idnits 2.17.1 draft-irtf-dtnrg-iana-bp-registries-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. 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 and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (April 28, 2010) is 5113 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group M. Blanchet 3 Internet-Draft Viagenie 4 Intended status: Informational April 28, 2010 5 Expires: October 30, 2010 7 Delay-Tolerant Networks (DTN) Bundle Protocol IANA Registries 8 draft-irtf-dtnrg-iana-bp-registries-00.txt 10 Abstract 12 The DTNRG research group has defined many protocols such as Bundle 13 Protocol and Licklider. The specifications of these protocols 14 contain fields that are subject to a registry. For the purpose of 15 its research work, the group created adhoc registries. As the 16 specifications are stable and have multiple interoperable 17 implementations, the group would like to handoff the registries to 18 IANA for official custidy. This document describes the actions 19 needed to be executed by IANA. 21 Status of this Memo 23 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 24 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 26 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 27 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 28 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 29 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 31 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 32 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 33 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 34 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 36 This Internet-Draft will expire on October 30, 2010. 38 Copyright Notice 40 Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 41 document authors. All rights reserved. 43 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 44 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 45 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 46 publication of this document. Please review these documents 47 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 48 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 49 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 50 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 51 described in the Simplified BSD License. 53 Table of Contents 55 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 2. Bundle Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 2.1. Bundle Block Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 2.2. Primary Bundle Protocol Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 2.3. Bundle Processing Control Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 2.4. Block Processing Control Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 2.5. Bundle Status Report Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 2.6. Bundle Status Report Reason Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 63 2.7. Bundle Custody Signal Reason Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 64 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 65 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 66 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 67 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 68 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 70 1. Introduction 72 The DTNRG research group has defined many protocols[RFC4838] such as 73 Bundle Protocol[RFC5050] and Licklider[RFC5326]. The specifications 74 of these protocols contain fields that are subject to a registry. 75 For the purpose of its research work, the group created adhoc 76 registries [1]. As the specifications are stable and have multiple 77 interoperable implementations, the group would like to handoff the 78 registries to IANA for official custidy. This document describes the 79 actions needed to be executed by IANA. 81 2. Bundle Protocol 83 The Bundle Protocol(BP)[RFC5050] has fields requiring a registry 84 managed by IANA. 86 2.1. Bundle Block Types 88 The Bundle Protocol has a Bundle Block Type code field (section 89 4.5.2) [RFC5050]. An IANA registry shall be setup as follows. 91 The registration policy for this registry is: 92 0-191: Specification Required 93 192-255: Private or experimental use. No assignment by IANA. 95 The Value range is: unsigned 8 bit integer. 97 Bundle Block Type Codes Registry 99 +--------------+---------------------------------+---------------+ 100 | Value | Description | Reference | 101 +--------------+---------------------------------+---------------+ 102 | 0 | Reserved | This document | 103 | 1 | Bundle Payload Block | [RFC5050] | 104 | 2-191 | Unassigned | | 105 | 192-255 | Private and/or experimental use | [RFC5050] | 106 +--------------+---------------------------------+---------------+ 108 The value "0" was not defined in any document or in the adhoc 109 registry. As per concensus by the DNTRG research group, it is 110 reserved per this document. 112 2.2. Primary Bundle Protocol Version 114 The Bundle Protocol has a version field (section 4.5.1) [RFC5050]. 115 An IANA registry shall be setup as follows. 117 The registration policy for this registry is: RFC Required 119 The Value range is: unsigned 8 bit integer. 121 Primary Bundle Protocol Version Registry 123 +-------+-------------+---------------+ 124 | Value | Description | Reference | 125 +-------+-------------+---------------+ 126 | 0-5 | Reserved | This document | 127 | 6 | Assigned | [RFC5050] | 128 | 7-255 | Unassigned | | 129 +-------+-------------+---------------+ 131 The value "0-5" was not defined in any document or in the adhoc 132 registry. As per concensus by the DNTRG research group, it is 133 reserved per this document. 135 2.3. Bundle Processing Control Flags 137 The Bundle Protocol has a Bundle Processing Control flags field 138 (section 4.2) [RFC5050]. An IANA registry shall be setup as follows. 140 The registration policy for this registry is: Specification Required 142 The Value range is: Variable length. 144 Bundle Processing Control Flags Registry 146 +--------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+ 147 | Bit Position | Description | Reference | 148 | (right to left) | | | 149 +--------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+ 150 | 0 | Bundle is a fragment | [RFC5050] | 151 | 1 | Application data unit is an | [RFC5050] | 152 | | administrative record | | 153 | 2 | Bundle must not be fragmented | [RFC5050] | 154 | 3 | Custody transfer is requested | [RFC5050] | 155 | 4 | Destination endpoint is a | [RFC5050] | 156 | | singleton | | 157 | 5 | Acknowledgement by application | [RFC5050] | 158 | | is requested | | 159 | 6 | Reserved | [RFC5050] | 160 | 7-8 | Class of service: priority | [RFC5050] | 161 | 9-13 | Class of service: reserved | [RFC5050] | 162 | 14 | Request reporting of bundle | [RFC5050] | 163 | | reception | | 164 | 15 | Request reporting of custody | [RFC5050] | 165 | | acceptance | | 166 | 16 | Request reporting of bundle | [RFC5050] | 167 | | forwarding | | 168 | 17 | Request reporting of bundle | [RFC5050] | 169 | | delivery | | 170 | 18 | Request reporting of bundle | [RFC5050] | 171 | | deletion | | 172 | 19 | Reserved | [RFC5050] | 173 | 20 | Reserved | [RFC5050] | 174 +--------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+ 176 2.4. Block Processing Control Flags 178 The Bundle Protocol has a Block Processing Control flags field 179 (section 4.3) [RFC5050]. An IANA registry shall be setup as follows. 181 The registration policy for this registry is: Specification Required 183 The Value range is: Variable length. 185 Block Processing Control Flags Registry 187 +--------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+ 188 | Bit Position | Description | Reference | 189 | (right to left) | | | 190 +--------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+ 191 | 0 | Block must be replicated in | [RFC5050] | 192 | | every fragment | | 193 | 1 | Transmit status report if block | [RFC5050] | 194 | | can't be processed | | 195 | 2 | Delete bundle if block can't be | [RFC5050] | 196 | | processed | | 197 | 3 | Last block | [RFC5050] | 198 | 4 | Discard block if it can't be | [RFC5050] | 199 | | processed | | 200 | 5 | Block was forwarded without | [RFC5050] | 201 | | being processed | | 202 | 6 | Block contains an EID-reference | [RFC5050] | 203 | | field | | 204 +--------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+ 206 2.5. Bundle Status Report Flags 208 The Bundle Protocol has a Status Report Status Flag field(section 209 6.1.1) [RFC5050]. An IANA registry shall be setup as follows. 211 The registration policy for this registry is: RFC Required 213 The Value range is: 8 bits. 215 Bundle Status Report Flags Registry 217 +----------+----------------------------------------+---------------+ 218 | Value | Description | Reference | 219 +----------+----------------------------------------+---------------+ 220 | 00000000 | Reserved | This document | 221 | 00000001 | Reporting node received bundle | [RFC5050] | 222 | 00000010 | Reporting node accepted custody of | [RFC5050] | 223 | | bundle | | 224 | 00000100 | Reporting node forwarded the bundle | [RFC5050] | 225 | 00001000 | Reporting node delivered the bundle | [RFC5050] | 226 | 00010000 | Reporting node deleted the bundle | [RFC5050] | 227 | 00100000 | Unassigned | | 228 | 01000000 | Unassigned | | 229 | 10000000 | Unassigned | | 230 +----------+----------------------------------------+---------------+ 232 The value "00000000" was not defined in any document or in the adhoc 233 registry. As per concensus by the DNTRG research group, it is 234 reserved per this document. 236 2.6. Bundle Status Report Reason Codes 238 The Bundle Protocol has a Bundle Status Report Reason Codes 239 field(section 6.1.1) [RFC5050]. An IANA registry shall be setup as 240 follows. 242 The registration policy for this registry is: Specification Required 244 The Value range is: unsigned 8 bit integer. 246 Bundle Status Report Reason Codes Registry 248 +-------+-------------------------------------------+---------------+ 249 | Value | Description | Reference | 250 +-------+-------------------------------------------+---------------+ 251 | 0 | No additional information | [RFC5050] | 252 | 1 | Lifetime expired | [RFC5050] | 253 | 2 | Forwarded over unidirectional link | [RFC5050] | 254 | 3 | Transmission canceled | [RFC5050] | 255 | 4 | Depleted storage | [RFC5050] | 256 | 5 | Destination endpoint ID unintelligible | [RFC5050] | 257 | 6 | No known route to destination from here | [RFC5050] | 258 | 7 | No timely contact with next node on route | [RFC5050] | 259 | 8 | Block unintelligible | [RFC5050] | 260 | 9-254 | Unassigned | | 261 | 255 | Reserved | This document | 262 +-------+-------------------------------------------+---------------+ 264 The value "255" was not defined in any document or in the adhoc 265 registry. As per concensus by the DNTRG research group, it is 266 reserved per this document. 268 2.7. Bundle Custody Signal Reason Codes 270 The Bundle Protocol has a Bundle Custody Signal Reason Codes 271 field(section 6.1.2) [RFC5050]. An IANA registry shall be setup as 272 follows. 274 The registration policy for this registry is: Specification Required 276 The Value range is: unsigned 7 bit integer. 278 Bundle Custody Signal Reason Codes Registry 280 +--------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+ 281 | Value | Description | Reference | 282 +--------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+ 283 | 0 | No additional information | [RFC5050] | 284 | 1-2 | Unassigned | | 285 | 3 | Redundant reception (reception by a | [RFC5050] | 286 | | node that is a custodial node for | | 287 | | this bundle) | | 288 | 4 | Depleted storage | [RFC5050] | 289 | 5 | Destination endpoint ID | [RFC5050] | 290 | | unintelligible | | 291 | 6 | No known route to destination from | [RFC5050] | 292 | | here | | 293 | 7 | No timely contact with next node on | [RFC5050] | 294 | | route | | 295 | 8 | Block unintelligible | [RFC5050] | 296 | 9-126 | Unassigned | | 297 | 127 | Reserved | This | 298 | | | document | 299 +--------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+ 301 The value "127" was not defined in any document or in the adhoc 302 registry. As per concensus by the DNTRG research group, it is 303 reserved per this document. 305 3. Security Considerations 307 This document requests the creation of registries managed by IANA. 308 There is no security issues involved. Refer to Security 309 Considerations of the referenced protocols. 311 4. IANA Considerations 313 IANA is requested to create the registries as described in the 314 previous sections. 316 5. Acknowledgements 318 The editor would like to thank the following people who have provided 319 comments and suggestions to this document, in no specific order: 320 Stephen Farrell, Daniel Ellard, Scott Burleigh, Keith Scott. 322 6. Normative References 324 [RFC4838] Cerf, V., Burleigh, S., Hooke, A., Torgerson, L., Durst, 325 R., Scott, K., Fall, K., and H. Weiss, "Delay-Tolerant 326 Networking Architecture", RFC 4838, April 2007. 328 [RFC5050] Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, "Bundle Protocol 329 Specification", RFC 5050, November 2007. 331 [RFC5326] Ramadas, M., Burleigh, S., and S. Farrell, "Licklider 332 Transmission Protocol - Specification", RFC 5326, 333 September 2008. 335 [1] 337 Author's Address 339 Marc Blanchet 340 Viagenie 341 2600 boul. Laurier, suite 625 342 Quebec, QC G1V 4W1 343 Canada 345 Email: Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.ca 346 URI: http://www.viagenie.ca