[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-sack-immediately

Network Working Group                                          M. Tuexen
Internet-Draft                                              I. Ruengeler
Intended status: Standards Track      Muenster Univ. of Applied Sciences
Expires: January 6, 2009                                      R. Stewart
                                                      The Resource Group
                                                            July 5, 2008


SACK-IMMEDIATELY extension for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol
            draft-tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-sack-immediately-00.txt

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 6, 2009.

Abstract

   This document defines a method for a sender of a DATA chunk to
   indicate that the corresponding SACK chunk should be sent back
   immediately.










Tuexen, et al.           Expires January 6, 2009                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft              SACK-IMMEDIATELY                   July 2008


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  The I-bit in the DATA Chunk Header  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   4.  Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     4.1.  Sender Side Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     4.2.  Receiver Side Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   5.  Interoperability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   8.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements  . . . . . . . . . . 6





































Tuexen, et al.           Expires January 6, 2009                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft              SACK-IMMEDIATELY                   July 2008


1.  Introduction

   [RFC4960] states that an SCTP implementation should use delayed
   SACKs.  In combination with the Nagle algorithm, reduced congestion
   windows after timeouts, the handling of the SHUTDOWN-SENDING state,
   or other situations this might result in reduced performance of the
   protocol.

   This document describes a simple extension of the SCTP DATA chunk by
   defining a new flag, the I-bit.  The sender indicates by setting this
   bit that the corresponding SACK chunk should be sent back without
   delaying it.


2.  Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].


3.  The I-bit in the DATA Chunk Header

   The following Figure 1 shows the extended DATA chunk.

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type = 0    |  Res  |I|U|B|E|           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                              TSN                              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Stream Identifier      |     Stream Sequence Number    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                  Payload Protocol Identifier                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   \                                                               \
   /                           User Data                           /
   \                                                               \
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                                 Figure 1

   The only difference between the DATA chunk in Figure 1 and the DATA
   chunk defined in [RFC4960] is the addition of the I-bit in the flags
   field of the chunk header.





Tuexen, et al.           Expires January 6, 2009                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft              SACK-IMMEDIATELY                   July 2008


4.  Procedures

4.1.  Sender Side Considerations

   Whenever the sender of a DATA chunk can benefit from the
   corresponding SACK chunk being sent back without delay, the sender
   MAY set the I-bit in the DATA chunk header.

   Reasons for setting the I-bit include

   o  The sender has not enough queued user data to send the remaining
      DATA chunks due to the Nagle algorithm.

   o  The sending of a DATA chunk fills the congestion or receiver
      window.

   o  The sender is in the SHUTDOWN-PENDING state.

   o  The sender has reduced its RTO.Min such that a retransmission
      timeout will occur if the receiver would delay its SACK.

4.2.  Receiver Side Considerations

   On reception of an SCTP packet containing a DATA chunk with the I-bit
   set, the receiver SHOULD NOT delay the sending of the corresponding
   SACK chunk and SHOULD send it back immediately.


5.  Interoperability Considerations

   According to [RFC4960] a receiver of a DATA chunk with the I-bit set
   should ignore this bit when it does not support the extension
   described in this document.  Since the sender of the DATA chunk is
   able to handle this case, there is no requirement for negotiating the
   feature described in this document.


6.  IANA Considerations

   There are no actions required from IANA.


7.  Security Considerations

   This document does not add any additional security considerations in
   addition to the ones given in [RFC4960].





Tuexen, et al.           Expires January 6, 2009                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft              SACK-IMMEDIATELY                   July 2008


8.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC4960]  Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
              RFC 4960, September 2007.


Authors' Addresses

   Michael Tuexen
   Muenster Univ. of Applied Sciences
   Stegerwaldstr. 39
   48565 Steinfurt
   Germany

   Email: tuexen@fh-muenster.de


   Irene Ruengeler
   Muenster Univ. of Applied Sciences
   Stegerwaldstr. 39
   48565 Steinfurt
   Germany

   Email: i.ruengeler@fh-muenster.de


   Randall R. Stewart
   The Resource Group
   1700 Pennsylvania Ave NW
   Suite 56
   Washington, DC  20006
   USA

   Phone:
   Email: randall.stewart@trgworld.com













Tuexen, et al.           Expires January 6, 2009                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft              SACK-IMMEDIATELY                   July 2008


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.











Tuexen, et al.           Expires January 6, 2009                [Page 6]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/