacknowledged messages.
Implementation: via SENDFAILURE-EVENT.SCTP and SEND_FAILURE.UDP(-
Lite).
Implementation over TCP: do nothing (this notification is not
available and will therefore not occur with TCP).
o Notification of an unsent (part of a) message
Protocols: SCTP, UDP(-Lite)
Automatable because the distinction between unsent and
unacknowledged is network-specific.
o Notification of an unacknowledged (part of a) message
Protocols: SCTP
Automatable because the distinction between unsent and
unacknowledged is network-specific.
o Notification that the stack has no more user data to send
Protocols: SCTP
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
Optimizing because reacting to this notification requires the
application to be involved, and ensuring that the stack does not
run dry of data (for too long) can improve performance.
Implementation over TCP: do nothing (see the discussion in
Appendix A.3.4).
Implementation over UDP: do nothing (this notification is not
available and will therefore not occur with UDP).
o Notification to a receiver that a partial message delivery has
been aborted
Protocols: SCTP
Functional because this is closely tied to properties of the data
that an application sends or expects to receive.
Implementation over TCP: do nothing (this notification is not
available and will therefore not occur with TCP).
Implementation over UDP: do nothing (this notification is not
available and will therefore not occur with UDP).
A.2. Step 2: Reduction -- The Reduced Set of Transport Features
By hiding automatable transport features from the application, a
transport system can gain opportunities to automate the usage of
network-related functionality. This can facilitate using the
transport system for the application programmer and it allows for
optimizations that may not be possible for an application. For
instance, system-wide configurations regarding the usage of multiple
interfaces can better be exploited if the choice of the interface is
not entirely up to the application. Therefore, since they are not
strictly necessary to expose in a transport system, we do not include
automatable transport features in the reduced set of transport
features. This leaves us with only the transport features that are
either optimizing or functional.
A transport system should be able to communicate via TCP or UDP if
alternative transport protocols are found not to work. For many
transport features, this is possible -- often by simply not doing
anything when a specific request is made. For some transport
features, however, it was identified that direct usage of neither TCP
nor UDP is possible: in these cases, even not doing anything would
incur semantically incorrect behavior. Whenever an application would
make use of one of these transport features, this would eliminate the
possibility to use TCP or UDP. Thus, we only keep the functional and
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
optimizing transport features for which an implementation over either
TCP or UDP is possible in our reduced set.
The "minimal set" derived in this document is meant to be
implementable "one-sided" over TCP, and, with limitations, UDP. In
the following list, we therefore precede a transport feature with
"T:" if an implementation over TCP is possible, "U:" if an
implementation over UDP is possible, and "TU:" if an implementation
over either TCP or UDP is possible.
A.2.1. CONNECTION Related Transport Features
ESTABLISHMENT:
o T,U: Connect
o T,U: Specify number of attempts and/or timeout for the first
establishment message
o T: Configure authentication
o T: Hand over a message to reliably transfer (possibly multiple
times) before connection establishment
o T: Hand over a message to reliably transfer during connection
establishment
AVAILABILITY:
o T,U: Listen
o T: Configure authentication
MAINTENANCE:
o T: Change timeout for aborting connection (using retransmit limit
or time value)
o T: Suggest timeout to the peer
o T,U: Disable Nagle algorithm
o T,U: Notification of Excessive Retransmissions (early warning
below abortion threshold)
o T,U: Specify DSCP field
o T,U: Notification of ICMP error message arrival
o T: Change authentication parameters
o T: Obtain authentication information
o T,U: Set Cookie life value
o T,U: Choose a scheduler to operate between streams of an
association
o T,U: Configure priority or weight for a scheduler
o T,U: Disable checksum when sending
o T,U: Disable checksum requirement when receiving
o T,U: Specify checksum coverage used by the sender
o T,U: Specify minimum checksum coverage required by receiver
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
o T,U: Specify DF field
o T,U: Get max. transport-message size that may be sent using a non-
fragmented IP packet from the configured interface
o T,U: Get max. transport-message size that may be received from the
configured interface
o T,U: Obtain ECN field
o T,U: Enable and configure a "Low Extra Delay Background Transfer"
TERMINATION:
o T: Close after reliably delivering all remaining data, causing an
event informing the application on the other side
o T: Abort without delivering remaining data, causing an event
informing the application on the other side
o T,U: Abort without delivering remaining data, not causing an event
informing the application on the other side
o T,U: Timeout event when data could not be delivered for too long
A.2.2. DATA Transfer Related Transport Features
A.2.2.1. Sending Data
o T: Reliably transfer data, with congestion control
o T: Reliably transfer a message, with congestion control
o T,U: Unreliably transfer a message
o T: Configurable Message Reliability
o T: Ordered message delivery (potentially slower than unordered)
o T,U: Unordered message delivery (potentially faster than ordered)
o T,U: Request not to bundle messages
o T: Specifying a key id to be used to authenticate a message
o T,U: Request not to delay the acknowledgement (SACK) of a message
A.2.2.2. Receiving Data
o T,U: Receive data (with no message delimiting)
o U: Receive a message
o T,U: Information about partial message arrival
A.2.2.3. Errors
This section describes sending failures that are associated with a
specific call to in the "Sending Data" category (Appendix A.1.2.1).
o T,U: Notification of send failures
o T,U: Notification that the stack has no more user data to send
o T,U: Notification to a receiver that a partial message delivery
has been aborted
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
A.3. Step 3: Discussion
The reduced set in the previous section exhibits a number of
peculiarities, which we will discuss in the following. This section
focuses on TCP because, with the exception of one particular
transport feature ("Receive a message" -- we will discuss this in
Appendix A.3.1), the list shows that UDP is strictly a subset of TCP.
We can first try to understand how to build a transport system that
can run over TCP, and then narrow down the result further to allow
that the system can always run over either TCP or UDP (which
effectively means removing everything related to reliability,
ordering, authentication and closing/aborting with a notification to
the peer).
Note that, because the functional transport features of UDP are --
with the exception of "Receive a message" -- a subset of TCP, TCP can
be used as a replacement for UDP whenever an application does not
need message delimiting (e.g., because the application-layer protocol
already does it). This has been recognized by many applications that
already do this in practice, by trying to communicate with UDP at
first, and falling back to TCP in case of a connection failure.
A.3.1. Sending Messages, Receiving Bytes
For implementing a transport system over TCP, there are several
transport features related to sending, but only a single transport
feature related to receiving: "Receive data (with no message
delimiting)" (and, strangely, "information about partial message
arrival"). Notably, the transport feature "Receive a message" is
also the only non-automatable transport feature of UDP(-Lite) for
which no implementation over TCP is possible.
To support these TCP receiver semantics, we define an "Application-
Framed Bytestream" (AFra-Bytestream). AFra-Bytestreams allow senders
to operate on messages while minimizing changes to the TCP socket
API. In particular, nothing changes on the receiver side - data can
be accepted via a normal TCP socket.
In an AFra-Bytestream, the sending application can optionally inform
the transport about message boundaries and required properties per
message (configurable order and reliability, or embedding a request
not to delay the acknowledgement of a message). Whenever the sending
application specifies per-message properties that relax the notion of
reliable in-order delivery of bytes, it must assume that the
receiving application is 1) able to determine message boundaries,
provided that messages are always kept intact, and 2) able to accept
these relaxed per-message properties. Any signaling of such
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
information to the peer is up to an application-layer protocol and
considered out of scope of this document.
For example, if an application requests to transfer fixed-size
messages of 100 bytes with partial reliability, this needs the
receiving application to be prepared to accept data in chunks of 100
bytes. If, then, some of these 100-byte messages are missing (e.g.,
if SCTP with Configurable Reliability is used), this is the expected
application behavior. With TCP, no messages would be missing, but
this is also correct for the application, and the possible
retransmission delay is acceptable within the best effort service
model (see [RFC7305], Section 3.5). Still, the receiving application
would separate the byte stream into 100-byte chunks.
Note that this usage of messages does not require all messages to be
equal in size. Many application protocols use some form of Type-
Length-Value (TLV) encoding, e.g. by defining a header including
length fields; another alternative is the use of byte stuffing
methods such as COBS [COBS]. If an application needs message
numbers, e.g. to restore the correct sequence of messages, these must
also be encoded by the application itself, as the sequence number
related transport features of SCTP are not provided by the "minimum
set" (in the interest of enabling usage of TCP).
A.3.2. Stream Schedulers Without Streams
We have already stated that multi-streaming does not require
application-specific knowledge. Potential benefits or disadvantages
of, e.g., using two streams of an SCTP association versus using two
separate SCTP associations or TCP connections are related to
knowledge about the network and the particular transport protocol in
use, not the application. However, the transport features "Choose a
scheduler to operate between streams of an association" and
"Configure priority or weight for a scheduler" operate on streams.
Here, streams identify communication channels between which a
scheduler operates, and they can be assigned a priority. Moreover,
the transport features in the MAINTENANCE category all operate on
assocations in case of SCTP, i.e. they apply to all streams in that
assocation.
With only these semantics necessary to represent, the interface to a
transport system becomes easier if we assume that connections may be
a transport protocol's connection or association, but could also be a
stream of an existing SCTP association, for example. We only need to
allow for a way to define a possible grouping of connections. Then,
all MAINTENANCE transport features can be said to operate on
connection groups, not connections, and a scheduler operates on the
connections within a group.
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
To be compatible with multiple transport protocols and uniformly
allow access to both transport connections and streams of a multi-
streaming protocol, the semantics of opening and closing need to be
the most restrictive subset of all of the underlying options. For
example, TCP's support of half-closed connections can be seen as a
feature on top of the more restrictive "ABORT"; this feature cannot
be supported because not all protocols used by a transport system
(including streams of an association) support half-closed
connections.
A.3.3. Early Data Transmission
There are two transport features related to transferring a message
early: "Hand over a message to reliably transfer (possibly multiple
times) before connection establishment", which relates to TCP Fast
Open [RFC7413], and "Hand over a message to reliably transfer during
connection establishment", which relates to SCTP's ability to
transfer data together with the COOKIE-Echo chunk. Also without TCP
Fast Open, TCP can transfer data during the handshake, together with
the SYN packet -- however, the receiver of this data may not hand it
over to the application until the handshake has completed. Also,
different from TCP Fast Open, this data is not delimited as a message
by TCP (thus, not visible as a ``message''). This functionality is
commonly available in TCP and supported in several implementations,
even though the TCP specification does not explain how to provide it
to applications.
A transport system could differentiate between the cases of
transmitting data "before" (possibly multiple times) or "during" the
handshake. Alternatively, it could also assume that data that are
handed over early will be transmitted as early as possible, and
"before" the handshake would only be used for messages that are
explicitly marked as "idempotent" (i.e., it would be acceptable to
transfer them multiple times).
The amount of data that can successfully be transmitted before or
during the handshake depends on various factors: the transport
protocol, the use of header options, the choice of IPv4 and IPv6 and
the Path MTU. A transport system should therefore allow a sending
application to query the maximum amount of data it can possibly
transmit before (or, if exposed, during) connection establishment.
A.3.4. Sender Running Dry
The transport feature "Notification that the stack has no more user
data to send" relates to SCTP's "SENDER DRY" notification. Such
notifications can, in principle, be used to avoid having an
unnecessarily large send buffer, yet ensure that the transport sender
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
always has data available when it has an opportunity to transmit it.
This has been found to be very beneficial for some applications
[WWDC2015]. However, "SENDER DRY" truly means that the entire send
buffer (including both unsent and unacknowledged data) has emptied --
i.e., when it notifies the sender, it is already too late, the
transport protocol already missed an opportunity to send data. Some
modern TCP implementations now include the unspecified
"TCP_NOTSENT_LOWAT" socket option that was proposed in [WWDC2015],
which limits the amount of unsent data that TCP can keep in the
socket buffer; this allows to specify at which buffer filling level
the socket becomes writable, rather than waiting for the buffer to
run empty.
SCTP allows to configure the sender-side buffer too: the automatable
Transport Feature "Configure send buffer size" provides this
functionality, but only for the complete buffer, which includes both
unsent and unacknowledged data. SCTP does not allow to control these
two sizes separately. It therefore makes sense for a transport
system to allow for uniform access to "TCP_NOTSENT_LOWAT" as well as
the "SENDER DRY" notification.
A.3.5. Capacity Profile
The transport features:
o Disable Nagle algorithm
o Enable and configure a "Low Extra Delay Background Transfer"
o Specify DSCP field
all relate to a QoS-like application need such as "low latency" or
"scavenger". In the interest of flexibility of a transport system,
they could therefore be offered in a uniform, more abstract way,
where a transport system could e.g. decide by itself how to use
combinations of LEDBAT-like congestion control and certain DSCP
values, and an application would only specify a general "capacity
profile" (a description of how it wants to use the available
capacity). A need for "lowest possible latency at the expense of
overhead" could then translate into automatically disabling the Nagle
algorithm.
In some cases, the Nagle algorithm is best controlled directly by the
application because it is not only related to a general profile but
also to knowledge about the size of future messages. For fine-grain
control over Nagle-like functionality, the "Request not to bundle
messages" is available.
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
A.3.6. Security
Both TCP and SCTP offer authentication. TCP authenticates complete
segments. SCTP allows to configure which of SCTP's chunk types must
always be authenticated -- if this is exposed as such, it creates an
undesirable dependency on the transport protocol. For compatibility
with TCP, a transport system should only allow to configure complete
transport layer packets, including headers, IP pseudo-header (if any)
and payload.
Security is discussed in a separate document
[I-D.ietf-taps-transport-security]. The minimal set presented in the
present document excludes all security related transport features:
"Configure authentication", "Change authentication parameters",
"Obtain authentication information" and and "Set Cookie life value"
as well as "Specifying a key id to be used to authenticate a
message".
A.3.7. Packet Size
UDP(-Lite) has a transport feature called "Specify DF field". This
yields an error message in case of sending a message that exceeds the
Path MTU, which is necessary for a UDP-based application to be able
to implement Path MTU Discovery (a function that UDP-based
applications must do by themselves). The "Get max. transport-message
size that may be sent using a non-fragmented IP packet from the
configured interface" transport feature yields an upper limit for the
Path MTU (minus headers) and can therefore help to implement Path MTU
Discovery more efficiently.
Appendix B. Revision information
XXX RFC-Ed please remove this section prior to publication.
-02: implementation suggestions added, discussion section added,
terminology extended, DELETED category removed, various other fixes;
list of Transport Features adjusted to -01 version of [RFC8303]
except that MPTCP is not included.
-03: updated to be consistent with -02 version of [RFC8303].
-04: updated to be consistent with -03 version of [RFC8303].
Reorganized document, rewrote intro and conclusion, and made a first
stab at creating a real "minimal set".
-05: updated to be consistent with -05 version of [RFC8303] (minor
changes). Fixed a mistake regarding Cookie Life value. Exclusion of
security related transport features (to be covered in a separate
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
document). Reorganized the document (now begins with the minset,
derivation is in the appendix). First stab at an abstract API for
the minset.
draft-ietf-taps-minset-00: updated to be consistent with -08 version
of [RFC8303] ("obtain message delivery number" was removed, as this
has also been removed in [RFC8303] because it was a mistake in
RFC4960. This led to the removal of two more transport features that
were only designated as functional because they affected "obtain
message delivery number"). Fall-back to UDP incorporated (this was
requested at IETF-99); this also affected the transport feature
"Choice between unordered (potentially faster) or ordered delivery of
messages" because this is a boolean which is always true for one
fall-back protocol, and always false for the other one. This was
therefore now divided into two features, one for ordered, one for
unordered delivery. The word "reliably" was added to the transport
features "Hand over a message to reliably transfer (possibly multiple
times) before connection establishment" and "Hand over a message to
reliably transfer during connection establishment" to make it clearer
why this is not supported by UDP. Clarified that the "minset
abstract interface" is not proposing a specific API for all TAPS
systems to implement, but it is just a way to describe the minimum
set. Author order changed.
WG -01: "fall-back to" (TCP or UDP) replaced (mostly with
"implementation over"). References to post-sockets removed (these
were statments that assumed that post-sockets requires two-sided
implementation). Replaced "flow" with "TAPS Connection" and "frame"
with "message" to avoid introducing new terminology. Made sections 3
and 4 in line with the categorization that is already used in the
appendix and [RFC8303], and changed style of section 4 to be even
shorter and less interface-like. Updated reference draft-ietf-tsvwg-
sctp-ndata to RFC8260.
WG -02: rephrased "the TAPS system" and "TAPS connection" etc. to
more generally talk about transport after the intro (mostly replacing
"TAPS system" with "transport system" and "TAPS connection" with
"connection". Merged sections 3 and 4 to form a new section 3.
WG -03: updated sentence referencing
[I-D.ietf-taps-transport-security] to say that "the minimum security
requirements for a taps system are discussed in a separate security
document", wrote "example" in the paragraph introducing the decision
tree. Removed reference draft-grinnemo-taps-he-03 and the sentence
that referred to it.
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft Minimal Transport Services August 2018
WG -04: addressed comments from Theresa Enghardt and Tommy Pauly. As
part of that, removed "TAPS" as a term everywhere (abstract, intro,
..).
WG -05: addressed comments from Spencer Dawkins.
Authors' Addresses
Michael Welzl
University of Oslo
PO Box 1080 Blindern
Oslo N-0316
Norway
Phone: +47 22 85 24 20
Email: michawe@ifi.uio.no
Stein Gjessing
University of Oslo
PO Box 1080 Blindern
Oslo N-0316
Norway
Phone: +47 22 85 24 44
Email: steing@ifi.uio.no
Welzl & Gjessing Expires February 21, 2019 [Page 48]