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