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

Versions: 00 01

Network Working Group                                         C. Bormann
Internet-Draft                                   Universitaet Bremen TZI
Intended status: Informational                                 T. Kaupat
Expires: January 18, 2018                                      Lobaro UG
                                                           July 17, 2017

  Slipmux: Using an UART interface for diagnostics, configuration, and
                            packet transfer


   Many research and maker platforms for Internet of Things
   experimentation offer a serial interface.  This is often used for
   programming, diagnostic output, as well as a crude command interface
   ("AT interface").  Alternatively, it is often used with SLIP
   (RFC1055) to transfer IP packets only.

   The present report describes how to use a single serial interface for
   diagnostics, configuration commands and state readback, as well as
   packet transfer.

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 18, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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

Bormann & Kaupat        Expires January 18, 2018                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                UART slipmux                     July 2017

   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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Using a UART interface  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Packet Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Diagnostics Transfer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Framing considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     7.1.  Why no shell? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     7.2.  Frame aborts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     7.3.  Unknown initial bytes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Appendix A.  Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   Many research and maker hardware modules for Internet of Things
   experimentation ("platforms") offer a serial ("UART") interface.
   This is often used for programming, diagnostic output, as well as a
   crude command interface ("AT interface").  Alternatively, it is used
   with SLIP (RFC1055) to transfer IP packets only; this may require the
   use of another serial interface for diagnostics and configuration.

   The present report describes how to use a single serial interface for
   diagnostics, configuration commands and state readback, as well as
   packet transfer.

1.1.  Terminology

   The term "byte" is used in its now customary sense as a synonym for
   "octet".  Where bit arithmetic is explained, this document uses the
   notation familiar from the programming language C (including C++14's

Bormann & Kaupat        Expires January 18, 2018                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                UART slipmux                     July 2017

   0bnnn binary literals), except that the operator "**" stands for

2.  Using a UART interface

   The serial interfaces provided by today's platforms often do not
   actually use EIA-232 ("RS-232") levels, but some form of logic levels
   (TTL or more likely 3.3 V CMOS).  The present report does not discuss
   physical interfacing, but assumes that a TXD (transmit data) pin, a
   RXD (receive data) pin, and a GND (common ground) pin are all that is
   available.  To interface laptops and similar devices to these serial
   interfaces, inexpensive ($2) USB to UART adapters based on chips such
   as PL2303, CP2102 or CH340 are easily obtainable.  (The usual care
   needs to be taken when mixing 3.3 V and 5 V platforms; this is well
   understood but beyond the scope of the present report.)

   The general assumption is that a serial port configuration of 8N1 (8
   bits per character, no parity, 1 stop bit) and a bit rate of 115200
   bit/s is used.  As with the logic levels, alternative arrangements
   are possible, but a 3.3 V CMOS, 115200 bit/s interface is most likely
   to provide the best interoperability.

   While it would be possible to run relatively complex and versatile
   protocols such as PPP [RFC1661] on such serial interfaces, this goes
   against a need for simplicity and ease of setup.  In today's systems,
   either weird ad-hoc protocols based on "AT commands" are used that
   are not interoperable at all, or a simple encapsulation such as SLIP
   [RFC1055] is used for packet transfer only.

   For the purposes of the present report, on top of the serial UART
   protocol, the frame format defined by [RFC1055] is indeed employed.
   The detailed descriptions below generally describe the frame data
   before applying SLIP escaping in the transmitter or after removing it
   in the receiver.

   The approach described here is informally referred to as "slipmux".

3.  Packet Transfer

   Packet transfer uses the definitions of [RFC1055].  However, contrary
   to the statement in section DEFICIENCIES of [RFC1055], multiplexing
   is very well possible.  A frame used for packet transfer is detected
   by an initial byte of one of the two forms:

   o  0x45 to 0x4f: IPv4 packet

   o  0x60 to 0x6f: IPv6 packet

Bormann & Kaupat        Expires January 18, 2018                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                UART slipmux                     July 2017

   This initial byte forms part of the packet; it is not removed from
   the payload as with the other formats defined below.

   There are no changes to the formats defined by [RFC1055], so there
   should be immediate interoperability with tools such as tunslip.

4.  Diagnostics Transfer

   While not transferring a frame bearing a packet, the platform can
   alternatively transmit a diagnostic frame.  These are encoded (and
   escaped) using SLIP framing exactly like packet frames, but start
   with the byte 0x0a (ASCII newline) and contain UTF-8 encoded
   characters after that byte.  There is no semantics attached to the
   diagnostics message, except that it is intended as a human-readable
   debug or diagnostic message from the platform code.  It is generally
   preferable to end the payload of a diagnostics message in another
   newline (0x0a, which on the wire is then followed by 0xc0 due to the
   SLIP framing).  Note that, as long as only ASCII characters are used,
   there is no need to actually perform escaping on the diagnostic

   Since diagnostic messages are intended for humans, they are only
   defined for the direction from platform to host (e.g., laptop); for
   robustness when connecting two platform modules, they should be
   ignored by platform modules.

5.  Configuration

   Configuration is performed by sending CoAP messages [RFC7252] in SLIP
   framing.  The encapsulation of a CoAP message starts with an
   additional byte 0xA9, with the bytes of the CoAP message following
   (which, as for all data in frames, are escaped as necessary as per

   In contrast to the packet and diagnostics frames defined above, CoAP
   frames benefit from a frame check mechanism.  After the CoAP message,
   the last two bytes of a CoAP frame therefore contain a 16-bit CRC FCS
   computed over the byte 0xA9 followed by the (unescaped) bytes of the
   CoAP message, computed as specified in [RFC1662].  (Note that the two
   bytes of the CRC are escaped, as necessary, by the SLIP framing, as
   are all other bytes of the CoAP message.)

   CoAP messages with incorrect CRCs are silently discarded.

   Where a local URI needs to be formed for the configuration messages,
   the URI scheme "coap+uart" is used; the authority part of that URI
   might be used to refer to local interface names as needed, as in:

Bormann & Kaupat        Expires January 18, 2018                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                UART slipmux                     July 2017


   The client could also be using a local mapping table to provide some
   indirection in translating the authority part to a local identifier
   of the serial port(e.g., COM0 to ttyUSB0).

   Using an empty URI authority allows the client to use a default port,
   as in:


   A later version of this report might define some common CoAP
   resources that research or maker platforms might want to provide,
   e.g. to cover the configuration and status checking often done by "AT
   commands" today.

6.  Framing considerations

   To make SLIP framing robust, it is important to send SLIP frame
   delimiters (0xc0) before and after each SLIP frame (maybe unless
   frames follow each other back to back).  This means that empty frames
   need to be silently ignored by a receiver.

   If a platform starts to send a packet or message, but then decides it
   should not complete the message before having sent the rest of the
   frame, it can send the SLIP ESC (0xdb) followed by SLIP END (0xc0) to
   abort the frame.  Note that this goes beyond the error handling
   suggested by the section "SLIP DRIVERS" in [RFC1055] and might
   therefore be of limited interoperability at first.

   Messages in slipmux are strictly sequential; there is no [RFC2687]
   style suspension.  In particular, this means that diagnostic messages
   that are generated while another message is in progress may have to
   be buffered (unless they are important enough to abort the frame as
   described above).

7.  Discussion

7.1.  Why no shell?

   The present report is somewhat radical in that it does not provide a
   common staple of interactive computer access: A command line
   interface (CLI), or "shell".

   This would be easy to add, but distracts from the use of the platform
   as a "thing" - it should not have to carry an (even primitive) user
   interface; instead it should provide what would have been "shell
   commands" as CoAP resources.

Bormann & Kaupat        Expires January 18, 2018                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                UART slipmux                     July 2017

   As a transition aid, existing shell commands can first be converted
   to just accept their parameters via CoAP but continue to provide
   their output as ASCII text over the diagnostic channel.

   However, in order to aid script-driven use of the platform, the next
   step should then be to also provide the response to the command in a
   CoAP response, possibly structured for better use by the script.
   Often code that was designed to format the data for human consumption
   can be simplified to just ship the raw data, e.g. in a CBOR data item

7.2.  Frame aborts

   Implementing frame aborts as described in Section 6 requires a
   receiver to receive the entire frame before acting on it.  For
   diagnostic information, this is somewhat moot - the information is
   there independent of whether its frame was aborted or not.  For
   packets, it is usually necessary to check a UDP or TCP header
   checksum before acting on it, anyway.  For CoAP requests, similarly,
   the CRC needs to be checked.  So implementing frame aborts should not
   be an undue burden.

7.3.  Unknown initial bytes

   Frames with unknown initial bytes should be silently ignored.

   The same is true for frames with initial bytes that are
   unimplemented.  However, there is an expectation that true slipmux
   implementations do implement CoAP framing.  If this is unexpectedly
   not the case, as a courtesy to a peer CoAP client, a slipmux
   implementation could at least send CoAP Reset messages: a CoAP frame
   (initial byte 0xA9) with a message that starts with 0x40 to 0x5f
   could be replied to with a CoAP frame with a CoAP RST message,
   containing just these four bytes (as always, escaped as needed, and
   framed with an initial 0xA9 and a CRC):

   o  0x70

   o  0x00

   o  The third (unescaped) byte of the message being replied to

   o  The fourth (unescaped) byte of the message being replied to

   (Generating proper CoAP framing in response does, require
   implementing the PPP CRC.)  In conjunction with the CoAP ping
   response of a normal CoAP implementation, this also can be used for
   liveness testing.

Bormann & Kaupat        Expires January 18, 2018                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                UART slipmux                     July 2017

   (The check for the first byte of the CoAP message is needed to avoid
   endless back and forth of reset messages in certain error

8.  IANA Considerations

   The present report does not foresee adding additional frame types,
   but as a matter of precaution, this section might define a registry
   for initial bytes in a frame.  At this point, this would contain:

   o  0x0a: Diagnostics

   o  0x45 to 0x4f: IPv4 packet

   o  0x60 to 0x6f: IPv6 packet

   o  0xA9: CoAP message with 16-bit FCS

   If such a registry is desired, the following values for initial bytes
   should probably be reserved (while all these values could be used if
   required, implementation is easier if they are not):

   o  0x00

   o  0xc0: [RFC1055] END

   o  0xdb: [RFC1055] ESC

   There might also be a need to formally register the URI scheme

9.  Security Considerations

   The usual security considerations apply to the IP packets transferred
   in packet frames.

   When displaying information from diagnostic frames, care should be
   taken that features of a terminal triggered e.g. by escape sequences
   cannot be used for nefarious purposes.

   The CoAP configuration interface does not itself provide any
   security.  This may be appropriate for the local configuration needs
   of an experimentation platform that is not expected to be physically
   connected to any system that is not allowed full control over it
   (e.g., by using the same physical interface for reflashing new
   firmware).  Where the platform might connect to other systems over
   serial, object security for CoAP [I-D.ietf-core-object-security]
   might be employed, or the configuration interface might be restricted

Bormann & Kaupat        Expires January 18, 2018                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                UART slipmux                     July 2017

   to a read-only mode only providing information that does not need
   confidentiality protection.  (It would be possible to provide a DTLS
   encapsulation, but this might go beyond the objective of extreme

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1055]  Romkey, J., "Nonstandard for transmission of IP datagrams
              over serial lines: SLIP", STD 47, RFC 1055,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1055, June 1988,

   [RFC1662]  Simpson, W., Ed., "PPP in HDLC-like Framing", STD 51,
              RFC 1662, DOI 10.17487/RFC1662, July 1994,

   [RFC7252]  Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
              Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,

10.2.  Informative References

              Selander, G., Mattsson, J., Palombini, F., and L. Seitz,
              "Object Security of CoAP (OSCOAP)", draft-ietf-core-
              object-security-04 (work in progress), July 2017.

   [RFC1661]  Simpson, W., Ed., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)",
              STD 51, RFC 1661, DOI 10.17487/RFC1661, July 1994,

   [RFC2687]  Bormann, C., "PPP in a Real-time Oriented HDLC-like
              Framing", RFC 2687, DOI 10.17487/RFC2687, September 1999,

   [RFC7049]  Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
              Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049,
              October 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7049>.

Appendix A.  Implementation

   A work in progress implementation of slipmux is available as part of
   Lobaro's SLIP implementation:

Bormann & Kaupat        Expires January 18, 2018                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                UART slipmux                     July 2017




Authors' Addresses

   Carsten Bormann
   Universitaet Bremen TZI
   Postfach 330440
   Bremen  D-28359

   Phone: +49-421-218-63921
   Email: cabo@tzi.org

   Tobias Kaupat
   Lobaro UG
   Tempowerkring 21d
   Hamburg  D-21079

   Phone: +49-40-22816531-0
   Email: tobias.kaupat@lobaro.de

Bormann & Kaupat        Expires January 18, 2018                [Page 9]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.122, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/