Network Working Group | M. Blanchet |
Internet-Draft | Viagenie |
Intended status: Informational | February 25, 2011 |
Expires: August 29, 2011 |
Delay-Tolerant Networks (DTN) Bundle Protocol IANA Registries
draft-irtf-dtnrg-iana-bp-registries-02.txt
The DTNRG research group has defined many protocols such as Bundle Protocol and Licklider. The specifications of these protocols contain fields that are subject to a registry. For the purpose of its research work, the group created adhoc registries. As the specifications are stable and have multiple interoperable implementations, the group would like to handoff the registries to IANA for official custody. This document describes the actions needed to be executed by IANA.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 29, 2011.
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
The DTNRG research group has defined many protocols[RFC4838] such as Bundle Protocol[RFC5050] and Licklider[RFC5326]. The specifications of these protocols contain fields that are subject to a registry. For the purpose of its research work, the group created adhoc registries. As the specifications are stable and have multiple interoperable implementations, the group would like to handoff the registries to IANA for official custody. This document describes the actions needed to be executed by IANA.
The DTN protocols use several extensible bit flag fields that are encoded as Self-Delimiting Numeric Values (SDNVs) as defined in Section 4.1 of [RFC5050]. For these fields, the registry specifies the allocation and usage of bit positions within the unencoded field. The SDNV encoding treats the ensemble of bits in the unencoded value as a numeric value to be encoded on transmission and decoded on reception as described in [RFC5050].
Processing of SDNV-encoded flags is discussed in [I-D.irtf-dtnrg-sdnv].
Section 4.1 of [RFC5050] specifies that implementations are not required to handle SDNVs with more than 64 bits in their unencoded value. Accordingly SDNV encoded flag fields should be limited to 64 bit positions.
IANA Registry policies and wording used in this document are described in [RFC5226].
The Bundle Protocol(BP)[RFC5050] has fields requiring a registry managed by IANA.
The Bundle Protocol has a Bundle Block Type code field (section 4.5.2) [RFC5050]. An IANA registry shall be setup as follows.
The registration policy for this registry is:
The Value range is: unsigned 8 bit integer.
Bundle Block Type Codes Registry
Value | Description | Reference |
---|---|---|
0 | Reserved | This document |
1 | Bundle Payload Block | [RFC5050] |
2-191 | Unassigned | |
192-255 | Private and/or experimental use | [RFC5050] |
The value "0" was not defined in any document or in the adhoc registry. As per concensus by the DNTRG research group, it is reserved per this document.
The Bundle Protocol has a version field (section 4.5.1) [RFC5050]. An IANA registry shall be setup as follows.
The registration policy for this registry is: RFC Required
The Value range is: unsigned 8 bit integer.
Primary Bundle Protocol Version Registry
Value | Description | Reference |
---|---|---|
0-5 | Reserved | This document |
6 | Assigned | [RFC5050] |
7-255 | Unassigned |
The value "0-5" was not defined in any document or in the adhoc registry. As per concensus by the DNTRG research group, it is reserved per this document.
The Bundle Protocol has a Bundle Processing Control flags field (section 4.2) [RFC5050] encoded as an SDNV(see section [sdnv]). An IANA registry shall be setup as follows.
The registration policy for this registry is: Specification Required
The Value range is: Variable length. Maximum number of flag bit positions: 64
Bundle Processing Control Flags Registry
Bit Position (right to left) | Description | Reference |
---|---|---|
0 | Bundle is a fragment | [RFC5050] |
1 | Application data unit is an administrative record | [RFC5050] |
2 | Bundle must not be fragmented | [RFC5050] |
3 | Custody transfer is requested | [RFC5050] |
4 | Destination endpoint is a singleton | [RFC5050] |
5 | Acknowledgement by application is requested | [RFC5050] |
6 | Reserved | [RFC5050] |
7-8 | Class of service: priority | [RFC5050] |
9-13 | Class of service: reserved | [RFC5050] |
14 | Request reporting of bundle reception | [RFC5050] |
15 | Request reporting of custody acceptance | [RFC5050] |
16 | Request reporting of bundle forwarding | [RFC5050] |
17 | Request reporting of bundle delivery | [RFC5050] |
18 | Request reporting of bundle deletion | [RFC5050] |
19 | Reserved | [RFC5050] |
20 | Reserved | [RFC5050] |
The Bundle Protocol has a Block Processing Control flags field (section 4.3) [RFC5050]. An IANA registry shall be setup as follows.
The registration policy for this registry is: Specification Required
The Value range is: Variable length. Maximum number of flag bit positions: 64
Block Processing Control Flags Registry
Bit Position (right to left) | Description | Reference |
---|---|---|
0 | Block must be replicated in every fragment | [RFC5050] |
1 | Transmit status report if block can't be processed | [RFC5050] |
2 | Delete bundle if block can't be processed | [RFC5050] |
3 | Last block | [RFC5050] |
4 | Discard block if it can't be processed | [RFC5050] |
5 | Block was forwarded without being processed | [RFC5050] |
6 | Block contains an EID-reference field | [RFC5050] |
The Bundle Protocol has a Status Report Status Flag field(section 6.1.1) [RFC5050]. An IANA registry shall be setup as follows.
The registration policy for this registry is: RFC Required
The Value range is: 8 bits.
Bundle Status Report Flags Registry
Value | Description | Reference |
---|---|---|
00000000 | Reserved | This document |
00000001 | Reporting node received bundle | [RFC5050] |
00000010 | Reporting node accepted custody of bundle | [RFC5050] |
00000100 | Reporting node forwarded the bundle | [RFC5050] |
00001000 | Reporting node delivered the bundle | [RFC5050] |
00010000 | Reporting node deleted the bundle | [RFC5050] |
00100000 | Unassigned | |
01000000 | Unassigned | |
10000000 | Unassigned |
The value "00000000" was not defined in any document or in the adhoc registry. As per concensus by the DNTRG research group, it is reserved per this document.
The Bundle Protocol has a Bundle Status Report Reason Codes field(section 6.1.1) [RFC5050]. An IANA registry shall be setup as follows.
The registration policy for this registry is: Specification Required
The Value range is: unsigned 8 bit integer.
Bundle Status Report Reason Codes Registry
Value | Description | Reference |
---|---|---|
0 | No additional information | [RFC5050] |
1 | Lifetime expired | [RFC5050] |
2 | Forwarded over unidirectional link | [RFC5050] |
3 | Transmission canceled | [RFC5050] |
4 | Depleted storage | [RFC5050] |
5 | Destination endpoint ID unintelligible | [RFC5050] |
6 | No known route to destination from here | [RFC5050] |
7 | No timely contact with next node on route | [RFC5050] |
8 | Block unintelligible | [RFC5050] |
9-254 | Unassigned | |
255 | Reserved | This document |
The value "255" was not defined in any document or in the adhoc registry. As per concensus by the DNTRG research group, it is reserved per this document.
The Bundle Protocol has a Bundle Custody Signal Reason Codes field(section 6.1.2) [RFC5050]. An IANA registry shall be setup as follows.
The registration policy for this registry is: Specification Required
The Value range is: unsigned 7 bit integer.
Bundle Custody Signal Reason Codes Registry
Value | Description | Reference |
---|---|---|
0 | No additional information | [RFC5050] |
1-2 | Unassigned | |
3 | Redundant reception (reception by a node that is a custodial node for this bundle) | [RFC5050] |
4 | Depleted storage | [RFC5050] |
5 | Destination endpoint ID unintelligible | [RFC5050] |
6 | No known route to destination from here | [RFC5050] |
7 | No timely contact with next node on route | [RFC5050] |
8 | Block unintelligible | [RFC5050] |
9-126 | Unassigned | |
127 | Reserved | This document |
The value "127" was not defined in any document or in the adhoc registry. As per concensus by the DNTRG research group, it is reserved per this document.
This document requests the creation of registries managed by IANA. There is no security issues involved. Refer to Security Considerations of the referenced protocols.
IANA is requested to create the registries as described in the previous sections.
The editor would like to thank the following people who have provided comments and suggestions to this document, in no specific order: Stephen Farrell, Daniel Ellard, Scott Burleigh, Keith Scott, Elwyn Davies.
[RFC4838] | Cerf, V., Burleigh, S., Hooke, A., Torgerson, L., Durst, R., Scott, K., Fall, K. and H. Weiss, "Delay-Tolerant Networking Architecture", RFC 4838, April 2007. |
[RFC5050] | Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, "Bundle Protocol Specification", RFC 5050, November 2007. |
[RFC5226] | Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008. |
[RFC5326] | Ramadas, M., Burleigh, S. and S. Farrell, "Licklider Transmission Protocol - Specification", RFC 5326, September 2008. |
[I-D.irtf-dtnrg-sdnv] | Eddy, W and E Davies, "Using Self-Delimiting Numeric Values in Protocols", Internet-Draft draft-irtf-dtnrg-sdnv-09, February 2011. |