idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ipv6-compression-nego-v2-01.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 14. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on line 309. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 281. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 288. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 294. 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 (October 2007) is 6010 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) No issues found here. Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 IPv6 Working Group S.Varada (Editor) 2 Internet Draft Transwitch 3 Category: Standards track October 2007 4 Expires: April 2008 6 Negotiation for IPv6 datagram compression using IPv6 Control Protocol 7 9 Status of this Memo 10 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that 11 any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is 12 aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she 13 becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 14 BCP 79. 16 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 17 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 18 other groups may also distribute working documents as 19 Internet-Drafts. 21 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 22 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other 23 documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts 24 as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in 25 progress." 27 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 28 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 30 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 31 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 37 Abstract 39 The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) provides a standard method of 40 encapsulating Network Layer protocol information over 41 point-to-point links. PPP also defines an extensible Link Control 42 Protocol, and proposes a family of Network Control Protocols 43 (NCPs) for establishing and configuring different network-layer 44 protocols. 46 The IPv6 Control Protocol (IPv6CP), which is an NCP for a PPP 47 link, allows for the negotiation of desirable parameters for the 48 IPv6 interface over PPP. 50 This document defines the IPv6 datagram compression option that 51 can be negotiated by a node on the link through the IPv6CP. 53 Table of Contents 55 1. Introduction...................................................2 56 1.1 Specification of Requirements..............................3 57 2. IPV6CP Configuration Options...................................3 58 2.1 IPv6-Compression-Protocol..................................3 59 3. Security Considerations........................................4 60 4. IANA Considerations............................................5 61 5. Acknowledgments................................................5 62 6. References.....................................................6 63 6.1 Normative References.......................................6 64 6.2 Informative References.....................................6 65 Editor's Address..................................................6 66 IPR Notice ......................................................6 67 Copyright Notice and Disclaimer...................................7 69 1. Introduction 71 PPP [1] has three main components: 73 1) A method for encapsulating datagrams over serial links. 75 2) A Link Control Protocol (LCP) for establishing, configuring, 76 and testing the data-link connection. 78 3) A family of Network Control Protocols (NCPs) for establishing 79 and configuring different network-layer protocols. 81 In order to establish communications over a point-to-point link, 82 each end of the PPP link must first send LCP packets to 83 configure and test the data link. After the link has been 84 established and optional facilities have been negotiated as 85 needed by the LCP, PPP must send NCP packets to choose and 86 configure one or more network-layer protocols. Once each of the 87 chosen network-layer protocols has been configured, datagrams 88 from each network-layer protocol can be sent over the link. The 89 link will remain configured for communications until 90 explicit LCP or NCP packets close the link down, or until some 91 external event occurs (power failure at the other end, carrier 92 drop, etc.). 94 In the IPv6 over PPP specification [2], the NCP, or IPv6CP, for 95 establishing and configuring the IPv6 over PPP is defined. The 96 same specification defines the Interface Identifier parameter, 97 which can be used to generate link-local and global unique IPv6 98 addresses, for negotiation. 100 In this specification, the compression parameter for use in IPv6 101 datagram compression is defined. 103 1.1 Specification of Requirements 105 In this document, several words are used to signify the 106 requirements of the specification. 108 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL 109 NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 110 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described 111 in [3]. 113 2. IPV6CP Configuration Options 115 IPV6CP Configuration Options allow negotiation of desirable IPv6 116 parameters. IPV6CP uses the same Configuration Option format 117 defined for LCP [1] but with a separate set of Options. If a 118 Configuration Option is not included in a Configure-Request 119 packet, the default value for that Configuration Option is 120 assumed. 122 The only IPV6CP option defined in this document is the IPv6- 123 Compression-Protocol. The Type field for this IPV6CP Option is as 124 follows: 126 2 IPv6-Compression-Protocol 128 Note that the up-to-date values of the IPV6CP Option Type field 129 are specified in the on-line database of "Assigned Numbers" 130 maintained at IANA [4]. 132 2.1 IPv6-Compression-Protocol 134 Description 135 This Configuration Option provides a way to negotiate the use of a 136 specific IPv6 packet compression protocol. The 137 IPv6-Compression-Protocol Configuration Option is used to indicate 138 the ability to receive compressed packets. Each end of the link 139 MUST separately request this option if bi-directional compression 140 is desired. By default, compression is not enabled. 142 IPv6 compression negotiated with this option is specific to IPv6 143 datagrams and is not to be confused with compression resulting 144 from negotiations via Compression Control Protocol (CCP), which 145 potentially affect all datagrams. 147 A summary of the IPv6-Compression-Protocol Configuration Option 148 format is shown below. The fields are transmitted from left to 149 right. 151 0 1 2 3 152 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 1 153 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 154 | Type | Length | IPv6-Compression-Protocol | 155 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 156 | Data ... 157 +-+-+-+-+ 159 Type 161 2 163 Length 165 >= 4 167 IPv6-Compression-Protocol 169 The IPv6-Compression-Protocol field is two octets and indicates 170 the compression protocol desired. Values for this field are 171 always the same as the PPP Data Link Layer Protocol field 172 values for that same compression protocol. 174 No IPv6-Compression-Protocol field values are currently 175 assigned. Specific assignments will be made in documents that 176 define specific compression algorithms. 178 Data 180 The Data field is zero or more octets and contains additional 181 data as determined by the particular compression protocol. 183 Default 185 No IPv6 compression protocol enabled. 187 3. Security Considerations 188 Lack of proper link security, such as authentication, prior to 189 the data transfer may lead to such attacks as the man-in-the 190 middle resulting in the loss of data integrity and 191 confidentiality. The mechanisms that are appropriate for ensuring 192 PPP link security are addressed below together with the reference 193 to a generic threat model. 195 The mechanisms that are appropriate for ensuring PPP link 196 Security are: 1) Access Control Lists that apply filters on 197 traffic received over the link for enforcing admission policy, 2) 198 an Authentication protocol that facilitates negotiations between 199 peers [5] to select an authentication method (e.g., MD5 [6]) for 200 validation of the peer, and 3) an Encryption protocol that 201 facilitates negotiations between peers to select encryption 202 algorithms (or, crypto-suites) to ensure data confidentiality 203 [7]). 205 There are certain threats associated with peer interactions on a 206 PPP link even with one or more of the above security measures in 207 place. For instance, using MD5 authentication method [6] exposes 208 one to replay attack, where in which, an attacker could intercept 209 and replay a station's identity and password hash to get access 210 to a network. The user of this specification is advised to refer 211 to [5], which presents a generic threat model, for an 212 understanding of the threats posed to the security of a link. The 213 reference [5] also gives framework to specify requirements for 214 the selection of an authentication method for a given 215 application. 217 4. IANA Considerations 219 The author has no specific recommendations for the IANA on the 220 assignment of a value for the Type field of IPv6 datagram 221 compression option specified in this specification. The current 222 assignment is up-to-date at [4]. However, the IANA should take 223 note that the PPP Data Link Layer number for the 224 IPV6-Compression-Protocol configuration option is same as that of 225 the IPV6CP Configuration options, which is listed in the 226 RFC 3818 [8]. To insure proper review of the same, the Editor 227 Would like to place it under IETF consensus process. 229 5. Acknowledgments 230 The editor is grateful to Jari Arkko for the direction provided on 231 this draft and James Carlson for helpful suggestions. 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] Allen, E., Haskin, D., and, S. Varada, Ed., "IPv6 over PPP," 241 RFC 5072, September 2007. 243 [3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 244 Levels," BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 246 6.2 Informative References 248 [4] IANA, "Assigned Numbers," http://www.iana.org/numbers.html 250 [5] Aboba, R., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and 251 H. Levkowetz,Ed., "Extensible Authentication Protocol," RFC 252 3748, June 2004. 254 [6] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm," RFC 1321, April 255 1992. 257 [7] Meyer, G., "The PPP Encryption Control Protocol (ECP)," RFC 258 1968, June 1996. 260 [8] Schryver, V., ?IANA Considerations for the Point-to-Point 261 Protocol (PPP),? RFC 3818, June 2004. 263 Editor's Address 265 Srihari Varada 266 TranSwitch Corporation 267 3 Enterprise Dr. 268 Shelton, CT 06484. US. 270 Phone: +1 203 929 8810 271 EMail: varada@ieee.org 273 IPR Notice 274 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 275 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed 276 to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology 277 described in this document or the extent to which any license 278 under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it 279 represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any 280 such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights 281 in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 283 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 284 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 285 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use 286 of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 287 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository 288 at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 290 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention 291 any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other 292 proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required 293 to implement this standard. Please address the information to the 294 IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 296 Copyright Notice and Disclaimer 298 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). This document is subject to 299 the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 300 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 302 This document and the information contained herein are provided 303 on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE 304 REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE 305 IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL 306 WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY 307 WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE 308 ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS 309 FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.