| RFC : | rfc9758 |
| Title: | Secure Frame (SFrame): Lightweight Authenticated Encryption for Real-Time Media |
| Date: | May 2025 |
| Status: | PROPOSED STANDARD |
| Updates: | 6260, 7116, 9171 |
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Taylor
Request for Comments: 9758 Aalyria Technologies
Updates: 6260, 7116, 9171 E. Birrane, III
Category: Standards Track JHU/APL
ISSN: 2070-1721 May 2025
Updates to the 'ipn' URI Scheme
Abstract
This document updates the specification of the 'ipn' URI scheme
previously defined in RFC 6260 and the IANA registries established in
RFC 7116. It also updates the rules for the encoding and decoding of
these URIs when used as an Endpoint Identifier (EID) in the Bundle
Protocol version 7 (BPv7) as defined in RFC 9171. These updates
clarify the structure and behavior of the 'ipn' URI scheme, define
new encodings of 'ipn' scheme URIs, and establish the registries
necessary to manage this scheme.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9758.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 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
(https://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
include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Conventions and Definitions
3. Core Concepts
3.1. The Null ipn URI
3.2. Allocator Identifiers
3.2.1. Allocator Identifier Ranges
3.2.2. The Default Allocator
3.3. Node Numbers
3.3.1. Fully Qualified Node Numbers
3.4. Special Node Numbers
3.4.1. The Zero Node Number
3.4.2. LocalNode ipn URIs
3.4.3. Private Use Node Numbers
3.5. Service Numbers
4. Textual Representation of ipn URIs
4.1. 'ipn' URI Scheme Text Syntax
5. Usage of ipn URIs with BPv7
5.1. Uniqueness Constraints
5.2. The Null Endpoint
5.3. BPv7 Node ID
5.4. LocalNode ipn EIDs
5.5. Private Use ipn EIDs
5.6. Well-Known Service Numbers
5.7. Administrative Endpoints
6. CBOR Representation of ipn URIs with BPv7
6.1. ipn EID CBOR Encoding
6.1.1. Two-Element Scheme-Specific Encoding
6.1.2. Three-Element Scheme-Specific Encoding
6.2. ipn EID CBOR Decoding
6.3. 'ipn' URI Scheme CBOR Syntax
6.4. ipn EID Matching
7. Special Considerations
7.1. Scheme Compatibility
7.2. CBOR Representation Interoperability
7.3. Text Representation Compatibility
7.4. Bundle Protocol Version 6 Compatibility
7.5. Late Binding
8. Security Considerations
8.1. Reliability and Consistency
8.2. Malicious Construction
8.3. Back-End Transcoding
8.4. Local and Private Use ipn EIDs
8.5. Sensitive Information
8.6. Semantic Attacks
9. IANA Considerations
9.1. 'ipn' Scheme URI Allocator Identifiers Registry
9.1.1. Guidance for Designated Experts
9.2. 'ipn' Scheme URI Default Allocator Node Numbers Registry
9.3. 'ipn' Scheme URI Well-Known Service Numbers for BPv7
Registry
9.3.1. Guidance for Designated Experts
10. References
10.1. Normative References
10.2. Informative References
Appendix A. 'ipn' URI Scheme Text Representation Examples
A.1. Using the Default Allocator
A.2. Using a Non-Default Allocator
A.3. The Null ipn URI
A.4. The LocalNode ipn URI
Appendix B. 'ipn' URI Scheme CBOR Encoding Examples
B.1. Using the Default Allocator
B.2. Using a Non-Default Allocator
B.3. The Null Endpoint
Acknowledgments
Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction
The 'ipn' URI scheme was originally defined in [RFC6260] and
[RFC7116] as a way to identify network nodes and node services using
concisely encoded integers that can be processed faster and with
fewer resources than other verbose identifier schemes. The scheme
was designed for use with the experimental Bundle Protocol version 6
(BPv6) [RFC5050], and "IPN" was defined as an acronym for the term
"InterPlanetary Network" in reference to its intended use for deep-
space networking. Since then, the efficiency benefits of integer
identifiers make 'ipn' scheme URIs useful for any network operating
with limited power, bandwidth, and/or compute budget. Therefore, the
term "IPN" is now used as a non-acronymous name.
Similar to the experimental BPv6, the standardized Bundle Protocol
version 7 (BPv7) [RFC9171] codifies support for the use of the 'ipn'
URI scheme for the specification of bundle Endpoint Identifiers
(EIDs). The publication of BPv7 has resulted in operational
deployments of BPv7 nodes for both terrestrial and non-terrestrial
use cases. This includes BPv7 networks operating over the
terrestrial Internet and BPv7 networks operating in self-contained
environments behind a shared administrative domain. The growth in
the number and scale of deployments of BPv7 has been accompanied by a
growth in the usage of the 'ipn' URI scheme, which has highlighted
areas to improve the structure, moderation, and management of this
scheme.
By updating [RFC7116] and [RFC9171], this document updates the
specification of the 'ipn' URI scheme in a backwards-compatible way,
in order to provide needed improvements both in the scheme itself and
in its usage to specify EIDs with BPv7. Specifically, this document:
* introduces a hierarchical structure for the assignment of 'ipn'
scheme URIs,
* clarifies the behavior and interpretation of 'ipn' scheme URIs,
* defines efficient encodings of 'ipn' scheme URIs, and
* updates/defines the registries associated with this scheme.
Although originally developed by the deep-space community for use
with the Bundle Protocol, the 'ipn' URI scheme is sufficiently
generic to be used in other environments where a concise unique
representation of a resource on a particular node is required.
It is important to remember that, like most other URI schemes, the
'ipn' URI scheme defines a unique identifier of a resource, and it
does not include any topological information describing how to route
messages to that resource.
2. Conventions and Definitions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
For the remainder of this document, the term "ipn URI" is used to
refer to a URI that uses the 'ipn' URI scheme.
3. Core Concepts
Every ipn URI, no matter whether it is expressed with a textual
representation or a binary encoding, MUST be considered as a tuple of
the following three components:
* The Allocator Identifier
* The Node Number
* The Service Number
The Allocator Identifier indicates the entity responsible for
assigning Node Numbers to individual resource nodes, maintaining
uniqueness whilst avoiding the need for a single registry for all
assigned Node Numbers. See Section 3.2.
The Node Number is a shared identifier assigned to all ipn URIs for
resources co-located on a single node. See Section 3.3.
The Service Number is an identifier to distinguish between resources
on a given node. See Section 3.5.
The combination of these three components guarantees that every
correctly constructed ipn URI uniquely identifies a single resource.
Additionally, the combination of the Allocator Identifier and the
Node Number provides a mechanism to uniquely identify the node on
which a particular resource is expected to exist. See Section 3.3.1.
3.1. The Null ipn URI
It has been found that there is value in defining a unique Null ipn
URI to indicate "nowhere". This ipn URI is termed the "Null ipn URI"
and has all three components (the Allocator Identifier, Node Number,
and Service Number) set to the value zero (0). No resource
identified by the Null ipn URI exists, and any destination identified
by such a resource is therefore by definition unreachable.
3.2. Allocator Identifiers
An Allocator is any organization that wishes to assign Node Numbers
for use with the 'ipn' URI scheme and has the facilities and
governance to manage a public registry of assigned Node Numbers. The
authorization to assign these numbers is provided through the
assignment of an Allocator Identifier by IANA. Regardless of other
attributes of an Allocator (such as a name, point of contact, or
other identifying information), Allocators are identified by
Allocator Identifiers: unique, unsigned integers in the range 0 to
2^(32-1).
The Allocator Identifier MUST be the sole mechanism used to identify
the Allocator that has assigned the Node Number in an ipn URI. An
Allocator may have multiple assigned Allocator Identifiers, but a
given Allocator Identifier MUST only be associated with a single
Allocator.
A new IANA registry, "'ipn' Scheme URI Allocator Identifiers", is
defined for the registration of Allocator Identifiers; see
Section 9.1. Although the uniqueness of Allocator Identifiers is
required to enforce the uniqueness of ipn URIs, some identifiers are
explicitly reserved for experimentation or future use.
Each Allocator assigns Node Numbers according to its own policies,
without risk of creating an identical ipn URI, as permitted by the
rules in Section 3.3. Other than ensuring that any Node Numbers it
allocates are unique amongst all Node Numbers it assigns, an
Allocator does not need to coordinate its allocations with other
Allocators.
If a system does not require interoperable deployment of 'ipn' scheme
URIs, then the Private Use Node Numbers range (Section 3.4.3),
reserved by the Default Allocator (Section 3.2.2) for this purpose,
is to be used.
3.2.1. Allocator Identifier Ranges
Some organizations with internal hierarchies may wish to delegate the
allocation of Node Numbers to one or more of their sub-organizations.
Rather than assigning unique Allocator Identifiers to each sub-
organization on a first-come, first-served basis, there are
operational benefits in assigning Allocator Identifiers to such an
organization in a structured way. This allows an external observer
to detect that a group of Allocator Identifiers is organizationally
associated.
An Allocator Identifier range is a set of consecutive Allocator
Identifiers associated with the same Allocator. Each individual
Allocator Identifier in a given range SHOULD be assigned to a
distinct sub-organization of the Allocator. Assigning identifiers in
this way allows external observers to both associate individual
Allocator Identifiers with a single organization and usefully
differentiate amongst sub-organizations.
The practice of associating a consecutive range of numbers with a
single organization is inspired by the Classless Inter-Domain Routing
(CIDR) assignment of Internet addresses described in [RFC4632]. In
that assignment scheme, an organization (such as an Internet Service
Provider (ISP)) is assigned a network prefix such that all addresses
sharing that same prefix are considered to be associated with that
organization.
Each Allocator Identifier range is identified by the first Allocator
Identifier in the range and the number of consecutive identifiers in
the range.
Allocator Identifier ranges differ from CIDR addresses in two
important ways:
1. Allocator Identifiers are used to identify organizations and are
not, themselves, addresses.
2. Allocator Identifiers may be less than 32 bits in length.
In order to differentiate between Allocator Identifier ranges using
efficient bitwise operations, all ranges MUST be of a size S that is
a power of 2, and for a given range of length N bits, with S = 2^N,
the least-significant N bits of the first Allocator Identifier MUST
be all 0.
An example of the use of Allocator Identifier ranges for four
organizations (A, B, C, and D) is as follows:
+==============+=============+=============+=====================+
| Organization | Range (dec) | Range (hex) | Range Length (Bits) |
+==============+=============+=============+=====================+
| Org A | 974848 .. | 0xEE000 .. | 7 bits |
| | 974975 | 0xEE07F | |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Org B | 974976 .. | 0xEE080 .. | 4 bits |
| | 974991 | 0xEE08F | |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Org C | 974992 .. | 0xEE090 .. | 1 bit |
| | 974993 | 0xEE091 | |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Org D | 974994 | 0xEE092 | 0 bits |
+--------------+-------------+-------------+---------------------+
Table 1: Allocator Identifier Range Assignment Example
With these assignments, any Allocator Identifier whose most-
significant 25 bits match 0xEE000 belong to organization A.
Similarly, any Allocator Identifier whose most-significant 28 bits
match 0xEE080 belong to organization B, and any Allocator Identifier
whose most-significant 31 bits are 0xEE090 belong to organization C.
Organization D has a single Allocator Identifier, and hence a range
of bit-length 0.
3.2.2. The Default Allocator
As of the publication of [RFC7116], the only organization permitted
to assign Node Numbers was the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
(IANA), which assigned Node Numbers via the "CBHE Node Numbers"
registry. This means that all ipn URIs created prior to the addition
of Allocator Identifiers are assumed to have Node Number allocations
that comply with the "CBHE Node Numbers" registry.
The presumption that Node Numbers are allocated by IANA from a
specific registry, unless otherwise specified, is formalized in this
update to the 'ipn' URI scheme by designating IANA as the Default
Allocator and by assigning the Allocator Identifier zero (0) in the
"'ipn' Scheme URI Allocator Identifiers" registry (Section 9.1) to
the Default Allocator. In any case where an encoded ipn URI does not
explicitly include an Allocator Identifier, an implementation MUST
assume that the Node Number has been allocated by the Default
Allocator.
A new IANA registry, "'ipn' Scheme URI Default Allocator Node
Numbers", is defined to control the allocation of Node Number values
by the Default Allocator. This new registry inherits behaviors and
existing assignments from the "CBHE Node Numbers" registry, and it
reserves some other values as defined in Section 3.4 below.
3.3. Node Numbers
A Node Number identifies a node that hosts a resource in the context
of an Allocator. A Node Number is an unsigned integer. A single
Node Number assigned by a single Allocator MUST refer to a single
node.
All Node Number assignments, by all Allocators, MUST be in the range
0 to 2^(32-1).
It is RECOMMENDED that Node Number zero (0) not be assigned by an
Allocator to avoid confusion with the Null ipn URI (Section 3.1).
3.3.1. Fully Qualified Node Numbers
One of the advantages of ipn URIs is the ability to easily split the
identity of a particular service from the node upon which the service
exists. For example, a message received from one particular ipn URI
may require a response to be sent to a different service on the same
node that sent the original message. Historically, the identifier of
the sending node has been colloquially referred to as the "node
number" or "node identifier".
To avoid future confusion, when referring to the identifier of a
particular node, the term "Fully Qualified Node Number" (FQNN) MUST
be used to refer to the combination of the Node Number component and
Allocator Identifier component of an ipn URI that uniquely identifies
a particular node. In other words, an FQNN is the unique identifier
of a particular node that supports services identified by ipn URIs.
In the examples in this document, FQNNs are written as (Allocator
Identifier, Node Number). For example, (977000,100) is the FQNN for
a node assigned Node Number 100 by an Allocator with Allocator
Identifier 977000.
3.4. Special Node Numbers
Some special-case Node Numbers are defined by the Default Allocator;
see Section 9.2.
3.4.1. The Zero Node Number
The Default Allocator assigns the use of Node Number zero (0) solely
for identifying the Null ipn URI (Section 3.1).
This means that any ipn URI with a zero (0) Allocator Identifier and
a zero (0) Node Number, but a non-zero Service Number component, is
invalid. Such ipn URIs MUST NOT be composed, and processors of such
ipn URIs MUST consider them as the Null ipn URI.
3.4.2. LocalNode ipn URIs
The Default Allocator reserves Node Number 2^(32-1) (0xFFFFFFFFF) to
specify resources on the local node, rather than on any specific
individual node.
This means that any ipn URI with a zero (0) Allocator Identifier and
a Node Number of 2^(32-1) refers to a service on the local bundle
node. This form of ipn URI is termed a "LocalNode ipn URI".
3.4.3. Private Use Node Numbers
The Default Allocator provides a range of Node Numbers that are
reserved for Private Use, as defined in [RFC8126].
Any ipn URI with a zero (0) Allocator Identifier and a Node Number
reserved for Private Use is not guaranteed to be unique beyond a
single administrative domain. An administrative domain, as used
here, is defined as the set of nodes that share a unique allocation
of FQNNs from the Private Use range. These FQNNs can be considered
to be functionally similar to private address space IPv4 addresses,
as defined in [RFC1918].
Because of this lack of uniqueness, any implementation of a protocol
using ipn URIs that resides on the border between administrative
domains MUST have suitable mechanisms in place to prevent protocol
units using such Private Use Node Numbers to cross between different
administrative domains.
3.5. Service Numbers
A Service Number is an unsigned integer that identifies a particular
service operating on a node. A service in this case is some logical
function that requires its own resource identifier to distinguish it
from other functions operating on the same node.
4. Textual Representation of ipn URIs
All 'ipn' scheme URIs comply with [RFC3986] and are therefore
represented by a scheme identifier and a scheme-specific part. The
scheme identifier is ipn, and the scheme-specific parts are
represented as a sequence of numeric components separated with the
'.' character. A formal definition is provided below (see
Section 4.1) and can be informally considered as:
ipn:[<allocator-identifier>.]<node-number>.<service-number>
To keep the text representation concise, the following rules apply:
1. All leading '0' characters MUST be omitted. A single '0' is
valid.
2. If the Allocator Identifier is zero (0), then the <allocator-
identifier> and '.' MAY be omitted.
3. If the Allocator Identifier is zero (0), and the Node Number is
2^(32-1) (i.e., the URI is a LocalNode ipn URI (Section 3.4.2)),
then the character '!' SHOULD be used instead of the digits
4294967295, although both forms are valid encodings.
Examples of the textual representation of ipn URIs can be found in
Appendix A.
4.1. 'ipn' URI Scheme Text Syntax
The text syntax of an ipn URI MUST comply with the following ABNF
syntax from [RFC5234] and repeats the core ABNF syntax rule for DIGIT
defined by that specification:
ipn-uri = "ipn:" ipn-hier-part
ipn-hier-part = fqnn "." service-number
fqnn = "!" / allocator-part
allocator-part = [allocator-identifier "."] node-number
allocator-identifier = number
node-number = number
service-number = number
number = "0" / non-zero-number
non-zero-number = (%x31-39 *DIGIT)
DIGIT = %x30-39
5. Usage of ipn URIs with BPv7
From the earliest days of experimentation with the Bundle Protocol,
there has been a need to identify the source and destination of a
bundle. The IRTF BPv6 experimental specification [RFC5050] termed
the logical source or destination of a bundle as an "Endpoint"
identified by an "Endpoint Identifier" (EID). BPv6 EIDs are
formatted as URIs. This definition and representation of EIDs was
carried forward from the IRTF BPv6 specification [RFC5050] to the
IETF BPv7 specification [RFC9171]. [RFC9171] additionally defined an
IANA registry called the "Bundle Protocol URI Scheme Types" registry,
which identifies those URI schemes that might be used to represent
EIDs. The 'ipn' URI scheme is one such URI scheme.
This section identifies the behavior and interpretation of 'ipn'
scheme URIs that MUST be followed when using this URI scheme to
represent EIDs in BPv7. An ipn URI used as a BPv7 or BPv6 EID is
termed an "ipn EID".
5.1. Uniqueness Constraints
An ipn EID MUST identify a singleton endpoint. The bundle processing
node that is the sole member of that endpoint MUST be the node
identified by the FQNN (Section 3.3.1) of the node.
A single bundle processing node MAY have multiple ipn EIDs associated
with it. However, all ipn EIDs that share any single FQNN MUST refer
to the same bundle processing node.
For example, ipn:977000.100.1, ipn:977000.100.2, and ipn:977000.100.3
MUST all refer to services registered on the bundle processing node
identified with FQNN (977000,100). None of these EIDs could be
registered on any other bundle processing node.
5.2. The Null Endpoint
Section 3.2 of [RFC9171] defines the concept of the Null endpoint,
which is an endpoint that has no members and is identified by a
special Null EID.
Within the 'ipn' URI scheme, the Null EID is represented by the Null
ipn URI (Section 3.1). This means that the URIs dtn:none
(Section 4.2.5.1.1 of [RFC9171]), ipn:0.0, and ipn:0.0.0 all refer to
the BPv7 Null endpoint.
5.3. BPv7 Node ID
Section 4.2.5.2 of [RFC9171] introduces the concept of a "Node ID"
that has the same format as an EID and uniquely identifies a bundle
processing node.
Any ipn EID can serve as a "Node ID" for the bundle processing node
identified by its FQNN (Section 3.3.1). That is, any ipn EID of the
form ipn:A.B.C may be used as the Source Node ID of any bundle
created by the bundle processing node identified by the FQNN (A,B).
5.4. LocalNode ipn EIDs
When a LocalNode ipn URI (Section 3.4.2) is used as a BPv6 or BPv7
EID, it is termed a "LocalNode ipn EID".
Because a LocalNode ipn EID only has meaning on the local bundle
node, any such EID MUST be considered non-routable. This means that
any bundle using a LocalNode ipn EID as a bundle source or bundle
destination MUST NOT be allowed to leave the local node. Equally,
all externally received bundles featuring LocalNode EIDs as a bundle
source or bundle destination MUST be discarded as invalid.
LocalNode ipn EIDs MUST NOT be present in any other part of a bundle
that is transmitted off of the local node. For example, a LocalNode
ipn EID MUST NOT be used as a Bundle Protocol Security (BPSec)
[RFC9172] security source for a bundle transmitted from the local
bundle node, because such a source EID would have no meaning at a
downstream bundle node.
LocalNode ipn EIDs MUST NOT be published in any node identification
directory (such as a DNS registration) or presented as part of
dynamic peer discovery, as the EID has no valid meaning for other
nodes. For example, a LocalNode ipn EID MUST NOT be advertised as
the peer Node ID during session negotiation in [RFC9174].
5.5. Private Use ipn EIDs
Bundles destined for EIDs that use an ipn URI with an FQNN
(Section 3.3.1) that is within the Private Use range of the Default
Allocator (Section 3.2.2) are not universally unique; therefore, they
are only valid within the scope of the current administrative domain.
This means that any bundle using a Private Use ipn EID as a bundle
source or bundle destination MUST NOT be allowed to cross
administrative domains. All implementations that could be deployed
as a gateway between administrative domains MUST be sufficiently
configurable to ensure that this is enforced, and operators MUST
ensure correct configuration.
Private Use ipn EIDs MUST NOT be present in any other part of a
bundle that is destined for another administrative domain when the
lack of uniqueness prevents correct operation. For example, a
Private Use ipn EID MUST NOT be used as a BPSec [RFC9172] security
source for a bundle when the bundle is destined for a different
administrative domain.
5.6. Well-Known Service Numbers
It is convenient for BPv7 services that have a public specification
and wide adoption to be identified by a pre-agreed default Service
Number, so that unless overridden by explicit configuration, such
services can be sensibly assumed to be operating on the well-known
Service Number on a particular node.
If a different service uses the number, or the service uses a
different number, BPv7 will continue to operate, but some
configuration may be required to make the individual service
operational.
A new IANA registry, "'ipn' Scheme URI Well-Known Service Numbers for
BPv7", is defined for the registration of well-known BPv7 Service
Numbers; see Section 9.3. This registry records the assignments of
Service Numbers for well-known services and also explicitly reserves
ranges for both experimentation and Private Use.
5.7. Administrative Endpoints
The service identified by a Service Number of zero (0) MUST be
interpreted as the Administrative Endpoint of the node, as defined in
Section 3.2 of [RFC9171].
Non-zero Service Numbers MUST NOT be used to identify the
Administrative Endpoint of a bundle node in an ipn EID.
6. CBOR Representation of ipn URIs with BPv7
Section 4.2.5.1 of [RFC9171] requires that any URI scheme used to
represent BPv7 EIDs MUST define how the scheme-specific part of the
URI scheme is encoded with Concise Binary Object Representation
(CBOR) [RFC8949]. To meet this requirement, this section describes
the CBOR encoding and decoding approach for ipn EIDs. The formal
definition of the CBOR representation is specified; see Section 6.3.
6.1. ipn EID CBOR Encoding
Generic URI approaches to encoding ipn EIDs are unlikely to be
efficient because they do not consider the underlying structure of
the 'ipn' URI scheme. Since the creation of the 'ipn' URI scheme was
motivated by the need for concise identification and rapid
processing, the encoding of ipn EIDs maintains these properties.
Fundamentally, ipn EIDs from [RFC9171] are represented as a sequence
of identifiers. In the text syntax, the numbers are separated with
the '.' delimiter; in CBOR, this ordered series of numbers can be
represented by an array. Therefore, when encoding ipn EIDs for use
with BPv7, the scheme-specific part of an ipn URI MUST be represented
as a CBOR array of either two (2) or three (3) elements. Each
element of the array MUST be encoded as a single CBOR unsigned
integer.
The structure and mechanisms of the two-element and three-element
encodings are described below, and examples of the different
encodings are provided in Appendix B.
6.1.1. Two-Element Scheme-Specific Encoding
In the two-element scheme-specific encoding of an ipn EID, the first
element of the array is an encoding of the FQNN (Section 3.3.1), and
the second element of the array is the ipn EID Service Number.
The FQNN encoding MUST be a 64-bit unsigned integer constructed in
the following way:
1. The least significant 32 bits MUST represent the Node Number
associated with the ipn EID.
2. The most significant 32 bits MUST represent the Allocator
Identifier associated with the ipn EID.
For example, the ipn EID of ipn:977000.100.1 has an FQNN of
(977000,100), which would be encoded as 0xEE868_00000064. The
resulting two-element array [0xEE868_00000064, 0x01] would be encoded
in CBOR as the following 11-octet sequence:
82 # 2-Element Endpoint Encoding
02 # uri-code: 2 ('ipn' URI scheme)
82 # 2-Element ipn EID encoding
1B 000EE86800000064 # Fully Qualified Node Number
01 # Service Number
The two-element scheme-specific encoding provides backwards
compatibility with the encoding provided in Section 4.2.5.1.2 of
[RFC9171]. When used in this way, the encoding of the FQNN replaces
the use of the Node Number that was specified in [RFC9171]. When the
Node Number is allocated by the Default Allocator (Section 3.2.2),
the encoding of the FQNN and the encoding of the Node Number from
[RFC9171] are identical.
6.1.2. Three-Element Scheme-Specific Encoding
In the three-element scheme-specific encoding of an ipn EID:
1. the first element of the array is the Allocator Identifier,
2. the second element of the array is the Node Number, and
3. the third element of the array is the Service Number.
For example, the ipn EID of ipn:977000.100.1 would result in the
three-element array of [977000,100,1], which would be encoded in CBOR
as the following 9-octet sequence:
82 # 2-Element Endpoint Encoding
02 # uri-code: 2 ('ipn' URI scheme)
83 # 3-Element ipn EID encoding
1A 000EE868 # Allocator Identifier
64 # Node Number
01 # Service Number
The three-element scheme-specific encoding allows for a more
efficient representation of ipn EIDs using smaller Allocator
Identifiers, and implementations are RECOMMENDED to use this encoding
scheme unless explicitly mitigating for interoperability issues; see
Section 7.1.
When encoding an ipn EID using the Default Allocator (Section 3.2.2)
with this encoding scheme, the first element of the array is the
value zero (0). In this case, using the equivalent two-element
scheme-specific encoding (Section 6.1.1) will result in a more
concise CBOR representation; therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that
implementations use that encoding instead.
6.2. ipn EID CBOR Decoding
The presence of different scheme-specific encodings does not
introduce any decoding ambiguity.
An ipn EID CBOR decoder can reconstruct an ipn EID using the
following logic. In this description, the term enc_eid refers to the
CBOR-encoded ipn EID, and the term ipn_eid refers to the decoded ipn
EID.
if enc_eid.len() == 3
{
ipn_eid.allocator_identifier := enc_eid[0];
ipn_eid.node_number := enc_eid[1];
ipn_eid.service_number := enc_eid[2];
}
else if enc_eid.len() == 2
{
ipn_eid.allocator_identifier := enc_eid[0] >> 32;
ipn_eid.node_number := enc_eid[0] & (2^(32-1));
ipn_eid.service_number := enc_eid[1];
}
6.3. 'ipn' URI Scheme CBOR Syntax
When encoded in CBOR [RFC8949], a BPv7 endpoint identified by an ipn
URI MUST comply with the following Concise Data Definition Language
(CDDL) [RFC8610] specification:
eid = $eid .within eid-structure
eid-structure = [
uri-code: uint,
SSP: any
]
; ... Syntax for other uri-code values defined in RFC 9171 ...
$eid /= [
uri-code: 2,
SSP: ipn-ssp2 / ipn-ssp3
]
ipn-ssp2 = [
fqnn: uint, ; packed value
service-number: uint
]
ipn-ssp3 = [
allocator-identifier: uint .lt 4294967296,
node-number: uint .lt 4294967296,
service-number: uint
]
Note: The node-number component will be the numeric representation of
the concatenation of the Allocator Identifier and Node Number when
the two-element encoding scheme has been used.
6.4. ipn EID Matching
Regardless of whether the two-element or three-element scheme-
specific encoding is used, ipn EID matching MUST be performed on the
decoded EID information itself. Different encodings of the same ipn
EID MUST be treated as equivalent when performing EID-specific
functions.
For example, the ipn EID of ipn:977000.100.1 can be represented as
either the two-element encoding of 0x821B000EE8680000006401 or the
three-element encoding of 0x831A000EE868186401. While message
integrity and other syntax-based checks may treat these values
differently, any EID-based comparisons MUST treat these values the
same: as representing the ipn EID ipn:977000.100.1.
7. Special Considerations
The 'ipn' URI scheme provides a compact and hierarchical mechanism
for identifying services on network nodes. There is a significant
amount of utility in the 'ipn' URI scheme approach to identification.
However, implementers should take into consideration the following
observations on the use of the 'ipn' URI scheme, particularly in
regard to interoperability with implementations that pre-date this
specification.
7.1. Scheme Compatibility
The 'ipn' URI scheme update that has been presented in this document
preserves backwards compatibility with any 'ipn' URI scheme going
back to the provisional definition of the 'ipn' scheme in the
experimental specification "Compressed Bundle Header Encoding (CBHE)"
[RFC6260] in 2011. This means that any ipn URI that was valid prior
to the publication of this update remains a valid ipn URI.
Similarly, the two-element scheme-specific encoding (Section 6.1.1)
is also backwards compatible with the encoding of ipn URIs provided
in [RFC9171]. Any existing implementation compliant with [RFC9171]
will produce an ipn URI encoding in compliance with this
specification.
The introduction of optional non-default Allocator Identifiers and a
three-element scheme-specific encoding does not make this ipn URI
scheme update forwards compatible. Existing implementations for
which support of this update is desired MUST be updated to be able to
process non-default Allocator Identifiers and three-element scheme-
specific encodings. It is RECOMMENDED that BPv7 implementations
upgrade to process these new features to benefit from the scalability
provided by Allocator Identifiers and the encoding efficiencies
provided by the three-element encoding.
7.2. CBOR Representation Interoperability
Care must be taken when deploying implementations that default to
using the three-element encoding in networks that include
implementations that only support the two-element encoding [RFC9171].
Because the existing implementations will reject bundles that use the
three-element encoding as malformed, correct forwarding of
semantically valid bundles will fail. The used mitigation for this
issue depends on the nature of the interoperability required by the
deployment. Techniques can include:
* A configuration option indicating when an implementation must use
the two-element encoding for all ipn EIDs when processing bundles
destined to a given endpoint. This would be suitable when adding
a newer implementation to a network of existing implementations.
* Selective bundle encapsulation, whereby bundles that are known to
originate from implementations that do not support the three-
element encoding are tunneled across regions of the network that
require the three-element encoding. This would utilize specially
configured "gateway nodes" to perform the tunnel encapsulation and
decapsulation and would be suitable when joining an existing
network to a larger network.
Techniques that do not mitigate the problem include:
* Heuristic determination of the correct encoding to use when
responding to a bundle by examining the incoming bundle. It is
not possible to determine whether the two-element encoding is
required by the destination when composing a new bundle in
response to the receipt of a bundle, such as a status report,
because ipn EIDs assigned by the Default Allocator use the two-
element encoding, whether or not the implementation supports the
three-element encoding.
* Transcoding bundles at intermediate nodes. [RFC9171] requires the
bundle primary block to be immutable, and even if ipn EIDs in the
primary block do not require rewriting, other blocks including the
payload block may include ipn EIDs of which the transcoding node
is unaware. Additionally, bundle blocks may be covered by bundle
security blocks or bundle integrity blocks [RFC9172], making them
immutable.
7.3. Text Representation Compatibility
The textual representation of ipn URIs is not forwards compatible
with [RFC9171]. Therefore, care must be taken when deploying
implementations or tooling that use the textural representation of
ipn URIs and support for non-default Allocator Identifiers is
required. For example, Section 4.6 of [RFC9174] specifies that the
session initialization message "...SHALL contain the UTF-8 encoded
node ID of the entity that sent the SESS_INIT message." In such
cases, the considerations that apply to the use of the three-element
CBOR encoding also apply to the text representation when a non-
default Allocator Identifier is present.
7.4. Bundle Protocol Version 6 Compatibility
This document updates the use of ipn EIDs for BPv7; however, the
'ipn' URI scheme was originally defined for use with BPv6. This
document does not update any of the behaviors, wire-formats, or
mechanisms of BPv6. Therefore, ipn EIDs with non-default Allocator
Identifiers MUST NOT be used with BPv6, and the Allocator Identifier
prefix MUST be omitted from any textural representation. It should
be noted that BPv6 has no concept of LocalNode EIDs and will
therefore treat such EIDs as routable.
7.5. Late Binding
[RFC9171] mandates the concept of the "late binding" of an EID,
whereby the address of the destination of a bundle is resolved from
its identifier hop-by-hop as it transits a BPv7 network. This per-
hop binding of identifiers to addresses underlines the fact that EIDs
are purely names and should not carry any implicit or explicit
information concerning the current location or reachability of an
identified node and service. This removes the need to rename a node
as its location changes.
The concept of late binding is preserved in this 'ipn' URI scheme.
Elements of an ipn URI MUST NOT be regarded as carrying information
relating to location, reachability, or other addressing/routing
concerns.
An example of incorrect behavior would be to assume that a given
Allocator assigns Node Numbers derived from link-layer addresses and
to interpret the Node Number component of an ipn URI directly as a
link-layer address. No matter the mechanism an Allocator uses for
the assignment of Node Numbers, they remain just numbers, without
additional meaning.
8. Security Considerations
This section updates the security considerations from
Section 4.2.5.1.2 of [RFC9171] to account for the inclusion of
Allocator Identifiers in the 'ipn' URI scheme when used with BPv7.
8.1. Reliability and Consistency
None of the BPv7 endpoints identified by ipn EIDs are guaranteed to
be reachable at any time, and the identity of the processing entities
operating on those endpoints is never guaranteed by the Bundle
Protocol itself. Verification of the signature provided by the Block
Integrity Block (BIB) targeting the bundle's primary block, as
defined by "Bundle Protocol Security (BPSec)" [RFC9172], is required
for this purpose.
8.2. Malicious Construction
Malicious construction of a conformant ipn URI is limited to the
malicious selection of Allocator Identifiers, Node Numbers, and
Service Numbers. That is, a maliciously constructed ipn EID could be
used to direct a bundle to an endpoint that might be damaged by the
arrival of that bundle or, alternatively, to declare a false source
for a bundle and thereby cause incorrect processing at a node that
receives the bundle. In both cases (and indeed in all bundle
processing), the node that receives a bundle should verify its
authenticity and validity before operating on it in any way, such as
with the use of BPSec [RFC9172] and TCP Convergence Layer version 4
(TCPCLv4) with TLS [RFC9174].
8.3. Back-End Transcoding
The limited expressiveness of URIs of the 'ipn' scheme effectively
eliminates the possibility of threats due to errors in back-end
transcoding.
8.4. Local and Private Use ipn EIDs
Both LocalNode (Section 3.4.2) and Private Use (Section 3.4.3) ipn
URIs present a risk to the stability of deployed BPv7 networks. If
either type of ipn URI is allowed to propagate beyond the domain in
which they are valid, then the required uniqueness of ipn URIs no
longer holds, and this fact can be abused by a malicious node to
prevent the correct functioning of the network as a whole.
See Sections 5.4 and 5.5 for required behaviors to mitigate against
this form of abuse.
8.5. Sensitive Information
Because ipn URIs are used only to represent the numeric identities of
resources, the risk of disclosure of sensitive information due to
interception of these URIs is minimal. Examination of ipn URIs could
be used to support traffic analysis; where traffic analysis is a
plausible danger, bundles should be conveyed by secure convergence-
layer protocols that do not expose endpoint IDs, such as TCPCLv4
[RFC9174].
8.6. Semantic Attacks
The simplicity of the 'ipn' URI scheme syntax minimizes the
possibility of misinterpretation of a URI by a human user.
9. IANA Considerations
The following sections detail the creation of two new IANA registries
and the renaming of an existing IANA registry under the "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI) Schemes" registry group.
IANA has also updated the reference for the 'ipn' scheme to this
document in the "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Schemes" registry.
9.1. 'ipn' Scheme URI Allocator Identifiers Registry
IANA has created a new registry titled "'ipn' Scheme URI Allocator
Identifiers". Using terms defined in [RFC8126], the registration
procedures for this registry are:
+========================+==============+==================+
| Range | Registration | Note |
| | Procedures | |
+========================+==============+==================+
| 0..0xFFFF | Expert | Single Allocator |
| | Review | Identifiers only |
+------------------------+--------------+------------------+
| 0x10000..0x3FFFFFFF | Expert | |
| | Review | |
+------------------------+--------------+------------------+
| 0x40000000..0x7FFFFFFF | Experimental | |
| | Use | |
+------------------------+--------------+------------------+
| 0x80000000..0xFFFFFFFF | Reserved | Future Expansion |
+------------------------+--------------+------------------+
| >=0x100000000 | Reserved | |
+------------------------+--------------+------------------+
Table 2: Registration Procedures for the 'ipn' Scheme
URI Allocator Identifiers Registry
Each entry in this registry associates one or more Allocator
Identifiers with a single organization. Within the registry, the
organization is identified using the "Name" and "Change Controller"
fields. It is expected that each identified organization will
publish some listing of allocated Node Numbers, the pointer to which
is listed in the "Reference" field of the registry.
Note that the "Single Allocator Identifiers only" language in the
registration procedure for this registry indicates that, within the
indicated range, the allocation of a sequence of consecutive
Allocator Identifiers to a single organization is prohibited.
The initial values in the registry are:
+=========+=============+===============+======+=========+==========+
|Name |Range (dec) |Range (hex) |Range |Reference|Change |
| | | |Length| |Controller|
| | | |(Bits)| | |
+=========+=============+===============+======+=========+==========+
|Default |0 |0x0 |0 |RFC 9758,|IETF |
|Allocator| | | |Section | |
| | | | |3.2.2 | |
+---------+-------------+---------------+------+---------+----------+
|Example |974848-978943|0xEE000-0xEEFFF|12 |RFC 9758 |IETF |
|Range | | |bits | | |
+---------+-------------+---------------+------+---------+----------+
Table 3: Initial Values in the 'ipn' Scheme URI Allocator
Identifiers Registry
The "Example Range" is assigned for use in examples in documentation
and sample code.
9.1.1. Guidance for Designated Experts
Due to the nature of the CBOR encoding of unsigned integers used for
Allocator Identifiers with BPv7, Allocator Identifiers with a low
value number are encoded more efficiently than larger numbers. This
makes low value Allocator Identifiers more desirable than larger
Allocator Identifiers; therefore, care must be taken when assigning
Allocator Identifier ranges to ensure that a single applicant is not
granted a large swathe of highly desirable numbers at the expense of
other applicants. To this end, designated experts are strongly
recommended to familiarize themselves with the CBOR encoding of
unsigned integers in [RFC8949].
9.2. 'ipn' Scheme URI Default Allocator Node Numbers Registry
IANA has renamed the "CBHE Node Numbers" registry (defined in
Section 3.2.1 of [RFC7116]) to the "'ipn' Scheme URI Default
Allocator Node Numbers" registry and moved it to the "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI) Schemes" registry group. IANA has added
the following note to the "CBHE Node Numbers" registry:
| Note: Renamed "CBHE Node Numbers" as "'ipn' Scheme URI Default
| Allocator Node Numbers" and moved it to
| <https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes> per RFC 9758.
Using terms defined in [RFC8126], the registration procedures for
this registry are:
+====================+=========================+
| Range | Registration Procedures |
+====================+=========================+
| 1..0x3FFF | Private Use |
+--------------------+-------------------------+
| 0x4000..0xFFFFFFFE | Expert Review |
+--------------------+-------------------------+
| >=0x100000000 | Invalid |
+--------------------+-------------------------+
Table 4: Registration Procedures for the
'ipn' Scheme URI Default Allocator Node
Numbers Registry
IANA has registered the following values in the "'ipn' Scheme URI
Default Allocator Node Numbers" registry:
+============+===============================+===================+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+============+===============================+===================+
| 0 | Reserved for the Null ipn URI | [RFC7116] and RFC |
| | | 9758, Section 3.1 |
+------------+-------------------------------+-------------------+
| 4294967295 | Reserved for LocalNode ipn | RFC 9758, |
| | URIs | Section 3.4.2 |
+------------+-------------------------------+-------------------+
Table 5: New Values in the 'ipn' Scheme URI Default Allocator
Node Numbers Registry
As IANA has only renamed the registry, all existing registrations
will remain.
9.3. 'ipn' Scheme URI Well-Known Service Numbers for BPv7 Registry
IANA has created a new registry titled "'ipn' Scheme URI Well-Known
Service Numbers for BPv7". Using terms defined in [RFC8126], the
registration procedures for this registry are:
+=====================+===============================+
| Range | Registration Procedures |
+=====================+===============================+
| 1..127 | Private Use |
+---------------------+-------------------------------+
| 128..255 | Standards Action |
+---------------------+-------------------------------+
| 0x0100..0x7FFF | Private Use |
+---------------------+-------------------------------+
| 0x8000..0xFFFF | Specification Required |
+---------------------+-------------------------------+
| 0x10000..0xFFFFFFFF | Private Use |
+---------------------+-------------------------------+
| >=0x100000000 | Reserved for future expansion |
+---------------------+-------------------------------+
Table 6: Registration Procedures for the 'ipn'
Scheme URI Well-Known Service Numbers for BPv7
Registry
The initial values in the registry are:
+================+=============================+===================+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+================+=============================+===================+
| 0 | The Administrative Endpoint | [RFC9171] and RFC |
| | | 9758, Section 5.7 |
+----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------+
| 0xEEE0..0xEEEF | Example Range | RFC 9758 |
+----------------+-----------------------------+-------------------+
Table 7: Initial Values in the 'ipn' Scheme URI Well-Known
Service Numbers for BPv7 Registry
The "Example Range" is assigned for use in examples in documentation
and sample code.
9.3.1. Guidance for Designated Experts
This registry is intended to record the default Service Numbers for
well-known, interoperable services that are available and of use to
the entire BPv7 community; hence, all ranges not marked for Private
Use MUST have a corresponding publicly available specification
describing how one interfaces with the service.
Services that are specific to a particular deployment or co-operation
may require a registry to reduce administrative burden, but do not
require an entry in this registry.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[RFC6260] Burleigh, S., "Compressed Bundle Header Encoding (CBHE)",
RFC 6260, DOI 10.17487/RFC6260, May 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6260>.
[RFC7116] Scott, K. and M. Blanchet, "Licklider Transmission
Protocol (LTP), Compressed Bundle Header Encoding (CBHE),
and Bundle Protocol IANA Registries", RFC 7116,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7116, February 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7116>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8610] Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data
Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to
Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and
JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC8610,
June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8610>.
[RFC8949] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8949>.
[RFC9171] Burleigh, S., Fall, K., and E. Birrane, III, "Bundle
Protocol Version 7", RFC 9171, DOI 10.17487/RFC9171,
January 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9171>.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.
J., and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private
Internets", BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918,
February 1996, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
(CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, DOI 10.17487/RFC4632, August
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4632>.
[RFC5050] Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, "Bundle Protocol
Specification", RFC 5050, DOI 10.17487/RFC5050, November
2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5050>.
[RFC9172] Birrane, III, E. and K. McKeever, "Bundle Protocol
Security (BPSec)", RFC 9172, DOI 10.17487/RFC9172, January
2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9172>.
[RFC9174] Sipos, B., Demmer, M., Ott, J., and S. Perreault, "Delay-
Tolerant Networking TCP Convergence-Layer Protocol Version
4", RFC 9174, DOI 10.17487/RFC9174, January 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9174>.
Appendix A. 'ipn' URI Scheme Text Representation Examples
This section provides some example ipn URIs in their textual
representation.
A.1. Using the Default Allocator
Consider the ipn URI identifying Service Number 2 on Node Number 1
allocated by the Default Allocator (0) (Section 3.2.2).
The recommended seven-character representation of this URI would be
as follows:
ipn:1.2
The nine-character representation of this URI, with the explicit
Allocator Identifier, would be as follows:
ipn:0.1.2
A.2. Using a Non-Default Allocator
Consider the ipn URI identifying Service Number 3 on Node Number 1
allocated by Allocator 977000.
The 14-character representation of this URI would be as follows:
ipn:977000.1.3
A.3. The Null ipn URI
The Null ipn URI (Section 3.1) is represented as:
ipn:0.0
A.4. The LocalNode ipn URI
Consider the ipn URI identifying Service Number 7 on the local node.
The recommended seven-character representation of this URI would be
as follows:
ipn:!.7
The numeric 16-character representation of this URI would be as
follows:
ipn:4294967295.7
Appendix B. 'ipn' URI Scheme CBOR Encoding Examples
This section provides some example CBOR encodings of ipn EIDs.
B.1. Using the Default Allocator
Consider the ipn EID ipn:1.1. This textual representation of an ipn
EID identifies Service Number 1 on Node Number 1 allocated by the
Default Allocator (0) (Section 3.2.2).
The recommended five-octet encoding of this EID using the two-element
scheme-specific encoding would be as follows:
82 # 2-Element Endpoint Encoding
02 # uri-code: 2 ('ipn' URI scheme)
82 # 2-Element ipn EID encoding
01 # Node Number
01 # Service Number
The six-octet encoding of this EID using the three-element scheme-
specific encoding would be as follows:
82 # 2-Element Endpoint Encoding
02 # uri-code: 2 ('ipn' URI scheme)
83 # 3-Element ipn EID encoding
00 # Default Allocator
01 # Node Number
01 # Service Number
B.2. Using a Non-Default Allocator
Consider the ipn EID ipn:977000.1.1. This textual representation of
an ipn EID identifies Service Number 1 on Node Number 1 allocated by
Allocator 977000.
The recommended 10-octet encoding of this EID using the three-element
scheme-specific encoding would be as follows:
82 # 2-Element Endpoint Encoding
02 # uri-code: 2 ('ipn' URI scheme)
83 # 3-Element ipn EID encoding
1A 000EE868 # Allocator Identifier
01 # Node Number
01 # Service Number
The 13-octet encoding of this EID using the two-element scheme-
specific encoding would be as follows:
82 # 2-Element Endpoint Encoding
02 # uri-code: 2 ('ipn' URI scheme)
82 # 2-Element ipn EID encoding
1B 000EE86800000001 # Fully Qualified Node Number
01 # Service Number
B.3. The Null Endpoint
The Null EID of ipn:0.0 can be encoded in the following ways:
The recommended five-octet encoding of the Null ipn EID using the
two-element scheme-specific encoding would be as follows:
82 # 2-Element Endpoint Encoding
02 # uri-code: 2 ('ipn' URI scheme)
82 # 2-Element ipn EID encoding
00 # Node Number
00 # Service Number
The six-octet encoding of the Null ipn EID using the three-element
scheme-specific encoding would be as follows:
82 # 2-Element Endpoint Encoding
02 # uri-code: 2 ('ipn' URI scheme)
83 # 3-Element ipn EID encoding
00 # Default Allocator
00 # Node Number
00 # Service Number
Acknowledgments
The following DTN Working Group participants contributed technical
material, use cases, and critical technical reviews for this URI
scheme update: Scott Burleigh of the IPNGROUP, Keith Scott, Brian
Sipos of the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory,
Jorge Amodio of LJCV Electronics, and Ran Atkinson.
Additionally, the authors wish to thank members of the CCSDS SIS-DTN
Working Group at large who provided useful reviews and commentary on
this document and its implications for the future of networked space
exploration.
Authors' Addresses
Rick Taylor
Aalyria Technologies
Email: rtaylor@aalyria.com
Edward J. Birrane, III
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
Email: Edward.Birrane@jhuapl.edu
ERRATA