idnits 2.17.1 draft-touch-tsvwg-usr-exp-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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC4727]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (March 3, 2022) is 786 days in the past. Is this intentional? -- Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code sections in the document, please surround them with '' and '' lines. 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 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 TSVWG J. Touch 2 Internet Draft Independent Consultant 3 Updates: 4727 4 Intended status: Standards Track March 3, 2022 5 Expires: September 2022 7 User Ports for Experiments 8 draft-touch-tsvwg-usr-exp-00.txt 10 Abstract 12 This document defines user ports for experiments using transport 13 protocols. It describes the use of experiment identifiers to enable 14 shared use of these user ports, as well as updating the use of 15 system ports for experiments [RFC4727] in the same manner. 17 Status of this Memo 19 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 20 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 22 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 23 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 24 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 25 Drafts. 27 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 28 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 30 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 31 https://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 33 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 34 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents 35 at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as 36 reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 38 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 3, 2022. 40 Copyright Notice 42 Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 43 document authors. All rights reserved. 45 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 46 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 47 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 48 publication of this document. Please review these documents 49 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with 50 respect to this document. 52 Table of Contents 54 1. Introduction...................................................2 55 2. User Ports for Experiments.....................................2 56 3. Security Considerations........................................3 57 4. IANA Considerations............................................3 58 5. References.....................................................4 59 5.1. Normative References......................................4 60 5.2. Informative References....................................4 61 6. Acknowledgments................................................4 63 1. Introduction 65 Various network codepoints have been allocated for experimental use, 66 including those for IP, ICMP, UDP, and TCP [RFC4727]. These include 67 transport protocol port numbers 1021 and 1022, using the service 68 names "EXP1" and "EXP2". 70 There has always been an expectation that experiments needing 71 privileged (system) ports use these assignments and unprivileged 72 ports use those from the dynamic range [RFC7605]. However, dynamic 73 ports can be difficult to reserve in some systems or blocked from 74 traversing some firewalls. As a consequence, there is a need for 75 non-privileged, non-dynamic ports - i.e., user ports - for 76 experiments. 78 This document reserves user ports experimentation and describes the 79 use of experiment identifiers to differentiate shared use of these 80 ports for concurrent experiments. 82 2. User Ports for Experiments 84 The system, user, and dynamic ranges vary in their properties 85 [RFC7605]. System ports often include privileged access, sometimes 86 known as 'root'. Dynamic ports are used as client ports when 87 establishing associations with services on registered ports. User 88 ports have neither privilege nor the risk of use by other 89 connections. User ports are also more likely to allow configuration 90 to pass through firewalls, where system and dynamic ports can be 91 difficult to 'un-block'. 93 This document registers USR-EXP1 and USR-EXP2 for user port 94 experiments, using port numbers #UPORT1 and #UPORT2. These ports are 95 assigned from the user range, allowing non-privileged experiments 96 without the need to use ports from the dynamic range. 98 This document also creates a registry for port experiment 99 identifiers (PExIDs), in the same manner as those created for shared 100 TCP option experiments [RFC6994]. Experimenters are encouraged to 101 register PExIDs with IANA and to include them in at the beginning of 102 their transport data, i.e., at the front of each separate message or 103 byte stream, in network standard byte order. The use of PEdIDs helps 104 differentiate experiments without the need for additional port 105 assignments. 107 This document also encourages the use of these PExIDs for 108 experiments using existing experiment ports, i.e., system ports EXP1 109 and EXP2. 111 PExIDs differentiate experiments but are not intended to be specific 112 to a given experiment port, whether system or user, so a single 113 registration is used for all experiment ports. It is the 114 responsibility of the experimenter to determine which port(s) each 115 experiment uses. 117 3. Security Considerations 119 The creation of new ports for experiment purposes does not create 120 any new security considerations. At best, it potentially reduces the 121 use of privileged system ports for such experiments, which avoids 122 the associated risk of unnecessary privileged access. 124 Experimenters are encouraged to include security in any new 125 experiment, regardless of port (per Section 7.4 of [RFC7605]). 127 4. IANA Considerations 129 This document hereby requests the assignment of two user ports for 130 experimental purposes below. IANA is asked to replace instances of 131 #UPORT1 and #UPORT2 throughout this document based on the actual 132 allocation. 134 --- 136 IANA has assigned the following user ports for experiments: 138 USR-EXP1 #UPORT1 (desired port 1031) all transports 139 USR-EXP2 #UPORT2 (desired port 1032) all transports 141 This document requests IANA create a "Port Experimental Option 142 Experiment Identifiers (PExIDs)" registry. The registry records 32- 143 bit PExIDs, consisting of a brief description, document pointer if 144 available, assignee name, and e-mail contact for each entry. Once 145 registered, PExIDs can be used with either the system (EXP1, EXP2) 146 or user (USR-EXP1, USR-EXP2) ports and with any transport protocol. 148 Entries are assigned on a First Come, First Served (FCFS) basis 149 [RFC5226]. IANA will also record known duplicate uses to assist the 150 community in both debugging assigned uses as well as correcting 151 unauthorized duplicate uses. 153 IANA should impose no requirements on making a registration request 154 other than indicating the desired codepoint and providing a point of 155 contact. A short description or acronym for the use is desired but 156 not required. 158 5. References 160 5.1. Normative References 162 [RFC4727] Fenner, B., "Experimental Values in IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4, 163 ICMPv6, UDP, and TCP Headers," RFC 4727, Nov. 2026. 165 [RFC5226] Narten, T., H. Alvestrand," Guidelines for Writing an IANA 166 Considerations Section in RFCs,", RFC 5226, May 2008. 168 [RFC6994] Touch, J., "Shared Use of Experimental TCP Options," RFC 169 6994, Aug. 2013. 171 5.2. Informative References 173 [RFC7605] Touch, J., "Recommendations on Using Assigned Transport 174 Port Numbers," RFC 7605, Aug. 2015. 176 6. Acknowledgments 178 This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot. 180 Authors' Addresses 182 Joe Touch 183 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 USA 184 Phone: +1 (310) 560-0334 185 Email: touch@strayalpha.com