NSIS T. Tsenov Internet-Draft H. Tschofenig Expires: August 25, 2008 Nokia Siemens Networks X. Fu Univ. Goettingen C. Aoun E. Davies Folly Consulting February 22, 2008 GIST State Machine draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp-statemachine-05.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 25, 2008. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). Abstract This document describes the state machines for the General Internet Signaling Transport (GIST). The states of GIST nodes for a given flow and their transitions are presented in order to illustrate how GIST may be implemented. Tsenov, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 1] Internet-Draft GIST State Machine February 2008 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Notational conventions used in state diagrams . . . . . . . 3 4. State Machine Symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Common Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1 Common Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2 Common Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.3 Constants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. State machines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.1 Diagram notations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.2 State machine for GIST querying node . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.3 State machine for GIST responding node . . . . . . . . . . 13 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 11.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 11.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Appendix A. ASCII versions of the state diagrams . . . . . . . . 17 A.1 State machine for GIST querying node (Figure 2) . . . . 17 A.2 State Machine for GIST responding node (Figure 3) . . . 20 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 24 Tsenov, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 2] Internet-Draft GIST State Machine February 2008 1. Introduction This document describes the state machines for GIST [1], trying to show how GIST can be implemented to support its deployment. The state machines described in this document are illustrative of how the GIST protocol defined in [1] may be implemented for the GIST nodes in different locations of a flow path. Where there are differences [1] are authoritative. The state machines are informative only. Implementations may achieve the same results using different methods. There are two types of possible entities for GIST signaling: - GIST querying node - GIST node that initiates the discovery of the next peer; - GIST responding node - GIST node that is the discovered next peer; We describe a set of state machines for these entities to illustrate how GIST may be implemented. 2. Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [2]. 3. Notational conventions used in state diagrams The following text is reused from [3] and the state diagrams are based on the conventions specified in [4], Section 8.2.1. Additional state machine details are taken from [5]. The complete text is reproduced here: State diagrams are used to represent the operation of the protocol by a number of cooperating state machines each comprising a group of connected, mutually exclusive states. Only one state of each machine can be active at any given time. All permissible transitions between states are represented by arrows, the arrowhead denoting the direction of the possible transition. Labels attached to arrows denote the condition(s) that must be met in order for the transition to take place. All conditions are expressions that evaluate to TRUE or FALSE; if a condition evaluates to TRUE, then the condition is met. The label UCT denotes an unconditional transition (i.e., UCT always evaluates to TRUE). A transition that is global in nature (i.e., a transition that occurs from any of the possible states if the condition attached to the Tsenov, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 3] Internet-Draft GIST State Machine February 2008 arrow is met) is denoted by an open arrow; i.e., no specific state is identified as the origin of the transition. When the condition associated with a global transition is met, it supersedes all other exit conditions including UCT. The special global condition BEGIN supersedes all other global conditions, and once asserted remains asserted until all state blocks have executed to the point that variable assignments and other consequences of their execution remain unchanged. On entry to a state, the procedures defined for the state (if any) are executed exactly once, in the order that they appear on the page. Each action is deemed to be atomic; i.e., execution of a procedure completes before the next sequential procedure starts to execute. No procedures execute outside of a state block. The procedures in only one state block execute at a time, even if the conditions for execution of state blocks in different state machines are satisfied, and all procedures in an executing state block complete execution before the transition to and execution of any other state block occurs, i.e., the execution of any state block appears to be atomic with respect to the execution of any other state block and the transition condition to that state from the previous state is TRUE when execution commences. The order of execution of state blocks in different state machines is undefined except as constrained by their transition conditions. A variable that is set to a particular value in a state block retains this value until a subsequent state block executes a procedure that modifies the value. On completion of all of the procedures within a state, all exit conditions for the state (including all conditions associated with global transitions) are evaluated continuously until one of the conditions is met. The label ELSE denotes a transition that occurs if none of the other conditions for transitions from the state are met (i.e., ELSE evaluates to TRUE if all other possible exit conditions from the state evaluate to FALSE). Where two or more exit conditions with the same level of precedence become TRUE simultaneously, the choice as to which exit condition causes the state transition to take place is arbitrary. In addition to the above notation, there are a couple of clarifications specific to this document. First, all boolean variables are initialized to FALSE before the state machine execution begins. Second, the following notational shorthand is specific to this document: = | | ... Execution of a statement of this form will result in having a value of exactly one of the expressions. The logic for Tsenov, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 4] Internet-Draft GIST State Machine February 2008 which of those expressions gets executed is outside of the state machine and could be environmental, configurable, or based on another state machine such as that of the method. 4. State Machine Symbols MA Messaging Association Upstream/Downstream MRS Message Routing State with upstream/downstream peer state info ( ) Used to force the precedence of operators in Boolean expressions and to delimit the argument(s) of actions within state boxes. ; Used as a terminating delimiter for actions within state boxes. Where a state box contains multiple actions, the order of execution follows the normal English language conventions for reading text. = Assignment action. The value of the expression to the right of the operator is assigned to the variable to the left of the operator. Where this operator is used to define multiple assignments, e.g., a = b = X the action causes the value of the expression following the right-most assignment operator to be assigned to all of the variables that appear to the left of the right-most assignment operator. ! Logical NOT operator. && Logical AND operator. || Logical OR operator. if...then... Conditional action. If the Boolean expression following the if evaluates to TRUE, then the action following the then is executed. { statement 1, ... statement N } Compound statement. Braces are used to group statements that are executed together as if they were a single statement. Tsenov, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 5] Internet-Draft GIST State Machine February 2008 != Inequality. Evaluates to TRUE if the expression to the left of the operator is not equal in value to the expression to the right. == Equality. Evaluates to TRUE if the expression to the left of the operator is equal in value to the expression to the right. > Greater than. Evaluates to TRUE if the value of the expression to the left of the operator is greater than the value of the expression to the right. <= Less than or equal to. Evaluates to TRUE if the value of the expression to the left of the operator is either less than or equal to the value of the expression to the right. ++ Increment the preceding integer operator by 1. + Arithmetic addition operator. & Bitwise AND operator. 5. Common Rules Throughout the document we use terms defined in the [1], such as Query, Response, Confirm. State machine represents handling of GIST messages that match a Message Routing State's MRI, NSLPID and SID and with no protocol errors. Separate parallel instances of the state machines should handle messages for different Message Routing States. The state machine states represent the upstream/downstream peers states of the Message Routing State. For simplification not all objects included in a message are shown. Only those that are significant for the case are shown. State machines do not present handling of messages that are not significant for management of the states. Presented in this document state machines do not cover all functions of a GIST node. Functionality of message forwarding, ROA processing, transmission of NSLP data without MRS establishment and providing of Tsenov, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 6] Internet-Draft GIST State Machine February 2008 the received messages to the appropriate MRS, we refer as "Lower level pre-processing" step. The interaction of this step with the presented here state machines is defined as follows: Pre-processing provides to the appropriate MRS FSM only the messages which are matched against waiting Query/Response cookies, or established MRS MRI+NSLPID+SID primary key. This is presented by "rx_*" events in the state machines. 5.1 Common Procedures Tg_SendMsg: NSLP/GIST API message that request transmission of a NSLP message. Tg_SetStateLifetime(time_period): NSLP/GIST API message providing info for the Lifetime of an RS, required by the application. "Time_period = 0" represents the cancellation of established RSs/MAs (invoked by NSLP application). Tg_MessageStatus: NSLP/GIST API message informing NSLP application of unsuccessful delivery of a message Tg_RecvMsg: NSLP/GIST API message that provides received message to the NSLP Tg_NetworkNotification: NSLP/GIST API message that informs NSLP for change in MRS Tx_Query: Transmit of Query message Tx_Response: Transmit of Response message Tx_Confirm: Transmit of Confirm message Rx_Query: Receive of Query message Rx_Response: Receive of Response message Rx_Confirm: Receive of Confirm message Tx_Error: Tsenov, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 7] Internet-Draft GIST State Machine February 2008 Transmit of Error message Rx_Error: Receive of Error message Queue NSLP info: Save NLSP messages in a queue until a required MA association is established Tx_Data: Transmit of Data message Rx_Data: Receive of Data message T_Inactive_QNode: Message Routing State lifetime timer in Querying Node T_Expired_RNode: Message Routing State lifetime timer in Responding Node T_Refresh_QNode: Message Routing State refresh timer in Querying Node T_No_Response: Timer for the waiting period for Response message in Querying Node T_No_Confirm: Timer for the waiting period for Confirm message in Responding Node Install downstream/upstream MRS: Install new Message Routing State and save the corespoding peer state info (IP address and UDP port or pointer to the used MA) for the current Message Routing State or update the coresponding peer state info. DELETE MRS: Delete installed downstream/upstream peer's info for the current Message Routing State and delete the Message Routing State if required. Established MA: A Message Association (MA) is established between the current node and its upstream peer. The initiator for the establishment is the upstream peer. Re-use existing MA: An existing MA between the current node and its peer is re-used. Tsenov, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 8] Internet-Draft GIST State Machine February 2008 DELETE MA: Delete/disconnect used MA. Stop using shared MA: Stop using shared MA. If the shared MA is no more used by any other MRSs, it depends on the local policy whether it is deleted or kept. REFRESH MRS: Refreshes installed MRS. Tg_MA_Error: Error event with used MA. Tg_InvalidRoutingState: Notification from NSLP application for path change Tg_Establish_MA: Trigers establishment of MA. Tg_MA_Established: MA has been successfully established. Tg_ERROR: General Error event / system level error. No_MRS_Installed: Error response, send by the Responding node indicating lost Confirm message. 5.2 Common Variables It is assumed that the type of mode and destination info (which need to be taken from the application parameters and local GIST policy)is provided. This is represented by the common variables Dmode, Cmode, MAinfo, MApresent and Refresh. Cmode: The message MUST be transmitted in Cmode. This is specified by "Message transfer attributes" set to any of the following values: "Reliability" is set to TRUE. "Security" is set to values that request secure handling of a message. "Local processing" is set to values that require services offered by Cmode (e.g., congestion control). [1] Tsenov, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 9] Internet-Draft GIST State Machine February 2008 Dmode: The message MUST be transmitted in Dmode. This is specified by local policy rules and in case that the "Message transfer attributes" are not set to any of the following values: "Reliability" is set to TRUE. "Security" is set to values that request special security handling of a message. "Local processing" is set to values that require services offered by Cmode [1] MAinfo: GIST message parameters describing the required MA or proposed MA e.g. "Stack-proposal" and "Stack-Configuration-Data". NSLPdata: NSLP application data. RespCookie: Responder Cookie that is being sent by the Responding node with the Response message in case that its local policy requires a confirmation from the querying node. ConfirmRequired: Confirm message is required by the local policy rule for installation of the new MRS. NewPeer: Response message is received from new responding peer. MAexist: Existing MA will be reused. CheckPeerInfo: The sender of the received data message is matched against the installed peer info in the MRS. UpstreamPeerInstalled: Upstream peer info is installed in the MRS. 5.3 Constants Tsenov, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 10] Internet-Draft GIST State Machine February 2008 6. State machines The following section presents the state machine diagrams of GIST peers. 6.1 Diagram notations (see the .pdf version for missing diagram or refer to Appendix A if reading the .txt version) Figure 1: Diagram notations 6.2 State machine for GIST querying node The following is a diagram of the GIST querying node state machine. Also included is clarification of notation. (see the .pdf version for missing diagram or refer to Appendix A.1 if reading the .txt version) Figure 1: GIST Querying Node State Machine *) Response and Comfirm messages might be send either in Dmode or Cmode, before or after MA establishment depending on nodes local 3-way handshake policy and the availability of MAs to be reused. See draft for details. **) Depending on the local policy NSLPdata might be send as payload of Query and Confirm messages. (piggybacking) 1) Initial request from NSLP is received, which triggers Query messages requesting either D_mode or C_mode. Depending on nodes local policy NSLP data might be piggybacked in the Query requesting D_mode. Query may carry Mainfo if C_mode transport is needed. 2) Response message is received. If C_mode connection must be established and there is no available MA to be reused, MA establishment is initiated and waited to be completed. 3) Response message is received. If D_mode connection is requested or available MA can be reused for requested C_mode, the MRS is established. 4) No_Response timer expires. Query is resent. 5) No_Response timer expires and maximum number of retries has been reached. NSLP application is notified for the GIST peer discovery failure. 6) NSLP data is queued, because downstream peer is not discovered or required MA is still not established. 7) Data message is received. It is checked if its sender matches the installed downstream peer info in the MRS and then processed. In WaitResponse state, this event might happen in the process of MA Tsenov, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 11] Internet-Draft GIST State Machine February 2008 upgrade, when the downstream peer is still not aware of establishment of the new MA. 8) Provided NSLP data is sent via Data message towards downstream GIST peer. 9) Refresh_QNode timer expires. Query message is sent. 10) Response message from the downstream GIST peer is received. The peer is not changed. MRS is refreshed (Refresh_QNode timer is restarted). 11) Path change detected. Response message from a new downstream GIST peer is received. D_mode is requested or existing MA can be reused for requested C_mode. 12) Path change detected. Response message from a new downstream GIST peer is received. A new MA must be established for requested C_mode. 13) Requested by NSLP application transport parameters requires upgrade of established MRS from D_mode/C_mode to C_mode. NSLP application notifies GIST for path change. Downstream GIST peer discovery is initiated. 14) Sent Confirm message has not been received by downstream GIST peer. Confirm message is resent. 15) MRS lifetime expires. Notification by NSLP application that MRS is no longer needed. 16) MA is established. 17) MA establishment failure. 6.3 State machine for GIST responding node The following is a diagram of the GIST responding node state machine. Also included is clarification of notation. (see the .pdf version for missing diagram or refer to Appendix A.2 if reading the .txt version) Figure 3: GIST Responding Node State Machine 1) A Query message is received. Explicit Confirm message is required for MRS installation, based on the local policy. Query message might carry piggybacked NSLP data which is provided to the NSLP application. 2) A Query message is received. MRS is installed immediately, based on the local policy. Query message might carry piggybacked NSLP data which is provided to the NSLP application. 3) Confirm message is received which causes installation of the complete MRS or just installation of the used MA as a upstream peer info. 4) Sent Response message has not been received by upstream GIST peer. Response message is resent. 5) In case of lost Confirm message, data messages might be received Tsenov, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 12] Internet-Draft GIST State Machine February 2008 from the upstream GIST node (it is unaware of the lost Confirm message). Response indicating the loss of the Confirm is sent back to the upstream GIST node. 6) No_Confirm timer expires. Note that all cases of lost handshake GIST messages are handled only by GIST querying node via resend of Query message. 7) NSLP data is sent if discovery process is successfully accomplished or is queued if Confirm message is still expected to confirm establishment of MA. 8) Data messages are accepted only if complete MRS is installed, e.g., there is installed upstream peer info. If not, then Confirm message is expected and data message wont be accepted. Response indicating the loss of the Confirm is sent back to the upstream GIST node. 9) Change of the upstream GIST node (e.g., path change). Local policy does not need explicit Confirm message for MRS installation. MRS data is updated. 10) Change of the upstream GIST node or request for change of the used connection mode (from D_mode/C_mode to better C_mode). Local policy requires explicit Confirm message for MRS installation. 11) Request for change of the used connection mode (from D_mode/C_mode to better C_mode). Local policy does not need explicit Confirm message for MRS installation. MRS data is updated. 12) MRS lifetime expires. Notification by NSLP application that MRS is no longer needed. 8. Security Considerations This document does not raise new security considerations. Any security concerns with GIST are likely reflected in security related NSIS work already (such as [1] or [6]). 9. Open Issues We have left for further version of the document the following issues: 1. The FSM that handles the management of a MA is considered in the document (e.g., tg_Establish_MA, tg_MA_established events), but it is not currently explicitely presented. It is left for future version of the document. 2. Functionality of, as referred in the document "Lower level pre- processing" (Section 5), namely message forwarding, RAO processing, transmission of NSLP data without MRS establishment and providing of the received messages to the appropriate MRS is left for future version of the document. Tsenov, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 13] Internet-Draft GIST State Machine February 2008 10. Contributors Christian Dickmann contributed to refining of the state machine since 01 version. 11. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Robert Hancock, Ingo Juchem, Andreas Westermaier, Alexander Zrim, Julien Abeille Youssef Abidi and Bernd Schloer for their insightful comments. Tsenov, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 14] Internet-Draft GIST State Machine February 2008 12. References 12.1. Normative References [1] Schulzrinne, H., "GIST: General Internet Signaling Transport", draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp-15 (work in progress), February 2008. [2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 11.2. Informative References [3] Vollbrecht, J., Eronen, P., Petroni, N., and Y. Ohba, "State Machines for Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Peer and Authenticator", draft-ietf-eap- statemachine-06 (work in progress), December 2004. [4] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "DRAFT Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Port- Based Network Access Control (Revision)", IEEE 802-1X-REV/D11, July 2004. [5] Ohba, Y., "State Machines for Protocol for Carrying Authentication for Network Access (PANA)", draft-ohba-pana-statemachine-01 (work in progress), February 2005. [6] Tschofenig, H. and D. Kroeselberg, "Security Threats for NSIS", draft-ietf-nsis-threats-06 (work in progress), October 2004. Tsenov, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 15] Internet-Draft GIST State Machine February 2008 Appendix A. ASCII versions of state diagrams This appendix contains the state diagrams in ASCII format. Please use the PDF version whenever possible: it is much easier to understand. For each state there is a separate table that lists in each row: - an event that triggers a transition, - actions taken as a result of the incoming event, - and the new state at which the transitions ends. A.1. State machine for GIST querying node (Figure 2) ----------- State: IDLE ----------- Condition Action State Note ------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+--- tg_SendMsg |tx_Query |Wait |1) |start T_No_Response |Response |** |Queue NSLP data | | | | | Tg_ERROR |Delete MRS |IDLE | |IF (MA is used) | | | ((Delete MA)|| | | | (Stop using shared MA))| | |Tg_NetworkNotification | | | | | ------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+--- ----------- State: WaitResponse ----------- Condition Action State Note ------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+--- rx_Response(MAinfo)&& |tg_Establish_MA |Wait MA |* (!MAexist) |(tx_Confirm) |Establish. |2) | | | | | | rx_Response)|| |Install MRS |Established|3) (rx_Response(MAinfo)&& |IF (RespCookie) |Downstream | (MAexist)) | tx_Confirm(RespCookie)|MRS | |tx_Data(Queued NSLP data)| | | | | Tsenov, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 16] Internet-Draft GIST State Machine February 2008 (timeout T_No_Response) |Tx_Query |Wait |4) &&(!MaxRetry) |restart T_No_Response |Response | | | | (timeout T_No_Response) |tg_MessageStatus |IDLE |5) &&(MaxRetry) | | | | | | tg_SendMsg |Queue NSLP data |Wait |6) | |Response | | | | rx_Data |IF(CheckPeerInfo) |Wait |7) | tg_RecvMsg to Appl.|Response | | | | Tg_ERROR |(Delete MRS) |IDLE | |IF (MA is used) | | | ((Delete MA)|| | | | (Stop using shared MA))| | |Tg_NetworkNotification | | | | | ------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+--- ----------- State: Established Downstream MRS ----------- Condition Action State Note ------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+--- tg_SendMsg |tx_Data |Established|8) |restart T_Inactive_QNode |Downstream | | |MRS | | | | timeout T_Refresh_QNode |tx_Query |Established|9) | |Downstream | | |MRS | | | | (rx_Response)&& |Refresh MRS |Established|10) (!NewPeer) |restart T_Inactive_QNode |Downstream | | |MRS | | | | (rx_Response)|| |IF (MA is used) |Established|11) (rx_Response(Mainfo)&& | (Delete MA)|| |Downstream | (MAexist)))&&(NewPeer) | (Stop using shared MA)|MRS | |Install MRS | | |restart T_Inactive_QNode | | |IF (RespCookie) | | Tsenov, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 17] Internet-Draft GIST State Machine February 2008 | tx_Confirm(RespCookie)| | | | | (rx_Response(MAinfo)&& |((Delete MA)|| |Wait MA |12) (NewPeer)&&(!MA_exist)) |(Stop using shared MA)) |Establish. |* |tg_Establish_MA | | |(tx_Confirm) | | | | | ((tg_SendMsg)&&(Cmode)&&|tx_Query |Wait |13) (!MAexist))|| |Queue NSLP data |Response | (tg_MA_error)|| | | | (tg_InvalidRoutingState)| | | | | | rx_Response(No_MRS_ |tx_Confirm(RespCookie) |Established|14) installed)|tx_Data(Queued NSLP data)|Downstream | | |MRS | | | | (timeout T_Inactive_ |Delete MRS |IDLE |15) QNode)|||IF (MA is used) | | (tg_SetStateLifetime(0))| (Delete MA)|| | | | (Stop using shared MA)| | |Tg_NetworkNotification | | | | | rx_Data |IF(CheckPeerInfo) |Established|7) | tg_RecvMsg to Appl.|Downstream | | |MRS | | | | Tg_ERROR |(Delete MRS) |IDLE | |IF (MA is used) | | | ((Delete MA)|| | | | (Stop using shared MA))| | |Tg_NetworkNotification | | | | | ------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+--- ----------- State: Wait MA Establishment ----------- Condition Action State Note ------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+--- tg_MA_Established |Install MRS |Established|16) |(tx_Confirm) |Downstream |* |tx_Data(Queued NSLP data)|MRS | | | | tg_MA_error |Delete MRS |IDLE |17) |tg_MessageStatus | | Tsenov, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 18] Internet-Draft GIST State Machine February 2008 | | | tg_SendMsg |Queue NSLP data |Wait MA |6) | |Establish. | | | | Tg_ERROR |Delete MRS |IDLE | |IF (MA is used) | | | ((Delete MA)|| | | | (Stop using shared MA))| | |Tg_NetworkNotification | | | | | ------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+--- Figure 4 A.2. State Machine for GIST responding node (Figure 3) ----------- State: IDLE ----------- Condition Action State Note ------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+--- rx_Query&& |tx_Response |Wait |1) (ConfirmRequired) |start T_No_Confirm |Confirm | |IF(NSLPdata) | | | tg_RecvMsg(NSLPdata)| | | to Appl.| | | | | rx_Query&& |tx_Response |Established|2) (!ConfirmRequired) |Install MRS |Upstream | |IF(NSLPdata) |MRS | | tg_RecvMsg(NSLPdata)| | | to Appl.| | | | | ------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+--- ----------- State: WAIT CONFIRM ----------- Condition Action State Note ------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+--- rx_Confirm |Install Upstream MRS |Established|3) | |Upstream | | |MRS | | | | Tsenov, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 19] Internet-Draft GIST State Machine February 2008 rx_Query&& |tx_Response |Wait |4) (ConfirmRequired) |start T_No_Confirm |Confirm | |IF(NSLPdata) | | | tg_RecvMsg(NSLPdata)| | | to Appl.| | | | | rx_Data |tx_Error(No_MRS_ |Wait |5) | installed)|Confirm | | | | timeout T_No_Confirm | |IDLE |6) | | | ------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+--- ----------- State: Established Upstream MRS ----------- Condition Action State Note ------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+--- tg_SendMsg |IF(!UpstreamPeerInfo) |Established|7) | Queue NSLP data |Upstream | |ELSE tx_Data |MRS | | | | rx_Data |IF(UpstreamPeerInfo) |Established|8) | (tg_RecvMsg to Appl.)|Upstream | | &&(restart_T_Expire_ |MRS | | RNode)| | |ELSE | | | tx_Error(No_MRS_ | | | installed)| | | | | rx_Query |IF (NewPeer) |Established|9) | Update UpstreamPeerInfo|Upstream | |tx_Response |MRS | |restart T_Expire_RNode | | | | | (rx_Query)&& |Delete MRS |Wait | (ConfirmRequired) |tx_Response |Confirm | |start T_No_Confirm | | |IF(MA is used) | | | (Delete MA)|| | | | (Stop using shared MA)| | |IF(NSLPdata) | | | tg_RecvMsg(NSLPdata) | | | to Appl.| | | | | Tsenov, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 20] Internet-Draft GIST State Machine February 2008 rx_Query(MAinfo)&& |Delete UpstreamPeerInfo |Established|11) (!ConfirmRequired) |restart T_Expire_RNode |Upstream | |tx_Response(MAinfo) |MRS | | | | (timeout T_Expire_RNode)|Delete MRS |IDLE |12) || |tg_NetworkNotification | | (tg_SetStateLifetime(0))|IF(MA is used) | | | (Delete MA)|| | | | (Stop using shared MA)| | | | | rx_Confirm |Install UpstreamPeerInfo |Established|3) |tx_Data(queued_NSLP_data)|Upstream | | |MRS | | | | Tg_ERROR |(Delete MRS) |IDLE | |IF (MA is used) | | | ((Delete MA)|| | | | (Stop using shared MA))| | |Tg_NetworkNotification | | | | | ------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+--- Figure 5 Tsenov, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 21] Internet-Draft GIST State Machine February 2008 Authors' Addresses Tseno Tsenov Sofia, Bulgaria Email: tseno.tsenov@mytum.de Hannes Tschofenig Nokia Siemens Networks Linnoitustie 6 Espoo 02600 Finland Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@nsn.com Xiaoming Fu University of Goettingen Computer Networks Group Lotzestr. 16-18 Goettingen 37083 Germany Email: fu@cs.uni-goettingen.de Cedric Aoun Paris France Email: cedric@caoun.net Elwyn B. Davies Folly Consulting Soham, Cambs UK Phone: +44 7889 488 335 Email: elwynd@dial.pipex.com Tsenov, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 22] Internet-Draft GIST State Machine February 2008 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- ipr@ietf.org. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA). Tsenov, et al. Expires August 25, 2008 [Page 23]