idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ipv6-compression-nego-v2-00.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 306. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 278. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 285. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 291. 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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not match the current year -- 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 (May 2007) is 6189 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) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '2' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '4' Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 9 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 Category: Standards track May 2007 5 Expires: November 2007 7 Negotiation for IPv6 datagram compression using IPv6 Control Protocol 8 10 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 (2007). 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 the 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........................................4 62 4. IANA Considerations............................................5 63 5. Acknowledgments................................................5 64 6. References.....................................................6 65 6.1 Normative References.......................................6 66 6.2 Informative References.....................................6 67 Editor's Address..................................................6 68 IPR Notice ......................................................6 69 Copyright Notice and Disclaimer...................................7 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 the 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. 105 1.1 Specification of Requirements 107 In this document, several words are used to signify the 108 requirements of the specification. 110 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL 111 NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 112 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described 113 in [3]. 115 2. IPV6CP Configuration Options 117 IPV6CP Configuration Options allow negotiation of desirable IPv6 118 parameters. IPV6CP uses the same Configuration Option format 119 defined for LCP [1] but with a separate set of Options. If a 120 Configuration Option is not included in a Configure-Request 121 packet, the default value for that Configuration Option is 122 assumed. 124 The only IPV6CP option defined in this document is the IPv6- 125 Compression-Protocol. The Type field for this IPV6CP Option is as 126 follows: 128 2 IPv6-Compression-Protocol 130 Note that the up-to-date values of the IPV6CP Option Type field 131 are specified in the on-line database of "Assigned Numbers" 132 maintained at IANA [4]. 134 2.1 IPv6-Compression-Protocol 136 Description 137 This Configuration Option provides a way to negotiate the use of a 138 specific IPv6 packet compression protocol. The 139 IPv6-Compression-Protocol Configuration Option is used to indicate 140 the ability to receive compressed packets. Each end of the link 141 MUST separately request this option if bi-directional compression 142 is desired. By default, compression is not enabled. 144 IPv6 compression negotiated with this option is specific to IPv6 145 datagrams and is not to be confused with compression resulting 146 from negotiations via Compression Control Protocol (CCP), which 147 potentially affect all datagrams. 149 A summary of the IPv6-Compression-Protocol Configuration Option 150 format is shown below. The fields are transmitted from left to 151 right. 153 0 1 2 3 154 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 1 155 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 156 | Type | Length | IPv6-Compression-Protocol | 157 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 158 | Data ... 159 +-+-+-+-+ 161 Type 163 2 165 Length 167 >= 4 169 IPv6-Compression-Protocol 171 The IPv6-Compression-Protocol field is two octets and indicates 172 the compression protocol desired. Values for this field are 173 always the same as the PPP Data Link Layer Protocol field 174 values for that same compression protocol. 176 No IPv6-Compression-Protocol field values are currently 177 assigned. Specific assignments will be made in documents that 178 define specific compression algorithms. 180 Data 182 The Data field is zero or more octets and contains additional 183 data as determined by the particular compression protocol. 185 Default 187 No IPv6 compression protocol enabled. 189 3. Security Considerations 191 Lack of proper link security, such as authentication, prior to 192 the data transfer may lead to such attacks as the man-in-the 193 middle resulting in the loss of data integrity and 194 confidentiality. The mechanisms that are appropriate for ensuring 195 PPP link security are addressed below together with the reference 196 to a generic threat model. 198 The mechanisms that are appropriate for ensuring PPP link 199 Security are: 1) Access Control Lists that apply filters on 200 traffic received over the link for enforcing admission policy, 2) 201 an Authentication protocol that facilitates negotiations between 202 peers [5] to select an authentication method (e.g., MD5 [6]) for 203 validation of the peer, and 3) an Encryption protocol that 204 facilitates negotiations between peers to select encryption 205 algorithms (or, crypto-suites) to ensure data confidentiality 206 [7]). 208 There are certain threats associated with peer interactions on a 209 PPP link even with one or more of the above security measures in 210 place. For instance, using MD5 authentication method [6] exposes 211 one to replay attack, where in which, an attacker could intercept 212 and replay a station's identity and password hash to get access 213 to a network. The user of this specification is advised to refer 214 to [5], which presents a generic threat model, for an 215 understanding of the threats posed to the security of a link. The 216 reference [5] also gives framework to specify requirements for 217 the selection of an authentication method for a given 218 application. 220 4. IANA Considerations 222 The author has no specific recommendations for the IANA on the 223 assignment of a value for the Type field of IPv6 datagram 224 compression option specified in this specification. The current 225 assignment is up-to-date at [4]. However, the reference to the 226 RFC number needs to be updated when such a number is assigned. 228 5. Acknowledgments 230 The editor is grateful to Jari Arkko for the direction provided on 231 this draft. 233 6. References 235 6.1 Normative References 237 [1] Simpson, W., "The Point-to-Point Protocol," STD 51, RFC 1661, 238 July 1994. 240 [2] Varada, S., et. al., "IPv6 over PPP," drafts-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp- 241 v2-03.txt, May 2007. 243 [3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 244 Levels," BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 246 [4] IANA, "Assigned Numbers," http://www.iana.org/numbers.html 248 6.2 Informative References 250 [5] Aboba, R., et. al., "Extensible Authentication Protocol," RFC 251 3748, June 2004. 253 [6] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm," RFC 1321, April 254 1992. 256 [7] Meyer, G., "The PPP Encryption Control Protocol (ECP)," RFC 257 1968, June 1996. 259 Editor's Address 261 Srihari Varada 262 TranSwitch Corporation 263 3 Enterprise Dr. 264 Shelton, CT 06484. US. 266 Phone: +1 203 929 8810 267 EMail: varada@txc.com 269 IPR Notice 271 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 272 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed 273 to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology 274 described in this document or the extent to which any license 275 under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it 276 represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any 277 such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights 278 in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 280 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 281 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 282 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use 283 of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 284 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository 285 at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 287 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention 288 any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other 289 proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required 290 to implement this standard. Please address the information to the 291 IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 293 Copyright Notice and Disclaimer 295 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). This document is subject to 296 the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 297 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 299 This document and the information contained herein are provided 300 on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE 301 REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE 302 IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL 303 WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY 304 WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE 305 ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS 306 FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.