[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-fu-nsis-ntlp-sctp) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 RFC 6084

Network Working Group                                              X. Fu
Internet-Draft                                               C. Dickmann
Intended status: Experimental                   University of Goettingen
Expires: December 27, 2010                                  J. Crowcroft
                                                 University of Cambridge
                                                           June 25, 2010

    General Internet Signaling Transport (GIST) over Stream Control
   Transmission Protocol (SCTP) and Datagram Transport Layer Security


   The General Internet Signaling Transport (GIST) protocol currently
   uses TCP or Transport Layer Security (TLS) over TCP for connection
   mode operation.  This document describes the usage of GIST over the
   Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) and Datagram Transport
   Layer Security (DTLS).

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 December 27, 2010.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 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

Fu, et al.              Expires December 27, 2010               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft           GIST over SCTP and DTLS               June 2010

   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   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.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

Fu, et al.              Expires December 27, 2010               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft           GIST over SCTP and DTLS               June 2010

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Terminology and Abbreviations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  GIST Over SCTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  Message Association Setup  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       3.1.1.  Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       3.1.2.  Protocol-Definition: Forwards-SCTP . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.2.  Effect on GIST State Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.3.  PR-SCTP Support  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.4.  API between GIST and NSLP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  Bit-Level Formats  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.1.  MA-Protocol-Options  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   5.  Application of GIST over SCTP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.1.  Multi-homing support of SCTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     5.2.  Streaming support in SCTP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   6.  NAT Traversal Issue  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   7.  Use of DTLS with GIST  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   9.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   10. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Fu, et al.              Expires December 27, 2010               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft           GIST over SCTP and DTLS               June 2010

1.  Introduction

   This document describes the usage of the General Internet Signaling
   Transport (GIST) protocol [1] and Datagram Transport Layer Security
   (DTLS) [2].

   GIST, in its initial specification for connection mode operation,
   runs on top of a byte-stream oriented transport protocol providing a
   reliable, in-sequence delivery, i.e., using the Transmission Control
   Protocol (TCP) [9] for signaling message transport.  However, some
   Next Steps in Signaling (NSIS) Signaling Layer Protocol (NSLP) [10]
   context information has a definite lifetime, therefore, the GIST
   transport protocol could benefit from flexible retransmission, so
   stale NSLP messages that are held up by congestion can be dropped.
   Together with the head-of-line blocking and multihoming issues with
   TCP, these considerations argue that implementations of GIST should
   support SCTP as an optional transport protocol for GIST.  Like TCP,
   SCTP supports reliability, congestion control and fragmentation.
   Unlike TCP, SCTP provides a number of functions that are desirable
   for signaling transport, such as multiple streams and multiple IP
   addresses for path failure recovery.  Furthermore, SCTP offers an
   advantage of message-oriented transport instead of using the byte
   stream oriented TCP where one has to provide its own framing
   mechanisms.  In addition, its Partial Reliability extension (PR-SCTP)
   [3] supports partial retransmission based on a programmable
   retransmission timer.  Furthermore, DTLS provides a viable solution
   for securing SCTP [4], which allows SCTP to use almost all its
   transport features and its extensions.

   This document defines the use of SCTP as the underlying transport
   protocol for GIST and the use of DTLS as a security mechanism for
   protecting GIST Messaging Associations and discusses the implications
   on GIST state maintenance and API between GIST and NSLPs.
   Furthermore, this document describes how GIST is transported over
   SCTP and used by NSLPs in order to exploit the additional
   capabilities offered by SCTP to deliver GIST C-mode messages more
   effectively.  More specifically:
   o  How to use the multiple streams feature of SCTP.
   o  How to use the PR-SCTP extension of SCTP.
   o  How to take advantage of the multi-homing support of SCTP.

   GIST over SCTP described in this document do not require any changes
   to the high level operation and structure of GIST.  However, adding
   new transport options requires additional interface code and
   configuration support to allow applications to exploit the additional
   transport when appropriate.  In addition, SCTP implementions to
   transport GIST MUST support the optional feature of fragmentation of
   SCTP user messages.

Fu, et al.              Expires December 27, 2010               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft           GIST over SCTP and DTLS               June 2010

   Additionally, this document also specifies how to establish GIST
   security using DTLS for use in combination with e.g., SCTP and UDP.

2.  Terminology and Abbreviations

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [5].  Other
   terminologies and abbreviations used in this document are taken from
   related specifications ([1], [2], [6], [3]):
   o  SCTP - Stream Control Transmission Protocol
   o  PR-SCTP - SCTP Partial Reliability Extension
   o  MRM - Message Routing Method
   o  MRI - Message Routing Information
   o  SCD - Stack-Configuration-Data
   o  Messaging Association (MA) - a single connection between two
      explicitly identified GIST adjacent peers, i.e. between a given
      signalling source and destination address.  A messaging
      association may use a transport protocol; if security protection
      is required, it may use a specific network layer security
      association, or use a transport layer security association
      internally.  A messaging association is bi-directional; signaling
      messages can be sent over it in either direction, referring to
      flows of either direction.
   o  SCTP Association - A protocol relationship between SCTP endpoints,
      composed of the two SCTP endpoints and protocol state information.
      An association can be uniquely identified by the transport
      addresses used by the endpoints in the association.  Two SCTP
      endpoints MUST NOT have more than one SCTP association between
      them at any given time.
   o  Stream - A unidirectional logical channel established from one to
      another associated SCTP endpoint, within which all user messages
      are delivered in sequence except for those submitted to the
      unordered delivery service.

3.  GIST Over SCTP

   This section defines a new MA-Protocol-ID type, "Forwards-SCTP", for
   using SCTP as GIST transport protocol.  The use of DTLS in GIST is
   defined in Section 7.

3.1.  Message Association Setup

Fu, et al.              Expires December 27, 2010               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft           GIST over SCTP and DTLS               June 2010

3.1.1.  Overview

   The basic GIST protocol specification defines two possible protocols
   to be used in Messaging Associations, namely Forwards-TCP and TLS.
   This information is a main part of the Stack Configuration Data (SCD)
   [1].  This section adds "Forwards-SCTP" as another possible protocol
   option.  In Forwards-SCTP, analog to Forwards-TCP, connections
   between peers are opened in the forwards direction, from the querying
   node, towards the responder.

3.1.2.  Protocol-Definition: Forwards-SCTP

   The MA-Protocol-ID "Forwards-SCTP" denotes a basic use of SCTP
   between peers.  Support for this protocol is OPTIONAL.  If this
   protocol is offered, MA-protocol-options data MUST also be carried in
   the SCD object.  The MA-protocol-options field formats are:
   o  in a Query: no information apart from the field header.
   o  in a Response: 2 byte port number at which the connection will be
      accepted, followed by 2 pad bytes.

   The connection is opened in the forwards direction, from the querying
   node towards the responder.  The querying node MAY use any source
   address and source port.  The destination for establishing the
   message association MUST be derived from information in the Response:
   the address from the interface- address from the Network-Layer-
   Information object and the port from the SCD object as described

   Associations using Forwards-SCTP can carry messages with the transfer
   attribute Reliable=True.  If an error occurs on the SCTP connection
   such as a reset, as can be reported by an SCTP socket API
   notification[11], GIST MUST report this to NSLPs as discussed in
   Section 4.1.2 of [1].  For the multi-homing scenario, when a
   destination address of a GIST over SCTP peer encounters a change, the
   SCTP API will notify GIST about the availability of different SCTP
   endpoint addresses and possible change of the primary path.

3.2.  Effect on GIST State Maintenance

   As SCTP provides additional functionality over TCP, this section
   discusses the implications of using GIST over SCTP on GIST State

   While SCTP defines uni-directional streams, for the purpose of this
   document, the concept of a bi-directional stream is used.
   Implementations MUST establish downstream and upstream (uni-
   directional) SCTP streams always together and use the same stream
   identifier in both directions.  Thus, the two uni-directional streams

Fu, et al.              Expires December 27, 2010               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft           GIST over SCTP and DTLS               June 2010

   (in opposite directions) form a bi-directional stream.

   Due to the multi-streaming support of SCTP, it is possible to use
   different SCTP streams for different resources (e.g., different NSLP
   sessions), rather than maintaining all messages along the same
   transport connection/association in a correlated fashion as TCP
   (which imposes strict (re)ordering and reliability per transport
   level).  However, there are limitations to the use of multi-
   streaming.  When an SCTP implementation is used for GIST transport,
   all GIST messages for a particular session MUST be sent over the same
   SCTP stream to assure the NSLP assumption of in-order delivery.
   Multiple sessions MAY share the same SCTP stream based on local

   The GIST concept of Messaging Association re-use is not affected by
   this document or the use of SCTP.  All rules defined in the GIST
   specification remain valid in the context of GIST over SCTP.

3.3.  PR-SCTP Support

   A variant of SCTP, PR-SCTP [3] provides a "timed reliability"
   service, which would be particularly useful for delivering GIST
   Connection mode messages.  It allows the user to specify, on a per
   message basis, the rules governing how persistent the transport
   service should be in attempting to send the message to the receiver.
   Because of the chunk bundling function of SCTP, reliable and
   partially reliable messages can be multiplexed over a single PR-SCTP
   association.  Therefore, an SCTP implementation for GIST transport
   SHOULD attempt to establish a PR-SCTP association using "timed
   reliability" service instead of a standard SCTP association, if
   available, to support more flexible transport features for potential
   needs of different NSLPs.

   When using a normally reliable session (as opposed to a partially
   reliable session), if a node has sent the first transmission before
   the lifetime expires, then the message MUST be sent as a normal
   reliable message.  During episodes of congestion this is particularly
   unfortunate, as retransmission wastes bandwidth that could have been
   used for other (non-lifetime expired) messages.  The "timed
   reliability" service in PR-SCTP eliminates this issue and is hence
   RECOMMENDED to be used for GIST over PR-SCTP.

3.4.  API between GIST and NSLP

   GIST specification defines an abstract API between GIST and NSLPs.
   While this document does not change the API itself, the semantics of
   some parameters have slightly different interpretation in the context
   of SCTP.  This section only lists those primitives and parameters,

Fu, et al.              Expires December 27, 2010               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft           GIST over SCTP and DTLS               June 2010

   that need special consideration when used in the context of SCTP.
   The relevant primitives from [1] are as follows:
   o  The Timeout parameter in API "SendMessage": According to [1], this
      parameter represents the "length of time GIST should attempt to
      send this message before indicating an error."  When used with PR-
      SCTP, this parameter is used as the timeout for the "timed
      reliability" service of PR-SCTP.
   o  "NetworkNotification": According to [1], this primitive "is passed
      from GIST to a signalling application.  It indicates that a
      network event of possible interest to the signalling application
      occurred."  Here, if SCTP detects a failure of the primary path,
      GIST SHOULD also indicate this event to the NSLP by calling this
      primitive with Network-Notification-Type "Routing Status Change".
      This notification should be done even if SCTP was able to retain
      an open connection to the peer due to its multi-homing

4.  Bit-Level Formats

4.1.  MA-Protocol-Options

   This section provides the bit-level format for the MA-protocol-
   options field that is used for SCTP protocol in the Stack-
   Configuration-Data object of GIST.

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   :       SCTP port number        |         Reserved              :

   SCTP port number  = Port number at which the responder will accept
                       SCTP connections

   The SCTP port number is only supplied if sent by the responder.

5.  Application of GIST over SCTP

5.1.  Multi-homing support of SCTP

   In general, the multi-homing support of SCTP can be used to improve
   fault-tolerance in case of a path- or link-failure.  Thus, GIST over
   SCTP would be able to deliver NSLP messages between peers even if the
   primary path is not working anymore.  However, for the Message

Fu, et al.              Expires December 27, 2010               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft           GIST over SCTP and DTLS               June 2010

   Routing Methods (MRMs) defined in the basic GIST specification such a
   feature is only of limited use.  The default MRM is path-coupled,
   which means, that if the primary path is failing for the SCTP
   association, it most likely is also for the IP traffic that is
   signaled for.  Thus, GIST would need to perform a refresh to the NSIS
   nodes to the alternative path anyway to cope with the route change.
   When the two endpoints of a multi-homed SCTP association (but none of
   the intermediate nodes between them) support NSIS, GIST over SCTP
   provides a robust means for GIST to deliver NSLP messages even when
   the primary path fails but at least one alternative path between
   these (NSIS-enabled) endpoints of the multihomed path is available.
   Additionally, the use of the multi-homing support of SCTP provides
   GIST and the NSLP with another source to detect route changes.
   Furthermore, for the time between detection of the route change and
   recovering from it, the alternative path offered by SCTP can be used
   by the NSLP to make the transition more smoothly.  Finally, future
   MRMs might have different properties and therefore benefit from
   multi-homing more broadly.

5.2.  Streaming support in SCTP

   Streaming support in SCTP is advantageous for GIST.  It allows better
   parallel processing, in particular by avoiding head of line blocking
   issue in TCP.  Since a same GIST MA may be reused by multiple
   sessions, using TCP as transport for GIST signaling messages
   belonging to different sessions may be blocked if another message is
   dropped.  In the case of SCTP, this can be avoided as different
   sessions having different requirements can belong to different
   streams, thus a message loss or reordering in a stream will only
   affect the delivery of messages within that particular stream, and
   not any other streams.

6.  NAT Traversal Issue

   NAT traversal for GIST over SCTP will follow Section 7.2 of [1] and
   the GIST extensibility capabilities defined in [12].  This
   specification does not define NAT traversal procedure for GIST over
   SCTP, although an approach for SCTP NAT traversal is described in

7.  Use of DTLS with GIST

   This section specifies a new MA-Protocol-ID "DTLS" for the use of
   DTLS in GIST, which denotes a basic use of datagram transport layer
   channel security, initially in conjunction with GIST over SCTP.  It
   provides server (i.e., GIST transport receiver) authentication and

Fu, et al.              Expires December 27, 2010               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft           GIST over SCTP and DTLS               June 2010

   integrity (as long as the NULL cipher suite is not selected during
   cipher suite negotiation), as well as optionally replay protection
   for control packets.  The use of DTLS for securing GIST over SCTP
   allows GIST to take the advantage of features provided by SCTP and
   its extensions.  The usage of DTLS for GIST over SCTP is similar to
   TLS for GIST as specified in [1], where a stack-proposal containing
   both MA-Protocol-IDs for SCTP and DTLS during the GIST handshake

   The usage of DTLS [2] for securing GIST over datagram transport
   protocols MUST be implemented and SHOULD be used.

   GIST message associations using DTLS may carry messages with transfer
   attributes requesting confidentiality or integrity protection.  The
   specific DTLS version will be negotiated within the DTLS layer
   itself, but implementations MUST NOT negotiate to protocol versions
   prior to DTLS v1.0 and MUST use the highest protocol version
   supported by both peers.  NULL authentication and integrity ciphers
   MUST NOT be negotiated for GIST nodes supporting DTLS.  For
   confidentiality ciphers, nodes can negotiate the NULL ciphersuites.
   The same rules for negotiating TLS cipher suites as specified in
   Section 5.7.3 of [1] apply.

   DTLS renegotiation [7] may cause problems for applications such that
   connection security parameters can change without the application
   knowing it.  Hence, it is RECOMMENDED that renegotiation be disabled
   for GIST over DTLS.

   No MA-protocol-options field is required for DTLS.  The configuration
   information for the transport protocol over which DTLS is running
   (e.g.  SCTP port number) is provided by the MA-protocol-options for
   that protocol.

8.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations of [1], [6] and [2] apply.  Additionally,
   although [4] does not support replay detection in the DTLS over SCTP,
   the SCTP replay protection mechanisms [6] [8] should be able to
   protect NSIS messages transported using GIST over (DTLS over) SCTP
   from replay attacks.

9.  IANA Considerations

   This specification requests the following codepoints (MA-Protocol-
   IDs) be assigned in a registry created by [1]:

Fu, et al.              Expires December 27, 2010              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft           GIST over SCTP and DTLS               June 2010

     | MA-Protocol-ID      | Protocol                                 |
     | 3                   | SCTP opened in the forwards direction    |
     |                     |                                          |
     | 4                   | DTLS initiated in the forwards direction |

   Note that MA-Protocol-ID "DTLS" is never used alone but always
   coupled with a transport protocol specified in the stack proposal.

10.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank John Loughney, Jukka Manner, Magnus
   Westerlund, Sean Turner, Lars Eggert, Jeffrey Hutzelman, Robert
   Hancock, Andrew McDonald, Martin Stiemerling, Fang-Chun Kuo, Jan
   Demter, Lauri Liuhto, Michael Tuexen, and Roland Bless for their
   helpful suggestions.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [1]   Schulzrinne, H. and M. Stiemerling, "GIST: General Internet
         Signalling Transport", draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp-20 (work in
         progress), June 2009.

   [2]   Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
         Security", RFC 4347, April 2006.

   [3]   Stewart, R., Ramalho, M., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., and P. Conrad,
         "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Partial
         Reliability Extension", RFC 3758, May 2004.

   [4]   Tuexen, M., Seggelmann, R., and E. Rescorla, "Datagram
         Transport Layer Security (DTLS) for Stream Control Transmission
         Protocol (SCTP)", draft-ietf-tsvwg-dtls-for-sctp-05 (work in
         progress), March 2010.

   [5]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
         Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [6]   Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 4960,
         September 2007.

Fu, et al.              Expires December 27, 2010              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft           GIST over SCTP and DTLS               June 2010

   [7]   Rescorla, E., Ray, M., Dispensa, S., and N. Oskov, "Transport
         Layer Security (TLS) Renegotiation Indication Extension",
         RFC 5746, February 2010.

   [8]   Tuexen, M., Stewart, R., Lei, P., and E. Rescorla,
         "Authenticated Chunks for the Stream Control Transmission
         Protocol (SCTP)", RFC 4895, August 2007.

11.2.  Informative References

   [9]   Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793,
         September 1981.

   [10]  Hancock, R., Karagiannis, G., Loughney, J., and S. Van den
         Bosch, "Next Steps in Signaling (NSIS): Framework", RFC 4080,
         June 2005.

   [11]  Stewart, R., Poon, K., Tuexen, M., Yasevich, V., and P. Lei,
         "Sockets API Extensions for Stream Control Transmission
         Protocol (SCTP)", draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-22 (work in
         progress), March 2010.

   [12]  Manner, J., Bless, R., Loughney, J., and E. Davies, "Using and
         Extending the NSIS Protocol Family", draft-ietf-nsis-ext-07
         (work in progress), April 2010.

   [13]  Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., and I. Ruengeler, "Stream Control
         Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Network Address Translation",
         draft-ietf-behave-sctpnat-02 (work in progress), December 2009.

Authors' Addresses

   Xiaoming Fu
   University of Goettingen
   Institute of Computer Science
   Goldschmidtstr. 7
   Goettingen  37077

   Email: fu@cs.uni-goettingen.de

Fu, et al.              Expires December 27, 2010              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft           GIST over SCTP and DTLS               June 2010

   Christian Dickmann
   University of Goettingen
   Institute of Computer Science
   Goldschmidtstr. 7
   Goettingen  37077

   Email: mail@christian-dickmann.de

   Jon Crowcroft
   University of Cambridge
   Computer Laboratory
   William Gates Building
   15 JJ Thomson Avenue
   Cambridge  CB3 0FD

   Email: jon.crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk

Fu, et al.              Expires December 27, 2010              [Page 13]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/