idnits 2.17.1 draft-mrose-beep-sctpmapping-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). -- 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 (July 20, 2001) is 8314 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 normative reference: RFC 2960 (ref. '3') (Obsoleted by RFC 4960) == Outdated reference: A later version (-22) exists of draft-ietf-tsvwg-addip-sctp-02 Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group M. Rose 2 Internet-Draft Invisible Worlds, Inc. 3 Expires: January 18, 2002 P. Conrad 4 Temple University 5 July 20, 2001 7 Mapping the BEEP Framework onto SCTP 8 draft-mrose-beep-sctpmapping-01 10 Status of this Memo 12 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 13 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 15 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 16 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 17 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 18 Drafts. 20 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 21 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 22 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 23 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 25 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 26 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 28 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 31 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 18, 2002. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. 37 Abstract 39 This memo describes how a BEEP session is mapped onto the Stream 40 Control Transmission Protocol. 42 Table of Contents 44 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 45 2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 46 3. Session Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 47 4. Message Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 48 5. Special Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 49 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 50 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 51 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 52 A. Changes from draft-mrose-beep-sctpmapping-01 . . . . . . . . . 10 53 B. Changes from draft-mrose-beep-sctpmapping-00 . . . . . . . . . 11 54 C. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 55 Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 57 1. Introduction 59 This memo describes how a BEEP [1] session is mapped onto the Stream 60 Control Transmission Protocol [3]. Refer to Section 2.5 of [1] for 61 an explanation of the mapping requirements. 63 2. Conventions 65 The keywords MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD, 66 SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, NOT RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL, when 67 they appear in this document, are to be interpreted as described in 68 RFC2119 [4] 70 3. Session Management 72 The mapping of BEEP session management onto the SCTP service is 73 straight-forward. 75 A BEEP session is established when a SCTP association is established 76 between two BEEP peers: 78 o the BEEP peer that issues an ASSOCIATE call is termed the 79 initiator; and, 81 o the BEEP peer that receives a COMMUNICATIONS UP notification is 82 termed the listener. 84 During association establishment, both BEEP peers request as many 85 outbound SCTP streams as possible. 87 A BEEP session is released when either peer issues the SHUTDOWN call, 88 and the SCTP association is subsequently terminated. 90 A BEEP session is terminated when either peer issues the CLOSE call, 91 and the SCTP association is subsequently aborted. 93 4. Message Exchange 95 The mapping of BEEP exchanges onto the SCTP service is straight- 96 forward. 98 Messages on a given channel are reliably sent and received using the 99 SEND and RECEIVE calls: 101 o the mapping between BEEP channel numbers and SCTP stream 102 identifiers is the identity function; and, 104 o the "unorder" flag is not present to provide orderly delivery of 105 messages on the same BEEP channel. 107 When BEEP is mapped over SCTP, the underlying SCTP implementation 108 MUST support the the extensions for stream flow limits. [5] This 109 requirement arises because the transport layer window space is shared 110 across multiple streams; a per-stream flow control window is needed 111 to avoid starvation and deadlock when multiple channels are used 112 simultaneously on a BEEP session. 114 In the mapping of BEEP over a single TCP connection [2], SEQ frames 115 are used to manage a sliding window for each channel. In the BEEP 116 over SCTP mapping, SEQ frames are not used. Instead, upon channel 117 creation, the BEEP peer should set the stream byte limit [5] to the 118 amount of buffer space set aside for that channel (not less than 4096 119 bytes.) 121 5. Special Behavior 123 If use of a transport security profile is negotiated, then in 124 addition to be used over BEEP channel (SCTP stream) zero, each time a 125 BEEP channel is created, a new transport security context must be 126 negotiated over the underlying SCTP stream. 128 6. Security Considerations 130 Consult Section [1]'s Section 9 for a discussion of security issues. 132 References 134 [1] Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core", RFC 135 3080, March 2001. 137 [2] Rose, M., "Mapping the BEEP Core onto TCP", RFC 3081, March 138 2001. 140 [3] Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Morneault, K., Sharp, C., Schwarzbauer, 141 H., Taylor, T., Rytina, I., Kalla, M., Zhang, L. and V. Paxson, 142 "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 2960, October 2000. 144 [4] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 145 Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 147 [5] Stewart, R., Ramalho, M., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., Rytina, I. and P. 148 Conrad, "SCTP Extensions for Dynamic Reconfiguration of IP 149 Addresses and Enforcement of Flow and Message Limits", Internet 150 Draft draft-ietf-tsvwg-addip-sctp-02.txt, June 2001. 152 Authors' Addresses 154 Marshall T. Rose 155 Invisible Worlds, Inc. 156 131 Stony Circle 157 Suite 500 158 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 159 US 161 Phone: +1 707 578 2350 162 EMail: mrose@invisible.net 163 URI: http://invisible.net/ 165 P.T. Conrad 166 Temple University 167 CIS Dept., Wachman Hall 303 168 1805. N. Broad St 169 Philadelphia, PA 19122 170 US 172 Phone: +1 215 204 7910 173 EMail: conrad@acm.org 174 URI: http://netlab.cis.temple.edu 176 Appendix A. Changes from draft-mrose-beep-sctpmapping-01 178 o Added reference to extensions for SCTP stream flow limits. 180 Appendix B. Changes from draft-mrose-beep-sctpmapping-00 182 o s/BXXP/BEEP/g 184 Appendix C. Acknowledgements 186 The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of: Vern Paxon. 188 Full Copyright Statement 190 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. 192 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 193 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 194 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 195 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 196 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 197 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 198 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 199 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 200 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 201 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 202 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 203 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 204 English. 206 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 207 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 209 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 210 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 211 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 212 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 213 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 214 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 216 Acknowledgement 218 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 219 Internet Society.