Internet DRAFT - draft-blanchet-dtnrg-bp-application-framework
draft-blanchet-dtnrg-bp-application-framework
Network Working Group M. Blanchet
Internet-Draft Viagenie
Intended status: Standards Track March 12, 2012
Expires: September 13, 2012
Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN) Bundle Protocol Application Framework
draft-blanchet-dtnrg-bp-application-framework-01.txt
Abstract
The current Bundle Protocol specifications define the syntax of
service identifiers but do not identify how to make them
interoperable. For example, there are currently no way to map a
service identifier to a specific Bundle payload format for an
application agent. This document proposes an application framework
enabling interoperable implementations and deployments of the Bundle
Protocol. It also creates a service identifier registry for the
Bundle Protocol.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 September 13, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
Blanchet Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Bundle Protocol Application Framework March 2012
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. No BP Payload Format Standardization . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. No Service Identifier Centralized Assignments . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Need for an Application Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Bundle Protocol Application Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Bundle Protocol Application Protocol Specification . . . . 4
2.2. Service Identifier Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Bundle Protocol Service Identifiers Registry . . . . . . . 4
2.4. The Bundle Protocol Ping Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5. CCSDS Reserved Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.6. Re-use of the IP Service Names and Transport Port
Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Blanchet Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Bundle Protocol Application Framework March 2012
1. Problem Statement
1.1. No BP Payload Format Standardization
The Bundle Protocol (BP) [RFC5050] specifies how to carry bundles
over a delay and disruption tolerant network. Up to now, the various
BP implementations have defined their own payload format for the
applications they support, without any specification. Therefore,
between two implementations, there is no garantee that the payloads
will be properly processed. This prohibits interoperability between
application agents of the various implementations.
1.2. No Service Identifier Centralized Assignments
The Bundle Protocol [RFC5050] uses Endpoint Identifiers to specify
the destination of the bundles. Up to now, two types of identifiers
have been defined:
o dtn: uri scheme defined in [RFC5050]
o ipn scheme defined in [RFC6260] using the CBHE extension header
Both schemes syntax carry the service identifier so that the bundle
payload is sent to the right application agent and that application
agent knows how to process it. Up to now, no definition of these
service identifiers exist, therefore, each implementation does not
know to which application agent it should send the received bundle
payload.
1.3. Need for an Application Framework
From the point of view of implementations and end-users, the service
identifier shall be common to both types of identifiers and the
payload format should be identical for the same service identifiers.
Therefore, there is a need to normalize the service identifiers as
well as the payload formats. This is similar to service and port
numbers registry for IP protocols and applications protocols
specifications.
As with IP application protocols specifications, some applications
require services at the IP layer, such as IPsec. In such cases, the
application specification defines the usage and requirements of IPsec
for carrying the application packets. Similarly, Bundle protocol
applications may require specific bundle protocol services, such as
custody, security, quality of service or else.
This document defines a framework by which Bundle Protocol
applications should be specified, what bundle services they require
and a registry of service identifiers. All together, implementations
will interoperate at the application level, instead of just at the
Blanchet Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Bundle Protocol Application Framework March 2012
bundle forwarding level. Moreover, deployments will be eased by
normalized behaviors of BP protocol stacks and applications.
2. Bundle Protocol Application Framework
The BP Application framework is specified as following:
o A requirement for BP application protocol specifications.
o A registry of BP service identifiers
2.1. Bundle Protocol Application Protocol Specification
A BP application is defined by a protocol and a bundle payload
format. When a BP application protocol is specified in a document,
it should be specified with the following information:
o Bundle payload format
o Bundle services and extension headers required, such as security,
custody or else. The context in which these services and
extensions are used must be fully defined to enable
interoperability between implementations.
o Service identifier for the dtn: scheme
o Service identifier for the ipn scheme
o Request to register the service identifiers in the registries
described in this document.
2.2. Service Identifier Syntax
While the generic syntax of the dtn: uri is defined, the usage up to
now in trials, deployments and implementations has been dtn:
node_identifier/service_identifier. For the ipn scheme, the syntax
is ipn:node_identifier.service_identifier. This document registers
the service_identifier part values but makes no recommendation on the
node identifier part.
2.3. Bundle Protocol Service Identifiers Registry
For implementations and for interoperability between various BP
network deployments, it is highly preferable that the service
identifiers are identical for all deployments and all
implementations.
This document requests IANA to create a registry for the service
identifiers for both the ipn and the dtn: space. The common service
identifiers will be identical for both schemes and for all
deployments. The structure of the registry is:
o Structure (aka columns):
Blanchet Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Bundle Protocol Application Framework March 2012
* dtn: service identifier. The dtn: service identifier syntax is
defined in section 4.4 of [RFC5050].
* ipn service identifier. The ipn service identifier syntax is
defined in section 2.1 of [RFC6260].
* Specification Reference: The referenced specification should
describe the bundle payload content.
o Service identifiers must be registered for both schemes at the
same time. If it can not be done, the specification must detail
why and the expert should review the rationale before accepting
that registration.
o Registration Policy:
* CCSDS book or IETF RFC required. Any other specification must
be reviewed by an nominated expert.
* For ipn number space, the XX range is delegated to CCSDS
registry service (SANA <http://sanaregistry.org>), therefore
not allocated by IANA. In the registry, IANA should point this
range to the corresponding SANA registry.
The registry should contain the following initial values:
o dtn: service identifier "none" shall be assigned. The semantic is
described in RFC5050
o ipn service identifier of value "0" shall be assigned for the same
semantic as dtn:none
o Specification Reference: RFC5050
o Mandatory Bundle Protocol service: none.
2.4. The Bundle Protocol Ping Service
This section is requesting a registration for the above registry. It
also serves as a simple example on how registration requests should
be done.
The Ping service is similar to the IP ICMP Echo request/reply service
where a source node sends a simple query to the destination node and
the destination node replies. This helps troubleshooting the network
and knowing if a node is reachable and up.
The ping service has the following Bundle Protocol payload format:
TBD.
This document request the registration of the ping service in the
above registry as follows:
o dtn: service identifier "ping" shall be assigned to the ping
service.
o ipn service identifier of value "1" shall be assigned to the ping
service.
Blanchet Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Bundle Protocol Application Framework March 2012
o Specification Reference: TBD.
o Mandatory Bundle Protocol service: none.
2.5. CCSDS Reserved Range
For the purpose of space networking, the CCSDS SDO [1] needs service
identifier assignments for its own deployments. For the management
of these assignments, registries for the node and service identifier
part of the ipn scheme are managed by the CCSDS Registry Authority,
Space Assigned Number Authority (SANA) [2]. This CCSDS registry of
node and service identifiers is specific to space networks. However,
for implementations and for interoperability between various network
deployments, it is highly preferable that the service identifiers are
identical for all deployments. Therefore, this document requests
IANA to set aside a range of ipn service identifiers to be used by
CCSDS and managed by its registry authority SANA.
2.6. Re-use of the IP Service Names and Transport Port Registry
The IP Services Names and Port Registry (IPSNPR) is used to list the
service and port identifiers for IP packets. Within some DTN
deployments, some IP protocols such as HTTP and SMTP have been
transported inside the Bundle Protocol payloads. Some other DTN
deployments are using non IETF protocols. Therefore, there is some
overlap but also some specific DTN applications. The number of IP
protocols that will be carried directly as BP payloads are most
likely very small, and would not include the vast majority of the
port numbers found in the IPSNPR. Therefore, it is proposed to start
a new registry from scratch instead of trying to overload or sync
with the IPSNPR.
3. Security Considerations
Establishing a registry of service identifiers so that
implementations and deployments can interoperate does not bring any
specific security concerns and does not add any security. As with
the IP services and port registry, the existence of such registry
have not brought any security concerns.
4. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to create a registry as specified in this document.
Blanchet Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Bundle Protocol Application Framework March 2012
5. Acknowledgements
The editor would like to thank the following people who have provided
comments and suggestions to this document, in no specific order:
Stephen Farrell, Keith Scott, Scott Burleigh.
6. Normative References
[RFC5050] Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, "Bundle Protocol
Specification", RFC 5050, November 2007.
[RFC6260] Burleigh, S., "Compressed Bundle Header Encoding (CBHE)",
RFC 6260, May 2011.
[1] <http://www.ccsds.org>
[2] <http://sanaregistry.org>
Author's Address
Marc Blanchet
Viagenie
246 Aberdeen
Quebec, QC G1R 2E1
Canada
Email: Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.ca
URI: http://viagenie.ca
Blanchet Expires September 13, 2012 [Page 7]
