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

Versions: (draft-dtnwg-bp) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Delay-Tolerant Networking Working Group                     S. Burleigh
Internet Draft                          JPL, Calif. Inst. Of Technology
Intended status: Standards Track                                K. Fall
Expires: April 28, 2020                       Roland Computing Services
                                                             E. Birrane
                                          APL, Johns Hopkins University
                                                       October 26, 2019

                         Bundle Protocol Version 7
                        draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-17.txt


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), 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 April 28, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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




Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                   [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


   Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
   warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Abstract

   This Internet Draft presents a specification for Bundle Protocol,
   adapted from the experimental Bundle Protocol specification
   developed by the Delay-Tolerant Networking Research group of the
   Internet Research Task Force and documented in RFC 5050.

Table of Contents


   1. Introduction...................................................3
   2. Conventions used in this document..............................5
   3. Service Description............................................6
      3.1. Definitions...............................................6
      3.2. Discussion of BP concepts.................................9
      3.3. Services Offered by Bundle Protocol Agents...............12
   4. Bundle Format.................................................13
      4.1. BP Fundamental Data Structures...........................13
         4.1.1. CRC Type............................................13
         4.1.2. CRC.................................................14
         4.1.3. Bundle Processing Control Flags.....................14
         4.1.4. Block Processing Control Flags......................16
         4.1.5. Identifiers.........................................17
            4.1.5.1. Endpoint ID....................................17
            4.1.5.2. Node ID........................................18
         4.1.6. DTN Time............................................18
         4.1.7. Creation Timestamp..................................20
         4.1.8. Block-type-specific Data............................20
      4.2. Bundle Representation....................................20
         4.2.1. Bundle..............................................21
         4.2.2. Primary Bundle Block................................21
         4.2.3. Canonical Bundle Block Format.......................23
      4.3. Extension Blocks.........................................24
         4.3.1. Previous Node.......................................25
         4.3.2. Bundle Age..........................................25
         4.3.3. Hop Count...........................................26
   5. Bundle Processing.............................................26
      5.1. Generation of Administrative Records.....................26
      5.2. Bundle Transmission......................................27
      5.3. Bundle Dispatching.......................................28
      5.4. Bundle Forwarding........................................28
         5.4.1. Forwarding Contraindicated..........................30
         5.4.2. Forwarding Failed...................................30
      5.5. Bundle Expiration........................................31


Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                   [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


      5.6. Bundle Reception.........................................31
      5.7. Local Bundle Delivery....................................32
      5.8. Bundle Fragmentation.....................................33
      5.9. Application Data Unit Reassembly.........................34
      5.10. Bundle Deletion.........................................34
      5.11. Discarding a Bundle.....................................35
      5.12. Canceling a Transmission................................35
   6. Administrative Record Processing..............................35
      6.1. Administrative Records...................................35
         6.1.1. Bundle Status Reports...............................36
      6.2. Generation of Administrative Records.....................39
   7. Services Required of the Convergence Layer....................39
      7.1. The Convergence Layer....................................39
      7.2. Summary of Convergence Layer Services....................39
   8. Implementation Status.........................................40
   9. Security Considerations.......................................41
   10. IANA Considerations..........................................43
      10.1. Bundle Block Types......................................43
      10.2. Primary Bundle Protocol Version.........................44
      10.3. Bundle Processing Control Flags.........................44
      10.4. Block Processing Control Flags..........................46
      10.5. Bundle Status Report Reason Codes.......................47
      10.6. Bundle Protocol URI scheme types........................49
      10.7. URI scheme "dtn"........................................50
      10.8. Change status of URI scheme "ipn".......................52
   11. References...................................................52
      11.1. Normative References....................................52
      11.2. Informative References..................................53
   12. Acknowledgments..............................................53
   13. Significant Changes from RFC 5050............................54
   Appendix A. For More Information.................................55
   Appendix B. CDDL expression......................................56

1. Introduction

   Since the publication of the Bundle Protocol Specification
   (Experimental RFC 5050) in 2007, the Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN)
   Bundle Protocol has been implemented in multiple programming
   languages and deployed to a wide variety of computing platforms.
   This implementation and deployment experience has identified
   opportunities for making the protocol simpler, more capable, and
   easier to use.  The present document, standardizing the Bundle
   Protocol (BP), is adapted from RFC 5050 in that context.
   Significant changes from the Bundle Protocol specification defined
   in RFC 5050 are listed in section 13.

   This document describes version 7 of BP.


Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                   [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


   Delay Tolerant Networking is a network architecture providing
   communications in and/or through highly stressed environments.
   Stressed networking environments include those with intermittent
   connectivity, large and/or variable delays, and high bit error
   rates.  To provide its services, BP may be viewed as sitting at the
   application layer of some number of constituent networks, forming a
   store-carry-forward overlay network.  Key capabilities of BP
   include:

     . Ability to use physical motility for the movement of data
     . Ability to move the responsibility for error control from one
        node to another
     . Ability to cope with intermittent connectivity, including cases
        where the sender and receiver are not concurrently present in
        the network
     . Ability to take advantage of scheduled, predicted, and
        opportunistic connectivity, whether bidirectional or
        unidirectional, in addition to continuous connectivity
     . Late binding of overlay network endpoint identifiers to
        underlying constituent network addresses

   For descriptions of these capabilities and the rationale for the DTN
   architecture, see [ARCH] and [SIGC].

   BP's location within the standard protocol stack is as shown in
   Figure 1.  BP uses underlying "native" transport and/or network
   protocols for communications within a given constituent network.

   The interface between the bundle protocol and a specific underlying
   protocol is termed a "convergence layer adapter".

   Figure 1 shows three distinct transport and network protocols
   (denoted T1/N1, T2/N2, and T3/N3).
















Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                   [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


   +-----------+                                         +-----------+
   |   BP app  |                                         |   BP app  |
   +---------v-|   +->>>>>>>>>>v-+     +->>>>>>>>>>v-+   +-^---------+
   |   BP    v |   | ^    BP   v |     | ^   BP    v |   | ^   BP    |
   +---------v-+   +-^---------v-+     +-^---------v-+   +-^---------+
   | T1      v |   + ^  T1/T2  v |     + ^  T2/T3  v |   | ^ T3      |
   +---------v-+   +-^---------v-+     +-^---------v +   +-^---------+
   | N1      v |   | ^  N1/N2  v |     | ^  N2/N3  v |   | ^ N3      |
   +---------v-+   +-^---------v +     +-^---------v-+   +-^---------+
   |         >>>>>>>>^         >>>>>>>>>>^         >>>>>>>>^         |
   +-----------+   +-------------+     +-------------+   +-----------+
   |                     |                     |                     |
   |<---- A network ---->|                     |<---- A network ---->|
   |                     |                     |                     |

         Figure 1: The Bundle Protocol in the Protocol Stack Model

   This document describes the format of the protocol data units
   (called "bundles") passed between entities participating in BP
   communications.

   The entities are referred to as "bundle nodes". This document does
   not address:

     . Operations in the convergence layer adapters that bundle nodes
        use to transport data through specific types of internets.
        (However, the document does discuss the services that must be
        provided by each adapter at the convergence layer.)
     . The bundle route computation algorithm.
     . Mechanisms for populating the routing or forwarding information
        bases of bundle nodes.
     . The mechanisms for securing bundles en route.
     . The mechanisms for managing bundle nodes.

   Note that implementations of the specification presented in this
   document will not be interoperable with implementations of RFC 5050.

2. Conventions used in this document

   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.





Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                   [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


3. Service Description

3.1. Definitions

   Bundle - A bundle is a protocol data unit of BP, so named because
   negotiation of the parameters of a data exchange may be impractical
   in a delay-tolerant network: it is often better practice to "bundle"
   with a unit of application data all metadata that might be needed in
   order to make the data immediately usable when delivered to the
   application. Each bundle comprises a sequence of two or more
   "blocks" of protocol data, which serve various purposes.

   Block - A bundle protocol block is one of the protocol data
   structures that together constitute a well-formed bundle.

   Application Data Unit (ADU) - An application data unit is the unit
   of data whose conveyance to the bundle's destination is the purpose
   for the transmission of some bundle that is not a fragment (as
   defined below).

   Bundle payload - A bundle payload (or simply "payload") is the
   content of the bundle's payload block. The terms "bundle content",
   "bundle payload", and "payload" are used interchangeably in this
   document.  For a bundle that is not a fragment (as defined below),
   the payload is an application data unit.

   Partial payload - A partial payload is a payload that comprises
   either the first N bytes or the last N bytes of some other payload
   of length M, such that 0 < N < M.  Note that every partial payload
   is a payload and therefore can be further subdivided into partial
   payloads.

   Fragment - A fragment is a bundle whose payload block contains a
   partial payload.

   Bundle node - A bundle node (or, in the context of this document,
   simply a "node") is any entity that can send and/or receive bundles.
   Each bundle node has three conceptual components, defined below, as
   shown in Figure 2: a "bundle protocol agent", a set of zero or more
   "convergence layer adapters", and an "application agent".









Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                   [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


   +-----------------------------------------------------------+
   |Node                                                       |
   |                                                           |
   | +-------------------------------------------------------+ |
   | |Application Agent                                      | |
   | |                                                       | |
   | | +--------------------------+ +----------------------+ | |
   | | |Administrative element    | |Application-specific  | | |
   | | |                          | |element               | | |
   | | |                          | |                      | | |
   | | +--------------------------+ +----------------------+ | |
   | |                ^                          ^           | |
   | |           Admin|records        Application|data       | |
   | |                |                          |           | |
   | +----------------v--------------------------v-----------+ |
   |                               ^                           |
   |                               | ADUs                      |
   |                               |                           |
   | +-----------------------------v-------------------------+ |
   | |Bundle Protocol Agent                                  | |
   | |                                                       | |
   | |                                                       | |
   | +-------------------------------------------------------+ |
   |        ^                 ^                        ^       |
   |        | Bundles         | Bundles        Bundles |       |
   |        |                 |                        |       |
   | +------v-----+     +-----v------+           +-----v-----+ |
   | |CLA 1       |     |CLA 2       |           |CLA n      | |
   | |            |     |            |   . . .   |           | |
   | |            |     |            |           |           | |
   +-+------------+-----+------------+-----------+-----------+-+
            ^                 ^                        ^
         CL1|PDUs          CL2|PDUs                 CLn|PDUs
            |                 |                        |
     +------v-----+     +-----v------+           +-----v-----+
      Network 1          Network 2                Network n

                   Figure 2: Components of a Bundle Node

   Bundle protocol agent - The bundle protocol agent (BPA) of a node is
   the node component that offers the BP services and executes the
   procedures of the bundle protocol.

   Convergence layer adapter - A convergence layer adapter (CLA) is a
   node component that sends and receives bundles on behalf of the BPA,
   utilizing the services of some 'native' protocol stack that is



Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                   [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


   supported in one of the networks within which the node is
   functionally located.

   Application agent - The application agent (AA) of a node is the node
   component that utilizes the BP services to effect communication for
   some user purpose. The application agent in turn has two elements,
   an administrative element and an application-specific element.

   Application-specific element - The application-specific element of
   an AA is the node component that constructs, requests transmission
   of, accepts delivery of, and processes units of user application
   data.

   Administrative element - The administrative element of an AA is the
   node component that constructs and requests transmission of
   administrative records (defined below), including status reports,
   and accepts delivery of and processes any administrative records
   that the node receives.

   Administrative record - A BP administrative record is an application
   data unit that is exchanged between the administrative elements of
   nodes' application agents for some BP administrative purpose.  The
   only administrative record defined in this specification is the
   status report, discussed later.

   Bundle endpoint - A bundle endpoint (or simply "endpoint") is a set
   of zero or more bundle nodes that all identify themselves for BP
   purposes by some common identifier, called a "bundle endpoint ID"
   (or, in this document, simply "endpoint ID"; endpoint IDs are
   described in detail in Section 4.4.1 below).

   Singleton endpoint - A singleton endpoint is an endpoint that always
   contains exactly one member.

   Registration - A registration is the state machine characterizing a
   given node's membership in a given endpoint.  Any single
   registration has an associated delivery failure action as defined
   below and must at any time be in one of two states: Active or
   Passive.

   Delivery - A bundle is considered to have been delivered at a node
   subject to a registration as soon as the application data unit that
   is the payload of the bundle, together with any relevant metadata
   (an implementation matter), has been presented to the node's
   application agent in a manner consistent with the state of that
   registration.



Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                   [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


   Deliverability - A bundle is considered "deliverable" subject to a
   registration if and only if (a) the bundle's destination endpoint is
   the endpoint with which the registration is associated, (b) the
   bundle has not yet been delivered subject to this registration, and
   (c) the bundle has not yet been "abandoned" (as defined below)
   subject to this registration.

   Abandonment - To abandon a bundle subject to some registration is to
   assert that the bundle is not deliverable subject to that
   registration.

   Delivery failure action - The delivery failure action of a
   registration is the action that is to be taken when a bundle that is
   "deliverable" subject to that registration is received at a time
   when the registration is in the Passive state.

   Destination - The destination of a bundle is the endpoint comprising
   the node(s) at which the bundle is to be delivered (as defined
   above).

   Transmission - A transmission is an attempt by a node's BPA to cause
   copies of a bundle to be delivered to one or more of the nodes that
   are members of some endpoint (the bundle's destination) in response
   to a transmission request issued by the node's application agent.

   Forwarding - To forward a bundle to a node is to invoke the services
   of one or more CLAs in a sustained effort to cause a copy of the
   bundle to be received by that node.

   Discarding - To discard a bundle is to cease all operations on the
   bundle and functionally erase all references to it.  The specific
   procedures by which this is accomplished are an implementation
   matter.

   Retention constraint - A retention constraint is an element of the
   state of a bundle that prevents the bundle from being discarded.
   That is, a bundle cannot be discarded while it has any retention
   constraints.

   Deletion - To delete a bundle is to remove unconditionally all of
   the bundle's retention constraints, enabling the bundle to be
   discarded.

3.2. Discussion of BP concepts

   Multiple instances of the same bundle (the same unit of DTN protocol
   data) might exist concurrently in different parts of a network --


Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                   [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


   possibly differing in some blocks -- in the memory local to one or
   more bundle nodes and/or in transit between nodes. In the context of
   the operation of a bundle node, a bundle is an instance (copy), in
   that node's local memory, of some bundle that is in the network.

   The payload for a bundle forwarded in response to a bundle
   transmission request is the application data unit whose location is
   provided as a parameter to that request. The payload for a bundle
   forwarded in response to reception of a bundle is the payload of the
   received bundle.

   In the most familiar case, a bundle node is instantiated as a single
   process running on a general-purpose computer, but in general the
   definition is meant to be broader: a bundle node might alternatively
   be a thread, an object in an object-oriented operating system, a
   special-purpose hardware device, etc.

   The manner in which the functions of the BPA are performed is wholly
   an implementation matter. For example, BPA functionality might be
   coded into each node individually; it might be implemented as a
   shared library that is used in common by any number of bundle nodes
   on a single computer; it might be implemented as a daemon whose
   services are invoked via inter-process or network communication by
   any number of bundle nodes on one or more computers; it might be
   implemented in hardware.

   Every CLA implements its own thin layer of protocol, interposed
   between BP and the (usually "top") protocol(s) of the underlying
   native protocol stack; this "CL protocol" may only serve to
   multiplex and de-multiplex bundles to and from the underlying native
   protocol, or it may offer additional CL-specific functionality. The
   manner in which a CLA sends and receives bundles, as well as the
   definitions of CLAs and CL protocols, are beyond the scope of this
   specification.

   Note that the administrative element of a node's application agent
   may itself, in some cases, function as a convergence-layer adapter.
   That is, outgoing bundles may be "tunneled" through encapsulating
   bundles:

     . An outgoing bundle constitutes a byte array. This byte array
        may, like any other, be presented to the bundle protocol agent
        as an application data unit that is to be transmitted to some
        endpoint.
     . The original bundle thus forms the payload of an encapsulating
        bundle that is forwarded using some other convergence-layer
        protocol(s).


Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 10]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


     . When the encapsulating bundle is received, its payload is
        delivered to the peer application agent administrative element,
        which then instructs the bundle protocol agent to dispatch that
        original bundle in the usual way.

   The purposes for which this technique may be useful (such as cross-
   domain security) are beyond the scope of this specification.

   The only interface between the BPA and the application-specific
   element of the AA is the BP service interface. But between the BPA
   and the administrative element of the AA there is a (conceptual)
   private control interface in addition to the BP service interface.
   This private control interface enables the BPA and the
   administrative element of the AA to direct each other to take action
   under specific circumstances.

   In the case of a node that serves simply as a BP "router", the AA
   may have no application-specific element at all. The application-
   specific elements of other nodes' AAs may perform arbitrarily
   complex application functions, perhaps even offering multiplexed DTN
   communication services to a number of other applications. As with
   the BPA, the manner in which the AA performs its functions is wholly
   an implementation matter.

   Singletons are the most familiar sort of endpoint, but in general
   the endpoint notion is meant to be broader. For example, the nodes
   in a sensor network might constitute a set of bundle nodes that
   identify themselves by a single common endpoint ID and thus form a
   single bundle endpoint. *Note* too that a given bundle node might
   identify itself by multiple endpoint IDs and thus be a member of
   multiple bundle endpoints.

   The destination of every bundle is an endpoint, which may or may not
   be singleton.  The source of every bundle is a node, identified by
   the endpoint ID for some singleton endpoint that contains that node.
   Note, though, that the source node ID asserted in a given bundle may
   be the null endpoint ID (as described later) rather than the
   endpoint ID of the actual source node; bundles for which the
   asserted source node ID is the null endpoint ID are termed
   "anonymous" bundles.

   Any number of transmissions may be concurrently undertaken by the
   bundle protocol agent of a given node.

   When the bundle protocol agent of a node determines that a bundle
   must be forwarded to a node (either to a node that is a member of
   the bundle's destination endpoint or to some intermediate forwarding


Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 11]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


   node) in the course of completing the successful transmission of
   that bundle, the bundle protocol agent invokes the services of one
   or more CLAs in a sustained effort to cause a copy of the bundle to
   be received by that node.

   Upon reception, the processing of a bundle that has been received by
   a given node depends on whether or not the receiving node is
   registered in the bundle's destination endpoint. If it is, and if
   the payload of the bundle is non-fragmentary (possibly as a result
   of successful payload reassembly from fragmentary payloads,
   including the original payload of the newly received bundle), then
   the bundle is normally delivered to the node's application agent
   subject to the registration characterizing the node's membership in
   the destination endpoint.

   The bundle protocol does not natively ensure delivery of a bundle to
   its destination.  Data loss along the path to the destination node
   can be minimized by utilizing reliable convergence-layer protocols
   between neighbors on all segments of the end-to-end path, but for
   end-to-end bundle delivery assurance it will be necessary to develop
   extensions to the bundle protocol and/or application-layer
   mechanisms.

   The bundle protocol is designed for extensibility.  Bundle protocol
   extensions, documented elsewhere, may extend this specification by:

      . defining additional blocks;
      . defining additional administrative records;
      . defining additional bundle processing flags;
      . defining additional block processing flags;
      . defining additional types of bundle status reports;
      . defining additional bundle status report reason codes;
      . defining additional mandates and constraints on processing
         that conformant bundle protocol agents must perform at
         specified points in the inbound and outbound bundle processing
         cycles.

3.3. Services Offered by Bundle Protocol Agents

   The BPA of each node is expected to provide the following services
   to the node's application agent:

     . commencing a registration (registering the node in an
        endpoint);
     . terminating a registration;
     . switching a registration between Active and Passive states;
     . transmitting a bundle to an identified bundle endpoint;


Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 12]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


     . canceling a transmission;
     . polling a registration that is in the Passive state;
     . delivering a received bundle.

4. Bundle Format

   The format of bundles SHALL conform to the Concise Binary Object
   Representation (CBOR [RFC7049]).

   Each bundle SHALL be a concatenated sequence of at least two blocks,
   represented as a CBOR indefinite-length array.  The first block in
   the sequence (the first item of the array) MUST be a primary bundle
   block in CBOR representation as described below; the bundle MUST
   have exactly one primary bundle block. The primary block MUST be
   followed by one or more canonical bundle blocks (additional array
   items) in CBOR representation as described in 4.2.3 below.  The last
   such block MUST be a payload block; the bundle MUST have exactly one
   payload block.  The last item of the array, immediately following
   the payload block, SHALL be a CBOR "break" stop code.

   (Note that, while CBOR permits considerable flexibility in the
   encoding of bundles, this flexibility must not be interpreted as
   inviting increased complexity in protocol data unit structure.)

   An implementation of the Bundle Protocol MAY discard any sequence of
   bytes that does not conform to the Bundle Protocol specification.

   An implementation of the Bundle Protocol MAY accept a sequence of
   bytes that does not conform to the Bundle Protocol specification
   (e.g., one that represents data elements in fixed-length arrays
   rather than indefinite-length arrays) and transform it into
   conformant BP structure before processing it.  Procedures for
   accomplishing such a transformation are beyond the scope of this
   specification.

4.1. BP Fundamental Data Structures

4.1.1. CRC Type

   CRC type is an unsigned integer type code for which the following
   values (and no others) are valid:

     . 0 indicates "no CRC is present."
     . 1 indicates "a standard X-25 CRC-16 is present." [CRC16]
     . 2 indicates "a standard CRC32C (Castagnoli) CRC-32 is present."
        [CRC32C]



Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 13]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


   CRC type SHALL be represented as a CBOR unsigned integer.

   For examples of CRC32C CRCs, see Appendix A.4 of [RFC7143].

4.1.2. CRC

   CRC SHALL be omitted from a block if and only if the block's CRC
   type code is zero.

   When not omitted, the CRC SHALL be represented as a CBOR byte string
   of two bytes (that is, CBOR additional information 2, if CRC type is
   1) or of four bytes (that is, CBOR additional information 4, if CRC
   type is 2); in each case the sequence of bytes SHALL constitute an
   unsigned integer value (of 16 or 32 bits, respectively) in network
   byte order.

4.1.3. Bundle Processing Control Flags

   Bundle processing control flags assert properties of the bundle as a
   whole rather than of any particular block of the bundle.  They are
   conveyed in the primary block of the bundle.

   The following properties are asserted by the bundle processing
   control flags:

     . The bundle is a fragment.  (Boolean)

     . The bundle's payload is an administrative record.  (Boolean)

     . The bundle must not be fragmented.  (Boolean)

     . Acknowledgment by the user application is requested.  (Boolean)

     . Status time is requested in all status reports.  (Boolean)

     . The bundle contains a "manifest" extension block.  (Boolean)

     . Flags requesting types of status reports (all Boolean):

          o Request reporting of bundle reception.

          o Request reporting of bundle forwarding.

          o Request reporting of bundle delivery.

          o Request reporting of bundle deletion.



Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 14]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


   If the bundle processing control flags indicate that the bundle's
   application data unit is an administrative record, then all status
   report request flag values must be zero.

   If the bundle's source node is omitted (i.e., the source node ID is
   the ID of the null endpoint, which has no members as discussed
   below; this option enables anonymous bundle transmission), then the
   bundle is not uniquely identifiable and all bundle protocol features
   that rely on bundle identity must therefore be disabled: the "Bundle
   must not be fragmented" flag value must be 1 and all status report
   request flag values must be zero.

   The bundle processing control flags SHALL be represented as a CBOR
   unsigned integer item, the value of which SHALL be processed as a
   bit field indicating the control flag values as follows (note that
   bit numbering in this instance is reversed from the usual practice,
   beginning with the low-order bit instead of the high-order bit, in
   recognition of the potential definition of additional control flag
   values in the future):

     . Bit 0 (the low-order bit, 0x000001: bundle is a fragment.
     . Bit 1 (0x000002): payload is an administrative record.
     . Bit 2 (0x000004): bundle must not be fragmented.
     . Bit 3 (0x000008): reserved.
     . Bit 4 (0x000010): reserved.
     . Bit 5 (0x000020): user application acknowledgement is
        requested.
     . Bit 6 (0x000040): status time is requested in all status
        reports.
     . Bit 7 (0x000080): reserved.
     . Bit 8 (0x000100): reserved.
     . Bit 9 (0x000200): reserved.
     . Bit 10(0x000400): reserved.
     . Bit 11(0x000800): reserved.
     . Bit 12(0x001000): reserved.
     . Bit 13(0x002000): reserved.
     . Bit 14(0x004000): bundle reception status reports are
        requested.
     . Bit 15(0x008000): reserved.
     . Bit 16(0x010000): bundle forwarding status reports are
        requested.
     . Bit 17(0x020000): bundle delivery status reports are requested.
     . Bit 18(0x040000): bundle deletion status reports are requested.
     . Bits 19-20 are reserved.
     . Bits 21-63 are unassigned.




Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 15]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


4.1.4. Block Processing Control Flags

   The block processing control flags assert properties of canonical
   bundle blocks.  They are conveyed in the header of the block to
   which they pertain.

   The following properties are asserted by the block processing
   control flags:

     . This block must be replicated in every fragment.  (Boolean)

     . Transmission of a status report is requested if this block
        can't be processed.  (Boolean)

     . Block must be removed from the bundle if it can't be processed.
        (Boolean)

     . Bundle must be deleted if this block can't be processed.
        (Boolean)

   For each bundle whose bundle processing control flags indicate that
   the bundle's application data unit is an administrative record, or
   whose source node ID is the null endpoint ID as defined below, the
   value of the "Transmit status report if block can't be processed"
   flag in every canonical block of the bundle must be zero.

   The block processing control flags SHALL be represented as a CBOR
   unsigned integer item, the value of which SHALL be processed as a
   bit field indicating the control flag values as follows (note that
   bit numbering in this instance is reversed from the usual practice,
   beginning with the low-order bit instead of the high-order bit, for
   agreement with the bit numbering of the bundle processing control
   flags):

     . Bit 0(the low-order bit, 0x01): block must be replicated in
        every fragment.
     . Bit 1(0x02): transmission of a status report is requested if
        block can't be processed.
     . Bit 2(0x04): bundle must be deleted if block can't be
        processed.
     . Bit 3(0x08): reserved.
     . Bit 4(0x10): block must be removed from bundle if it can't be
        processed.
     . Bit 5(0x20): reserved.
     . Bit 6 (0x40): reserved.
     . Bits 7-63 are unassigned.



Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 16]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


4.1.5. Identifiers

4.1.5.1. Endpoint ID

   The destinations of bundles are bundle endpoints, identified by text
   strings termed "endpoint IDs" (see Section 3.1). Each endpoint ID
   (EID) is a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI; [URI]). As such, each
   endpoint ID can be characterized as having this general structure:

   < scheme name > : < scheme-specific part, or "SSP" >

   The scheme identified by the < scheme name > in an endpoint ID is a
   set of syntactic and semantic rules that fully explain how to parse
   and interpret the SSP. The set of allowable schemes is effectively
   unlimited. Any scheme conforming to [URIREG] may be used in a bundle
   protocol endpoint ID.

   Note that, although endpoint IDs are URIs, implementations of the BP
   service interface may support expression of endpoint IDs in some
   internationalized manner (e.g., Internationalized Resource
   Identifiers (IRIs); see [RFC3987]).

   The endpoint ID "dtn:none" identifies the "null endpoint", the
   endpoint that by definition never has any members.

   Each BP endpoint ID (EID) SHALL be represented as a CBOR array
   comprising a 2-tuple.

   The first item of the array SHALL be the code number identifying the
   endpoint's URI scheme [URI], as defined in the registry of URI
   scheme code numbers for Bundle Protocol maintained by IANA as
   described in Section 10. [URIREG].  Each URI scheme code number
   SHALL be represented as a CBOR unsigned integer.

   The second item of the array SHALL be the applicable CBOR
   representation of the scheme-specific part (SSP) of the EID, defined
   as follows:

     . If the EID's URI scheme is "dtn" then the SSP SHALL be
        represented as a CBOR text string unless the EID's SSP is
        "none", in which case the SSP SHALL be represented as a CBOR
        unsigned integer with the value zero.
     . If the EID's URI scheme is "ipn" then the SSP SHALL be
        represented as a CBOR array comprising a 2-tuple.  The first
        item of this array SHALL be the EID's node number represented
        as a CBOR unsigned integer.  The second item of this array



Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 17]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


        SHALL be the EID's service number represented as a CBOR
        unsigned integer.
     . Definitions of the CBOR representations of the SSPs of EIDs
        encoded in other URI schemes are included in the specifications
        defining those schemes.

4.1.5.2. Node ID

   For many purposes of the Bundle Protocol it is important to identify
   the node that is operative in some context.

   As discussed in 3.1 above, nodes are distinct from endpoints;
   specifically, an endpoint is a set of zero or more nodes.  But
   rather than define a separate namespace for node identifiers, we
   instead use endpoint identifiers to identify nodes, subject to the
   following restrictions:

      . Every node MUST be a member of at least one singleton endpoint.
      . The EID of any singleton endpoint of which a node is a member
        MAY be used to identify that node. A "node ID" is an EID that
        is used in this way.
      . A node's membership in a given singleton endpoint MUST be
        sustained at least until the nominal operation of the Bundle
        Protocol no longer depends on the identification of that node
        using that endpoint's ID.

4.1.6. DTN Time

   A DTN time is an unsigned integer indicating an interval of Unix
   epoch time [EPOCH] that has elapsed since the start of the year 2000
   on the Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) scale [UTC], which is Unix
   epoch timestamp 946684800.  (Note that the DTN time that equates to
   the current time as reported by the UNIX time() function can be
   derived by subtracting 946684800 from that reported time value.)
   Each DTN time SHALL be represented as a CBOR unsigned integer item.

   Note: The choice of Unix epoch time as the scale on which time
   values in DTN are expressed may need some explanation.

   The computation of time intervals is integral to several DTN
   protocol procedures.  Inconsistency in the results of these
   computations would result in inconsistent performance of those
   procedures and would compromise the operation of the protocol.

   So the key qualities sought in selecting the time scale to be used
   for expressing DTN times were these: (a) the broadest possible
   access to the value of the current time on the selected time scale,


Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 18]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


   enabling all nodes of the network to perform protocol procedures in
   the same way using the same information, and (b) ease of time
   interval computation.

   UTC was an obvious candidate but fell short on both counts.  First,
   millions of devices can readily query the current UTC time, thanks
   to NTP, but spacecraft operating beyond Earth orbit cannot.  There
   is currently no adaptation of NTP that operates over the long and
   variable signal propagation delays between vehicles in deep space.

   Moreover, computing the number of actual elapsed seconds between two
   UTC times is non-trivial because UTC times include leap seconds.  As
   an illustration of the issue, consider the passage of UTC and TAI
   time at a ground station antenna that began transmitting data at
   8Kbps around midnight December 31, 2016 (UTC), when a leap second
   was added (*):

               UTC                  TAI      Total bytes sent

   t1 2016-12-31 23:59:58  2017-01-01 00:00:34        0

   t2 2016-12-31 23:59:59  2017-01-01 00:00:35     1000

   t3 2016-12-31 23:59:60* 2017-01-01 00:00:36     2000

   t4 2017-01-01 00:00:00  2017-01-01 00:00:37     3000

   t5 2017-01-01 00:00:01  2017-01-01 00:00:38     4000

   Suppose we must compute the volume of data transmitted in the
   interval between t1 and t5.  If we use TAI time values, the elapsed
   time interval is 4 seconds (00:00:38 minus 00:00:34); at 8Kbps, the
   computed transmission volume is 4000 bytes, which is correct.  If we
   instead use UTC time values as stated, without special compensation
   for the insertion of the leap second, the elapsed time interval is 3
   seconds (00:00:01 minus 23:59:58); the computed transmission volume
   is then 3000 bytes, which is incorrect.

   TAI, then, would be an ideal time scale for DTN, as the interval in
   seconds between two TAI times can be computed by simply subtracting
   one from the other; there is no need to consult a table of leap
   seconds each time a time interval is computed.  Unfortunately the
   current value of TAI, as tracked by atomic clocks on Earth and
   carefully managed by the International Bureau of Weights and
   Measures, is likewise not directly accessible to spacecraft.




Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 19]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


   Unix epoch time is the next best option.  Like TAI, Unix epoch time
   is simply a count of seconds elapsed since a standard epoch.  Unlike
   TAI, the current value of Unix epoch time is provided by virtually
   all operating systems on which BP is likely to run.

   Implementers of Bundle Protocol need to be aware that the difference
   between DTN time and UTC time will increase with the passing years
   as additional leap seconds are inserted into UTC.  Converting DTN
   time to the correct corresponding UTC time, in the event that such
   conversion is needed, will require an understanding of the leap
   second adjustments made to UTC over time; for software written in C,
   the widely supported gmtime() function provides this service.

   Implementers also need to be aware that DTN time values conveyed in
   CBOR representation in bundles can conceivably exceed (2**32 - 1).

4.1.7. Creation Timestamp

   Each creation timestamp SHALL be represented as a CBOR array item
   comprising a 2-tuple.

   The first item of the array SHALL be a DTN time.

   The second item of the array SHALL be the creation timestamp's
   sequence number, represented as a CBOR unsigned integer.

4.1.8. Block-type-specific Data

   Block-type-specific data in each block (other than the primary
   block) SHALL be the applicable CBOR representation of the content of
   the block.  Details of this representation are included in the
   specification defining the block type.

4.2. Bundle Representation

   This section describes the primary block in detail and non-primary
   blocks in general. Rules for processing these blocks appear in
   Section 5 of this document.

   Note that supplementary DTN protocol specifications (including, but
   not restricted to, the Bundle Security Protocol [BPSEC]) may require
   that BP implementations conforming to those protocols construct and
   process additional blocks.






Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 20]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


4.2.1. Bundle

   Each bundle SHALL be represented as a CBOR indefinite-length array.
   The first item of this array SHALL be the CBOR representation of a
   Primary Block.  Every other item of the array except the last SHALL
   be the CBOR representation of a Canonical Block.  The last item of
   the array SHALL be a CBOR "break" stop code.

   Associated with each block of a bundle is a block number.  The block
   number uniquely identifies the block within the bundle, enabling
   blocks (notably bundle security protocol blocks) to reference other
   blocks in the same bundle without ambiguity.  The block number of
   the primary block is implicitly zero; the block numbers of all other
   blocks are explicitly stated in block headers as noted below. Block
   numbering is unrelated to the order in which blocks are sequenced in
   the bundle. The block number of the payload block is always 1.

4.2.2. Primary Bundle Block

   The primary bundle block contains the basic information needed to
   forward bundles to their destinations.

   Each primary block SHALL be represented as a CBOR array; the number
   of elements in the array SHALL be 8 (if the bundle is not a fragment
   and the block has no CRC), 9 (if the block has a CRC and the bundle
   is not a fragment), 10 (if the bundle is a fragment and the block
   has no CRC), or 11 (if the bundle is a fragment and the block has a
   CRC).

   The primary block of each bundle SHALL be immutable.  The values of
   all fields in the primary block must remain unchanged from the time
   the block is created to the time it is delivered.

   The fields of the primary bundle block SHALL be as follows, listed
   in the order in which they MUST appear:

   Version: An unsigned integer value indicating the version of the
   bundle protocol that constructed this block. The present document
   describes version 7 of the bundle protocol. Version number SHALL be
   represented as a CBOR unsigned integer item.

   Bundle Processing Control Flags: The Bundle Processing Control Flags
   are discussed in Section 4.1.3. above.

   CRC Type: CRC Type codes are discussed in Section 4.1.1. above.  The
   CRC Type code for the primary block MAY be zero if the bundle
   contains a BPsec [BPSEC] Block Integrity Block whose target is the


Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 21]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


   primary block; otherwise the CRC Type code for the primary block
   MUST be non-zero.

   Destination EID: The Destination EID field identifies the bundle
   endpoint that is the bundle's destination, i.e., the endpoint that
   contains the node(s) at which the bundle is to be delivered.

   Source node ID: The Source node ID field identifies the bundle node
   at which the bundle was initially transmitted, except that Source
   node ID may be the null endpoint ID in the event that the bundle's
   source chooses to remain anonymous.

   Report-to EID: The Report-to EID field identifies the bundle
   endpoint to which status reports pertaining to the forwarding and
   delivery of this bundle are to be transmitted.

   Creation Timestamp: The creation timestamp (discussed in 4.1.7
   above) comprises two unsigned integers that, together with the
   source node ID and (if the bundle is a fragment) the fragment offset
   and payload length, serve to identify the bundle. The first of these
   integers is the bundle's creation time, while the second is the
   bundle's creation timestamp sequence number. Bundle creation time
   SHALL be the DTN time at which the transmission request was received
   that resulted in the creation of the bundle. Sequence count SHALL be
   the latest value (as of the time at which that transmission request
   was received) of a monotonically increasing positive integer counter
   managed by the source node's bundle protocol agent that MAY be reset
   to zero whenever the current time advances by one second. For nodes
   that lack accurate clocks, it is recommended that bundle creation
   time be set to zero and that the counter used as the source of the
   bundle sequence count never be reset to zero. Note that, in general,
   the creation of two distinct bundles with the same source node ID
   and bundle creation timestamp may result in unexpected network
   behavior and/or suboptimal performance. The combination of source
   node ID and bundle creation timestamp serves to identify a single
   transmission request, enabling it to be acknowledged by the
   receiving application (provided the source node ID is not the null
   endpoint ID).

   Lifetime: The lifetime field is an unsigned integer that indicates
   the time at which the bundle's payload will no longer be useful,
   encoded as a number of microseconds past the creation time. (For
   high-rate deployments with very brief disruptions, fine-grained
   expression of bundle lifetime may be useful.)  When a bundle's age
   exceeds its lifetime, bundle nodes need no longer retain or forward
   the bundle; the bundle SHOULD be deleted from the network. For
   bundles originating at nodes that lack accurate clocks, it is


Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 22]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


   recommended that bundle age be obtained from the Bundle Age
   extension block (see 4.3.2 below) rather than from the difference
   between current time and bundle creation time.  Bundle lifetime
   SHALL be represented as a CBOR unsigned integer item.

   Fragment offset: If and only if the Bundle Processing Control Flags
   of this Primary block indicate that the bundle is a fragment,
   fragment offset SHALL be present in the primary block. Fragment
   offset SHALL be represented as a CBOR unsigned integer indicating
   the offset from the start of the original application data unit at
   which the bytes comprising the payload of this bundle were located.

   Total Application Data Unit Length: If and only if the Bundle
   Processing Control Flags of this Primary block indicate that the
   bundle is a fragment, total application data unit length SHALL be
   present in the primary block. Total application data unit length
   SHALL be represented as a CBOR unsigned integer indicating the total
   length of the original application data unit of which this bundle's
   payload is a part.

   CRC: A CRC SHALL be present in the primary block unless the bundle
   includes a BPsec [BPSEC] Block Integrity Block whose target is the
   primary block, in which case a CRC MAY be present in the primary
   block.  The length and nature of the CRC SHALL be as indicated by
   the CRC type.  The CRC SHALL be computed over the concatenation of
   all bytes (including CBOR "break" characters) of the primary block
   including the CRC field itself, which for this purpose SHALL be
   temporarily populated with the value zero.

4.2.3. Canonical Bundle Block Format

   Every block other than the primary block (all such blocks are termed
   "canonical" blocks) SHALL be represented as a CBOR array; the number
   of elements in the array SHALL be 5 (if CRC type is zero) or 6
   (otherwise).

   The fields of every canonical block SHALL be as follows, listed in
   the order in which they MUST appear:

     . Block type code, an unsigned integer. Bundle block type code 1
        indicates that the block is a bundle payload block. Block type
        codes 2 through 9 are explicitly reserved as noted later in
        this specification.  Block type codes 192 through 255 are not
        reserved and are available for private and/or experimental use.
        All other block type code values are reserved for future use.
     . Block number, an unsigned integer as discussed in 4.2.1 above.
        Block number SHALL be represented as a CBOR unsigned integer.


Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 23]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


     . Block processing control flags as discussed in Section 4.1.4
        above.
     . CRC type as discussed in Section 4.1.1 above.
     . Block-type-specific data represented as a single definite-
        length CBOR byte string, i.e., a CBOR byte string that is not
        of indefinite length.  For each type of block, the block-type-
        specific data byte string is the serialization, in a block-
        type-specific manner, of the data conveyed by that type of
        block; definitions of blocks are required to define the manner
        in which block-type-specific data are serialized within the
        block-type-specific data field. For the Payload Block in
        particular (block type 1), the block-type-specific data field,
        termed the "payload", SHALL be an application data unit, or
        some contiguous extent thereof, represented as a definite-
        length CBOR byte string.
     . If and only if the value of the CRC type field of this block is
        non-zero, a CRC. If present, the length and nature of the CRC
        SHALL be as indicated by the CRC type and the CRC SHALL be
        computed over the concatenation of all bytes of the block
        (including CBOR "break" characters) including the CRC field
        itself, which for this purpose SHALL be temporarily populated
        with the value zero.

4.3. Extension Blocks

   "Extension blocks" are all blocks other than the primary and payload
   blocks. Because not all extension blocks are defined in the Bundle
   Protocol specification (the present document), not all nodes
   conforming to this specification will necessarily instantiate Bundle
   Protocol implementations that include procedures for processing
   (that is, recognizing, parsing, acting on, and/or producing) all
   extension blocks. It is therefore possible for a node to receive a
   bundle that includes extension blocks that the node cannot process.
   The values of the block processing control flags indicate the action
   to be taken by the bundle protocol agent when this is the case.

   Extension block types 11 and 12 are reserved for the Block Integrity
   Block and Block Confidentiality Block as defined in the Bundle
   Security Protocol specification [BPSEC].

   The following extension block types are reserved for extension
   blocks for which a need is anticipated but for which no definitions
   yet exist:

     . Block type 13 is reserved for the anticipated Manifest Block.
        Note: it is anticipated that the manifest block will identify
        the blocks that were present in the bundle at the time it was


Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 24]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


        created, implying that the bundle MUST contain one (1)
        occurrence of this type of block if the value of the "manifest"
        flag in the bundle processing control flags (anticipated but
        not yet defined) is 1, but otherwise the bundle MUST NOT
        contain any Manifest block.
     . Block type 14 is reserved for the anticipated Metadata Block.
        Note: the structure and function of the anticipated Metadata
        Block are currently undefined.
     . Block type 15 is reserved for the anticipated Data Label Block.
        Note: it is anticipated that the data label block will provide
        additional information that can assist nodes in making
        forwarding decisions.

   The following extension blocks are defined in the current document.

4.3.1. Previous Node

   The Previous Node block, block type 6, identifies the node that
   forwarded this bundle to the local node (i.e., to the node at which
   the bundle currently resides); its block-type-specific data is the
   node ID of that forwarder node which SHALL take the form of a node
   ID represented as described in Section 4.1.5.2. above.  If the local
   node is the source of the bundle, then the bundle MUST NOT contain
   any previous node block.  Otherwise the bundle SHOULD contain one
   (1) occurrence of this type of block.

4.3.2. Bundle Age

   The Bundle Age block, block type 7, contains the number of
   microseconds that have elapsed between the time the bundle was
   created and time at which it was most recently forwarded.  It is
   intended for use by nodes lacking access to an accurate clock, to
   aid in determining the time at which a bundle's lifetime expires.
   The block-type-specific data of this block is an unsigned integer
   containing the age of the bundle in microseconds, which SHALL be
   represented as a CBOR unsigned integer item. (The age of the bundle
   is the sum of all known intervals of the bundle's residence at
   forwarding nodes, up to the time at which the bundle was most
   recently forwarded, plus the summation of signal propagation time
   over all episodes of transmission between forwarding nodes.
   Determination of these values is an implementation matter.) If the
   bundle's creation time is zero, then the bundle MUST contain exactly
   one (1) occurrence of this type of block; otherwise, the bundle MAY
   contain at most one (1) occurrence of this type of block.  A bundle
   MUST NOT contain multiple occurrences of the bundle age block, as
   this could result in processing anomalies.



Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 25]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


4.3.3. Hop Count

   The Hop Count block, block type 10, contains two unsigned integers,
   hop limit and hop count.  A "hop" is here defined as an occasion on
   which a bundle was forwarded from one node to another node.  Hop
   limit MUST be in the range 1 through 255. The hop limit value SHOULD
   NOT be changed at any time after creation of the Hop Count block;
   the hop count value SHOULD initially be zero and SHOULD be increased
   by 1 on each hop.

   The hop count block is mainly intended as a safety mechanism, a
   means of identifying bundles for removal from the network that can
   never be delivered due to a persistent forwarding error.  When a
   bundle's hop count exceeds its hop limit, the bundle SHOULD be
   deleted for the reason "hop limit exceeded", following the bundle
   deletion procedure defined in Section 5.10. .  Procedures for
   determining the appropriate hop limit for a block are beyond the
   scope of this specification.  The block-type-specific data in a hop
   count block SHALL be represented as a CBOR array comprising a 2-
   tuple.  The first item of this array SHALL be the bundle's hop
   limit, represented as a CBOR unsigned integer.  The second item of
   this array SHALL be the bundle's hop count, represented as a CBOR
   unsigned integer. A bundle MAY contain at most one (1) occurrence of
   this type of block.

5. Bundle Processing

   The bundle processing procedures mandated in this section and in
   Section 6 govern the operation of the Bundle Protocol Agent and the
   Application Agent administrative element of each bundle node. They
   are neither exhaustive nor exclusive. Supplementary DTN protocol
   specifications (including, but not restricted to, the Bundle
   Security Protocol [BPSEC]) may augment, override, or supersede the
   mandates of this document.

5.1. Generation of Administrative Records

   All transmission of bundles is in response to bundle transmission
   requests presented by nodes' application agents. When required to
   "generate" an administrative record (such as a bundle status
   report), the bundle protocol agent itself is responsible for causing
   a new bundle to be transmitted, conveying that record. In concept,
   the bundle protocol agent discharges this responsibility by
   directing the administrative element of the node's application agent
   to construct the record and request its transmission as detailed in
   Section 6 below. In practice, the manner in which administrative



Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 26]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


   record generation is accomplished is an implementation matter,
   provided the constraints noted in Section 6 are observed.

   Note that requesting status reports for any single bundle might
   easily result in the generation of (1 + (2 *(N-1))) status report
   bundles, where N is the number of nodes on the path from the
   bundle's source to its destination, inclusive.  That is, the
   requesting of status reports for large numbers of bundles could
   result in an unacceptable increase in the bundle traffic in the
   network. For this reason, the generation of status reports MUST be
   disabled by default and enabled only when the risk of excessive
   network traffic is deemed acceptable.

   When the generation of status reports is enabled, the decision on
   whether or not to generate a requested status report is left to the
   discretion of the bundle protocol agent. Mechanisms that could
   assist in making such decisions, such as pre-placed agreements
   authorizing the generation of status reports under specified
   circumstances, are beyond the scope of this specification.

   Notes on administrative record terminology:

     . A "bundle reception status report" is a bundle status report
        with the "reporting node received bundle" flag set to 1.
     . A "bundle forwarding status report" is a bundle status report
        with the "reporting node forwarded the bundle" flag set to 1.
     . A "bundle delivery status report" is a bundle status report
        with the "reporting node delivered the bundle" flag set to 1.
     . A "bundle deletion status report" is a bundle status report
        with the "reporting node deleted the bundle" flag set to 1.

5.2. Bundle Transmission

   The steps in processing a bundle transmission request are:

   Step 1: Transmission of the bundle is initiated. An outbound bundle
   MUST be created per the parameters of the bundle transmission
   request, with the retention constraint "Dispatch pending". The
   source node ID of the bundle MUST be either the null endpoint ID,
   indicating that the source of the bundle is anonymous, or else the
   EID of a singleton endpoint whose only member is the node of which
   the BPA is a component.

   Step 2: Processing proceeds from Step 1 of Section 5.4.





Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 27]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


5.3. Bundle Dispatching

   The steps in dispatching a bundle are:

   Step 1: If the bundle's destination endpoint is an endpoint of which
   the node is a member, the bundle delivery procedure defined in
   Section 5.7 MUST be followed and for the purposes of all subsequent
   processing of this bundle at this node the node's membership in the
   bundle's destination endpoint SHALL be disavowed; specifically, even
   though the node is a member of the bundle's destination endpoint,
   the node SHALL NOT undertake to forward the bundle to itself in the
   course of performing the procedure described in Section 5.4.

   Step 2: Processing proceeds from Step 1 of Section 5.4.

5.4. Bundle Forwarding

   The steps in forwarding a bundle are:

   Step 1: The retention constraint "Forward pending" MUST be added to
   the bundle, and the bundle's "Dispatch pending" retention constraint
   MUST be removed.

   Step 2: The bundle protocol agent MUST determine whether or not
   forwarding is contraindicated for any of the reasons listed in
   Figure 4. In particular:

     . The bundle protocol agent MAY choose either to forward the
        bundle directly to its destination node(s) (if possible) or to
        forward the bundle to some other node(s) for further
        forwarding. The manner in which this decision is made may
        depend on the scheme name in the destination endpoint ID and/or
        on other state but in any case is beyond the scope of this
        document. If the BPA elects to forward the bundle to some other
        node(s) for further forwarding but finds it impossible to
        select any node(s) to forward the bundle to, then forwarding is
        contraindicated.
     . Provided the bundle protocol agent succeeded in selecting the
        node(s) to forward the bundle to, the bundle protocol agent
        MUST subsequently select the convergence layer adapter(s) whose
        services will enable the node to send the bundle to those
        nodes.  The manner in which specific appropriate convergence
        layer adapters are selected is beyond the scope of this
        document. If the agent finds it impossible to select any
        appropriate convergence layer adapter(s) to use in forwarding
        this bundle, then forwarding is contraindicated.



Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 28]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


   Step 3: If forwarding of the bundle is determined to be
   contraindicated for any of the reasons listed in Figure 4, then the
   Forwarding Contraindicated procedure defined in Section 5.4.1 MUST
   be followed; the remaining steps of Section 5.4 are skipped at this
   time.

   Step 4: For each node selected for forwarding, the bundle protocol
   agent MUST invoke the services of the selected convergence layer
   adapter(s) in order to effect the sending of the bundle to that
   node. Determining the time at which the bundle protocol agent
   invokes convergence layer adapter services is a BPA implementation
   matter.  Determining the time at which each convergence layer
   adapter subsequently responds to this service invocation by sending
   the bundle is a convergence-layer adapter implementation matter.
   Note that:

     . If the bundle contains a data label extension block (to be
        defined in a future document) then that data label value MAY
        identify procedures for determining the order in which
        convergence layer adapters must send bundles, e.g., considering
        bundle source when determining the order in which bundles are
        sent.  The definition of such procedures is beyond the scope of
        this specification.
     . If the bundle has a bundle age block, as defined in 4.3.2.
        above, then at the last possible moment before the CLA
        initiates conveyance of the bundle via the CL protocol the
        bundle age value MUST be increased by the difference between
        the current time and the time at which the bundle was received
        (or, if the local node is the source of the bundle, created).

   Step 5: When all selected convergence layer adapters have informed
   the bundle protocol agent that they have concluded their data
   sending procedures with regard to this bundle, processing may depend
   on the results of those procedures.  If completion of the data
   sending procedures by all selected convergence layer adapters has
   not resulted in successful forwarding of the bundle (an
   implementation-specific determination that is beyond the scope of
   this specification), then the bundle protocol agent MAY choose (in
   an implementation-specific manner, again beyond the scope of this
   specification) to initiate another attempt to forward the bundle.
   In that event, processing proceeds from Step 4 of Section 5.4.

   If completion of the data sending procedures by all selected
   convergence layer adapters HAS resulted in successful forwarding of
   the bundle, or if it has not but the bundle protocol agent does not
   choose to initiate another attempt to forward the bundle, then:



Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 29]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


     . If the "request reporting of bundle forwarding" flag in the
        bundle's status report request field is set to 1, and status
        reporting is enabled, then a bundle forwarding status report
        SHOULD be generated, destined for the bundle's report-to
        endpoint ID. The reason code on this bundle forwarding status
        report MUST be "no additional information".
     . If any applicable bundle protocol extensions mandate generation
        of status reports upon conclusion of convergence-layer data
        sending procedures, all such status reports SHOULD be generated
        with extension-mandated reason codes.
     . The bundle's "Forward pending" retention constraint MUST be
        removed.

5.4.1. Forwarding Contraindicated

   The steps in responding to contraindication of forwarding are:

   Step 1: The bundle protocol agent MUST determine whether or not to
   declare failure in forwarding the bundle. Note: this decision is
   likely to be influenced by the reason for which forwarding is
   contraindicated.

   Step 2: If forwarding failure is declared, then the Forwarding
   Failed procedure defined in Section 5.4.2 MUST be followed.

   Otherwise, when -- at some future time - the forwarding of this
   bundle ceases to be contraindicated, processing proceeds from Step 4
   of Section 5.4.

5.4.2. Forwarding Failed

   The steps in responding to a declaration of forwarding failure are:

   Step 1: The bundle protocol agent MAY forward the bundle back to the
   node that sent it, as identified by the Previous Node block, if
   present.  This forwarding, if performed, SHALL be accomplished by
   performing Step 4 and Step 5 of section 5.4 where the sole node
   selected for forwarding SHALL be the node that sent the bundle.

   Step 2: If the bundle's destination endpoint is an endpoint of which
   the node is a member, then the bundle's "Forward pending" retention
   constraint MUST be removed. Otherwise, the bundle MUST be deleted:
   the bundle deletion procedure defined in Section 5.10 MUST be
   followed, citing the reason for which forwarding was determined to
   be contraindicated.




Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 30]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


5.5. Bundle Expiration

   A bundle expires when the bundle's age exceeds its lifetime as
   specified in the primary bundle block. Bundle age MAY be determined
   by subtracting the bundle's creation timestamp time from the current
   time if (a) that timestamp time is not zero and (b) the local node's
   clock is known to be accurate; otherwise bundle age MUST be obtained
   from the Bundle Age extension block.  Bundle expiration MAY occur at
   any point in the processing of a bundle. When a bundle expires, the
   bundle protocol agent MUST delete the bundle for the reason
   "lifetime expired": the bundle deletion procedure defined in Section
   5.10 MUST be followed.

5.6. Bundle Reception

   The steps in processing a bundle that has been received from another
   node are:

   Step 1: The retention constraint "Dispatch pending" MUST be added to
   the bundle.

   Step 2: If the "request reporting of bundle reception" flag in the
   bundle's status report request field is set to 1, and status
   reporting is enabled, then a bundle reception status report with
   reason code "No additional information" SHOULD be generated,
   destined for the bundle's report-to endpoint ID.

   Step 3: CRCs SHOULD be computed for every block of the bundle that
   has an attached CRC.  If any block of the bundle is malformed
   according to this specification, or if any block has an attached CRC
   and the CRC computed for this block upon reception differs from that
   attached CRC, then the bundle protocol agent MUST delete the bundle
   for the reason "Block unintelligible".  The bundle deletion
   procedure defined in Section 5.10 MUST be followed and all remaining
   steps of the bundle reception procedure MUST be skipped.

   Step 4: For each block in the bundle that is an extension block that
   the bundle protocol agent cannot process:

     . If the block processing flags in that block indicate that a
        status report is requested in this event, and status reporting
        is enabled, then a bundle reception status report with reason
        code "Block unintelligible" SHOULD be generated, destined for
        the bundle's report-to endpoint ID.
     . If the block processing flags in that block indicate that the
        bundle must be deleted in this event, then the bundle protocol
        agent MUST delete the bundle for the reason "Block


Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 31]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


        unintelligible"; the bundle deletion procedure defined in
        Section 5.10 MUST be followed and all remaining steps of the
        bundle reception procedure MUST be skipped.
     . If the block processing flags in that block do NOT indicate
        that the bundle must be deleted in this event but do indicate
        that the block must be discarded, then the bundle protocol
        agent MUST remove this block from the bundle.
     . If the block processing flags in that block indicate neither
        that the bundle must be deleted nor that that the block must be
        discarded, then processing continues with the next extension
        block that the bundle protocol agent cannot process, if any;
        otherwise, processing proceeds from step 5.

   Step 5: Processing proceeds from Step 1 of Section 5.3.

5.7. Local Bundle Delivery

   The steps in processing a bundle that is destined for an endpoint of
   which this node is a member are:

   Step 1: If the received bundle is a fragment, the application data
   unit reassembly procedure described in Section 5.9 MUST be followed.
   If this procedure results in reassembly of the entire original
   application data unit, processing of this bundle (whose fragmentary
   payload has been replaced by the reassembled application data unit)
   proceeds from Step 2; otherwise, the retention constraint
   "Reassembly pending" MUST be added to the bundle and all remaining
   steps of this procedure MUST be skipped.

   Step 2: Delivery depends on the state of the registration whose
   endpoint ID matches that of the destination of the bundle:

     . An additional implementation-specific delivery deferral
        procedure MAY optionally be associated with the registration.
     . If the registration is in the Active state, then the bundle
        MUST be delivered automatically as soon as it is the next
        bundle that is due for delivery according to the BPA's bundle
        delivery scheduling policy, an implementation matter.
     . If the registration is in the Passive state, or if delivery of
        the bundle fails for some implementation-specific reason, then
        the registration's delivery failure action MUST be taken.
        Delivery failure action MUST be one of the following:

          o defer delivery of the bundle subject to this registration
             until (a) this bundle is the least recently received of
             all bundles currently deliverable subject to this
             registration and (b) either the registration is polled or


Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 32]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


             else the registration is in the Active state, and also
             perform any additional delivery deferral procedure
             associated with the registration; or

          o abandon delivery of the bundle subject to this registration
             (as defined in 3.1. ).

   Step 3: As soon as the bundle has been delivered, if the "request
   reporting of bundle delivery" flag in the bundle's status report
   request field is set to 1 and bundle status reporting is enabled,
   then a bundle delivery status report SHOULD be generated, destined
   for the bundle's report-to endpoint ID. Note that this status report
   only states that the payload has been delivered to the application
   agent, not that the application agent has processed that payload.

5.8. Bundle Fragmentation

   It may at times be advantageous for bundle protocol agents to reduce
   the sizes of bundles in order to forward them. This might be the
   case, for example, if a node to which a bundle is to be forwarded is
   accessible only via intermittent contacts and no upcoming contact is
   long enough to enable the forwarding of the entire bundle.

   The size of a bundle can be reduced by "fragmenting" the bundle. To
   fragment a bundle whose payload is of size M is to replace it with
   two "fragments" -- new bundles with the same source node ID and
   creation timestamp as the original bundle -- whose payloads are the
   first N and the last (M - N) bytes of the original bundle's payload,
   where 0 < N < M. Note that fragments may themselves be fragmented,
   so fragmentation may in effect replace the original bundle with more
   than two fragments. (However, there is only one 'level' of
   fragmentation, as in IP fragmentation.)

   Any bundle whose primary block's bundle processing flags do NOT
   indicate that it must not be fragmented MAY be fragmented at any
   time, for any purpose, at the discretion of the bundle protocol
   agent.  NOTE, however, that some combinations of bundle
   fragmentation, replication, and routing might result in unexpected
   traffic patterns.

   Fragmentation SHALL be constrained as follows:

     . The concatenation of the payloads of all fragments produced by
        fragmentation MUST always be identical to the payload of the
        fragmented bundle (that is, the bundle that is being
        fragmented). Note that the payloads of fragments resulting from
        different fragmentation episodes, in different parts of the


Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 33]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


        network, may be overlapping subsets of the fragmented bundle's
        payload.
     . The primary block of each fragment MUST differ from that of the
        fragmented bundle, in that the bundle processing flags of the
        fragment MUST indicate that the bundle is a fragment and both
        fragment offset and total application data unit length must be
        provided.  Additionally, the CRC of the primary block of the
        fragmented bundle, if any, MUST be replaced in each fragment by
        a new CRC computed for the primary block of that fragment.
     . The payload blocks of fragments will differ from that of the
        fragmented bundle as noted above.
     . If the fragmented bundle is not a fragment or is the fragment
        with offset zero, then all extension blocks of the fragmented
        bundle MUST be replicated in the fragment whose offset is zero.
     . Each of the fragmented bundle's extension blocks whose "Block
        must be replicated in every fragment" flag is set to 1 MUST be
        replicated in every fragment.
     . Beyond these rules, replication of extension blocks in the
        fragments is an implementation matter.

5.9. Application Data Unit Reassembly

   If the concatenation -- as informed by fragment offsets and payload
   lengths -- of the payloads of all previously received fragments with
   the same source node ID and creation timestamp as this fragment,
   together with the payload of this fragment, forms a byte array whose
   length is equal to the total application data unit length in the
   fragment's primary block, then:

     . This byte array -- the reassembled application data unit --
        MUST replace the payload of this fragment.
     . The "Reassembly pending" retention constraint MUST be removed
        from every other fragment whose payload is a subset of the
        reassembled application data unit.

   Note: reassembly of application data units from fragments occurs at
   the nodes that are members of destination endpoints as necessary; an
   application data unit MAY also be reassembled at some other node on
   the path to the destination.

5.10. Bundle Deletion

   The steps in deleting a bundle are:

   Step 1: If the "request reporting of bundle deletion" flag in the
   bundle's status report request field is set to 1, and if status
   reporting is enabled, then a bundle deletion status report citing


Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 34]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


   the reason for deletion SHOULD be generated, destined for the
   bundle's report-to endpoint ID.

   Step 2: All of the bundle's retention constraints MUST be removed.

5.11. Discarding a Bundle

   As soon as a bundle has no remaining retention constraints it MAY be
   discarded, thereby releasing any persistent storage that may have
   been allocated to it.

5.12. Canceling a Transmission

   When requested to cancel a specified transmission, where the bundle
   created upon initiation of the indicated transmission has not yet
   been discarded, the bundle protocol agent MUST delete that bundle
   for the reason "transmission cancelled". For this purpose, the
   procedure defined in Section 5.10 MUST be followed.

6. Administrative Record Processing

6.1. Administrative Records

   Administrative records are standard application data units that are
   used in providing some of the features of the Bundle Protocol. One
   type of administrative record has been defined to date: bundle
   status reports.  Note that additional types of administrative
   records may be defined by supplementary DTN protocol specification
   documents.

   Every administrative record consists of:

      . Record type code (an unsigned integer for which valid values
        are as defined below).
      . Record content in type-specific format.

   Valid administrative record type codes are defined as follows:

   +---------+--------------------------------------------+

   |  Value  |                   Meaning                  |

   +=========+============================================+

   |     1   | Bundle status report.                      |

   +---------+--------------------------------------------+


Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 35]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


   | (other) | Reserved for future use.                   |

   +---------+--------------------------------------------+

                Figure 3: Administrative Record Type Codes

   Each BP administrative record SHALL be represented as a CBOR array
   comprising a 2-tuple.

   The first item of the array SHALL be a record type code, which SHALL
   be represented as a CBOR unsigned integer.

   The second element of this array SHALL be the applicable CBOR
   representation of the content of the record.  Details of the CBOR
   representation of administrative record type 1 are provided below.
   Details of the CBOR representation of other types of administrative
   record type are included in the specifications defining those
   records.

6.1.1. Bundle Status Reports

   The transmission of "bundle status reports" under specified
   conditions is an option that can be invoked when transmission of a
   bundle is requested. These reports are intended to provide
   information about how bundles are progressing through the system,
   including notices of receipt, forwarding, final delivery, and
   deletion. They are transmitted to the Report-to endpoints of
   bundles.

   Each bundle status report SHALL be represented as a CBOR array.  The
   number of elements in the array SHALL be either 6 (if the subject
   bundle is a fragment) or 4 (otherwise).

   The first item of the bundle status report array SHALL be bundle
   status information represented as a CBOR array of at least 4
   elements.  The first four items of the bundle status information
   array shall provide information on the following four status
   assertions, in this order:

     . Reporting node received bundle.
     . Reporting node forwarded the bundle.
     . Reporting node delivered the bundle.
     . Reporting node deleted the bundle.

   Each item of the bundle status information array SHALL be a bundle
   status item represented as a CBOR array; the number of elements in
   each such array SHALL be either 2 (if the value of the first item of


Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 36]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


   this bundle status item is 1 AND the "Report status time" flag was
   set to 1 in the bundle processing flags of the bundle whose status
   is being reported) or 1 (otherwise).  The first item of the bundle
   status item array SHALL be a status indicator, a Boolean value
   indicating whether or not the corresponding bundle status is
   asserted, represented as a CBOR Boolean value.  The second item of
   the bundle status item array, if present, SHALL indicate the time
   (as reported by the local system clock, an implementation matter) at
   which the indicated status was asserted for this bundle, represented
   as a DTN time as described in Section 4.1.6. above.

   The second item of the bundle status report array SHALL be the
   bundle status report reason code explaining the value of the status
   indicator, represented as a CBOR unsigned integer. Valid status
   report reason codes are defined in Figure 4 below but the list of
   status report reason codes provided here is neither exhaustive nor
   exclusive; supplementary DTN protocol specifications (including, but
   not restricted to, the Bundle Security Protocol [BPSEC]) may define
   additional reason codes.

   +---------+--------------------------------------------+

   | Value   |                  Meaning                   |

   +=========+============================================+

   |    0    | No additional information.                 |

   +---------+--------------------------------------------+

   |    1    | Lifetime expired.                          |

   +---------+--------------------------------------------+

   |    2    | Forwarded over unidirectional link.        |

   +---------+--------------------------------------------+

   |    3    | Transmission canceled.                     |

   +---------+--------------------------------------------+

   |    4    | Depleted storage.                          |

   +---------+--------------------------------------------+

   |    5    | Destination endpoint ID unintelligible.    |


Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 37]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


   +---------+--------------------------------------------+

   |    6    | No known route to destination from here.   |

   +---------+--------------------------------------------+

   |    7    | No timely contact with next node on route. |

   +---------+--------------------------------------------+

   |    8    | Block unintelligible.                      |

   +---------+--------------------------------------------+

   |    9    | Hop limit exceeded.                        |

   +---------+--------------------------------------------+

   |    10   | Traffic pared (e.g., status reports).      |

   +---------+--------------------------------------------+

   | (other) | Reserved for future use.                   |

   +---------+--------------------------------------------+

                   Figure 4: Status Report Reason Codes

   The third item of the bundle status report array SHALL be the source
   node ID identifying the source of the bundle whose status is being
   reported, represented as described in Section 4.1.5.2. above.

   The fourth item of the bundle status report array SHALL be the
   creation timestamp of the bundle whose status is being reported,
   represented as described in Section 4.1.7. above.

   The fifth item of the bundle status report array SHALL be present if
   and only if the bundle whose status is being reported contained a
   fragment offset.  If present, it SHALL be the subject bundle's
   fragment offset represented as a CBOR unsigned integer item.

   The sixth item of the bundle status report array SHALL be present if
   and only if the bundle whose status is being reported contained a
   fragment offset.  If present, it SHALL be the length of the subject
   bundle's payload represented as a CBOR unsigned integer item.




Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 38]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


   Note that the forwarding parameters (such as lifetime, applicable
   security measures, etc.) of the bundle whose status is being
   reported MAY be reflected in the parameters governing the forwarding
   of the bundle that conveys a status report, but this is an
   implementation matter.  Bundle protocol deployment experience to
   date has not been sufficient to suggest any clear guidance on this
   topic.

6.2. Generation of Administrative Records

   Whenever the application agent's administrative element is directed
   by the bundle protocol agent to generate an administrative record
   with reference to some bundle, the following procedure must be
   followed:

   Step 1: The administrative record must be constructed. If the
   administrative record references a bundle and the referenced bundle
   is a fragment, the administrative record MUST contain the fragment
   offset and fragment length.

   Step 2: A request for transmission of a bundle whose payload is this
   administrative record MUST be presented to the bundle protocol
   agent.

7. Services Required of the Convergence Layer

7.1. The Convergence Layer

   The successful operation of the end-to-end bundle protocol depends
   on the operation of underlying protocols at what is termed the
   "convergence layer"; these protocols accomplish communication
   between nodes. A wide variety of protocols may serve this purpose,
   so long as each convergence layer protocol adapter provides a
   defined minimal set of services to the bundle protocol agent. This
   convergence layer service specification enumerates those services.

7.2. Summary of Convergence Layer Services

   Each convergence layer protocol adapter is expected to provide the
   following services to the bundle protocol agent:

     . sending a bundle to a bundle node that is reachable via the
        convergence layer protocol;
     . notifying the bundle protocol agent when it has concluded its
        data sending procedures with regard to a bundle;
     . delivering to the bundle protocol agent a bundle that was sent
        by a bundle node via the convergence layer protocol.


Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 39]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


   The convergence layer service interface specified here is neither
   exhaustive nor exclusive. That is, supplementary DTN protocol
   specifications (including, but not restricted to, the Bundle
   Security Protocol [BPSEC]) may expect convergence layer adapters
   that serve BP implementations conforming to those protocols to
   provide additional services such as reporting on the transmission
   and/or reception progress of individual bundles (at completion
   and/or incrementally), retransmitting data that were lost in
   transit, discarding bundle-conveying data units that the convergence
   layer protocol determines are corrupt or inauthentic, or reporting
   on the integrity and/or authenticity of delivered bundles.

8. Implementation Status

   [NOTE to the RFC Editor: please remove this section before
   publication, as well as the reference to RFC 7942.]

   This section records the status of known implementations of the
   protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of
   this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC
   7942.  The description of implementations in this section is
   intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing
   drafts to RFCs.  Please note that the listing of any individual
   implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF.
   Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information
   presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors.  This is not
   intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available
   implementations or their features.  Readers are advised to note that
   other implementations may exist.

   According to RFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working groups
   to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
   running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable
   experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented
   protocols more mature.  It is up to the individual working groups to
   use this information as they see fit".

   At the time of this writing, there are three known implementations
   of the current document.

   The first known implementation is microPCN (https://upcn.eu/).
   According to the developers:

     The Micro Planetary Communication Network (uPCN) is a free
     software project intended to offer an implementation of Delay-
     tolerant Networking protocols for POSIX operating systems (well,



Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 40]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


     and for Linux) plus for the ARM Cortex STM32F4 microcontroller
     series. More precisely it currently provides an implementation of

       . the Bundle Protocol (BP, RFC 5050),
       . the Bundle Protocol version 7 specification draft (version 6),
       . the DTN IP Neighbor Discovery (IPND) protocol, and
       . a routing approach optimized for message-ferry micro LEO
          satellites.

     uPCN is written in C and is built upon the real-time operating
     system FreeRTOS. The source code of uPCN is released under the
     "BSD 3-Clause License".

     The project depends on an execution environment offering link
     layer protocols such as AX.25. The source code uses the USB
     subsystem to interact with the environment.

   The second known implementation is PyDTN, developed by X-works,
   s.r.o (https://x-works.sk/).  The final third of the implementation
   was developed during the IETF 101 Hackathon.  According to the
   developers, PyDTN implements bundle coding/decoding and neighbor
   discovery.  PyDTN is written in Python and has been shown to be
   interoperable with uPCN.

   The third known implementation is "Terra"
   (https://github.com/RightMesh/Terra/), a Java implementation
   developed in the context of terrestrial DTN. It includes an
   implementation of a "minimal TCP" convergence layer adapter.

9. Security Considerations

   The bundle protocol security architecture and the available security
   services are specified in an accompanying document, the Bundle
   Security Protocol specification [BPSEC].

   The bpsec extensions to Bundle Protocol enable each block of a
   bundle (other than a bpsec extension block) to be individually
   authenticated by a signature block (Block Integrity Block, or BIB)
   and also enable each block of a bundle other than the primary block
   (and the bpsec extension blocks themselves) to be individually
   encrypted by a BCB.

   Because the security mechanisms are extension blocks that are
   themselves inserted into the bundle, the integrity and
   confidentiality of bundle blocks are protected while the bundle is
   at rest, awaiting transmission at the next forwarding opportunity,
   as well as in transit.


Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 41]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


   Additionally, convergence-layer protocols that ensure authenticity
   of communication between adjacent nodes in BP network topology
   SHOULD be used where available, to minimize the ability of
   unauthenticated nodes to introduce inauthentic traffic into the
   network.  Convergence-layer protocols that ensure confidentiality of
   communication between adjacent nodes in BP network topology SHOULD
   also be used where available, to minimize exposure of the bundle's
   primary block and other clear-text blocks, thereby offering some
   defense against traffic analysis.

   Note that, while the primary block must remain in the clear for
   routing purposes, the Bundle Protocol can be protected against
   traffic analysis to some extent by using bundle-in-bundle
   encapsulation to tunnel bundles to a safe forward distribution
   point: the encapsulated bundle forms the payload of an encapsulating
   bundle, and that payload block may be encrypted by a BCB.

   Note that the generation of bundle status reports is disabled by
   default because malicious initiation of bundle status reporting
   could result in the transmission of extremely large numbers of
   bundles, effecting a denial of service attack.

   The bpsec extensions accommodate an open-ended range of
   ciphersuites; different ciphersuites may be utilized to protect
   different blocks.  One possible variation is to sign and/or encrypt
   blocks using symmetric keys securely formed by Diffie-Hellman
   procedures (such as EKDH) using the public and private keys of the
   sending and receiving nodes.  For this purpose, the key distribution
   problem reduces to the problem of trustworthy delay-tolerant
   distribution of public keys, a current research topic.

   Bundle security MUST NOT be invalidated by forwarding nodes even
   though they themselves might not use the Bundle Security Protocol.

   In particular, while blocks MAY be added to bundles transiting
   intermediate nodes, removal of blocks with the "Discard block if it
   can't be processed" flag set in the block processing control flags
   may cause security to fail.

   Inclusion of the Bundle Security Protocol in any Bundle Protocol
   implementation is RECOMMENDED. Use of the Bundle Security Protocol
   in Bundle Protocol operations is OPTIONAL, subject to the following
   guidelines:

     . Every block (that is not a bpsec extension block) of every
        bundle SHOULD be authenticated by a BIB citing the ID of the
        node that inserted that block.  (Note that a single BIB may


Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 42]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


        authenticate multiple "target" blocks.)  BIB authentication MAY
        be omitted on (and only on) any initial end-to-end path
        segments on which it would impose unacceptable overhead,
        provided that satisfactory authentication is ensured at the
        convergence layer and that BIB authentication is asserted on
        the first path segment on which the resulting overhead is
        acceptable and on all subsequent path segments.
     . If any segment of the end-to-end path of a bundle will traverse
        the Internet or any other potentially insecure communication
        environment, then the payload block SHOULD be encrypted by a
        BCB on this path segment and all subsequent segments of the
        end-to-end path.

10. IANA Considerations

   The Bundle Protocol includes fields requiring registries managed by
   IANA.

10.1. Bundle Block Types

   The current Bundle Block Types Registry is augmented by adding a
   column identifying the version of the Bundle protocol (Bundle
   Protocol Version) that applies to the new values, and by adding the
   following values, as described in section 4.3.1. The current values
   in the registry should have the Bundle Protocol Version set to the
   value "6", as shown below..

   +----------+-------+-----------------------------+---------------+

   | Bundle   | Value | Description                 | Reference     |

   | Protocol |       |                             |               |

   | Version  |       |                             |               |

   +----------+-------+-----------------------------+---------------+

   |     none |     0 | Reserved                    | [RFC6255]     |

   |     6,7  |     1 | Bundle Payload Block        | [RFC5050]     |

   |     6    |     2 | Bundle Authentication Block | [RFC6257]     |

   |     6    |     3 | Payload Integrity Block     | [RFC6257]     |

   |     6    |     4 | Payload Confidentiality Blk | [RFC6257]     |



Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 43]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


   |     6    |     5 | Previous-Hop Insertion Block| [RFC6259]     |

   |       7  |     6 | Previous node (proximate    | 4.3.1         |

   |          |       |    sender)                  |               |

   |       7  |     7 | Bundle age (in seconds)     | 4.3.2         |

   |     6    |     8 | Metadata Extension Block    | [RFC6258]     |

   |     6    |     9 | Extension Security Block    | [RFC6257]     |

   |       7  |    10 | Hop count (#prior xmit      | 4.3.3         |

   |          |       |    attempts)                |               |

   |       7  | 11-15 | Reserved as noted earlier   | 4.3           |

   |          | 16-191| Unassigned                  |               |

   |     6    |192-255| Reserved for Private and/or | [RFC5050]     |

   |          |       |    Experimental Use         |               |

   +----------+-------+-----------------------------+---------------+

10.2. Primary Bundle Protocol Version

   The current Primary Bundle Protocol Version Registry is augmented by
   adding the following value.

   the following values:.

                  +-------+-------------+---------------+

                  | Value | Description | Reference     |

                  +-------+-------------+---------------+

                  |     7 | Assigned    |  4.2.2        |

                  +-------+-------------+---------------+

10.3. Bundle Processing Control Flags

   The current Bundle Processing Control Flags Registry is augmented by
   adding a column identifying the version of the Bundle protocol


Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 44]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


   (Bundle Protocol Version) that applies to the new values, and by
   adding the following values, as described in section 4.1.3. The
   current values in the registry should have the Bundle Protocol
   Version set to the value 6 or "6, 7", as shown below.
   Bundle Processing Control Flags Registry

   +--------------------+----------------------------------+----------+

   | Bundle  |      Bit | Description                      | Reference|

   | Protocol| Position |                                  |          |

   | Version |   (right |                                  |          |

   |         | to left) |                                  |          |

   +--------------------+----------------------------------+----------+

   |    6,7  |        0 | Bundle is a fragment             | [RFC5050]|

   |    6,7  |        1 | Application data unit is an      | [RFC5050]|

   |         |          |   administrative record          |          |

   |    6,7  |        2 | Bundle must not be fragmented    | [RFC5050]|

   |    6    |        3 | Custody transfer is requested    | [RFC5050]|

   |    6    |        4 | Destination endpoint is singleton| [RFC5050]|

   |    6,7  |        5 | Acknowledgement by application   | [RFC5050]|

   |         |          |   is requested                   |          |

   |      7  |        6 | Status time requested in reports | 4.1.3    |

   |    6    |        7 | Class of service, priority       | [RFC5050]|

   |    6    |        8 | Class of service, priority       | [RFC5050]|

   |    6    |        9 | Class of service, reserved       | [RFC5050]|

   |    6    |       10 | Class of service, reserved       | [RFC5050]|

   |    6    |       11 | Class of service, reserved       | [RFC5050]|

   |    6    |       12 | Class of service, reserved       | [RFC5050]|


Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 45]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


   |    6    |       13 | Class of service, reserved       | [RFC5050]|

   |    6,7  |       14 | Request reporting of bundle      | [RFC5050]|

   |         |          |   reception                      |          |

   |    6    |       15 | Request reporting of custody     | [RFC5050]|

   |         |          |   acceptance                     |          |

   |    6,7  |       16 | Request reporting of bundle      | [RFC5050]|

   |         |          |   forwarding                     |          |

   |    6,7  |       17 | Request reporting of bundle      | [RFC5050]|

   |         |          |   delivery                       |          |

   |    6,7  |       18 | Request reporting of bundle      | [RFC5050]|

   |         |          |   deletion                       |          |

   |    6    |       19 | Reserved                         | [RFC5050]|

   |    6    |       20 | Reserved                         | [RFC5050]|

   |         |    21-63 | Unassigned                       |          |

   +--------------------+----------------------------------+----------+

   The registration policy is changed to "Expert Review". Given the
   maximum number of bits available, the allocation should only be
   approved with a well-defined specification and proof of real usage.

10.4. Block Processing Control Flags

   The current Block Processing Control Flags Registry is augmented by
   adding a column identifying the version of the Bundle protocol
   (Bundle Protocol Version) that applies to the related BP version.
   The current values in the registry should have the Bundle Protocol
   Version set to the value 6 or "6, 7", as shown below.

                  Block Processing Control Flags Registry

   +--------------------+----------------------------------+----------+

   | Bundle  |      Bit | Description                      | Reference|


Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 46]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


   | Protocol| Position |                                  |          |

   | Version |   (right |                                  |          |

   |         | to left) |                                  |          |

   +--------------------+----------------------------------+----------+

   |     6,7 |        0 | Block must be replicated in      | [RFC5050]|

   |         |          |   every fragment                 |          |

   |     6,7 |        1 | Transmit status report if block  | [RFC5050]|

   |         |          |   can't be processed             |          |

   |     6,7 |        2 | Delete bundle if block can't be  | [RFC5050]|

   |          |         |   processed                      |          |

   |      6   |       3 | Last block                       | [RFC5050]|

   |      6,7 |       4 | Discard block if it can't be     | [RFC5050]|

   |          |         |   processed                      |          |

   |      6   |       5 | Block was forwarded without      | [RFC5050]|

   |          |         |   being processed                |          |

   |      6   |       6 | Block contains an EID reference  | [RFC5050]|

   |          |         |   field                          |          |

   |          |    7-63 | Unassigned                       |          |

   +--------------------+----------------------------------+----------+

10.5. Bundle Status Report Reason Codes

   The current Bundle Status Report Reason Codes Registry is augmented
   by adding a column identifying the version of the Bundle protocol
   (Bundle Protocol Version) that applies to the new values, and by
   adding the following values, as described in section 6.1.1. The
   current values in the registry should have the Bundle Protocol
   Version set to the value 6 or 7 or "6, 7", as shown below.



Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 47]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


                Bundle Status Report Reason Codes Registry

   +--------------------+----------------------------------+----------+

   | Bundle  |    Value | Description                      | Reference|

   | Protocol|          |                                  |          |

   | Version |          |                                  |          |

   |         |          |                                  |          |

   +--------------------+----------------------------------+----------+

   |     6,7 |        0 | No additional information        | [RFC5050]|

   |     6,7 |        1 | Lifetime expired                 | [RFC5050]|

   |     6,7 |        2 | Forwarded over unidirectional    | [RFC5050]|

   |         |          |    link                          |          |

   |     6,7 |        3 | Transmission canceled            | [RFC5050]|

   |     6,7 |        4 | Depleted storage                 | [RFC5050]|

   |     6,7 |        5 | Destination endpoint ID          | [RFC5050]|

   |         |          |    unintelligible                |          |

   |     6,7 |        6 | No known route to destination    | [RFC5050]|

   |         |          |    from here                     |          |

   |     6,7 |        7 | No timely contact with next node | [RFC5050]|

   |         |          |    on route                      |          |

   |     6,7 |        8 | Block unintelligible             | [RFC6255]|

   |       7 |        9 | Hop limit exceeded               | 6.1.1    |

   |       7 |       10 | Traffic pared                    | 6.1.1    |

   |         |   11-254 | Unassigned                       |          |

   |     6   |      255 | Reserved                         | [RFC6255]|


Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 48]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


   +-------+-----------------------------------------------+----------+

10.6. Bundle Protocol URI scheme types

   The Bundle Protocol has a URI scheme type field - an unsigned
   integer of undefined length - for which IANA is requested to create
   and maintain a new registry named "Bundle Protocol URI Scheme Type
   Registry".  Initial values for the Bundle Protocol URI scheme type
   registry are given below.

   The registration policy for this registry is: Specification
   Required. The nominated expert(s) verify that a specification exists
   and is readily accessible. Specifications for new registrations need
   to reference the documents defining the URIs for which new scheme
   types are being registered.  Expert(s) are encouraged to be biased
   towards approving registrations unless they are abusive, frivolous,
   or actively harmful (not merely aesthetically displeasing, or
   architecturally dubious).

   The value range is: unsigned 8-bit integer.

   Each assignment consists of a URI scheme type name and its
   associated description and reference.

                      Bundle Protocol URI Scheme Type Registry

    +--------------+-----------------------------+-------------------+

    |        Value | Description                 | Reference         |

    +--------------+-----------------------------+-------------------+

    |            0 | Reserved                    |                   |

    |            1 | dtn                         | 10.7              |

    |            2 | ipn                         | RFC6260, Section 4|

    |        3-254 | Unassigned                  |                   |

    |          255 | reserved                    |                   |

    +--------------+-----------------------------+-------------------+






Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 49]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


10.7. URI scheme "dtn"

   IANA is requested to update the registration of the URI scheme with
   the string "dtn" as the scheme name, as follows:

   URI scheme name: "dtn"

   Status: permanent

   URI scheme syntax:

   This specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF)
   notation of [RFC5234].

   dtn-uri = "dtn:" dtn-hier-part

   dtn-hier-part = "//" node-name name-delim demux ; a path-rootless

   node-name = 1*VCHAR

   name-delim = "/"

   demux = *VCHAR

   None of the reserved characters defined in the generic URI syntax
   are used as delimiters within URIs of the DTN scheme.

   URI scheme semantics: URIs of the DTN scheme are used as endpoint
   identifiers in the Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN) Bundle Protocol
   (BP) as described in Section 4.1.5.1.

   Encoding considerations: URIs of the DTN scheme are encoded
   exclusively in US-ASCII characters.

   Applications and/or protocols that use this URI scheme name: the
   Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN) Bundle Protocol (BP).

   Interoperability considerations: as noted above, URIs of the DTN
   scheme are encoded exclusively in US-ASCII characters.

   Security considerations:

     . Reliability and consistency: none of the BP endpoints
        identified by the URIs of the DTN scheme are guaranteed to be
        reachable at any time, and the identity of the processing
        entities operating on those endpoints is never guaranteed by



Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 50]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


        the Bundle Protocol itself. Bundle authentication as defined by
        the Bundle Security Protocol is required for this purpose.
     . Malicious construction: malicious construction of a conformant
        DTN-scheme URI is limited to the malicious selection of node
        names and the malicious selection of demux strings.  That is, a
        maliciously constructed DTN-scheme URI 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.
     . Back-end transcoding: the limited expressiveness of URIs of the
        DTN scheme effectively eliminates the possibility of threat due
        to errors in back-end transcoding.
     . Rare IP address formats: not relevant, as IP addresses do not
        appear anywhere in conformant DTN-scheme URIs.
     . Sensitive information: because DTN-scheme URIs are used only to
        represent the identities of Bundle Protocol endpoints, the risk
        of disclosure of sensitive information due to interception of
        these URIs is minimal.  Examination of DTN-scheme 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.
     . Semantic attacks: the simplicity of DTN-scheme URI syntax
        minimizes the possibility of misinterpretation of a URI by a
        human user.

   Contact:

      Scott Burleigh

      Jet Propulsion Laboratory,

      California Institute of Technology

      scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov

      +1 (800) 393-3353

   Author/Change controller:

      Scott Burleigh

      Jet Propulsion Laboratory,

      California Institute of Technology


Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 51]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


      scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov

10.8. Change status of URI scheme "ipn"

   IANA is requested to change to "permanent" the status of the URI
   scheme named "ipn".

11. References

11.1. Normative References

   [BPSEC] Birrane, E., "Bundle Security Protocol Specification", Work
   In Progress, October 2015.

   [CRC16] ITU-T Recommendation X.25, p. 9, section 2.2.7.4,
   International Telecommunications Union, October 1996.

   [CRC32C] Castagnoli, G., Brauer, S., and M. Herrmann, "Optimization
   of Cyclic Redundancy-Check Codes with 24 and 32 Parity Bits", IEEE
   Transact. on Communications, Vol. 41, No. 6, June 1993.

   [EPOCH] Thompson, K. and D. M. Ritchie, "UNIX Programmer's Manual,
   Fifth Edition", Bell Telephone Laboratories Inc., June 1974.  See
   https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Distributions/Research/Dennis_v5/v5man.
   pdf.

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

   [RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
   Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.

   [RFC7049] Borman, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
   Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, October 2013.

   [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
   2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, May 2017.

   [URI] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
   Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 3986, STD 66,
   January 2005.

   [URIREG] Thaler, D., Hansen, T., and T. Hardie, "Guidelines and
   Registration Procedures for URI Schemes", RFC 7595, BCP 35, June
   2015.




Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 52]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


11.2. Informative References

   [ARCH] V. Cerf et al., "Delay-Tolerant Network Architecture", RFC
   4838, April 2007.

   [BIBE] Burleigh, S., "Bundle-in-Bundle Encapsulation", Work In
   Progress, June 2017.

   [RFC3987] Duerst, M. and M. Suignard, "Internationalized Resource
   Identifiers (IRIs)", RFC 3987, January 2005.

   [RFC5050] Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, "Bundle Protocol
   Specification", RFC 5050, November 2007.

   [RFC6255] Blanchet, M., "Delay-Tolerant Networking Bundle Protocol
   IANA Registries", RFC 6255, May 2011.

   [RFC6257] Symington, S., Farrell, S., Weiss, H., and P. Lovell,
   "Bundle Security Protocol Specification", RFC 6257, May 2011.

   [RFC6258] Symington, S., " Delay-Tolerant Networking Metadata
   Extension Block", RFC 6258, May 2011.

   [RFC6259] Symington, S., " Delay-Tolerant Networking Previous-Hop
   Insertion Block", RFC 6259, May 2011.

   [RFC7143] Chadalapaka, M., Satran, J., Meth, K., and D. Black,
   "Internet Small Computer System Interface (iSCSI) Protocol
   (Consolidated)", RFC 7143, April 2014.

   [SIGC] Fall, K., "A Delay-Tolerant Network Architecture for
   Challenged Internets", SIGCOMM 2003.

   [UTC] Arias, E. and B. Guinot, "Coordinated universal time UTC:
   historical background and perspectives" in "Journees systemes de
   reference spatio-temporels", 2004.

12. Acknowledgments

   This work is freely adapted from RFC 5050, which was an effort of
   the Delay Tolerant Networking Research Group. The following DTNRG
   participants contributed significant technical material and/or
   inputs to that document: Dr. Vinton Cerf of Google, Scott Burleigh,
   Adrian Hooke, and Leigh Torgerson of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
   Michael Demmer of the University of California at Berkeley, Robert
   Durst, Keith Scott, and Susan Symington of The MITRE Corporation,
   Kevin Fall of Carnegie Mellon University, Stephen Farrell of Trinity


Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 53]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


   College Dublin, Howard Weiss and Peter Lovell of SPARTA, Inc., and
   Manikantan Ramadas of Ohio University.

   This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.

13. Significant Changes from RFC 5050

   Points on which this draft significantly differs from RFC 5050
   include the following:

     . Clarify the difference between transmission and forwarding.
     . Migrate custody transfer to the bundle-in-bundle encapsulation
        specification [BIBE].
     . Introduce the concept of "node ID" as functionally distinct
        from endpoint ID, while having the same syntax.
     . Restructure primary block, making it immutable.  Add optional
        CRC.
     . Add optional CRCs to non-primary blocks.
     . Add block ID number to canonical block format (to support
        BPSEC).
     . Add definition of bundle age extension block.
     . Add definition of previous node extension block.
     . Add definition of hop count extension block.
     . Remove Quality of Service markings.
     . Change from SDNVs to CBOR representation.
























Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 54]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


Appendix A.                 For More Information

   Please refer comments to dtn@ietf.org. DTN Working Group documents
   are located at https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dtn/documents.  The
   original Delay Tolerant Networking Research Group (DTNRG) Web site
   is located at https://irtf.org/concluded/dtnrg.

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors
   of the code. All rights reserved.

   Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
   modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject to the license
   terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License set forth in Section
   4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).


































Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 55]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


Appendix B.                  CDDL expression

   For informational purposes, Carsten Bormann and Brian Sipos have
   kindly provided an expression of the Bundle Protocol specification
   in the Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL).  That CDDL
   expression is presented below.  Note that wherever the CDDL
   expression is in disagreement with the textual representation of the
   BP specification presented in the earlier sections of this document,
   the textual representation rules.

   start = bundle / #6.55799(bundle)

   ; Times before 2000 are invalid

   dtn-time = uint

   ; CRC enumerated type

   crc-type = &(

     crc-none: 0,

     crc-16bit: 1,

     crc-32bit: 2

   )

   ; Either 16-bit or 32-bit

   crc-value = (bstr .size 2) / (bstr .size 4)



   creation-timestamp = [

     dtn-time, ; absolute time of creation

     sequence: uint ; sequence within the time

   ]

   eid = $eid .within eid-structure

   eid-structure = [

     uri-code: uint,


Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 56]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


     SSP: any

   ]

   $eid /= [

     uri-code: 1,

     SSP: (tstr / 0)

   ]

   $eid /= [

     uri-code: 2,

     SSP: [

       nodenum: uint,

       servicenum: uint

     ]

   ]

   ; The root bundle array

   bundle = [primary-block, *extension-block, payload-block]

   primary-block = [

     version: 7,

     bundle-control-flags,

     crc-type,

     destination: eid,

     source-node: eid,

     report-to: eid,

     creation-timestamp,

     lifetime: uint,


Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 57]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


     ? (

       fragment-offset: uint,

       total-application-data-length: uint

     ),

     ? crc-value,

   ]

   bundle-control-flags = uint .bits bundleflagbits

   bundleflagbits = &(

     reserved: 21,

     reserved: 20,

     reserved: 19,

     bundle-deletion-status-reports-are-requested: 18,

     bundle-delivery-status-reports-are-requested: 17,

     bundle-forwarding-status-reports-are-requested: 16,

     reserved: 15,

     bundle-reception-status-reports-are-requested: 14,

     reserved: 13,

     reserved: 12,

     reserved: 11,

     reserved: 10,

     reserved: 9,

     reserved: 8,

     reserved: 7,




Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 58]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


     status-time-is-requested-in-all-status-reports: 6,

     user-application-acknowledgement-is-requested: 5,

     reserved: 4,

     reserved: 3,

     bundle-must-not-be-fragmented: 2,

     payload-is-an-administrative-record: 1,

     bundle-is-a-fragment: 0

   )

   ; Abstract shared structure of all non-primary blocks

   canonical-block-structure = [

     block-type-code: uint,

     block-number: uint,

     block-control-flags,

     crc-type,

     ; Each block type defines the content within the bytestring

     block-type-specific-data,

     ? crc-value

   ]

   block-control-flags = uint .bits blockflagbits

   blockflagbits = &(

     reserved: 7,

     reserved: 6,

     reserved: 5,

     block-must-be-removed-from-bundle-if-it-cannot-be-processed: 4,


Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 59]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


     reserved: 3,

     bundle-must-be-deleted-if-block-cannot-be-processed: 2,

     status-report-must-be-transmitted-if-block-cannot-be-processed: 1,



     block-must-be-replicated-in-every-fragment: 0

   )

   block-type-specific-data = bstr / #6.24(bstr)

   ; Actual CBOR data embedded in a bytestring, with optional tag to
   indicate so

   embedded-cbor<Item> = (bstr .cbor Item) / #6.24(bstr .cbor Item)

   ; Extension block type, which does not specialize other than the
   code/number

   extension-block = $extension-block-structure .within canonical-
   block-structure

   ; Generic shared structure of all non-primary blocks

   extension-block-use<CodeValue, BlockData> = [

     block-type-code: CodeValue,

     block-number: (uint .gt 1),

     block-control-flags,

     crc-type,

     BlockData,

     ? crc-value

   ]

   ; Payload block type

   payload-block = payload-block-structure .within canonical-block-
   structure


Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 60]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


   payload-block-structure = [

     block-type-code: 1,

     block-number: 1,

     block-control-flags,

     crc-type,

     $payload-block-data,

     ? crc-value

   ]

   ; Arbitrary payload data, including non-CBOR bytestring

   $payload-block-data /= block-type-specific-data

   ; Administrative record as a payload data specialization

   $payload-block-data /= embedded-cbor<admin-record>

   admin-record = $admin-record .within admin-record-structure

   admin-record-structure = [

     record-type-code: uint,

     record-content: any

   ]

   ; Only one defined record type

   $admin-record /= [1, status-record-content]

   status-record-content = [

     bundle-status-information,

     status-report-reason-code: uint,

     source-node-eid: eid,

     subject-creation-timestamp: creation-timestamp,


Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 61]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


     ? (

       subject-payload-offset: uint,

       subject-payload-length: uint

     )

   ]

   bundle-status-information = [

     reporting-node-received-bundle: status-info-content,

     reporting-node-forwarded-bundle: status-info-content,

     reporting-node-delivered-bundle: status-info-content,

     reporting-node-deleted-bundle: status-info-content

   ]

   status-info-content = [

     status-indicator: bool,

     ? timestamp: dtn-time

   ]

   ; Previous Node extension block

   $extension-block-structure /=

     extension-block-use<7, embedded-cbor<ext-data-previous-node>>

   ext-data-previous-node = eid

   ; Bundle Age extension block

   $extension-block-structure /=

     extension-block-use<8, embedded-cbor<ext-data-bundle-age>>

   ext-data-bundle-age = uint

   ; Hop Count extension block


Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 62]


Internet-Draft        Bundle Protocol Version 7            October 2019


   $extension-block-structure /=

     extension-block-use<9, embedded-cbor<ext-data-hop-count>>

   ext-data-hop-count = [

     hop-limit: uint,

     hop-count: uint

   ]

Authors' Addresses

   Scott Burleigh
   Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology
   4800 Oak Grove Dr.
   Pasadena, CA 91109-8099
   US
   Phone: +1 818 393 3353
   Email: Scott.C.Burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov

   Kevin Fall
   Roland Computing Services
   3871 Piedmont Ave. Suite 8
   Oakland, CA 94611
   US
   Email: kfall+rcs@kfall.com

   Edward J. Birrane
   Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
   11100 Johns Hopkins Rd
   Laurel, MD 20723
   US
   Phone: +1 443 778 7423
   Email: Edward.Birrane@jhuapl.edu













Burleigh                  Expires April 2020                  [Page 63]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/