idnits 2.17.1
draft-sipos-dtn-bpv7-admin-iana-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 (13 October 2021) is 919 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. 'IANA-BP'
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--).
Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
the items above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Delay-Tolerant Networking B. Sipos
3 Internet-Draft JHU APL
4 Updates: -ietf-dtn-bpbis (if approved) 13 October 2021
5 Intended status: Standards Track
6 Expires: 16 April 2022
8 Bundle Protocol Version 7 Administrative Record Types Registry
9 draft-sipos-dtn-bpv7-admin-iana-00
11 Abstract
13 This document clarifies that a Bundle Protocol Version 7 agent is
14 intended to use an IANA sub-registry for Administrative Record types.
15 It also makes a code point reservation for private or experimental
16 use.
18 Status of This Memo
20 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
21 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
23 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
24 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
25 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
26 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
28 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
29 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
30 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
31 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
33 This Internet-Draft will expire on 16 April 2022.
35 Copyright Notice
37 Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
38 document authors. All rights reserved.
40 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
41 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
42 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
43 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
44 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
45 extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
46 as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
47 provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
49 Table of Contents
51 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
52 1.1. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
53 1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
54 2. Administrative Record Types Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
55 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
56 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
57 4.1. Bundle Administrative Record Types . . . . . . . . . . . 3
58 5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
59 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
60 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
61 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
62 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
64 1. Introduction
66 The earlier Bundle Protocol (BP) Version 6 (BPv6) defined an IANA
67 sub-registry for Administrative Record type code points under
68 [IANA-BP]. When Bundle Protocol Version 7 (BPv7) was published in
69 [I-D.ietf-dtn-bpbis] it included an explicit table of Administrative
70 Record types but made no mention of an IANA registry nor a
71 requirement for BPv7 agents to be extensible in how they handle
72 Administrative Record types. The BPv7 specification also did not
73 discriminate between code point reservations and unassigned ranges
74 for Administrative Record types.
76 This document updates BPv7 to explicitly use the IANA Administrative
77 Record type registry in Section 2. This document also makes a
78 reservation of high-valued code points for private or experimental
79 use to avoid collisions with assigned code points.
81 1.1. Scope
83 This document describes updates to the IANA Administrative Record
84 type sub-registry and how a BPv7 agent is supposed to use that
85 registry for identifying Administrative Record types.
87 This document does not specify how BPv6 and BPv7 can interoperate for
88 overlapping code points or how a specific code point is to be
89 interpreted either similarly or differently between Bundle Protocol
90 versions. It is up to each individual Administrative Record type
91 specification to define how it relates to each BP version.
93 1.2. Terminology
95 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
96 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
97 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
98 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
99 capitals, as shown here.
101 2. Administrative Record Types Registry
103 This document updates the requirements in Section 6.1 of
104 [I-D.ietf-dtn-bpbis] to use an existing IANA registry and updates
105 that sub-registry in Section 4.1.
107 Instead of using the explicit list of types in Table 3 of
108 [I-D.ietf-dtn-bpbis], a BPv7 Agent SHALL interpret Administrative
109 Record type code values in accordance with the IANA "Bundle
110 Administrative Record Types" sub-registry under [IANA-BP] for entries
111 having a "Bundle Protocol Version" of 7.
113 3. Security Considerations
115 This document does not define any requirements or structures which
116 introduce new security considerations.
118 The existing security considerations of [I-D.ietf-dtn-bpbis] still
119 apply when using the IANA Administrative Record Types sub-registry.
121 4. IANA Considerations
123 This specification modifies a BPv6 sub-registry to extend BPv7.
125 4.1. Bundle Administrative Record Types
127 Within the "Bundle Protocol" registry [IANA-BP], the "Bundle
128 Administrative Record Types" sub-registry has been updated to include
129 a leftmost "Bundle Protocol Version" column. The existing sub-
130 registry entries have been updated to have BP versions as in the
131 following table.
133 +=================+=======+===============+======================+
134 | Bundle Protocol | Value | Description | Reference |
135 | Version | | | |
136 +=================+=======+===============+======================+
137 | 6,7 | 0 | Reserved | [RFC7116] |
138 +-----------------+-------+---------------+----------------------+
139 | 6,7 | 1 | Bundle status | [RFC5050] |
140 | | | report | [I-D.ietf-dtn-bpbis] |
141 +-----------------+-------+---------------+----------------------+
142 | 6 | 2 | Custody | [RFC5050] |
143 | | | signal | |
144 +-----------------+-------+---------------+----------------------+
145 | 6,7 | 3-15 | Unassigned | |
146 +-----------------+-------+---------------+----------------------+
148 Table 1
150 Within the "Bundle Protocol" registry [IANA-BP], the following
151 entries have been added to the "Bundle Administrative Record Types"
152 sub-registry.
154 +=================+============+==================+===============+
155 | Bundle Protocol | Value | Description | Reference |
156 | Version | | | |
157 +=================+============+==================+===============+
158 | 7 | 16-65535 | Unassigned | |
159 +-----------------+------------+------------------+---------------+
160 | 7 | greater | Reserved for | This |
161 | | than 65535 | Private or | specification |
162 | | | Experimental Use | |
163 +-----------------+------------+------------------+---------------+
165 Table 2
167 5. Acknowledgments
169 6. References
171 6.1. Normative References
173 [IANA-BP] IANA, "Bundle Protocol",
174 .
176 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
177 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
178 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
179 .
181 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
182 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
183 May 2017, .
185 [I-D.ietf-dtn-bpbis]
186 Burleigh, S., Fall, K., and E. J. Birrane, "Bundle
187 Protocol Version 7", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
188 draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-31, 25 January 2021,
189 .
192 6.2. Informative References
194 [RFC5050] Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, "Bundle Protocol
195 Specification", RFC 5050, DOI 10.17487/RFC5050, November
196 2007, .
198 [RFC7116] Scott, K. and M. Blanchet, "Licklider Transmission
199 Protocol (LTP), Compressed Bundle Header Encoding (CBHE),
200 and Bundle Protocol IANA Registries", RFC 7116,
201 DOI 10.17487/RFC7116, February 2014,
202 .
204 Author's Address
206 Brian Sipos
207 The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
208 11100 Johns Hopkins Rd.
209 Laurel, MD 20723
210 United States of America
212 Email: brian.sipos+ietf@gmail.com