[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

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

Network Working Group                                          M. Tuexen
Internet-Draft                                              I. Ruengeler
Intended status: Standards Track        Muenster Univ. of Appl. Sciences
Expires: January 6, 2012                                      R. Stewart
                                                          Adara Networks
                                                            July 5, 2011


SACK-IMMEDIATELY extension for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol
            draft-tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-sack-immediately-06.txt

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.

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 January 6, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   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.



Tuexen, et al.           Expires January 6, 2012                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft              SACK-IMMEDIATELY                   July 2011


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.  Socket API Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6



































Tuexen, et al.           Expires January 6, 2012                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft              SACK-IMMEDIATELY                   July 2011


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-PENDING 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, 2012                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft              SACK-IMMEDIATELY                   July 2011


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 delays its SACK.

   o  The application requests to set the I-bit of the last DATA chunk
      of a user message when providing the user message to the SCTP
      implementation.

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.  Socket API Considerations

   This section describes how the socket API defined in
   [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket] is extended to provide a way for the
   application to set the I-bit.

   Please note that this section is informational only.



Tuexen, et al.           Expires January 6, 2012                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft              SACK-IMMEDIATELY                   July 2011


   A socket API implementation based on [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket] is
   extended by supporting a flag called SCTP_SACK_IMMEDIATELY, which can
   be set in the snd_flags field of the struct sctp_sndinfo structure or
   the sinfo_flags field of the struct sctp_sndrcvinfo structure, which
   is deprecated.

   If the SCTP_SACK_IMMEDIATELY flag is set when sending a user message,
   the I-bit of the last DATA chunk of the corresponding user message is
   set.


7.  IANA Considerations

   [NOTE to RFC-Editor:

      "RFCXXXX" is to be replaced by the RFC number you assign this
      document.

   ]

   Following the chunk flag registration procedure defined in [RFC6096]
   IANA should register a new bit, the I-bit, for the DATA chunk.  The
   suggested value is 0x08.  The reference for the new chunk flag in the
   chunk flags table for the DATA chunk available at sctp-parameters [1]
   should be RFCXXXX.


8.  Security Considerations

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


9.  References

9.1.  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.

   [RFC6096]  Tuexen, M. and R. Stewart, "Stream Control Transmission
              Protocol (SCTP) Chunk Flags Registration", RFC 6096,
              January 2011.





Tuexen, et al.           Expires January 6, 2012                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft              SACK-IMMEDIATELY                   July 2011


9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket]
              Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., Poon, K., Lei, P., and V.
              Yasevich, "Sockets API Extensions for Stream Control
              Transmission Protocol (SCTP)",
              draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-30 (work in progress),
              June 2011.

URIs

   [1]  <http://www.iana.org/assignments/sctp-parameters>


Authors' Addresses

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

   Email: tuexen@fh-muenster.de


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

   Email: i.ruengeler@fh-muenster.de


   Randall R. Stewart
   Adara Networks
   Chapin, SC  29036
   USA

   Email: randall@lakerest.net











Tuexen, et al.           Expires January 6, 2012                [Page 6]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/