--- 1/draft-ietf-taps-transports-02.txt 2015-02-27 05:16:00.150746569 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-taps-transports-03.txt 2015-02-27 05:16:00.282749748 -0800 @@ -1,21 +1,21 @@ Network Working Group G. Fairhurst, Ed. Internet-Draft University of Aberdeen Intended status: Informational B. Trammell, Ed. -Expires: August 10, 2015 M. Kuehlewind, Ed. +Expires: August 31, 2015 M. Kuehlewind, Ed. ETH Zurich - February 06, 2015 + February 27, 2015 Services provided by IETF transport protocols and congestion control mechanisms - draft-ietf-taps-transports-02 + draft-ietf-taps-transports-03 Abstract This document describes services provided by existing IETF protocols and congestion control mechanisms. It is designed to help application and network stack programmers and to inform the work of the IETF TAPS Working Group. Status of This Memo @@ -25,21 +25,21 @@ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on August 10, 2015. + This Internet-Draft will expire on August 31, 2015. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents @@ -85,21 +85,21 @@ 2. Terminology The following terms are defined throughout this document, and in subsequent documents produced by TAPS describing the composition and decomposition of transport services. [NOTE: The terminology below was presented at the TAPS WG meeting in Honolulu. While the factoring of the terminology seems uncontroversial, there may be some entities which still require names (e.g. information about the interface between the transport and lower - layers which could lead to the availablity or unavailibility of + layers which could lead to the availability or unavailability of certain transport protocol features). Comments are welcome via the TAPS mailing list.] Transport Service Feature: a specific end-to-end feature that a transport service provides to its clients. Examples include confidentiality, reliable delivery, ordered delivery, message- versus-stream orientation, etc. Transport Service: a set of transport service features, without an association to any given framing protocol, which provides a @@ -112,21 +112,21 @@ Transport Protocol Component: an implementation of a transport service feature within a protocol. Transport Service Instance: an arrangement of transport protocols with a selected set of features and configuration parameters that implements a single transport service, e.g. a protocol stack (RTP over UDP). Application: an entity that uses the transport layer for end-to-end delivery data across the network (this may also be an upper layer - protocol or tunnel encpasulation). + protocol or tunnel encapsulation). 3. Existing Transport Protocols This section provides a list of known IETF transport protocol and transport protocol frameworks. [EDITOR'S NOTE: Contributions to the subsections below are welcome] 3.1. Transport Control Protocol (TCP) @@ -250,161 +250,325 @@ decide based on network characteristics?] 3.2. Multipath TCP (MP-TCP) [EDITOR'S NOTE: a few sentences describing Multipath TCP [RFC6824] go here. Note that this adds transport-layer multihoming to the components TCP provides] 3.3. Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) - SCTP [RFC4960] is an IETF standards track transport protocol that - provides a bidirectional set of logical unicast meessage streams over - a connection-oriented protocol. - Compared to TCP, this protocol and API use messages, rather than a - byte-stream. Each stream of messages is independently managed, - therefore retransmission does not hold back data sent using other - logical streams. - - An SCTP Integrity Check is mandatory across the entire packet (it - does not support partial corruption protection as in DCCP/UD-Lite). - - The SCTP Partial Reliability Extension (SCTP-PR) is defined in - [RFC3758]. + SCTP is a message oriented standards track transport protocol and the + base protocol is specified in [RFC4960]. It supports multi-homing to + handle path failures. An SCTP association has multiple + unidirectional streams in each direction and provides in-sequence + delivery of user messages only within each stream. This allows to + minimize head of line blocking. SCTP is extensible and the currently + defined extensions include mechanisms for dynamic re-configurations + of streams [RFC6525] and IP-addresses [RFC5061]. Furthermore, the + extension specified in [RFC3758] introduces the concept of partial + reliability for user messages. - SCTP supports PLPMTU discovery using padding chunks to construct path - probes. + SCTP was originally developed for transporting telephony signalling + messages and is deployed in telephony signalling networks, especially + in mobile telephony networks. Additionally, it is used in the WebRTC + framework for data channels and is therefore deployed in all WEB- + browsers supporting WebRTC. [EDITOR'S NOTE: Michael Tuexen and Karen Nielsen signed up as contributors for these sections.] 3.3.1. Protocol Description - An SCTP service is unicast. + SCTP is a connection oriented protocol using a four way handshake to + establish an SCTP association and a three way message exchange to + gracefully shut it down. It uses the same port number concept as + DCCP, TCP, UDP, and UDP-Lite do and only supports unicast. - PLPMTUD is required for SCTP. + SCTP uses the 32-bit CRC32c for protecting SCTP packets against bit + errors. This is stronger than the 16-bit checksums used by TCP or + UDP. However, a partial checksum coverage as provided by DCCP or + UDP-Lite is not supported. + + SCTP has been designed with extensibility in mind. Each SCTP packet + starts with a single common header containing the port numbers, a + verification tag and the CRC32c checksum. This common header is + followed by a sequence of chunks. Each chunk consists of a type + field, flags, a length field and a value. [RFC4960] defines how a + receiver processes chunks with an unknown chunk type. The support of + extensions can be negotiated during the SCTP handshake. + + SCTP provides a message-oriented service. Multiple small user + messages can be bundled into a single SCTP packet to improve the + efficiency. User messages which would result in IP packets larger + than the MTU will be fragmented at the sender side and reassembled at + the receiver side. There is no protocol limit on the user message + size. [RFC4821] defines a method to perform packetization layer path + MTU discovery with probe packets using the padding chunks defined the + [RFC4820]. + + [RFC4960] specifies a TCP friendly congestion control to protect the + network against overload. SCTP also uses a sliding window flow + control to protect receivers against overflow. + + Each SCTP association has between 1 and 65536 uni-directional streams + in each direction. The number of streams can be different in each + direction. Every user-message is sent on a particular stream. User + messages can be sent ordered or un-ordered upon request by the upper + layer. Only all ordered messages sent on the same stream are + delivered at the receiver in the same order as sent by the sender. + For user messages not requiring fragmentation, this minimises head of + line blocking. The base protocol defined in [RFC4960] doesn't allow + interleaving of user-messages, which results in sending a large + message on one stream can block the sending of user messages on other + streams. [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-ndata] overcomes this limitation and + also allows to specify a scheduler for the sender side streams + selection. The stream re-configuration extension defined in + [RFC6525] allows to reset streams during the lifetime of an + association and to increase the number of streams, if the number of + streams negotiated in the SCTP handshake is not sufficient. + + According to [RFC4960], each user message sent is either delivered to + the receiver or, in case of excessive retransmissions, the + association is terminated in a non-graceful way, similar to the TCP + behaviour. In addition to this reliable transfer, the partial + reliability extension defined in [RFC3758] allows the sender to + abandon user messages. The application can specify the policy for + abandoning user messages. Examples for these policies include: + + o Limiting the time a user message is dealt with by the sender. + + o Limiting the number of retransmissions for each fragment of a user + message. + + o Abandoning messages of lower priority in case of a send buffer + shortage. + + SCTP supports multi-homing. Each SCTP end-point uses a list of IP- + addresses and a single port number. These addresses can be any + mixture of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. These addresses are negotiated + during the handshake and the address re-configuration extension + specified in [RFC5061] can be used to change these addresses during + the livetime of an SCTP association. This allows for transport layer + mobility. Multiple addresses are used for improved resilience. If a + remote address becomes unreachable, the traffic is switched over to a + reachable one, if one exists. Each SCTP end-point supervises + continuously the reachability of all peer addresses using a heartbeat + mechanism. + + For securing user messages, the use of TLS over SCTP has been + specified in [RFC3436]. However, this solution does not support all + services provided by SCTP (for example un-ordered delivery or partial + reliability), and therefore the use of DTLS over SCTP has been + specified in [RFC6083] to overcome these limitations. When using + DTLS over SCTP, the application can use almost all services provided + by SCTP. + + For legacy NAT traversal, [RFC6951] defines the UDP encapsulation of + SCTP-packets. Alternatively, SCTP packets can be encapsulated in + DTLS packets as specified in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps]. The + latter encapsulation is used with in the WebRTC context. + + Having a well defined API is also a feature provided by SCTP as + described in the next subsection. 3.3.2. Interface Description - The SCTP API is described in the specifications published in the RFC - series. + [RFC4960] defines an abstract API for the base protocol. An + extension to the BSD Sockets API is defined in [RFC6458] and covers: + + o the base protocol defined in [RFC4960]. + + o the SCTP Partial Reliability extension defined in [RFC3758]. + + o the SCTP Authentication extension defined in [RFC4895]. + + o the SCTP Dynamic Address Reconfiguration extension defined in + [RFC5061]. + + For the following SCTP protocol extensions the BSD Sockets API + extension is defined in the document specifying the protocol + extensions: + + o the SCTP SACK-IMMEDIATELY extension defined in [RFC7053]. + + o the SCTP Stream Reconfiguration extension defined in [RFC6525]. + + o the UDP Encapsulation of SCTP packets extension defined in + [RFC6951]. + + o the additional PR-SCTP policies defined in + [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-prpolicies]. + + Future documents describing SCTP protocol extensions are expected to + describe the corresponding BSD Sockets API extension in a "Socket API + Considerations" section. + + The SCTP socket API supports two kinds of sockets: + + o one-to-one style sockets (by using the socket type "SOCK_STREAM"). + + o one-to-many style socket (by using the socket type + "SOCK_SEQPACKET"). + + One-to-one style sockets are similar to TCP sockets, there is a 1:1 + relationship between the sockets and the SCTP associations (except + for listening sockets). One-to-many style SCTP sockets are similar + to unconnected UDP sockets as there is a 1:n relationship between the + sockets and the SCTP associations. + + The SCTP stack can provide information to the applications about + state changes of the individual paths and the association whenever + they occur. These events are delivered similar to user messages but + are specifically marked as notifications. + + A couple of new functions have been introduced to support the use of + multiple local and remote addresses. Additional SCTP-specific send + and receive calls have been defined to allow dealing with the SCTP + specific information without using ancillary data in the form of + additional cmsgs, which are also defined. These functions provide + support for detecting partial delivery of user messages and + notifications. + + The SCTP socket API allows a fine-grained control of the protocol + behaviour through an extensive set of socket options. + + The SCTP kernel implementations of FreeBSD, Linux and Solaris follow + mostly the specified extension to the BSD Sockets API for the base + protocol and the corresponding supported protocol extensions. 3.3.3. Transport Protocol Components The transport protocol components provided by SCTP are: o unicast o connection setup with feature negotiation and application-to-port mapping o port multiplexing o reliable or partially reliable delivery - o ordered delivery within a stream + o ordered and unordered delivery within a stream o support for multiple prioritised streams o flow control (slow receiver function) o message-oriented delivery o congestion control o application PDU bundling + o application PDU fragmentation and reassembly + o integrity check + o transport layer multihoming for resilience + + o transport layer mobility + [EDITOR'S NOTE: update this list.] 3.4. User Datagram Protocol (UDP) The User Datagram Protocol (UDP) [RFC0768] [RFC2460] is an IETF - standards track transport protocol. It provides a uni-directional - minimal message-passing transport that has no inherent congestion - control mechanisms or other transport functions. IETF guidance on - the use of UDP is provided in [RFC5405]. UDP is widely implemented - by endpoints and widely used by common applications. + standards track transport protocol. It provides a uni-directional, + datagram protocol which preserves message boundaries. It provides + none of the following transport features: error correction, + congestion control, or flow control. It can be used to send + broadcast datagrams (IPv4) or multicast datagrams (IPv4 and IPv6), in + addition to unicast (and anycast) datagrams. IETF guidance on the + use of UDP is provided in[RFC5405]. UDP is widely implemented and + widely used by common applications, especially DNS. [EDITOR'S NOTE: Kevin Fall signed up as a contributor for this section.] 3.4.1. Protocol Description - UDP is a connection-less datagram protocol, with no connection setup - or feature negotiation. The protocol and API use messages, rather - than a byte-stream. Each stream of messages is independently - managed, therefore retransmission does not hold back data sent using - other logical streams. - - It provides multiplexing to multiple sockets on each host using port - numbers. An active UDP session is identified by its four-tuple of - local and remote IP addresses and local port and remote port numbers. - - UDP maps each data segement into an IP packet, or a sequence of IP - fragemnts. - - UDP is connectionless. However, applications send a sequence of - messages that constitute a UDP flow. Therefore mechanisms for - receiver flow control, congestion control, PathMTU discovery/PLPMTUD, - support for ECN, etc need to be provided by upper layer protocols - [RFC5405]. - - PMTU discovery and PLPMTU discovery may be used by upper layer - protocols built on top of UDP [RFC5405]. - - For IPv4 the UDP checksum is optional, but recommended for use in the - general Internet [RFC5405]. [RFC2460] requires the use of this - checksum for IPv6, but [RFC6935] permits this to be relaxed for - specific types of application. The checksum support considerations - for omitting the checksum are defined in [RFC6936]. + UDP is a connection-less protocol which maintains message boundaries, + with no connection setup or feature negotiation. The protocol uses + independent messages, ordinarily called datagrams. The lack of error + control and flow control implies messages may be damaged, re-ordered, + lost, or duplicated in transit. A receiving application unable to + run sufficiently fast or frequently may miss messages. The lack of + congestion handling implies UDP traffic may cause the loss of + messages from other protocols (e.g., TCP) when sharing the same + network paths. UDP traffic can also cause the loss of other UDP + traffic in the same or other flows for the same reasons. - This check protects from misdelivery of data corrupted data, but is - relatively weak, and applications that require end to end integrity - of data are recommended to include a stronger integrity check of - their payload data. + Messages with bit errors are ordinarily detected by an invalid end- + to-end checksum and are discarded before being delivered to an + application. There are some exceptions to this general rule, + however. UDP-Lite (see [RFC3828], and below) provides the ability + for portions of the message contents to be exempt from checksum + coverage. It is also possible to create UDP datagrams with no + checksum, and while this is generally discouraged [RFC1122] + [RFC5405], certain special cases permit its use [RFC6935]. The + checksum support considerations for omitting the checksum are defined + in [RFC6936]. Note that due to the relatively weak form of checksum + used by UDP, applications that require end to end integrity of data + are recommended to include a stronger integrity check of their + payload data. - A UDP service may support IPv4 broadcast, multicast, anycast and - unicast, determined by the IP destination address. + On transmission, UDP encapsulates each datagram into an IP packet, + which may in turn be fragmented by IP. Applications concerned with + fragmentation or that have other requirements such as receiver flow + control, congestion control, PathMTU discovery/PLPMTUD, support for + ECN, etc need to be provided by protocols other than UDP [RFC5405]. 3.4.2. Interface Description [RFC0768] describes basic requirements for an API for UDP. Guidance on use of common APIs is provided in [RFC5405]. - Many operating systems also allow a UDP socket to be connected, i.e., - to bind a UDP socket to a specific pair of addresses and ports. This - is similar to the corresponding TCP sockets API functionality. - However, for UDP, this is only a local operation that serves to - simplify the local send/receive functions and to filter the traffic - for the specified addresses and ports [RFC5405]. + A UDP endpoint consists of a tuple of (IP address, port number). + Demultiplexing using multiple abstract endpoints (sockets) on the + same IP address are supported. The same socket may be used by a + single server to interact with multiple clients (note: this behavior + differs from TCP, which uses a pair of tuples to identify a + connection). Multiple server instances (processes) binding the same + socket can cooperate to service multiple clients- the socket + implementation arranges to not duplicate the same received unicast + message to multiple server processes. + + Many operating systems also allow a UDP socket to be "connected", + i.e., to bind a UDP socket to a specific (remote) UDP endpoint. + Unlike TCP's connect primitive, for UDP, this is only a local + operation that serves to simplify the local send/receive functions + and to filter the traffic for the specified addresses and ports + [RFC5405]. 3.4.3. Transport Protocol Components The transport protocol components provided by UDP are: - o unicast + o unidirectional o port multiplexing - o IPv4 broadcast, multicast and anycast + o 2-tuple endpoints - o non-reliable delivery + o IPv4 broadcast, multicast and anycast - o flow control (slow receiver function) + o IPv6 multicast and anycast - o non-ordered delivery + o IPv6 jumbograms o message-oriented delivery - o optional checksum protection. + o error detection (checksum) + + o checksum optional 3.5. Lightweight User Datagram Protocol (UDP-Lite) The Lightweight User Datagram Protocol (UDP-Lite) [RFC3828] is an IETF standards track transport protocol. UDP-Lite provides a bidirectional set of logical unicast or multicast message streams over a datagram protocol. IETF guidance on the use of UDP-Lite is provided in [RFC5405]. [EDITOR'S NOTE: Gorry Fairhurst signed up as a contributor for this @@ -504,21 +669,21 @@ connection. The protocol is defined by a family of RFCs. It provides multiplexing to multiple sockets on each host using port numbers. An active DCCP session is identified by its four-tuple of local and remote IP addresses and local port and remote port numbers. At connection setup, DCCP also exchanges the the service code [RFC5595] mechanism to allow transport instantiations to indicate the service treatment that is expected from the network. The protocol segments data into messages, typically sized to fit in - IP packets, but which may be fragemented providing they are less than + IP packets, but which may be fragmented providing they are less than the A DCCP interface MAY allow applications to request fragmentation for packets larger than PMTU, but not larger than the maximum packet size allowed by the current congestion control mechanism (CCMPS) [RFC4340]. Each message is identified by a sequence number. The sequence number is used to identify segments in acknowledgments, to detect unacknowledged segments, to measure RTT, etc. The protocol may support ordered or unordered delivery of data, and does not itself provide retransmission. There is a Data Checksum option, which @@ -553,24 +718,24 @@ Upper layer protocols specified on top of DCCP include: DTLS [RFC5595], RTP [RFC5672], ICE/SDP [RFC6773]. A DCCP service is unicast. A common packet format has allowed tools to evolve that can read and interpret DCCP packets (e.g. Wireshark). 3.6.2. Interface Description - API charactersitics include: - Datagram transmission. - Notification + API characteristics include: - Datagram transmission. - Notification of the current maximum packet size. - Send and reception of zero- length payloads. - Set the Slow Receiver flow control at areceiver. - - Detct a Slow receiver at the sender. + - Detect a Slow receiver at the sender. There is no current API specified in the RFC Series. 3.6.3. Transport Protocol Components The transport protocol components provided by DCCP are: o unicast o connection setup with feature negotiation and application-to-port @@ -660,47 +825,47 @@ +-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Mechanism | UDP | UDP-L | DCCP | SCTP | TCP | +-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Unicast | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | | | | | | | | | Mcast/IPv4Bcast | Yes(2) | Yes | No | No | No | | | | | | | | | Port Mux | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | | | | | | | | - | Mode | Dgram | Dgram | Dgram | Stream | Stream | + | Mode | Dgram | Dgram | Dgram | Dgram | Stream | | | | | | | | | Connected | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | | | | | | | | - | Data bundling | No | No | No | No | Yes | + | Data bundling | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | | | | | | | | | Feature Nego | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | | | | | | | | | Options | No | No | Support | Support | Support | | | | | | | | | Data priority | * | * | * | Yes | No | | | | | | | | - | Data bundling | No | No | No | No | Yes | + | Data bundling | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | | | | | | | | | Reliability | None | None | None | Select | Full | | | | | | | | | Ordered deliv | No | No | No | Stream | Yes | | | | | | | | | Corruption Tol. | No | Support | Support | No | No | | | | | | | | | Flow Control | No | No | Support | Yes | Yes | | | | | | | | | PMTU/PLPMTU | (1) | (1) | Yes | Yes | Yes | | | | | | | | | Cong Control | (1) | (1) | Yes | Yes | Yes | | | | | | | | - | ECN Support | (1) | (1) | Yes | No | Yes | + | ECN Support | (1) | (1) | Yes | TBD | Yes | | | | | | | | | NAT support | Limited | Limited | Support | TBD | Support | | | | | | | | | Security | DTLS | DTLS | DTLS | DTLS | TLS, AO | | | | | | | | | UDP encaps | N/A | None | Yes | Yes | None | | | | | | | | | RTP support | Support | Support | Support | ? | Support | +-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ @@ -717,22 +882,28 @@ This document surveys existing transport protocols and protocols providing transport-like services. Confidentiality, integrity, and authenticity are among the features provided by those services. This document does not specify any new components or mechanisms for providing these features. Each RFC listed in this document discusses the security considerations of the specification it contains. 7. Contributors - [EDITOR'S NOTE: Non-editor contributors of text will be listed here, - as noted in the authors section.] + [Editor's Note: turn this into a real contributors section with + addresses once we figure out how to trick the toolchain into doing + so] + + o Section 3.4 on UDP was contributed by Kevin Fall (kfall@kfall.com) + + o Section 3.3 on SCTP was contributed by Michael Tuexen (tuexen@fh- + muenster.de) 8. Acknowledgments This work is partially supported by the European Commission under grant agreement FP7-ICT-318627 mPlane; support does not imply endorsement. 9. References 9.1. Normative References @@ -769,20 +940,24 @@ [RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC 3168, September 2001. [RFC3205] Moore, K., "On the use of HTTP as a Substrate", BCP 56, RFC 3205, February 2002. [RFC3390] Allman, M., Floyd, S., and C. Partridge, "Increasing TCP's Initial Window", RFC 3390, October 2002. + [RFC3436] Jungmaier, A., Rescorla, E., and M. Tuexen, "Transport + Layer Security over Stream Control Transmission Protocol", + RFC 3436, December 2002. + [RFC3758] Stewart, R., Ramalho, M., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., and P. Conrad, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Partial Reliability Extension", RFC 3758, May 2004. [RFC3828] Larzon, L-A., Degermark, M., Pink, S., Jonsson, L-E., and G. Fairhurst, "The Lightweight User Datagram Protocol (UDP-Lite)", RFC 3828, July 2004. [RFC4336] Floyd, S., Handley, M., and E. Kohler, "Problem Statement for the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC @@ -797,26 +972,39 @@ [RFC4342] Floyd, S., Kohler, E., and J. Padhye, "Profile for Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) Congestion Control ID 3: TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC)", RFC 4342, March 2006. [RFC4614] Duke, M., Braden, R., Eddy, W., and E. Blanton, "A Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Specification Documents", RFC 4614, September 2006. + [RFC4820] Tuexen, M., Stewart, R., and P. Lei, "Padding Chunk and + Parameter for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol + (SCTP)", RFC 4820, March 2007. + [RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery", RFC 4821, March 2007. + [RFC4895] Tuexen, M., Stewart, R., Lei, P., and E. Rescorla, + "Authenticated Chunks for the Stream Control Transmission + Protocol (SCTP)", RFC 4895, August 2007. + [RFC4960] Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 4960, September 2007. + [RFC5061] Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., Maruyama, S., and M. + Kozuka, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) + Dynamic Address Reconfiguration", RFC 5061, September + 2007. + [RFC5097] Renker, G. and G. Fairhurst, "MIB for the UDP-Lite protocol", RFC 5097, January 2008. [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008. [RFC5348] Floyd, S., Handley, M., Padhye, J., and J. Widmer, "TCP Friendly Rate Control (TFRC): Protocol Specification", RFC 5348, September 2008. @@ -842,64 +1030,103 @@ [RFC6773] Phelan, T., Fairhurst, G., and C. Perkins, "DCCP-UDP: A Datagram Congestion Control Protocol UDP Encapsulation for NAT Traversal", RFC 6773, November 2012. [RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP Authentication Option", RFC 5925, June 2010. [RFC5681] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion Control", RFC 5681, September 2009. + [RFC6083] Tuexen, M., Seggelmann, R., and E. Rescorla, "Datagram + Transport Layer Security (DTLS) for Stream Control + Transmission Protocol (SCTP)", RFC 6083, January 2011. + [RFC6093] Gont, F. and A. Yourtchenko, "On the Implementation of the TCP Urgent Mechanism", RFC 6093, January 2011. + [RFC6525] Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., and P. Lei, "Stream Control + Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Stream Reconfiguration", RFC + 6525, February 2012. + [RFC6298] Paxson, V., Allman, M., Chu, J., and M. Sargent, "Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer", RFC 6298, June 2011. [RFC6935] Eubanks, M., Chimento, P., and M. Westerlund, "IPv6 and UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets", RFC 6935, April 2013. [RFC6936] Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerlund, "Applicability Statement for the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums", RFC 6936, April 2013. [RFC6455] Fette, I. and A. Melnikov, "The WebSocket Protocol", RFC 6455, December 2011. [RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, January 2012. + [RFC6458] Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., Poon, K., Lei, P., and V. + Yasevich, "Sockets API Extensions for the Stream Control + Transmission Protocol (SCTP)", RFC 6458, December 2011. + [RFC6691] Borman, D., "TCP Options and Maximum Segment Size (MSS)", RFC 6691, July 2012. [RFC6824] Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., and O. Bonaventure, "TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple Addresses", RFC 6824, January 2013. + [RFC6951] Tuexen, M. and R. Stewart, "UDP Encapsulation of Stream + Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Packets for End-Host + to End-Host Communication", RFC 6951, May 2013. + + [RFC7053] Tuexen, M., Ruengeler, I., and R. Stewart, "SACK- + IMMEDIATELY Extension for the Stream Control Transmission + Protocol", RFC 7053, November 2013. + [RFC7323] Borman, D., Braden, B., Jacobson, V., and R. Scheffenegger, "TCP Extensions for High Performance", RFC 7323, September 2014. [I-D.ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits] Welzl, M. and G. Fairhurst, "The Benefits and Pitfalls of using Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)", draft-ietf- aqm-ecn-benefits-00 (work in progress), October 2014. + [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps] + Tuexen, M., Stewart, R., Jesup, R., and S. Loreto, "DTLS + Encapsulation of SCTP Packets", draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp- + dtls-encaps-09 (work in progress), January 2015. + + [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-prpolicies] + Tuexen, M., Seggelmann, R., Stewart, R., and S. Loreto, + "Additional Policies for the Partial Reliability Extension + of the Stream Control Transmission Protocol", draft-ietf- + tsvwg-sctp-prpolicies-07 (work in progress), February + 2015. + + [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-ndata] + Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., Loreto, S., and R. Seggelmann, + "Stream Schedulers and a New Data Chunk for the Stream + Control Transmission Protocol", draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp- + ndata-02 (work in progress), January 2015. + Authors' Addresses Godred Fairhurst (editor) University of Aberdeen School of Engineering, Fraser Noble Building Aberdeen AB24 3UE Email: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk + Brian Trammell (editor) ETH Zurich Gloriastrasse 35 8092 Zurich Switzerland Email: ietf@trammell.ch Mirja Kuehlewind (editor) ETH Zurich