idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ipv6-compression-nego-v2-02.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 16. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on line 342. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 314. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 321. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 327. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The 'Obsoletes: ' line in the draft header should list only the _numbers_ of the RFCs which will be obsoleted by this document (if approved); it should not include the word 'RFC' in the list. -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC2472, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not match the current year == Line 235 has weird spacing: '...s field are a...' -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (February 2008) is 5914 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2472 (ref. '13') (Obsoleted by RFC 5072, RFC 5172) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2023 (ref. '14') (Obsoleted by RFC 2472) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 10 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 IPv6 Working Group S.Varada (Editor) 3 Internet Draft Transwitch 4 Obsoletes: RFC 2472 (if approved) February 2008 5 Category: Standards track 6 Expires: July 2008 8 Negotiation for IPv6 datagram compression using IPv6 Control Protocol 9 11 Status of this Memo 12 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that 13 any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is 14 aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she 15 becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 16 BCP 79. 18 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 19 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 20 other groups may also distribute working documents as 21 Internet-Drafts. 23 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 24 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other 25 documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts 26 as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in 27 progress." 29 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 30 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 32 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 33 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 39 Abstract 41 The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) provides a standard method of 42 encapsulating Network Layer protocol information over 43 point-to-point links. PPP also defines an extensible Link Control 44 Protocol, and proposes a family of Network Control Protocols 45 (NCPs) for establishing and configuring different network-layer 46 protocols. 48 The IPv6 Control Protocol (IPV6CP), which is an NCP for a PPP 49 link, allows for the negotiation of desirable parameters for an 50 IPv6 interface over PPP. 52 This document defines the IPv6 datagram compression option that 53 can be negotiated by a node on the link through the IPV6CP. 55 Table of Contents 57 1. Introduction...................................................2 58 1.1 Specification of Requirements..............................3 59 2. IPV6CP Configuration Options...................................3 60 2.1 IPv6-Compression-Protocol..................................3 61 3. Security Considerations........................................5 62 4. IANA Considerations............................................5 63 5. Acknowledgments................................................6 64 6. References.....................................................6 65 6.1 Normative References.......................................6 66 6.2 Informative References.....................................6 67 Editor's Address..................................................7 68 IPR Notice ......................................................7 69 Copyright Notice and Disclaimer...................................8 71 1. Introduction 73 PPP [1] has three main components: 75 1) A method for encapsulating datagrams over serial links. 77 2) A Link Control Protocol (LCP) for establishing, configuring, 78 and testing the data-link connection. 80 3) A family of Network Control Protocols (NCPs) for establishing 81 and configuring different network-layer protocols. 83 In order to establish communications over a point-to-point link, 84 each end of the PPP link must first send LCP packets to 85 configure and test the data link. After the link has been 86 established and optional facilities have been negotiated as 87 needed by the LCP, PPP must send NCP packets to choose and 88 configure one or more network-layer protocols. Once each of the 89 chosen network-layer protocols has been configured, datagrams 90 from each network-layer protocol can be sent over the link. The 91 link will remain configured for communications until 92 explicit LCP or NCP packets close the link down, or until some 93 external event occurs (power failure at the other end, carrier 94 drop, etc.). 96 In the IPv6 over PPP specification [2], the NCP, or IPV6CP, for 97 establishing and configuring IPv6 over PPP is defined. The 98 same specification defines the Interface Identifier parameter, 99 which can be used to generate link-local and global unique IPv6 100 addresses, for negotiation. 102 In this specification, the compression parameter for use in IPv6 103 datagram compression is defined. Together with RFC 5072 [2], this 104 document obsoletes RFC 2472 [13]. However, no protocol changes 105 have been introduced over RFC 2472. 107 1.1 Specification of Requirements 109 In this document, several words are used to signify the 110 requirements of the specification. 112 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL 113 NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 114 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described 115 in [3]. 117 2. IPV6CP Configuration Options 119 IPV6CP Configuration Options allow negotiation of desirable IPv6 120 parameters. IPV6CP uses the same Configuration Option format as 121 defined for LCP [1] but with a separate set of Options. If a 122 Configuration Option is not included in a Configure-Request 123 packet, the default value for that Configuration Option is 124 assumed. 126 The only IPV6CP option defined in this document is the IPv6- 127 Compression-Protocol. The Type field for this IPV6CP Option is as 128 follows: 130 2 IPv6-Compression-Protocol 132 Note that the up-to-date values of the IPV6CP Option Type field 133 are specified in the on-line database of "Assigned Numbers" 134 maintained at IANA [7]. 136 2.1 IPv6-Compression-Protocol 138 Description 139 This Configuration Option provides a way to negotiate the use of a 140 specific IPv6 packet compression protocol. The 141 IPv6-Compression-Protocol Configuration Option is used to indicate 142 the ability to receive compressed packets. Each end of the link 143 MUST separately request this option if bi-directional compression 144 is desired. By default, compression is not enabled. 146 IPv6 compression negotiated with this option is specific to IPv6 147 datagrams and is not to be confused with compression resulting 148 from a compression method negotiated via the PPP Compression 149 Control Protocol (CCP) [12], which potentially affects all 150 datagrams. 152 A summary of the IPv6-Compression-Protocol Configuration Option 153 format is shown below. The fields are transmitted from left to 154 right. 156 0 1 2 3 157 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 158 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 159 | Type | Length | IPv6-Compression-Protocol | 160 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 161 | Data ... 162 +-+-+-+-+ 164 Type 166 2 168 Length 170 >= 4 172 IPv6-Compression-Protocol 174 The IPv6-Compression-Protocol field is two octets and indicates 175 the compression protocol desired. Values for this field are 176 always the same as the PPP Data Link Layer Protocol field 177 values for that same compression protocol. 179 IPv6-Compression-Protocol field values have been assigned in 180 [14] for IPv6 Header Compression (004f), [4, 5] for IP Header 181 Compression (0061), and [6] for Robust Header compression 182 (ROHC) (0003). Other assignments can be made in documents that 183 define specific compression algorithms. 185 Data 187 The Data field is zero or more octets and contains additional 188 data as determined by the particular compression protocol. 190 Default 192 No IPv6 compression protocol enabled. 194 3. Security Considerations 196 Lack of proper link security, such as authentication, prior to 197 data transfers may enable man-in-the middle attacks 198 resulting in the loss of data integrity and confidentiality. The 199 mechanisms that are appropriate for ensuring PPP link security 200 are addressed below together with the reference to a generic 201 threat model. 203 The mechanisms that are appropriate for ensuring PPP link 204 Security are: 1) Access Control Lists that apply filters on 205 traffic received over the link for enforcing admission policy, 2) 206 an Authentication protocol that facilitates negotiations between 207 peers [8] to select an authentication method (e.g., MD5 [9]) for 208 validation of the peer, and 3) an Encryption control protocol 209 that facilitates negotiations between peers to select encryption 210 algorithms (or, crypto-suites) to ensure data confidentiality 211 [10]). 213 There are certain threats associated with peer interactions on a 214 PPP link even with one or more of the above security measures in 215 place. For instance, using the MD5 authentication method [9] 216 exposes one to replay attacks, in which an attacker could 217 intercept and replay a station's identity and password hash to 218 get access to a network. The user of this specification is 219 advised to refer to [8], which presents a generic threat model, 220 for an understanding of the threats posed to the security of a 221 link. The reference [8] also gives a framework to specify 222 requirements for the selection of an authentication method for a 223 given application. 225 4. IANA Considerations 227 There are no specific recommendations for the IANA on the 228 assignment of values for the Type field of the IPv6 datagram 229 compression option specified in section 2.1 of this document. The 230 current assignment is up-to-date at [7]. 232 No action is needed either for the assignment of the 233 IPv6-Compression-Protocol values, as such values have already 234 been defined by other documents listed in the Section 2.1. Values 235 for this field are always the same as the PPP Data Link Layer 236 field values for that same compression protocol. As a result, 237 future allocation of these values is governed by RFC 3818 [11] 238 that requires IETF consensus process. 240 5. Acknowledgments 242 The editor is grateful to Jari Arkko for the direction provided on 243 this draft and James Carlson for helpful suggestions. 244 Acknowledgements are also due to D. Haskins and E. Allen for the 245 specification work done in RFC 2023 and RFC 2472. 247 6. References 249 6.1 Normative References 251 [1] Simpson, W., "The Point-to-Point Protocol", STD 51, RFC 1661, 252 July 1994. 254 [2] Allen, E., Haskin, D., and, S. Varada, Ed., "IPv6 over PPP", 255 RFC 5072, September 2007. 257 [3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 258 Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 260 [4] Degermark M., B. Nordgren, and S. Pink, "IP Header Compression", 261 RFC 2507, February 1999. 263 [5] Koren T., S. Casner, and C. Bormann, "IP Header Compression Over 264 PPP", RFC 3544, July 2003. 266 [6] Bormann C., "Robust Header Compression (ROHC) over PPP", RFC 267 3241, April 2002. 269 6.2 Informative References 271 [7] IANA, "Assigned Numbers", http://www.iana.org/numbers.html 273 [8] Aboba, R., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and 274 H. Levkowetz,Ed., "Extensible Authentication Protocol", RFC 275 3748, June 2004. 277 [9] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC 1321, April 278 1992. 280 [10] Meyer, G., "The PPP Encryption Control Protocol (ECP)", RFC 281 1968, June 1996. 283 [11] Schryver, V., "IANA Considerations for the Point-to-Point 284 Protocol (PPP)", RFC 3818, June 2004. 286 [12] Rand, D., "The PPP Compression Control Protocol(CCP)", RFC 1962, 287 June 1996. 289 [13] Haskin D., and E. Allen, "IP Version 6 over PPP", RFC 2472, 290 December 1998. 292 [14] Haskin D., and E. Allen, "IP Version 6 over PPP", RFC 2023, 293 October 1996. 295 Editor's Address 297 Srihari Varada 298 TranSwitch Corporation 299 3 Enterprise Dr. 300 Shelton, CT 06484. US. 302 Phone: +1 203 929 8810 303 EMail: varada@ieee.org 305 IPR Notice 307 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 308 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed 309 to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology 310 described in this document or the extent to which any license 311 under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it 312 represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any 313 such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights 314 in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 316 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 317 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 318 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use 319 of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 320 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository 321 at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 323 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention 324 any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other 325 proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required 326 to implement this standard. Please address the information to the 327 IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 329 Copyright Notice and Disclaimer 331 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). This document is subject to 332 the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 333 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 335 This document and the information contained herein are provided 336 on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE 337 REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE 338 IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL 339 WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY 340 WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE 341 ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS 342 FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.