A Message Bus for Local Coordination
RFC 3259
| Document | Type | RFC - Informational (May 2002) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Colin Perkins , Dirk Kutscher , Joerg Ott | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| This information refers to IESG processing after the RFC was initially published: | |||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 3259 (Informational) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Allison J. Mankin | ||
| IESG note | Responsible: Finished | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
RFC 3259
Network Working Group J. Ott
Request for Comments: 3259 TZI, Universitaet Bremen
Category: Informational C. Perkins
USC Information Sciences Institute
D. Kutscher
TZI, Universitaet Bremen
April 2002
A Message Bus for Local Coordination
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
The local Message Bus (Mbus) is a light-weight message-oriented
coordination protocol for group communication between application
components. The Mbus provides automatic location of communication
peers, subject based addressing, reliable message transfer and
different types of communication schemes. The protocol is layered on
top of IP multicast and is specified for IPv4 and IPv6. The IP
multicast scope is limited to link-local multicast. This document
specifies the Mbus protocol, i.e., message syntax, addressing and
transport mechanisms.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 Mbus Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Purpose of this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3 Areas of Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4 Terminology for requirement specifications . . . . . . . . . 6
2. Common Formal Syntax Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1 Mandatory Address Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Message Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1 Message Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2 Message Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3 Command Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 1]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
6. Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1 Local Multicast/Broadcast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1.1 Mbus multicast groups for IPv4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1.2 Mbus multicast groups for IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1.3 Use of Broadcast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.1.4 Mbus UDP Port Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2 Directed Unicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. Awareness of other Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.1 Hello Message Transmission Interval . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.1.1 Calculating the Interval for Hello Messages . . . . . . . . 22
8.1.2 Initialization of Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8.1.3 Adjusting the Hello Message Interval when the Number of
Entities increases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8.1.4 Adjusting the Hello Message Interval when the Number of
Entities decreases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8.1.5 Expiration of hello timers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8.2 Calculating the Timeout for Mbus Entities . . . . . . . . . 24
9. Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9.1 mbus.hello . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9.2 mbus.bye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9.3 mbus.ping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9.4 mbus.quit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9.5 mbus.waiting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9.6 mbus.go . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10. Constants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11. Mbus Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11.1 Security Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11.2 Encryption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11.3 Message Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
11.4 Procedures for Senders and Receivers . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
12. Mbus Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
12.1 File based parameter storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
12.2 Registry based parameter storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
14. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
A. About References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
B. Limitations and Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
1. Introduction
The implementation of multiparty multimedia conferencing systems is
one example where a simple coordination infrastructure can be useful:
In a variety of conferencing scenarios, a local communication channel
can provide conference-related information exchange between co-
located but otherwise independent application entities, for example
those taking part in application sessions that belong to the same
conference. In loosely coupled conferences such a mechanism allows
for coordination of application entities, e.g., to implement
synchronization between media streams or to configure entities
without user interaction. It can also be used to implement tightly
coupled conferences enabling a conference controller to enforce
conference wide control within an end system.
Conferencing systems such as IP telephones can also be viewed as
components of a distributed system and can thus be integrated into a
group of application modules: For example, an IP telephony call that
is conducted with a stand-alone IP telephone can be dynamically
extended to include media engines for other media types using the
coordination function of an appropriate coordination mechanism.
Different individual conferencing components can thus be combined to
build a coherent multimedia conferencing system for a user.
Other possible scenarios include the coordination of application
components that are distributed on different hosts in a network, for
example, so-called Internet appliances.
1.1 Mbus Overview
Local coordination of application components requires a number of
different interaction models: some messages (such as membership
information, floor control notifications, dissemination of conference
state changes, etc.) may need to be sent to all local application
entities. Messages may also be targeted at a certain application
class (e.g., all whiteboards or all audio tools) or agent type (e.g.,
all user interfaces rather than all media engines). Or there may be
any (application- or message-specific) subgrouping defining the
intended recipients, e.g., messages related to media synchronization.
Finally, there may be messages that are directed at a single entity:
for example, specific configuration settings that a conference
controller sends to a particular application entity, or query-
response exchanges between any local server and its clients.
The Mbus protocol as defined here satisfies these different
communication needs by defining different message transport
mechanisms (defined in Section 6) and by providing a flexible
addressing scheme (defined in Section 4).
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
Furthermore, Mbus messages exchanged between application entities may
have different reliability requirements (which are typically derived
from their semantics). Some messages will have a rather transient
character conveying ephemeral state information (which is
refreshed/updated periodically), such as the volume meter level of an
audio receiver entity to be displayed by its user interface agent.
Certain Mbus messages (such as queries for parameters or queries to
local servers) may require a response from the peer(s), thereby
providing an explicit acknowledgment at the semantic level on top of
the Mbus. Other messages will modify the application or conference
state and hence it is crucial that they do not get lost. The latter
type of message has to be delivered reliably to the recipient,
whereas messages of the first type do not require reliability
mechanisms at the Mbus transport layer. For messages confirmed at
the application layer it is up to the discretion of the application
whether or not to use a reliable transport underneath.
In some cases, application entities will want to tailor the degree of
reliability to their needs, others will want to rely on the
underlying transport to ensure delivery of the messages -- and this
may be different for each Mbus message. The Mbus message passing
mechanism specified in this document provides a maximum of
flexibility by providing reliable transmission achieved through
transport-layer acknowledgments (in case of point-to-point
communications only) as well as unreliable message passing (for
unicast, local multicast, and local broadcast). We address this
topic in Section 4.
Finally, accidental or malicious disturbance of Mbus communications
through messages originated by applications from other users needs to
be prevented. Accidental reception of Mbus messages from other users
may occur if either two users share the same host for using Mbus
applications or if they are using Mbus applications that are spread
across the same network link: in either case, the used Mbus multicast
address and the port number may be identical leading to reception of
the other party's Mbus messages in addition to the user's own ones.
Malicious disturbance may happen because of applications multicasting
(e.g., at a global scope) or unicasting Mbus messages. To eliminate
the possibility of processing unwanted Mbus messages, the Mbus
protocol contains message digests for authentication. Furthermore,
the Mbus allows for encryption to ensure privacy and thus enable
using the Mbus for local key distribution and other functions
potentially sensitive to eavesdropping. This document defines the
framework for configuring Mbus applications with regard to security
parameters in Section 12.
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
1.2 Purpose of this Document
Three components constitute the message bus: the low level message
passing mechanisms, a command syntax and naming hierarchy, and the
addressing scheme.
The purpose of this document is to define the protocol mechanisms of
the lower level Mbus message passing mechanism which is common to all
Mbus implementations. This includes the specification of
o the generic Mbus message format;
o the addressing concept for application entities (note that
concrete addressing schemes are to be defined by application-
specific profiles);
o the transport mechanisms to be employed for conveying messages
between (co-located) application entities;
o the security concept to prevent misuse of the Message Bus (such as
taking control of another user's conferencing environment);
o the details of the Mbus message syntax; and
o a set of mandatory application independent commands that are used
for bootstrapping Mbus sessions.
1.3 Areas of Application
The Mbus protocol can be deployed in many different application
areas, including but not limited to:
Local conference control: In the Mbone community a model has arisen
whereby a set of loosely coupled tools are used to participate in
a conference. A typical scenario is that audio, video, and shared
workspace functionality is provided by three separate tools
(although some combined tools exist). This maps well onto the
underlying RTP [8] (as well as other) media streams, which are
also transmitted separately. Given such an architecture, it is
useful to be able to perform some coordination of the separate
media tools. For example, it may be desirable to communicate
playout-point information between audio and video tools, in order
to implement lip-synchronization, to arbitrate the use of shared
resources (such as input devices), etc.
A refinement of this architecture relies on the presence of a
number of media engines which perform protocol functions as well
as capturing and playout of media. In addition, one (or more)
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
(separate) user interface agents exist that interact with and
control their media engine(s). Such an approach allows
flexibility in the user-interface design and implementation, but
obviously requires some means by which the various involved agents
may communicate with one another. This is particularly desirable
to enable a coherent response to a user's conference-related
actions (such as joining or leaving a conference).
Although current practice in the Mbone community is to work with a
loosely coupled conference control model, situations arise where
this is not appropriate and a more tightly coupled wide-area
conference control protocol must be employed. In such cases, it
is highly desirable to be able to re-use the existing tools (media
engines) available for loosely coupled conferences and integrate
them with a system component implementing the tight conference
control model. One appropriate means to achieve this integration
is a communication channel that allows a dedicated conference
control entity to "remotely" control the media engines in addition
to or instead of their respective user interfaces.
Control of device groups in a network: A group of devices that are
connected to a local network, e.g., home appliances in a home
network, require a local coordination mechanism. Minimizing
manual configuration and the the possibility to deploy group
communication will be useful in this application area as well.
1.4 Terminology for requirement specifications
In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1] and
indicate requirement levels for compliant Mbus implementations.
2. Common Formal Syntax Rules
This section contains definitions of common ABNF [13] syntax elements
that are later referenced by other definitions in this document:
base64 = base64_terminal /
( 1*(4base64_CHAR) [base64_terminal] )
base64_char = UPALPHA / LOALPHA / DIGIT / "+" / "/"
;; Case-sensitive
base64_terminal = (2base64_char "==") / (3base64_char "=")
UPALPHA = %x41-5A ;; Uppercase: A-Z
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
LOALPHA = %x61-7A ;; Lowercase: a-z
ALPHA = %x41-5A / %x61-7A ; A-Z / a-z
CHAR = %x01-7E
; any 7-bit US-ASCII character,
excluding NUL and delete
OCTET = %x00-FF
; 8 bits of data
CR = %x0D
; carriage return
CRLF = CR LF
; Internet standard newline
DIGIT = %x30-39
; 0-9
DQUOTE = %x22
; " (Double Quote)
HTAB = %x09
; horizontal tab
LF = %x0A
; linefeed
LWSP = *(WSP / CRLF WSP)
; linear white space (past newline)
SP = %x20
; space
WSP = SP / HTAB
; white space
Taken from RFC 2234 [13] and RFC 2554 [14].
3. Message Format
An Mbus message comprises a header and a body. The header is used to
indicate how and where a message should be delivered and the body
provides information and commands to the destination entity. The
following pieces of information are included in the header:
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 7]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
A fixed ProtocolID field identifies the version of the message bus
protocol used. The protocol defined in this document is
"mbus/1.0" (case-sensitive).
A sequence number (SeqNum) is contained in each message. The
first message sent by a source SHOULD set SeqNum to zero, and it
MUST increment by one for each message sent by that source. A
single sequence number is used for all messages from a source,
irrespective of the intended recipients and the reliability mode
selected. The value range of a sequence number is (0,4294967295).
An implementation MUST re-set its sequence number to 0 after
reaching 4294967295. Implementations MUST take into account that
the SeqNum of other entities may wrap-around.
SeqNums are decimal numbers in ASCII representation.
The TimeStamp field is also contained in each message and SHOULD
contain a decimal number representing the time of the message
construction in milliseconds since 00:00:00, UTC, January 1, 1970.
A MessageType field indicates the kind of message being sent. The
value "R" indicates that the message is to be transmitted reliably
and MUST be acknowledged by the recipient, "U" indicates an
unreliable message which MUST NOT be acknowledged.
The SrcAddr field identifies the sender of a message. This MUST
be a complete address, with all address elements specified. The
addressing scheme is described in Section 4.
The DestAddr field identifies the intended recipient(s) of the
message. This field MAY be wildcarded by omitting address
elements and hence address any number (including zero) of
application entities. The addressing scheme is described in
Section 4.
The AckList field comprises a list of SeqNums for which this
message is an acknowledgment. See Section 7 for details.
The header is followed by the message body which contains zero or
more commands to be delivered to the destination entity. The syntax
for a complete message is given in Section 5.
If multiple commands are contained within the same Mbus message
payload, they MUST to be delivered to the Mbus application in the
same sequence in which they appear in the message payload.
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
4. Addressing
Each entity in the message has a unique Mbus address that is used to
identify the entity. Mbus addresses are sequences of address
elements that are tag/value pairs. The tag and the value are
separated by a colon and tag/value pairs are separated by whitespace,
like this:
(tag:value tag:value ...)
The formal ABNF syntax definition for Mbus addresses and their
elements is as follows:
mbus_address = "(" *WSP *1address_list *WSP ")"
address_list = address_element
/ address_element 1*WSP address_list
address_element = address_tag ":" address_value
address_tag = 1*32(ALPHA)
address_value = 1*64(%x21-27 / %x2A-7E)
; any 7-bit US-ASCII character
; excluding white space, delete,
; control characters, "(" and ")"
Note that this and other ABNF definitions in this document use the
non-terminal symbols defined in Section 2.
An address_tag MUST be unique within an Mbus address, i.e., it MUST
only occur once.
Each entity has a fixed sequence of address elements constituting its
address and MUST only process messages sent to addresses that either
match all elements or consist of a subset of its own address
elements. The order of address elements in an address sequence is
not relevant. Two address elements match if both their tags and
their values are equivalent. Equivalence for address element and
address value strings means that each octet in the one string has the
same value as the corresponding octet in the second string. For
example, an entity with an address of:
(conf:test media:audio module:engine app:rat id:4711-1@192.168.1.1)
will process messages sent to
(media:audio module:engine)
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 9]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
and
(module:engine)
but must ignore messages sent to
(conf:test media:audio module:engine app:rat id:123-4@192.168.1.1
foo:bar)
and
(foo:bar)
A message that should be processed by all entities requires an empty
set of address elements.
4.1 Mandatory Address Elements
Each Mbus entity MUST provide one mandatory address element that
allows it to identify the entity. The element tag is "id" and the
value MUST be be composed of the following components:
o The IP address of the interface that is used for sending messages
to the Mbus. For IPv4 this is the address in dotted decimal
notation. For IPv6 the interface-ID-part of the node's link-local
address in textual representation as specified in RFC 2373 [3]
MUST be used.
In this specification, this part is called the "host-ID".
o An identifier ("entity-ID") that is unique within the scope of a
single host-ID. The entity comprises two parts. For systems
where the concept of a process ID is applicable it is RECOMMENDED
that this identifier be composed using a process-ID and a per-
process disambiguator for different Mbus entities of a process.
If a process ID is not available, this part of the entity-ID may
be randomly chosen (it is recommended that at least a 32 bit
random number is chosen). Both numbers are represented in decimal
textual form and MUST be separated by a '-' (ASCII x2d) character.
Note that the entity-ID cannot be the port number of the endpoint
used for sending messages to the Mbus because implementations MAY use
the common Mbus port number for sending to and receiving from the
multicast group (as specified in Section 6).
The complete syntax definition for the entity identifier is as
follows:
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 10]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
id-element = "id:" id-value
id-value = entity-id "@" host-id
entity-id = 1*10DIGIT "-" 1*5DIGIT
host-id = (IPv4address / IPv6address)
Please refer to [3] for the productions of IPv4address and IPv6address.
An example for an id element:
id:4711-99@192.168.1.1
5. Message Syntax
5.1 Message Encoding
All messages MUST use the UTF-8 character encoding. Note that US
ASCII is a subset of UTF-8 and requires no additional encoding, and
that a message encoded with UTF-8 will not contain zero bytes.
Each Message MAY be encrypted using a secret key algorithm as
defined in Section 11.
5.2 Message Header
The fields in the header are separated by white space characters,
and followed by CRLF. The format of the header is as follows:
msg_header = "mbus/1.0" 1*WSP SeqNum 1*WSP TimeStamp 1*WSP
MessageType 1*WSP SrcAddr 1*WSP DestAddr 1*WSP AckList
The header fields are explained in Message Format (Section 3). Here
are the ABNF syntax definitions for the header fields:
SeqNum = 1*10DIGIT ; numeric range 0 - 2^32-1
TimeStamp = 1*13DIGIT
MessageType = "R" / "U"
ScrAddr = mbus_address
DestAddr = mbus_address
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 11]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
AckList = "(" *WSP *1(1*DIGIT *(1*WSP 1*10DIGIT)) *WSP ")"
See Section 4 for a definition of "mbus_address".
The syntax definition of a complete message is as follows:
mbus_message = msg_header *1(CRLF msg_payload)
msg_payload = mbus_command *(CRLF mbus_command)
The definition of production rules for an Mbus command is given in
Section 5.3.
5.3 Command Syntax
The header is followed by zero, one, or more, commands to be
delivered to the Mbus entities indicated by the DestAddr field. Each
command consists of a command name that is followed by a list of
zero, or more parameters and is terminated by a newline.
command ( parameter parameter ... )
Syntactically, the command name MUST be a `symbol' as defined in the
following table. The parameters MAY be any data type drawn from the
following table:
val = Integer / Float / String / List /
Symbol / Data
Integer = *1"-" 1*DIGIT
Float = *1"-" 1*DIGIT "." 1*DIGIT
String = DQUOTE *CHAR DQUOTE
; see below for escape characters
List = "(" *WSP *1(val *(1*WSP val)) *WSP ")"
Symbol = ALPHA *(ALPHA / DIGIT / "_" / "-" /
".")
Data = "<" *base64 ">"
Boolean values are encoded as an integer, with the value of zero
representing false, and non-zero representing true.
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 12]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
String parameters in the payload MUST be enclosed in the double quote
(") character. Within strings, the escape character is the backslash
(\), and the following escape sequences are defined:
+----------------+-----------+
|Escape Sequence | Meaning |
+----------------+-----------+
| \\ | \ |
| \" | " |
| \n | newline |
+----------------+-----------+
List parameters do not have to be homogeneous lists, i.e., they can
contain parameters of different types.
Opaque data is represented as Base64-encoded (see RFC 1521 [7])
character strings surrounded by "< " and "> "
The ABNF syntax definition for Mbus commands is as follows:
mbus_command = command_name arglist
command_name = Symbol
arglist = List
Command names SHOULD be constructed hierarchically to group
conceptually related commands under a common hierarchy. The
delimiter between names in the hierarchy MUST be "." (dot).
Application profiles MUST NOT define commands starting with "mbus.".
The Mbus addressing scheme defined in Section 4 allows specifying
incomplete addresses by omitting certain elements of an address
element list, enabling entities to send commands to a group of Mbus
entities. Therefore, all command names SHOULD be unambiguous in a
way that it is possible to interpret or ignore them without
considering the message's address.
A set of commands within a certain hierarchy that MUST be understood
by every entity is defined in Section 9.
6. Transport
All messages are transmitted as UDP messages, with two possible
alternatives:
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 13]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
1. Local multicast/broadcast:
This transport class MUST be used for all messages that are not
sent to a fully qualified target address. It MAY also be used for
messages that are sent to a fully qualified target address. It
MUST be provided by conforming implementations. See Section 6.1
for details.
2. Directed unicast:
This transport class MAY be used for messages that are sent to a
fully qualified destination address. It is OPTIONAL and does not
have to be provided by conforming implementations.
A fully qualified target address is an Mbus address of an existing
Mbus entity in an Mbus session. An implementation can identify an
Mbus address as fully qualified by maintaining a list of known
entities within an Mbus session. Each known entity has its own
unique, fully qualified Mbus address.
Messages are transmitted in UDP datagrams, a maximum message size of
64 KBytes MUST NOT be exceeded. It is RECOMMENDED that applications
using a non host-local scope do not exceed a message size of the link
MTU.
Note that "unicast", "multicast" and "broadcast" mean IP Unicast, IP
Multicast and IP Broadcast respectively. It is possible to send an
Mbus message that is addressed to a single entity using IP Multicast.
This specification deals with both Mbus over UDP/IPv4 and Mbus over
UDP/IPv6.
6.1 Local Multicast/Broadcast
In general, the Mbus uses multicast with a limited scope for message
transport. Two different Mbus multicast scopes are defined, either
of which can be configured to be used with an Mbus session:
1. host-local
2. link-local
Participants of an Mbus session have to know the multicast address in
advance -- it cannot be negotiated during the session since it is
already needed for initial communication between the Mbus entities
during the bootstrapping phase. It also cannot be allocated prior to
an Mbus session because there would be no mechanism to announce the
allocated address to all potential Mbus entities. Therefore, the
multicast address has to be assigned statically. This document
defines the use of statically assigned addresses and also provides a
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 14]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
specification of how an Mbus session can be configured to use non-
standard, unassigned addresses (see Section 12).
The following sections specify the use of multicast addresses for
IPv4 and IPv6.
6.1.1 Mbus multicast groups for IPv4
For IPv4, a statically assigned, scope-relative multicast address as
defined by RFC 2365 [11] is used. The offset for the scope relative
address for Mbus is 8 (MBUS, see
http://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses [19]).
Different scopes are defined by RFC 2365 [11]. The IPv4 Local Scope
(239.255.0.0/16) is the minimal enclosing scope for administratively
scoped multicast (as defined by RFC 2365 [11]) and not further
divisible -- its exact extent is site dependent.
For the IPv4 Local Scope, applying the rules of RFC 2365 [11] and
using the assigned offset of 8, the Mbus multicast address is
therefore 239.255.255.247.
For IPv4, the different defined Mbus scopes (host-local and link-
local) are to be realized as follows:
host-local multicast: Unless configured otherwise, the assigned
scope-relative Mbus address in the Local Scope (239.255.255.247 as
of RFC 2365 [11]) MUST be used. Mbus UDP datagrams SHOULD be sent
with a TTL of 0.
link-local multicast: Unless configured otherwise, the assigned
scope-relative Mbus address in the Local Scope (239.255.255.247 as
of RFC 2365 [11]) MUST be used. Mbus UDP datagrams SHOULD be sent
with a TTL of 1.
6.1.2 Mbus multicast groups for IPv6
IPv6 has different address ranges for different multicast scopes and
distinguishes node local and link local scopes, that are implemented
as a set of address prefixes for the different address ranges (RFC
2373 [3]). The link-local prefix is FF02, the node-local prefix is
FF01. A permanently assigned multicast address will be used for Mbus
multicast communication, i.e., an address that is independent of the
scope value and that can be used for all scopes. Implementations for
IPv6 MUST use the scope-independent address and the appropriate
prefix for the selected scope. For host-local Mbus communication the
IPv6 node-local scope prefix MUST be used, for link-local Mbus
communication the IPv6 link-local scope prefix MUST be used.
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 15]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
The permanent IPv6 multicast address for Mbus/Ipv6 is
FF0X:0:0:0:0:0:0:300.
FF0X:0:0:0:0:0:0:300 SHOULD be used for Mbus/IPv6 where the X in FF0X
indicates that the scope is not fixed because this is an all scope
address. This means, for node-local scope, FF01:0:0:0:0:0:0:300
SHOULD be used and for link-local scope FF02:0:0:0:0:0:0:300 SHOULD
be used. See RFC 2375 [4] for IPv6 multicast address assignments.
If a single application system is distributed across several co-
located hosts, link local scope SHOULD be used for multicasting Mbus
messages that potentially have recipients on the other hosts. The
Mbus protocol is not intended (and hence deliberately not designed)
for communication between hosts not on the same link. See Section 12
for specifications of Mbus configuration mechanisms.
6.1.3 Use of Broadcast
In situations where multicast is not available, broadcast MAY be used
instead. In these cases an IP broadcast address for the connected
network SHOULD be used for sending. The node-local broadcast address
for IPv6 is FF01:0:0:0:0:0:0:1, the link-local broadcast address for
IPv6 is FF02:0:0:0:0:0:0:1. For IPv4, the generic broadcast address
(for link-local broadcast) is 255.255.255.255. It is RECOMMENDED
that IPv4-implementations use the generic broadcast address and a TTL
of zero for host-local broadcast.
Broadcast MUST NOT be used in situations where multicast is available
and supported by all systems participating in an Mbus session.
See Section 12 for configuring the use of broadcast.
6.1.4 Mbus UDP Port Number
The registered Mbus UDP port number is 47000.
6.2 Directed Unicast
Directed unicast (via UDP) to the port of a specific application is
an alternative transport class to multicast. Directed unicast is an
OPTIONAL optimization and MAY be used by Mbus implementations for
delivering messages addressed to a single application entity only --
the address of which the Mbus implementation has learned from other
message exchanges before. Note that the DestAddr field of such
messages MUST be filled in properly nevertheless. Every Mbus entity
SHOULD use a single unique endpoint address for sending messages to
the Mbus multicast group or to individual receiving entities. A
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 16]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
unique endpoint address is a tuple consisting of the entity's IP
address and a UDP source port number, where the port number is
different from the standard Mbus port number.
Messages MUST only be sent via unicast if the Mbus target address is
unique and if the sending entity can verify that the receiving entity
uses a unique endpoint address. The latter can be verified by
considering the last message received from that entity.
Note that several Mbus entities, say within the same process, may
share a common transport address; in this case, the contents of
the destination address field is used to further dispatch the
message. Given the definition of "unique endpoint address" above,
the use of a shared endpoint address and a dispatcher still allows
other Mbus entities to send unicast messages to one of the
entities that share the endpoint address. So this can be
considered an implementation detail.
Messages with an empty target address list MUST always be sent to all
Mbus entities (via multicast if available).
The following algorithm can be used by sending entities to determine
whether an Mbus address is unique considering the current set of Mbus
entities:
let ta=the target address;
iterate through the set of all
currently known Mbus addresses {
let ti=the address in each iteration;
count the addresses for which
the predicate isSubsetOf(ta,ti) yields true;
}
If the count of matching addresses is exactly 1 the address is
unique. The following algorithm can be used for the predicate
isSubsetOf, that checks whether the second message matches the
first according to the rules specified in Section 4. (A match
means that a receiving entity that uses the second Mbus address
must also process received messages with the first address as a
target address.)
isSubsetOf(addr a1,a2) yields true, iff
every address element of a1 is contained
in a2's address element list.
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 17]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
An address element a1 is contained in an address element list if
the list contains an element that is equal to a1. An address
element is considered equal to another address element if it has
the same values for both of the two address element fields (tag
and value).
7. Reliability
While most messages are expected to be sent using unreliable
transport, it may be necessary to deliver some messages reliably.
Reliability can be selected on a per message basis by means of the
MessageType field. Reliable delivery is supported for messages with
a single recipient only; i.e., to a fully qualified Mbus address. An
entity can thus only send reliable messages to known addresses, i.e.,
it can only send reliable messages to entities that have announced
their existence on the Mbus (e.g., by means of mbus.hello() messages
as defined in Section 9.1). A sending entity MUST NOT send a message
reliably if the target address is not unique. (See Section 6 for the
specification of an algorithm to determine whether an address is
unique.) A receiving entity MUST only process and acknowledge a
reliable message if the destination address exactly matches its own
source address (the destination address MUST NOT be a subset of the
source address).
Disallowing reliable message delivery for messages sent to multiple
destinations is motivated by simplicity of the implementation as well
as the protocol. The desired effect can be achieved at the
application layer by sending individual reliable messages to each
fully qualified destination address, if the membership information
for the Mbus session is available.
Each message is tagged with a message sequence number. If the
MessageType is "R", the sender expects an acknowledgment from the
recipient within a short period of time. If the acknowledgment is
not received within this interval, the sender MUST retransmit the
message (with the same message sequence number), increase the
timeout, and restart the timer. Messages MUST be retransmitted a
small number of times (see below) before the transmission or the
recipient are considered to have failed. If the message is not
delivered successfully, the sending application is notified. In this
case, it is up to the application to determine the specific actions
(if any) to be taken.
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 18]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
Reliable messages MUST be acknowledged by adding their SeqNum to the
AckList field of a message sent to the originator of the reliable
message. This message MUST be sent to a fully qualified Mbus target
address. Multiple acknowledgments MAY be sent in a single message.
Implementations MAY either piggy-back the AckList onto another
message sent to the same destination, or MAY send a dedicated
acknowledgment message, with no commands in the message payload part.
The precise procedures are as follows:
Sender: A sender A of a reliable message M to receiver B MUST
transmit the message either via IP-multicast or via IP-unicast,
keep a copy of M, initialize a retransmission counter N to '1',
and start a retransmission timer T (initialized to T_r). If an
acknowledgment is received from B, timer T MUST be cancelled and
the copy of M is discarded. If T expires, the message M MUST be
retransmitted, the counter N MUST be incremented by one, and the
timer MUST be restarted (set to N*T_r). If N exceeds the
retransmission threshold N_r, the transmission is assumed to have
failed, further retransmission attempts MUST NOT be undertaken,
the copy of M MUST be discarded, and the sending application
SHOULD be notified.
Receiver: A receiver B of a reliable message from a sender A MUST
acknowledge reception of the message within a time period T_c <
T_r. This MAY be done by means of a dedicated acknowledgment
message or by piggy-backing the acknowledgment on another message
addressed only to A.
Receiver optimization: In a simple implementation, B may choose to
immediately send a dedicated acknowledgment message. However, for
efficiency, it could add the SeqNum of the received message to a
sender-specific list of acknowledgments; if the added SeqNum is
the first acknowledgment in the list, B SHOULD start an
acknowledgment timer TA (initialized to T_c). When the timer
expires, B SHOULD create a dedicated acknowledgment message and
send it to A. If B is to transmit another Mbus message addressed
only to A, it should piggy-back the acknowledgments onto this
message and cancel TA. In either case, B should store a copy of
the acknowledgment list as a single entry in the per-sender copy
list, keep this entry for a period T_k, and empty the
acknowledgment list. In case any of the messages kept in an entry
of the copy list is received again from A, the entire
acknowledgment list stored in this entry is scheduled for (re-)
transmission following the above rules.
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 19]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
Constants and Algorithms: The following constants and algorithms
SHOULD be used by implementations:
T_r=100ms
N_r=3
T_c=70ms
T_k=((N_r)*(N_r+1)/2)*T_r
8. Awareness of other Entities
Before Mbus entities can communicate with one another, they need to
mutually find out about their existence. After this bootstrap
procedure that each Mbus entity goes through all other entities
listening to the same Mbus know about the newcomer and the newcomer
has learned about all the other entities. Furthermore, entities need
to be able to to notice the failure (or leaving) of other entities.
Any Mbus entity MUST announce its presence (on the Mbus) after
starting up. This is to be done repeatedly throughout its lifetime
to address the issues of startup sequence: Entities should always
become aware of other entities independent of the order of starting.
Each Mbus entity MUST maintain the number of Mbus session members and
continuously update this number according to any observed changes.
The mechanisms of how the existence and the leaving of other entities
can be detected are dedicated Mbus messages for entity awareness:
mbus.hello (Section 9.1) and mbus.bye (Section 9.2). Each Mbus
protocol implementation MUST periodically send mbus.hello messages
that are used by other entities to monitor the existence of that
entity. If an entity has not received mbus.hello messages for a
certain time (see Section 8.2) from an entity, the respective entity
is considered to have left the Mbus and MUST be excluded from the set
of currently known entities. Upon the reception of a mbus.bye
message the respective entity is considered to have left the Mbus as
well and MUST be excluded from the set of currently known entities
immediately.
Each Mbus entity MUST send hello messages to the Mbus after startup.
After transmission of the hello message, it MUST start a timer after
the expiration of which the next hello message is to be transmitted.
Transmission of hello messages MUST NOT be stopped unless the entity
detaches from the Mbus. The interval for sending hello messages is
dependent on the current number of entities in an Mbus group and can
thus change dynamically in order to avoid congestion due to many
entities sending hello messages at a constant high rate.
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 20]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
Section 8.1 specifies the calculation of hello message intervals that
MUST be used by protocol implementations. Using the values that are
calculated for obtaining the current hello message timer, the timeout
for received hello messages is calculated in Section 8.2. Section 9
specifies the command synopsis for the corresponding Mbus messages.
8.1 Hello Message Transmission Interval
Since the number of entities in an Mbus session may vary, care must
be taken to allow the Mbus protocol to automatically scale over a
wide range of group sizes. The average rate at which hello messages
are received would increase linearly to the number of entities in a
session if the sending interval was set to a fixed value. Given an
interval of 1 second this would mean that an entity taking part in an
Mbus session with n entities would receive n hello messages per
second. Assuming all entities resided on one host, this would lead
to n*n messages that have to be processed per second -- which is
obviously not a viable solution for larger groups. It is therefore
necessary to deploy dynamically adapted hello message intervals,
taking varying numbers of entities into account. In the following,
we specify an algorithm that MUST be used by implementors to
calculate the interval for hello messages considering the observed
number of Mbus entities.
The algorithm features the following characteristics:
o The number of hello messages that are received by a single entity
in a certain time unit remains approximately constant as the
number of entities changes.
o The effective interval that is used by a specific Mbus entity is
randomized in order to avoid unintentional synchronization of
hello messages within an Mbus session. The first hello message of
an entity is also delayed by a certain random amount of time.
o A timer reconsideration mechanism is deployed in order to adapt
the interval more appropriately in situations where a rapid change
of the number of entities is observed. This is useful when an
entity joins an Mbus session and is still learning of the
existence of other entities or when a larger number of entities
leaves the Mbus at once.
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 21]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
8.1.1 Calculating the Interval for Hello Messages
The following variable names are used in the calculation specified
below (all time values in milliseconds):
hello_p: The last time a hello message has been sent by a Mbus
entity.
hello_now: The current time
hello_d: The deterministic calculated interval between hello
messages.
hello_e: The effective (randomized) interval between hello messages.
hello_n: The time for the next scheduled transmission of a hello
message.
entities_p: The numbers of entities at the time hello_n has been last
recomputed.
entities: The number of currently known entities.
The interval between hello messages MUST be calculated as follows:
The number of currently known entities is multiplied by
c_hello_factor, yielding the interval between hello messages in
milliseconds. This is the deterministic calculated interval, denoted
hello_d. The minimum value for hello_d is c_hello_min which yields
hello_d = max(c_hello_min,c_hello_factor * entities * 1ms).
Section 8 provides a specification of how to obtain the number of
currently known entities. Section 10 provides values for the
constants c_hello_factor and c_hello_min.
The effective interval hello_e that is to be used by individual
entities is calculated by multiplying hello_d with a randomly chosen
number between c_hello_dither_min and c_hello_dither_max as follows:
hello_e = c_hello_dither_min +
RND * (c_hello_dither_max - c_hello_dither_min)
with RND being a random function that yields an even distribution
between 0 and 1. See also Section 10.
hello_n, the time for the next hello message in milliseconds is set
to hello_e + hello_now.
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 22]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
8.1.2 Initialization of Values
Upon joining an Mbus session a protocol implementation sets
hello_p=0, hello_now=0 and entities=1, entities_p=1 (the Mbus entity
itself) and then calculates the time for the next hello message as
specified in Section 8.1.1. The next hello message is scheduled for
transmission at hello_n.
8.1.3 Adjusting the Hello Message Interval when the Number of Entities
increases
When the existence of a new entity is observed by a protocol
implementation the number of currently known entities is updated. No
further action concerning the calculation of the hello message
interval is required. The reconsideration of the timer interval
takes place when the current timer for the next hello message expires
(see Section 8.1.5).
8.1.4 Adjusting the Hello Message Interval when the Number of Entities
decreases
Upon realizing that an entity has left the Mbus the number of
currently known entities is updated and the following algorithm
should be used to reconsider the timer interval for hello messages:
1. The value for hello_n is updated by setting hello_n = hello_now +
(entities/entities_p)*(hello_n - hello_now)
2. The value for hello_p is updated by setting hello_p = hello_now -
(entities/entities_p)*(hello_now - hello_p)
3. The currently active timer for the next hello messages is
cancelled and a new timer is started for hello_n.
4. entities_p is set to entities.
8.1.5 Expiration of hello timers
When the hello message timer expires, the protocol implementation
MUST perform the following operations:
The hello interval hello_e is computed as specified in Section
8.1.1.
1. IF hello_e + hello_p <= hello_now THEN a hello message is
transmitted. hello_p is set to hello_now, hello_e is
calculated again as specified in Section 8.1.1 and hello_n is
set to hello_e + hello_now.
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 23]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
2. ELSE IF hello_e + hello_p > hello_now THEN hello_n is set to
hello_e + hello_p. A new timer for the next hello message is
started to expire at hello_n. No hello message is transmitted.
entities_p is set to entities.
8.2 Calculating the Timeout for Mbus Entities
Whenever an Mbus entity has not heard for a time span of
c_hello_dead*(hello_d*c_hello_dither_max) milliseconds from another
Mbus entity it may consider this entity to have failed (or have quit
silently). The number of the currently known entities MUST be
updated accordingly. See Section 8.1.4 for details. Note that no
need for any further action is necessarily implied from this
observation.
Section 8.1.1 specifies how to obtain hello_d. Section 10 defines
values for the constants c_hello_dead and c_hello_dither_max.
9. Messages
This section defines some basic application-independent messages that
MUST be understood by all implementations; these messages are
required for proper operation of the Mbus. This specification does
not contain application-specific messages. These are to be defined
outside of the basic Mbus protocol specification in separate Mbus
profiles.
9.1 mbus.hello
Syntax:
mbus.hello()
Parameters: - none -
mbus.hello messages MUST be sent unreliably to all Mbus entities.
Each Mbus entity learns about other Mbus entities by observing their
mbus.hello messages and tracking the sender address of each message
and can thus calculate the current number of entities.
mbus.hello messages MUST be sent periodically in dynamically
calculated intervals as specified in Section 8.
Upon startup the first mbus.hello message MUST be sent after a delay
hello_delay, where hello_delay be a randomly chosen number between 0
and c_hello_min (see Section 10).
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 24]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
9.2 mbus.bye
Syntax: mbus.bye()
Parameters: - none -
An Mbus entity that is about to terminate (or "detach" from the Mbus)
SHOULD announce this by transmitting an mbus.bye message. The
mbus.bye message MUST be sent unreliably to all entities.
9.3 mbus.ping
Syntax: mbus.ping()
Parameters: - none -
mbus.ping can be used to solicit other entities to signal their
existence by replying with an mbus.hello message. Each protocol
implementation MUST understand mbus.ping and reply with an mbus.hello
message. The reply hello message MUST be delayed for hello_delay
milliseconds, where hello_delay be a randomly chosen number between 0
and c_hello_min (see Section 10). Several mbus.ping messages MAY be
answered by a single mbus.hello: if one or more further mbus.ping
messages are received while the entity is waiting hello_delay time
units before transmitting the mbus.hello message, no extra mbus.hello
message need be scheduled for those additional mbus.ping messages.
As specified in Section 9.1 hello messages MUST be sent unreliably to
all Mbus entities. This is also the case for replies to ping
messages. An entity that replies to mbus.ping with mbus.hello SHOULD
stop any outstanding timers for hello messages after sending the
hello message and schedule a new timer event for the subsequent hello
message. (Note that using the variables and the algorithms of
Section 8.1.1 this can be achieved by setting hello_p to hello_now.)
mbus.ping allows a new entity to quickly check for other entities
without having to wait for the regular individual hello messages. By
specifying a target address the new entity can restrict the
solicitation for hello messages to a subset of entities it is
interested in.
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 25]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
9.4 mbus.quit
Syntax:
mbus.quit()
Parameters: - none -
The mbus.quit message is used to request other entities to terminate
themselves (and detach from the Mbus). Whether this request is
honoured by receiving entities or not is application specific and
not defined in this document.
The mbus.quit message can be multicast or sent reliably via unicast
to a single Mbus entity or a group of entities.
9.5 mbus.waiting
Syntax:
mbus.waiting(condition)
Parameters:
symbol condition
The condition parameter is used to indicate that the entity
transmitting this message is waiting for a particular event to
occur.
An Mbus entity SHOULD be able to indicate that it is waiting for a
certain event to happen (similar to a P() operation on a semaphore
but without creating external state somewhere else). In conjunction
with this, an Mbus entity SHOULD be capable of indicating to another
entity that this condition is now satisfied (similar to a semaphore's
V() operation).
The mbus.waiting message MAY be broadcast to all Mbus entities, MAY
be multicast to an arbitrary subgroup, or MAY be unicast to a
particular peer. Transmission of the mbus.waiting message MUST be
unreliable and hence MUST be repeated at an application-defined
interval (until the condition is satisfied).
If an application wants to indicate that it is waiting for several
conditions to be met, several mbus.waiting messages are sent
(possibly included in the same Mbus payload). Note that mbus.hello
and mbus.waiting messages may also be transmitted in a single Mbus
payload.
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 26]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
9.6 mbus.go
Syntax:
mbus.go(condition)
Parameters:
symbol condition
This parameter specifies which condition is met.
The mbus.go message is sent by an Mbus entity to "unblock" another
Mbus entity -- which has indicated that it is waiting for a certain
condition to be met. Only a single condition can be specified per
mbus.go message. If several conditions are satisfied simultaneously
multiple mbus.go messages MAY be combined in a single Mbus payload.
The mbus.go message MUST be sent reliably via unicast to the Mbus
entity to unblock.
10. Constants
The following values for timers and counters mentioned in this
document SHOULD be used by implementations:
+-------------------+------------------------+--------------+
|Timer / Counter | Value | Unit |
+-------------------+------------------------+--------------+
|c_hello_factor | 200 | - |
|c_hello_min | 1000 | milliseconds |
|c_hello_dither_min | 0.9 | - |
|c_hello_dither_max | 1.1 | - |
|c_hello_dead | 5 | - |
+-------------------+------------------------+--------------+
T_r=100ms
N_r=3
T_c=70ms
T_k=((N_r)*(N_r+1)/2)*T_r
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 27]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
11. Mbus Security
11.1 Security Model
In order to prevent accidental or malicious disturbance of Mbus
communications through messages originated by applications from other
users, message authentication is deployed (Section 11.3). For each
message, a digest MUST be calculated based on the value of a shared
secret key value. Receivers of messages MUST check if the sender
belongs to the same Mbus security domain by re-calculating the digest
and comparing it to the received value. The messages MUST only be
processed further if both values are equal. In order to allow
different simultaneous Mbus sessions at a given scope and to
compensate defective implementations of host local multicast, message
authentication MUST be provided by conforming implementations.
Privacy of Mbus message transport can be achieved by optionally using
symmetric encryption methods (Section 11.2). Each message MAY be
encrypted using an additional shared secret key and a symmetric
encryption algorithm. Encryption is OPTIONAL for applications, i.e.,
it is allowed to configure an Mbus domain not to use encryption. But
conforming implementations MUST provide the possibility to use
message encryption (see below).
Message authentication and encryption can be parameterized: the
algorithms to apply, the keys to use, etc. These and other
parameters are defined in an Mbus configuration object that is
accessible by all Mbus entities that participate in an Mbus session.
In order to achieve interoperability conforming implementations
SHOULD use the values provided by such an Mbus configuration.
Section 12 defines the mandatory and optional parameters as well as
storage procedures for different platforms. Only in cases where none
of the options mentioned in Section 12 is applicable alternative
methods of configuring Mbus protocol entities MAY be deployed.
The algorithms and procedures for applying encryption and
authentication techniques are specified in the following sections.
11.2 Encryption
Encryption of messages is OPTIONAL, that means, an Mbus MAY be
configured not to use encryption.
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 28]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
Implementations can choose between different encryption algorithms.
Every conforming implementation MUST provide the AES [18] algorithm.
In addition, the following algorithms SHOULD be supported: DES [16],
3DES (triple DES) [16] and IDEA [20].
For algorithms requiring en/decryption data to be padded to certain
boundaries octets with a value of 0 SHOULD be used for padding
characters.
The length of the encryption keys is determined by the currently used
encryption algorithm. This means, the configured encryption key MUST
NOT be shorter than the native key length for the currently
configured algorithm.
DES implementations MUST use the DES Cipher Block Chaining (CBC)
mode. DES keys (56 bits) MUST be encoded as 8 octets as described in
RFC 1423 [12], resulting in 12 Base64-encoded characters. IDEA uses
128-bit keys (24 Base64-encoded characters). AES can use either
128-bit, 192-bit or 256-bit keys. For Mbus encryption using AES only
128-bit keys (24 Base64-encoded characters) MUST be used.
11.3 Message Authentication
For authentication of messages, hashed message authentication codes
(HMACs) as described in RFC 2104 [5] are deployed. In general,
implementations can choose between a number of digest algorithms.
For Mbus authentication, the HMAC algorithm MUST be applied in the
following way:
The keyed hash value is calculated using the HMAC algorithm
specified in RFC 2104 [5]. The specific hash algorithm and the
secret hash key MUST be obtained from the Mbus configuration (see
Section 12).
The keyed hash values (see RFC 2104 [5]) MUST be truncated to 96
bits (12 octets).
Subsequently, the resulting 12 octets MUST be Base64-encoded,
resulting in 16 Base64-encoded characters (see RFC 1521 [7]).
Either MD5 [15] or SHA-1 [17] SHOULD be used for message
authentication codes (MACs). An implementation MAY provide MD5,
whereas SHA-1 MUST be implemented.
The length of the hash keys is determined by the selected hashing
algorithm. This means, the configured hash key MUST NOT be shorter
than the native key length for the currently configured algorithm.
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 29]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
11.4 Procedures for Senders and Receivers
The algorithms that MUST be provided by implementations are AES and
SHA-1.
See Section 12 for a specification of notations for Base64-strings.
A sender MUST apply the following operations to a message that is to
be sent:
1. If encryption is enabled, the message MUST be encrypted using the
configured algorithm and the configured encryption key. Padding
(adding extra-characters) for block-ciphers MUST be applied as
specified in Section 11.2. If encryption is not enabled, the
message is left unchanged.
2. Subsequently, a message authentication code (MAC) for the
(encrypted) message MUST be calculated using the configured HMAC-
algorithm and the configured hash key.
3. The MAC MUST then be converted to Base64 encoding, resulting in 16
Base64-characters as specified in Section 11.3.
4. At last, the sender MUST construct the final message by placing
the (encrypted) message after the base64-encoded MAC and a CRLF.
The ABNF definition for the final message is as follows:
final_msg = MsgDigest CRLF encr_msg
MsgDigest = base64
encr_msg = *OCTET
A receiver MUST apply the following operations to a message that it
has received:
1. Separate the base64-encoded MAC from the (encrypted) message and
decode the MAC.
2. Re-calculate the MAC for the message using the configured HMAC-
algorithm and the configured hash key.
3. Compare the original MAC with re-calculated MAC. If they differ,
the message MUST be discarded without further processing.
4. If encryption is enabled, the message MUST be decrypted using the
configured algorithm and the configured encryption key. Trailing
octets with a value of 0 MUST be deleted. If the message does not
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 30]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
start with the string "mbus/" the message MUST be discarded
without further processing.
12. Mbus Configuration
An implementation MUST be configurable by the following parameters:
Configuration version
The version number of the given configuration entity. Version
numbers allow implementations to check if they can process the
entries of a given configuration entity. Version number are
integer values. The version number for the version specified
here is 1.
Encryption key
The secret key used for message encryption.
Hash key
The hash key used for message authentication.
Scope
The multicast scope to be used for sent messages.
The above parameters are mandatory and MUST be present in every Mbus
configuration entity.
The following parameters are optional. When they are present they
MUST be honored. When they are not present implementations SHOULD
fall back to the predefined default values (as defined in Transport
(Section 6)):
Address
The non-standard multicast address to use for message
transport.
Use of Broadcast
It can be specified whether broadcast should be used. If
broadcast has been configured implementations SHOULD use the
network broadcast address (as specified in Section 6.1.3)
instead of the standard multicast address.
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 31]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
Port Number
The non-standard UDP port number to use for message transport.
Two distinct facilities for parameter storage are considered: For
Unix-like systems a per-user configuration file SHOULD be used and
for Windows-95/98/NT/2000/XP systems a set of registry entries is
defined that SHOULD be used. For other systems it is RECOMMENDED
that the file-based configuration mechanism is used.
The syntax of the values for the respective parameter entries remains
the same for both configuration facilities. The following defines a
set of ABNF (see RFC 2234 [13]) productions that are later re-used
for the definitions for the configuration file syntax and registry
entries:
algo-id = "NOENCR" / "AES" / "DES" / "3DES" / "IDEA" /
"HMAC-MD5-96" / "HMAC-SHA1-96"
scope = "HOSTLOCAL" / "LINKLOCAL"
key = base64
version_number = 1*10DIGIT
key_value = "(" algo-id "," key ")"
address = IPv4address / IPv6address / "BROADCAST"
port = 1*5DIGIT ; values from 0 through 65535
Given the definition above, a key entry MUST be specified using this
notation:
"("algo-id","base64string")"
algo-id is one of the character strings specified above. For algo-
id=="NOENCR" the other fields are ignored. The delimiting commas
MUST always be present though.
A Base64 string consists of the characters defined in the Base64
char-set (see RFC 1521 [7]) including all possible padding
characters, i.e., the length of a Base64-string is always a multiple
of 4.
The scope parameter is used to configure an IP-Multicast scope and
may be set to either "HOSTLOCAL" or "LINKLOCAL". Implementations
SHOULD choose an appropriate IP-Multicast scope depending on the
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 32]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
value of this parameter and construct an effective IP-Address
considering the specifications of Section 6.1.
The use of broadcast is configured by providing the value "BROADCAST"
for the address field. If broadcast has been configured,
implementations SHOULD use the network broadcast address for the used
IP version instead of the standard multicast address.
The version_number parameter specifies a version number for the used
configuration entity.
12.1 File based parameter storage
The file name for an Mbus configuration file is ".mbus" in the user's
home-directory. If an environment variable called MBUS is defined
implementations SHOULD interpret the value of this variable as a
fully qualified file name that is to be used for the configuration
file. Implementations MUST ensure that this file has appropriate
file permissions that prevent other users to read or write it. The
file MUST exist before a conference is initiated. Its contents MUST
be UTF-8 encoded and MUST comply to the following syntax definition:
mbus-file = mbus-topic LF *(entry LF)
mbus-topic = "[MBUS]"
entry = 1*(version_info / hashkey_info
/ encryptionkey_info / scope_info
/ port_info / address_info)
version_info = "CONFIG_VERSION=" version_number
hashkey_info = "HASHKEY=" key_value
encrkey_info = "ENCRYPTIONKEY=" key_value
scope_info = "SCOPE=" scope
port_info = "PORT=" port
address_info = "ADDRESS=" address
The following entries are defined: CONFIG_VERSION, HASHKEY,
ENCRYPTIONKEY, SCOPE, PORT, ADDRESS.
The entries CONFIG_VERSION, HASHKEY and ENCRYPTIONKEY are mandatory,
they MUST be present in every Mbus configuration file. The order of
entries is not significant.
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 33]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
An example for an Mbus configuration file:
[MBUS]
CONFIG_VERSION=1
HASHKEY=(HMAC-MD5-96,MTIzMTU2MTg5MTEy)
ENCRYPTIONKEY=(DES,MTIzMTU2MQ==)
SCOPE=HOSTLOCAL
ADDRESS=224.255.222.239
PORT=47000
12.2 Registry-based parameter storage
For systems lacking the concept of a user's home-directory as a place
for configuration files the suggested database for configuration
settings (e.g., the Windows9x, Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP
registry) SHOULD be used. The hierarchy for Mbus related registry
entries is as follows:
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Mbus
The entries in this hierarchy section are:
+---------------+--------+----------------+
|Name | Type | ABNF production|
+---------------+--------+----------------|
|CONFIG_VERSION | DWORD | version_number |
|HASHKEY | String | key_value |
|ENCRYPTIONKEY | String | key_value |
|SCOPE | String | scope |
|ADDRESS | String | address |
|PORT | DWORD | port |
+---------------+--------+----------------+
The same syntax for key values as for the file based configuration
facility MUST be used.
13. Security Considerations
The Mbus security mechanisms are specified in Section 11.1.
It should be noted that the Mbus transport specification defines a
mandatory baseline set of algorithms that have to be supported by
implementations. This baseline set is intended to provide reasonable
security by mandating algorithms and key lengths that are considered
to be cryptographically strong enough at the time of writing.
However, in order to allow for efficiency it is allowable to use
cryptographically weaker algorithms, for example HMAC-MD5 instead of
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 34]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
HMAC-SHA1. Furthermore, encryption can be turned off completely if
privacy is provided by other means or not considered important for a
certain application.
Users of the Mbus should therefore be aware of the selected security
configuration and should check if it meets the security demands for a
given application. Since every implementation MUST provide the
cryptographically strong algorithm it should always be possible to
configure an Mbus in a way that secure communication with
authentication and privacy is ensured.
In any way, application developers should be aware of incorrect IP
implementations that do not conform to RFC 1122 [2] and do send
datagrams with TTL values of zero, resulting in Mbus messages sent to
the local network link although a user might have selected host local
scope in the Mbus configuration. When using administratively scoped
multicast, users cannot always assume the presence of correctly
configured boundary routers. In these cases the use of encryption
SHOULD be considered if privacy is desired.
14. IANA Considerations
The IANA has assigned a scope-relative multicast address with an
offset of 8 for Mbus/IPv4. The IPv6 permanent multicast address is
FF0X:0:0:0:0:0:0:300.
The registered Mbus UDP port number is 47000.
15. References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Communication
Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.
[3] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998.
[4] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IPv6 Multicast Address
Assignments", RFC 2375, July 1998.
[5] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M. and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-Hashing
for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, February 1997.
[6] Resnick, P., Editor, "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822, April
2001.
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 35]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
[7] Borenstein, N. and N. Freed, "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions) Part One: Mechanisms for Specifying and Describing
the Format of Internet Message Bodies", RFC 1521, September
1993.
[8] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R. and V. Jacobsen,
"RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", RFC
1889, January 1996.
[9] Handley, M., Schulzrinne, H., Schooler, E. and J. Rosenberg,
"SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 2543, March 1999.
[10] Handley, M. and V. Jacobsen, "SDP: Session Description
Protocol", RFC 2327, April 1998.
[11] Meyer, D., "Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", BCP 23, RFC
2365, July 1998.
[12] Balenson, D., "Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic
Mail: Part III: Algorithms, Modes, and Identifiers", RFC 1423,
February 1993.
[13] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997.
[14] Myers, J., "SMTP Service Extension for Authentication", RFC
2554, March 1999.
[15] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC 1321, April
1992.
[16] U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE/National Institute of Standards and
Technology, "Data Encryption Standard (DES)", FIPS PUB 46-3,
Category Computer Security, Subcategory Cryptography, October
1999.
[17] U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE/National Institute of Standards and
Technology, "Secure Hash Standard", FIPS PUB 180-1, April 1995.
[18] Daemen, J.D. and V.R. Rijmen, "AES Proposal: Rijndael", March
1999.
[19] IANA, "Internet Multicast Addresses", URL
http://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses, May 2001.
[20] Schneier, B., "Applied Cryptography", Edition 2, Publisher John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., status: non-normative, 1996.
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 36]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
Appendix A. About References
Please note that the list of references contains normative as well as
non-normative references. Each Non-normative references is marked as
"status: non-normative". All unmarked references are normative.
Appendix B. Limitations and Future Work
The Mbus is a light-weight local coordination mechanism and
deliberately not designed for larger scope coordination. It is
expected to be used on a single node or -- at most -- on a single
network link.
Therefore the Mbus protocol does not contain features that would be
required to qualify it for the use over the global Internet:
There are no mechanisms to provide congestion control. The issue
of congestion control is a general problem for multicast
protocols. The Mbus allows for un-acknowledged messages that are
sent unreliably, for example as event notifications, from one
entity to another. Since negative acknowledgements are not
defined there is no way the sender could realize that it is
flooding another entity or congesting a low bandwidth network
segment.
The reliability mechanism, i.e., the retransmission timers, are
designed to provide effective, responsive message transport on
local links but are not suited to cope with larger delays that
could be introduced from router queues etc.
Some experiments are currently underway to test the applicability of
bridges between different distributed Mbus domains without changing
the basic protocol semantics. Since the use of such bridges should
be orthogonal to the basic Mbus protocol definitions and since these
experiments are still work in progress there is no mention of this
concept in this specification.
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 37]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
Authors' Addresses
Joerg Ott
TZI, Universitaet Bremen
Bibliothekstr. 1
Bremen 28359
Germany
Phone: +49.421.201-7028
Fax: +49.421.218-7000
EMail: jo@tzi.uni-bremen.de
Colin Perkins
USC Information Sciences Institute
3811 N. Fairfax Drive #200
Arlington VA 22203
USA
EMail: csp@isi.edu
Dirk Kutscher
TZI, Universitaet Bremen
Bibliothekstr. 1
Bremen 28359
Germany
Phone: +49.421.218-7595
Fax: +49.421.218-7000
EMail: dku@tzi.uni-bremen.de
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 38]
RFC 3259 A Message Bus for Local Coordination April 2002
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Ott, et. al. Informational [Page 39]