idnits 2.17.1
draft-sipos-dtn-bpv7-admin-iana-01.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 :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC9171, but the
abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
match the current year
-- The document date (2 March 2022) is 785 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 (==), 3 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: 9171 (if approved) 2 March 2022
5 Intended status: Standards Track
6 Expires: 3 September 2022
8 Bundle Protocol Version 7 Administrative Record Types Registry
9 draft-sipos-dtn-bpv7-admin-iana-01
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 3 September 2022.
35 Copyright Notice
37 Copyright (c) 2022 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 Revised BSD License text as
46 described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
47 provided without warranty as described in the Revised 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. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
59 5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
60 5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
61 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 [RFC9171] it included an explicit table of Administrative Record
70 types but made no mention of an IANA registry nor a requirement for
71 BPv7 agents to be extensible in how they handle Administrative Record
72 types. The BPv7 specification also did not discriminate between code
73 point reservations and unassigned ranges for Administrative Record
74 types.
76 This document updates BPv7 to explicitly use the IANA Administrative
77 Record type registry in Section 2. This document makes a reservation
78 of the zero value for consistency with BPv6. This document also
79 makes a reservation of high-valued code points for private or
80 experimental use to avoid collisions with assigned code points.
82 1.1. Scope
84 This document describes updates to the IANA Administrative Record
85 type sub-registry and how a BPv7 agent is supposed to use that
86 registry for identifying Administrative Record types.
88 This document does not specify how BPv6 and BPv7 can interoperate for
89 overlapping code points or how a specific code point is to be
90 interpreted either similarly or differently between Bundle Protocol
91 versions. It is up to each individual Administrative Record type
92 specification to define how it relates to each BP version.
94 1.2. Terminology
96 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
97 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
98 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
99 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
100 capitals, as shown here.
102 2. Administrative Record Types Registry
104 This document updates the requirements in Section 6.1 of [RFC9171] to
105 use an existing IANA registry and updates that sub-registry in
106 Section 4.1.
108 The code point allocated in Annex D of [CCSDS-BP] was never added to
109 the IANA registry. To avoid a collision, this document adds that
110 allocation to the registry.
112 Instead of using the explicit list of types in Table 3 of [RFC9171],
113 a BPv7 Agent SHALL interpret Administrative Record type code values
114 in accordance with the IANA "Bundle Administrative Record Types" sub-
115 registry under [IANA-BP] for entries having a "Bundle Protocol
116 Version" of 7.
118 3. Security Considerations
120 This document does not define any requirements or structures which
121 introduce new security considerations.
123 The existing security considerations of [RFC9171] still apply when
124 using the IANA Administrative Record Types sub-registry.
126 4. IANA Considerations
128 This specification modifies a BPv6 sub-registry to extend BPv7.
130 4.1. Bundle Administrative Record Types
132 Within the "Bundle Protocol" registry [IANA-BP], the "Bundle
133 Administrative Record Types" sub-registry has been updated to include
134 a leftmost "Bundle Protocol Version" column. The existing sub-
135 registry entries have been updated to have BP versions as in the
136 following table.
138 +=================+=======+================+=================+
139 | Bundle Protocol | Value | Description | Reference |
140 | Version | | | |
141 +=================+=======+================+=================+
142 | 6,7 | 0 | Reserved | [RFC7116] [This |
143 | | | | specification] |
144 +-----------------+-------+----------------+-----------------+
145 | 6,7 | 1 | Bundle status | [RFC5050] |
146 | | | report | [RFC9171] |
147 +-----------------+-------+----------------+-----------------+
148 | 6 | 2 | Custody signal | [RFC5050] |
149 +-----------------+-------+----------------+-----------------+
150 | 6,7 | 3 | Unassigned | |
151 +-----------------+-------+----------------+-----------------+
152 | 6 | 4 | Aggregate | [CCSDS-BP] |
153 | | | Custody Signal | |
154 +-----------------+-------+----------------+-----------------+
155 | 6,7 | 5-15 | Unassigned | |
156 +-----------------+-------+----------------+-----------------+
158 Table 1
160 Within the "Bundle Protocol" registry [IANA-BP], the following
161 entries have been added to the "Bundle Administrative Record Types"
162 sub-registry.
164 +=================+============+==================+================+
165 | Bundle Protocol | Value | Description | Reference |
166 | Version | | | |
167 +=================+============+==================+================+
168 | 7 | 16-65535 | Unassigned | |
169 +-----------------+------------+------------------+----------------+
170 | 7 | greater | Reserved for | [This |
171 | | than 65535 | Private or | specification] |
172 | | | Experimental Use | |
173 +-----------------+------------+------------------+----------------+
175 Table 2
177 5. References
179 5.1. Normative References
181 [IANA-BP] IANA, "Bundle Protocol",
182 .
184 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
185 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
186 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
187 .
189 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
190 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
191 May 2017, .
193 [RFC9171] Burleigh, S., Fall, K., Birrane, E., and , "Bundle
194 Protocol Version 7", RFC 9171, DOI 10.17487/RFC9171,
195 January 2022, .
197 5.2. Informative References
199 [CCSDS-BP] Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems, "CCSDS
200 Bundle Protocol Specification", CCSDS 734.2-B-1, September
201 2015, .
203 [RFC5050] Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, "Bundle Protocol
204 Specification", RFC 5050, DOI 10.17487/RFC5050, November
205 2007, .
207 [RFC7116] Scott, K. and M. Blanchet, "Licklider Transmission
208 Protocol (LTP), Compressed Bundle Header Encoding (CBHE),
209 and Bundle Protocol IANA Registries", RFC 7116,
210 DOI 10.17487/RFC7116, February 2014,
211 .
213 Acknowledgments
215 Author's Address
217 Brian Sipos
218 The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
219 11100 Johns Hopkins Rd.
220 Laurel, MD 20723
221 United States of America
222 Email: brian.sipos+ietf@gmail.com