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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 RFC 7787

Homenet Working Group                                        M. Stenberg
Internet-Draft
Intended status: Standards Track                                S. Barth
Expires: January 4, 2016
                                                            July 3, 2015


                  Distributed Node Consensus Protocol
                       draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-07

Abstract

   This document describes the Distributed Node Consensus Protocol
   (DNCP), a generic state synchronization protocol which uses Trickle
   and Merkle trees.  DNCP leaves some details unspecified or provides
   alternative options.  Therefore, only profiles which specify those
   missing parts define actual implementable DNCP-based protocols.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 4, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of




Stenberg & Barth         Expires January 4, 2016                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft     Distributed Node Consensus Protocol         July 2015


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

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  Merkle Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  Data Transport  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  Trickle-Driven Status Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.4.  Processing of Received TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.5.  Adding and Removing Peers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.6.  Data Liveliness Validation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   5.  Data Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   6.  Optional Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     6.1.  Keep-Alives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       6.1.1.  Data Model Additions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       6.1.2.  Per-Endpoint Periodic Keep-Alives . . . . . . . . . .  15
       6.1.3.  Per-Peer Periodic Keep-Alives . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       6.1.4.  Received TLV Processing Additions . . . . . . . . . .  16
       6.1.5.  Neighbor Removal  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     6.2.  Support For Dense Broadcast Links . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     6.3.  Node Data Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   7.  Type-Length-Value Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     7.1.  Request TLVs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       7.1.1.  Request Network State TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       7.1.2.  Request Node State TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     7.2.  Data TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       7.2.1.  Node Endpoint TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       7.2.2.  Network State TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       7.2.3.  Node State TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     7.3.  Data TLVs within Node State TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       7.3.1.  Fragment Count TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       7.3.2.  Neighbor TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
       7.3.3.  Keep-Alive Interval TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   8.  Security and Trust Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     8.1.  Pre-Shared Key Based Trust Method . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     8.2.  PKI Based Trust Method  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     8.3.  Certificate Based Trust Consensus Method  . . . . . . . .  23
       8.3.1.  Trust Verdicts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
       8.3.2.  Trust Cache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
       8.3.3.  Announcement of Verdicts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
       8.3.4.  Bootstrap Ceremonies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   9.  DNCP Profile-Specific Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29



Stenberg & Barth         Expires January 4, 2016                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft     Distributed Node Consensus Protocol         July 2015


   11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     12.1.  Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     12.2.  Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
   Appendix A.  Alternative Modes of Operation . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     A.1.  Read-only Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     A.2.  Forwarding Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
   Appendix B.  Some Questions and Answers [RFC Editor: please
                remove]  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
   Appendix C.  Changelog [RFC Editor: please remove]  . . . . . . .  31
   Appendix D.  Draft Source [RFC Editor: please remove] . . . . . .  33
   Appendix E.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33

1.  Introduction

   DNCP is designed to provide a way for each participating node to
   publish a set of TLV (Type-Length-Value) tuples, and to provide a
   shared and common view about the data published by every currently or
   recently bidirectionally reachable DNCP node in a network.

   For state synchronization a Merkle tree is used.  It is formed by
   first calculating a hash for the dataset, called node data, published
   by each node, and then calculating another hash over those node data
   hashes.  The single resulting hash, called network state hash, is
   transmitted using the Trickle algorithm [RFC6206] to ensure that all
   nodes share the same view of the current state of the published data
   within the network.  The use of Trickle with only short network state
   hashes sent infrequently (in steady state) makes DNCP very thrifty
   when updates happen rarely.

   For maintaining liveliness of the topology and the data within it, a
   combination of Trickled network state, keep-alives, and "other" means
   of ensuring reachability are used.  The core idea is that if every
   node ensures its neighbors are present, transitively, the whole
   network state also stays up-to-date.

   DNCP is most suitable for data that changes only infrequently to gain
   the maximum benefit from using Trickle.  As the network of nodes, or
   the rate of data changes grows over a given time interval, Trickle is
   eventually used less and less and the benefit of using DNCP
   diminishes.  In these cases Trickle just provides extra complexity
   within the specification and little added value.  If constant rapid
   state changes are needed, the preferable choice is to use an
   additional point-to-point channel whose address or locator is
   published using DNCP.





Stenberg & Barth         Expires January 4, 2016                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft     Distributed Node Consensus Protocol         July 2015


2.  Terminology

   DNCP profile      a definition of the set of rules and values
                     defining the behavior of a fully specified,
                     implementable protocol which uses DNCP.  The DNCP
                     profile specifies transport method to be used,
                     which optional parts of the DNCP specification are
                     required by that particular protocol, and various
                     parameters and optional behaviors.  In this
                     document any parameter that a DNCP profile
                     specifies is prefixed with DNCP_.  Contents of a
                     DNCP profile are specified in Section 9.

   DNCP-based        a protocol which provides a DNCP profile, and
   protocol          potentially much more, e.g., protocol-specific TLVs
                     and guidance on how they should be used.
   DNCP node         a single node which runs a DNCP-based protocol.

   Link              a link-layer media over which directly connected
                     nodes can communicate.
   DNCP network      a set of DNCP nodes running the same DNCP-based
                     protocol.  The set consists of nodes that have
                     discovered each other using the transport method
                     defined in the DNCP profile, via multicast on local
                     links, and/or by using unicast communication.

   Node identifier   an opaque fixed-length identifier consisting of
                     DNCP_NODE_IDENTIFIER_LENGTH bytes which uniquely
                     identifies a DNCP node within a DNCP network.


   Interface         a node's attachment to a particular link.

   Address           As DNCP itself is relatively transport agnostic, an
                     address in this specification denotes just
                     something that identifies an endpoint used by the
                     transport protocol employed by a DNCP-based
                     protocol. In case of an IPv6 UDP transport, an
                     address in this specification refers to a tuple
                     (IPv6 address, UDP port).
   Endpoint          a locally configured communication endpoint of a
                     DNCP node, such as a network socket. It is either
                     bound to an Interface for multicast and unicast
                     communication, or configured for explicit unicast
                     communication with a predefined set of remote
                     addresses. Endpoints are usually in one of the
                     transport modes specified in Section 4.2.




Stenberg & Barth         Expires January 4, 2016                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft     Distributed Node Consensus Protocol         July 2015


   Endpoint          a 32-bit opaque value, which identifies a
   identifier        particular endpoint of a particular DNCP node. The
                     value 0 is reserved for DNCP and DNCP-based
                     protocol purposes and not used to identify an
                     actual endpoint. This definition is in sync with
                     the interface index definition in [RFC3493], as the
                     non-zero small positive integers should comfortably
                     fit within 32 bits.

   Peer              another DNCP node with which a DNCP node
                     communicates using a particular local and remote
                     endpoint pair.

   Node data         a set of TLVs published and owned by a node in the
                     DNCP network. Other nodes pass it along as-is, even
                     if they cannot fully interpret it.

   Node state        a set of metadata attributes for node data. It
                     includes a sequence number for versioning, a hash
                     value for comparing equality of stored node data,
                     and a timestamp indicating the time passed since
                     its last publication. The hash function and the
                     length of the hash value are defined in the DNCP
                     profile.

   Network state     a hash value which represents the current state of
   hash              the network.  The hash function and the length of
                     the hash value are defined in the DNCP profile.
                     Whenever a node is added, removed or updates its
                     published node data this hash value changes as
                     well.  For calculation, please see Section 4.1.

   Trust verdict     a statement about the trustworthiness of a
                     certificate announced by a node participating in
                     the certificate based trust consensus mechanism.

   Effective trust   the trust verdict with the highest priority within
   verdict           the set of trust verdicts announced for the
                     certificate in the DNCP network.

   Topology graph    the undirected graph of DNCP nodes produced by
                     retaining only bidirectional peer relationships
                     between nodes.








Stenberg & Barth         Expires January 4, 2016                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft     Distributed Node Consensus Protocol         July 2015


2.1.  Requirements Language

   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 RFC
   2119 [RFC2119].

3.  Overview

   DNCP operates primarily using unicast exchanges between nodes, and
   may use multicast for Trickle-based shared state dissemination and
   topology discovery.  If used in pure unicast mode with unreliable
   transport, Trickle is also used between peers.

   DNCP discovers the topology of its nodes and maintains the liveliness
   of published node data by ensuring that the publishing node was - at
   least recently - bidirectionally reachable.  This is determined,
   e.g., by a recent and consistent multicast or unicast TLV exchange
   with its peers.  New potential peers can be discovered autonomously
   on multicast-enabled links, their addresses may be manually
   configured or they may be found by some other means defined in a
   later specification.

   A Merkle tree is maintained by each node to represent the state of
   all currently reachable nodes and the Trickle algorithm is used to
   trigger synchronization.  The need to check neighboring nodes for
   state changes is thereby determined by comparing the current root of
   their respective trees, i.e., their individually calculated network
   state hashes.

   Before joining a DNCP network, a node starts with a Merkle tree (and
   therefore a calculated network state hash) only consisting of the
   node itself.  It then announces said hash by means of the Trickle
   algorithm on all its configured endpoints.

   When an update is detected by a node (e.g., by receiving a different
   network state hash from a peer) the originator of the event is
   requested to provide a list of the state of all nodes, i.e., all the
   information it uses to calculate its own Merkle tree.  The node uses
   the list to determine whether its own information is outdated and -
   if necessary - requests the actual node data that has changed.

   Whenever a node's local copy of any node data and its Merkle tree are
   updated (e.g., due to its own or another node's node state changing
   or due to a peer being added or removed) its Trickle instances are
   reset which eventually causes any update to be propagated to all of
   its peers.




Stenberg & Barth         Expires January 4, 2016                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft     Distributed Node Consensus Protocol         July 2015


4.  Operation

4.1.  Merkle Tree

   Each DNCP node maintains a Merkle tree of height 1 to manage state
   updates of individual DNCP nodes, the leaves of the tree, and the
   network as a whole, the root of the tree.

   Each leaf represents one recently bidirectionally reachable DNCP node
   (see Section 4.6), and is represented by a tuple consisting of the
   node's sequence number in network byte order concatenated with the
   hash-value of the node's ordered node data published in the Node
   State TLV (Section 7.2.3).  These leaves are ordered in ascending
   order of the respective node identifiers.  The root of the tree - the
   network state hash - is represented by the hash-value calculated over
   all such leaf tuples concatenated in order.  It is used to determine
   whether the view of the network of two or more nodes is consistent
   and shared.

   The leaves and the root network state hash are updated on-demand and
   whenever any locally stored per-node state changes.  This includes
   local unidirectional reachability encoded in the published Neighbor
   TLVs (Section 7.3.2) and - when combined with remote data - results
   in awareness of bidirectional reachability changes.

4.2.  Data Transport

   DNCP has relatively few requirements for the underlying transport; it
   requires some way of transmitting either unicast datagram or stream
   data to a peer and, if used in multicast mode, a way of sending
   multicast datagrams.  As multicast is used only to identify potential
   new DNCP nodes and to send status messages which merely notify that a
   unicast exchange should be triggered, the multicast transport does
   not have to be secured.  If unicast security is desired and one of
   the built-in security methods is to be used, support for some TLS-
   derived transport scheme - such as TLS [RFC5246] on top of TCP or
   DTLS [RFC6347] on top of UDP - is also required.  A specific
   definition of the transport(s) in use and their parameters MUST be
   provided by the DNCP profile.

   TLVs are sent across the transport as is, and they SHOULD be sent
   together where, e.g., MTU considerations do not recommend sending
   them in multiple batches.  TLVs in general are handled individually
   and statelessly, with one exception: To form bidirectional peer
   relationships DNCP requires identification of the endpoints used for
   communication.  As bidirectional peer relationships are required for
   validating liveliness of published node data as described in
   Section 4.6, a DNCP node MUST send an Endpoint TLV (Section 7.2.1).



Stenberg & Barth         Expires January 4, 2016                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft     Distributed Node Consensus Protocol         July 2015


   When it is sent varies, depending on the underlying transport, but
   conceptually it should be available whenever processing a Network
   State TLV:

   o  If using a stream transport, the TLV MUST be sent at least once,
      and it SHOULD be sent only once.

   o  If using a datagram transport, it MUST be included in every
      datagram that also contains a Network State TLV (Section 7.2.2)
      and MUST be located before any such TLV.  It SHOULD also be
      included in any other datagram, to speeds up initial peer
      detection.

   Given the assorted transport options as well as potential endpoint
   configuration, a DNCP endpoint may be used in various transport
   modes:

   Unicast:

      *  If only reliable unicast transport is employed, Trickle is not
         used at all.  Where Trickle reset has been specified, a single
         Network State TLV (Section 7.2.2) is sent instead to every
         unicast peer.  Additionally, recently changed Node State TLVs
         (Section 7.2.3) MAY be included.

      *  If only unreliable unicast transport is employed, Trickle state
         is kept per each peer and it is used to send Network State TLVs
         every now and then, as specified in Section 4.3.

   Multicast+Unicast:  If multicast datagram transport is available on
      an endpoint, Trickle state is only maintained for the endpoint as
      a whole.  It is used to send Network State TLVs every now and
      then, as specified in Section 4.3.  Additionally, per-endpoint
      keep-alives MAY be defined in the DNCP profile, as specified in
      Section 6.1.2.

   MulticastListen+Unicast:  Just like Unicast, except multicast
      transmissions are listened to in order to detect changes of the
      highest node identifier.  This mode is used only if the DNCP
      profile supports dense broadcast link optimization (Section 6.2).

4.3.  Trickle-Driven Status Updates

   The Trickle algorithm has 3 parameters: Imin, Imax and k.  Imin and
   Imax represent the minimum and maximum values for I, which is the
   time interval during which at least k Trickle updates must be seen on
   an endpoint to prevent local state transmission.  The actual




Stenberg & Barth         Expires January 4, 2016                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft     Distributed Node Consensus Protocol         July 2015


   suggested Trickle algorithm parameters are DNCP profile specific, as
   described in Section 9.

   The Trickle state for all Trickle instances is considered
   inconsistent and reset if and only if the locally calculated network
   state hash changes.  This occurs either due to a change in the local
   node's own node data, or due to receipt of more recent data from
   another node.  A node MUST NOT reset its Trickle state merely based
   on receiving a Network State TLV (Section 7.2.2) with a network state
   hash which is different from its locally calculated one.

   Every time a particular Trickle instance indicates that an update
   should be sent, the node MUST send a Network State TLV
   (Section 7.2.2) if and only if:

   o  the endpoint is in Multicast+Unicast transport mode, in which case
      the TLV MUST be sent over multicast.

   o  the endpoint is NOT in Multicast+Unicast transport mode, and the
      unicast transport is unreliable, in which case the TLV MUST be
      sent over unicast.

   A (sub)set of all Node State TLVs (Section 7.2.3) MAY also be
   included, unless it is defined as undesirable for some reason by the
   DNCP profile, or to avoid exposure of the node state TLVs by
   transmitting them within insecure multicast when using also secure
   unicast.

4.4.  Processing of Received TLVs

   This section describes how received TLVs are processed.  The DNCP
   profile may specify when to ignore particular TLVs, e.g., to modify
   security properties - see Section 9 for what may be safely defined to
   be ignored in a profile.  Any 'reply' mentioned in the steps below
   denotes sending of the specified TLV(s) over unicast to the
   originator of the TLV being processed.  If the TLV being replied to
   was received via multicast and it was sent to a link with shared
   bandwidth, the reply SHOULD be delayed by a random timespan in [0,
   Imin/2], to avoid potential simultaneous replies that may cause
   problems on some links.  Sending of replies MAY also be rate-limited
   or omitted for a short period of time by an implementation.  However,
   an implementation MUST eventually reply to similar repeated requests,
   as otherwise state synchronization breaks.

   A DNCP node MUST process TLVs received from any valid address, as
   specified by the DNCP profile and the configuration of a particular
   endpoint, whether this address is known to be the address of a
   neighbor or not.  This provision satisfies the needs of monitoring or



Stenberg & Barth         Expires January 4, 2016                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft     Distributed Node Consensus Protocol         July 2015


   other host software that needs to discover the DNCP topology without
   adding to the state in the network.

   Upon receipt of:

   o  Request Network State TLV (Section 7.1.1): The receiver MUST reply
      with a Network State TLV (Section 7.2.2) and a Node State TLV
      (Section 7.2.3) for each node data used to calculate the network
      state hash.  The Node State TLVs MUST NOT contain the optional
      node data part unless explicitly specified in the DNCP profile.

   o  Request Node State TLV (Section 7.1.2): If the receiver has node
      data for the corresponding node, it MUST reply with a Node State
      TLV (Section 7.2.3) for the corresponding node.  The optional node
      data part MUST be included in the TLV.

   o  Network State TLV (Section 7.2.2): If the network state hash
      differs from the locally calculated network state hash, and the
      receiver is unaware of any particular node state differences with
      the sender, the receiver MUST reply with a Request Network State
      TLV (Section 7.1.1).  These replies MUST be rate limited to only
      at most one reply per link per unique network state hash within
      Imin.  The simplest way to ensure this rate limit is a timestamp
      indicating requests, and sending at most one Request Network State
      TLV (Section 7.1.1) per Imin.  To facilitate faster state
      synchronization, if a Request Network State TLV is sent in a
      reply, a local, current Network State TLV MAY also be sent.

   o  Node State TLV (Section 7.2.3):

      *  If the node identifier matches the local node identifier and
         the TLV has a greater sequence number than its current local
         value, or the same sequence number and a different hash, the
         node SHOULD re-publish its own node data with an sequence
         number significantly (e.g., 1000) greater than the received
         one, to reclaim the node identifier.  This may occur normally
         once due to the local node restarting and not storing the most
         recently used sequence number.  If this occurs more than once
         or for nodes not re-publishing their own node data, the DNCP
         profile MUST provide guidance on how to handle these situations
         as it indicates the existence of another active node with the
         same node identifier.

      *  If the node identifier does not match the local node
         identifier, and one or more of the following conditions are
         true:





Stenberg & Barth         Expires January 4, 2016               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft     Distributed Node Consensus Protocol         July 2015


         +  The local information is outdated for the corresponding node
            (local sequence number is less than that within the TLV).

         +  The local information is potentially incorrect (local
            sequence number matches but the node data hash differs).

         +  There is no data for that node altogether.

         Then:

         +  If the TLV contains the Node Data field, it SHOULD also be
            verified by ensuring that the locally calculated H(Node
            Data) matches the content of the H(Node Data) field within
            the TLV.  If they differ, the TLV SHOULD be ignored and not
            processed further.

         +  If the TLV does not contain the Node Data field, and the
            H(Node Data) field within the TLV differs from the local
            node data hash for that node (or there is none), the
            receiver MUST reply with a Request Node State TLV
            (Section 7.1.2) for the corresponding node.

         +  Otherwise the receiver MUST update its locally stored state
            for that node (node data based on Node Data field if
            present, sequence number and relative time) to match the
            received TLV.

      For comparison purposes of the sequence number, a looping
      comparison function MUST be used to avoid problems in case of
      overflow.  The comparison function a < b <=> (a - b) % 2^32 & 2^31
      != 0 is RECOMMENDED unless the DNCP profile defines another.

   o  Any other TLV: TLVs not recognized by the receiver MUST be
      silently ignored.

   If secure unicast transport is configured for an endpoint, any Node
   State TLVs received over insecure multicast MUST be silently ignored.

4.5.  Adding and Removing Peers

   When receiving a Node Endpoint TLV (Section 7.2.1) on an endpoint
   from an unknown peer:

   o  If received over unicast, the remote node MUST be added as a peer
      on the endpoint and a Neighbor TLV (Section 7.3.2) MUST be created
      for it.





Stenberg & Barth         Expires January 4, 2016               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft     Distributed Node Consensus Protocol         July 2015


   o  If received over multicast, the node MAY be sent a (possibly rate-
      limited) unicast Request Network State TLV (Section 7.1.1).

   If keep-alives specified in Section 6.1 are NOT sent by the peer
   (either the DNCP profile does not specify the use of keep-alives or
   the particular peer chooses not to send keep-alives), some other
   existing local transport-specific means (such as Ethernet carrier-
   detection or TCP keep-alive) MUST be employed to ensure its presence.
   When the peer is no longer present, the Neighbor TLV and the local
   DNCP peer state MUST be removed.

   If the local endpoint is in the Multicast-Listen+Unicast transport
   mode, a Neighbor TLV (Section 7.3.2) MUST NOT be published for the
   peers not having the highest node identifier.

4.6.  Data Liveliness Validation

   The topology graph MUST be traversed either immediately or with a
   small delay shorter than the DNCP profile-defined Trickle Imin,
   whenever:

   o  A Neighbor TLV or a whole node is added or removed, or

   o  the origination time (in milliseconds) of some node's node data is
      less than current time - 2^32 + 2^15.

   The topology graph traversal starts with the local node marked as
   reachable.  Other nodes are then iteratively marked as reachable
   using the following algorithm: A candidate not-yet-reachable node N
   with an endpoint NE is marked as reachable if there is a reachable
   node R with an endpoint RE that meet all of the following criteria:

   o  The origination time (in milliseconds) of R's node data is greater
      than current time in - 2^32 + 2^15.

   o  R publishes a Neighbor TLV with:

      *  Neighbor Node Identifier = N's node identifier

      *  Neighbor Endpoint Identifier = NE's endpoint identifier

      *  Endpoint Identifier = RE's endpoint identifier

   o  N publishes a Neighbor TLV with:

      *  Neighbor Node Identifier = R's node identifier

      *  Neighbor Endpoint Identifier = RE's endpoint identifier



Stenberg & Barth         Expires January 4, 2016               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft     Distributed Node Consensus Protocol         July 2015


      *  Endpoint Identifier = NE's endpoint identifier

   The algorithm terminates, when no more candidate nodes fulfilling
   these criteria can be found.

   DNCP nodes that have not been reachable in the most recent topology
   graph traversal MUST NOT be used for calculation of the network state
   hash, be provided to any applications that need to use the whole TLV
   graph, or be provided to remote nodes.  They MAY be removed
   immediately after the topology graph traversal, however it is
   RECOMMENDED to keep them at least briefly to improve the speed of
   DNCP network state convergence and to reduce the number of redundant
   state transmissions between nodes.

5.  Data Model

   This section describes the local data structures a minimal
   implementation might use.  This section is provided only as a
   convenience for the implementor.  Some of the optional extensions
   (Section 6) describe additional data requirements, and some optional
   parts of the core protocol may also require more.

   A DNCP node has:

   o  A data structure containing data about the most recently sent
      Request Network State TLVs (Section 7.1.1).  The simplest option
      is keeping a timestamp of the most recent request (required to
      fulfill reply rate limiting specified in Section 4.4).

   A DNCP node has for every DNCP node in the DNCP network:

   o  Node identifier: the unique identifier of the node.  The length,
      how it is produced, and how collisions are handled, is up to the
      DNCP profile.

   o  Node data: the set of TLV tuples published by that particular
      node.  As they are transmitted ordered (see Node State TLV
      (Section 7.2.3) for details), maintaining the order within the
      data structure here may be reasonable.

   o  Latest sequence number: the 32-bit sequence number that is
      incremented any time the TLV set is published.  The comparison
      function used to compare them is described in Section 4.4.

   o  Origination time: the (estimated) time when the current TLV set
      with the current sequence number was published.  It is used to
      populate the Milliseconds Since Origination field in a Node State
      TLV (Section 7.2.3).  Ideally it also has millisecond accuracy.



Stenberg & Barth         Expires January 4, 2016               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft     Distributed Node Consensus Protocol         July 2015


   Additionally, a DNCP node has a set of endpoints for which DNCP is
   configured to be used.  For each such endpoint, a node has:

   o  Endpoint identifier: the 32-bit opaque value uniquely identifying
      it within the local node.

   o  Trickle instance: the endpoint's Trickle instance with parameters
      I, T, and c (only on an endpoint in Multicast+Unicast transport
      mode).

   and one (or more) of the following:

   o  Interface: the assigned local network interface.

   o  Unicast address: the DNCP node it should connect with.

   o  Range of addresses: the DNCP nodes that are allowed to connect.

   For each remote (peer, endpoint) pair detected on a local endpoint, a
   DNCP node has:

   o  Node identifier: the unique identifier of the peer.

   o  Endpoint identifier: the unique endpoint identifier used by the
      peer.

   o  Peer address: the most recently used address of the peer
      (authenticated and authorized, if security is enabled).

   o  Trickle instance: the particular peer's Trickle instance with
      parameters I, T, and c (only on an endpoint in Unicast mode, when
      using an unreliable unicast transport) .

6.  Optional Extensions

   This section specifies extensions to the core protocol that a DNCP
   profile may specify to be used.

6.1.  Keep-Alives

   Trickle-driven status updates (Section 4.3) provide a mechanism for
   handling of new peer detection on an endpoint, as well as state
   change notifications.  Another mechanism may be needed to get rid of
   old, no longer valid peers if the transport or lower layers do not
   provide one.

   If keep-alives are not specified in the DNCP profile, the rest of
   this subsection MUST be ignored.



Stenberg & Barth         Expires January 4, 2016               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft     Distributed Node Consensus Protocol         July 2015


   A DNCP profile MAY specify either per-endpoint or per-peer keep-alive
   support.

   For every endpoint that a keep-alive is specified for in the DNCP
   profile, the endpoint-specific keep-alive interval MUST be
   maintained.  By default, it is DNCP_KEEPALIVE_INTERVAL.  If there is
   a local value that is preferred for that for any reason
   (configuration, energy conservation, media type, ..), it can be
   substituted instead.  If a non-default keep-alive interval is used on
   any endpoint, a DNCP node MUST publish appropriate Keep-Alive
   Interval TLV(s) (Section 7.3.3) within its node data.

6.1.1.  Data Model Additions

   The following additions to the Data Model (Section 5) are needed to
   support keep-alives:

   For each configured endpoint that has per-endpoint keep-alives
   enabled:

   o  Last sent: If a timestamp which indicates the last time a Network
      State TLV (Section 7.2.2) was sent over that interface.

   For each remote (peer, endpoint) pair detected on a local endpoint, a
   DNCP node has:

   o  Last contact timestamp: a timestamp which indicates the last time
      a consistent Network State TLV (Section 7.2.2) was received from
      the peer over multicast, or anything was received over unicast.
      When adding a new peer, it is initialized to the current time.

   o  Last sent: If per-peer keep-alives are enabled, a timestamp which
      indicates the last time a Network State TLV (Section 7.2.2) was
      sent to to that point-to-point peer.  When adding a new peer, it
      is initialized to the current time.

6.1.2.  Per-Endpoint Periodic Keep-Alives

   If per-endpoint keep-alives are enabled on an endpoint in
   Multicast+Unicast transport mode, and if no traffic containing a
   Network State TLV (Section 7.2.2) has been sent to a particular
   endpoint within the endpoint-specific keep-alive interval, a Network
   State TLV (Section 7.2.2) MUST be sent on that endpoint, and a new
   Trickle transmission time 't' in [I/2, I] MUST be randomly chosen.
   The actual sending time SHOULD be further delayed by a random
   timespan in [0, Imin/2].





Stenberg & Barth         Expires January 4, 2016               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft     Distributed Node Consensus Protocol         July 2015


6.1.3.  Per-Peer Periodic Keep-Alives

   If per-peer keep-alives are enabled on a unicast-only endpoint, and
   if no traffic containing a Network State TLV (Section 7.2.2) has been
   sent to a particular peer within the endpoint-specific keep-alive
   interval, a Network State TLV (Section 7.2.2) MUST be sent to the
   peer and a new Trickle transmission time 't' in [I/2, I] MUST be
   randomly chosen.

6.1.4.  Received TLV Processing Additions

   If a TLV is received over unicast from the peer, the Last contact
   timestamp for the peer MUST be updated.

   On receipt of a Network State TLV (Section 7.2.2) which is consistent
   with the locally calculated network state hash, the Last contact
   timestamp for the peer MUST be updated.

6.1.5.  Neighbor Removal

   For every peer on every endpoint, the endpoint-specific keep-alive
   interval must be calculated by looking for Keep-Alive Interval TLVs
   (Section 7.3.3) published by the node, and if none exist, using the
   default value of DNCP_KEEPALIVE_INTERVAL.  If the peer's last contact
   timestamp has not been updated for at least locally chosen
   potentially endpoint-specific keep-alive multiplier (defaults to
   DNCP_KEEPALIVE_MULTIPLIER) times the peer's endpoint-specific keep-
   alive interval, the Neighbor TLV for that peer and the local DNCP
   peer state MUST be removed.

6.2.  Support For Dense Broadcast Links

   This optimization is needed to avoid a state space explosion.  Given
   a large set of DNCP nodes publishing data on an endpoint that
   actually uses multicast on a link, every node will add a Neighbor TLV
   (Section 7.3.2) for each peer.  While Trickle limits the amount of
   traffic on the link in stable state to some extent, the total amount
   of data that is added to and maintained in the DNCP network given N
   nodes on a multicast-enabled link is O(N^2).  Additionally if per-
   peer keep-alives are employed, there will be O(N^2) keep-alives
   running on the link if liveliness of peers is not ensured using some
   other way (e.g., TCP connection lifetime, layer 2 notification, per-
   endpoint keep-alive).

   An upper bound for the number of neighbors that are allowed for a
   particular type of link that an endpoint in Multicast+Unicast
   transport mode is used on SHOULD be provided by a DNCP profile, but
   MAY also be chosen at runtime.  Main consideration when selecting a



Stenberg & Barth         Expires January 4, 2016               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft     Distributed Node Consensus Protocol         July 2015


   bound (if any) for a particular type of link should be whether it
   supports broadcast traffic, and whether a too large number of
   neighbors case is likely to happen during the use of that DNCP
   profile on that particular type of link.  If neither is likely, there
   is little point specifying support for this for that particular link
   type.

   If a DNCP profile does not support this extension at all, the rest of
   this subsection MUST be ignored.  This is because when this extension
   is employed, the state within the DNCP network only contains a subset
   of the full topology of the network.  Therefore every node must be
   aware of the potential of it being used in a particular DNCP profile.

   If the specified upper bound is exceeded for some endpoint in
   Multicast+Unicast transport mode and if the node does not have the
   highest node identifier on the link, it SHOULD treat the endpoint as
   a unicast endpoint connected to the node that has the highest node
   identifier detected on the link, therefore transitioning to
   Multicast-listen+Unicast transport mode.  The nodes in Multicast-
   listen+Unicast transport mode MUST keep listening to multicast
   traffic to both receive messages from the node(s) still in
   Multicast+Unicast mode, and as well to react to nodes with a greater
   node identifier appearing.  If the highest node identifier present on
   the link changes, the remote unicast address of the endpoints in
   Multicast-Listen+Unicast transport mode MUST be changed.  If the node
   identifier of the local node is the highest one, the node MUST switch
   back to, or stay in Multicast+Unicast mode, and normally form peer
   relationships with all peers.

6.3.  Node Data Fragmentation

   A DNCP-based protocol may be required to support node data which
   would not fit the maximum size of a single Node State TLV
   (Section 7.2.3) (roughly 64KB of payload), or use a datagram-only
   transport with a limited MTU and no reliable support for
   fragmentation.  To handle such cases, a DNCP profile MAY specify a
   fixed number of trailing bytes in the node identifier to represent a
   fragment number indicating a part of a node's node data.  The profile
   MAY also specify an upper bound for the size of a single fragment to
   accommodate limitations of links in the network.  Note that the
   maximum size of fragment also constrains the maximum size of a single
   TLV published by a node.

   The data within Node State TLVs of all fragments MUST be valid, as
   specified in Section 7.2.3.  The locally used node data for a
   particular node MUST be produced by concatenating node data in each
   fragment, in ascending fragment number order.  The locally used




Stenberg & Barth         Expires January 4, 2016               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft     Distributed Node Consensus Protocol         July 2015


   concatenated node data MUST still follow the ordering described in
   Section 7.2.3.

   Any transmitted node identifiers used to identify the own or any
   other node MUST have the fragment number 0.  For algorithm purposes,
   the relative time since the most recent fragment change MUST be used,
   regardless of fragment number.  Therefore, even if just some of the
   node data fragments change, they all are considered refreshed if one
   of them is.

   If using fragmentation, the data liveliness validation defined in
   Section 4.6 is extended so that if a Fragment Count TLV
   (Section 7.3.1) is present within the fragment number 0, all
   fragments up to fragment number specified in the Count field are also
   considered reachable if the fragment number 0 itself is reachable
   based on graph traversal.

7.  Type-Length-Value Objects

   Each TLV is encoded as a 2 byte type field, followed by a 2 byte
   length field (of the value excluding header, in bytes, 0 meaning no
   value) followed by the value itself, if any.  Both type and length
   fields in the header as well as all integer fields inside the value -
   unless explicitly stated otherwise - are represented in network byte
   order.  Padding bytes with value zero MUST be added up to the next 4
   byte boundary if the length is not divisible by 4.  These padding
   bytes MUST NOT be included in the number stored in the length field.

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            Type               |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                             Value                             |
   |                     (variable # of bytes)                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   For example, type=123 (0x7b) TLV with value 'x' (120 = 0x78) is
   encoded as: 007B 0001 7800 0000.

   In this section, the following special notation is used:

      .. = octet string concatenation operation.

      H(x) = non-cryptographic hash function specified by DNCP profile.






Stenberg & Barth         Expires January 4, 2016               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft     Distributed Node Consensus Protocol         July 2015


7.1.  Request TLVs

7.1.1.  Request Network State TLV

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Type: REQ-NETWORK-STATE (1)  |           Length: 0           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   This TLV is used to request response with a Network State TLV
   (Section 7.2.2) and all Node State TLVs (Section 7.2.3) (without node
   data).

7.1.2.  Request Node State TLV

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Type: REQ-NODE-STATE (2)   |          Length: >0           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        Node Identifier                        |
   |                  (length fixed in DNCP profile)               |
   ...
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   This TLV is used to request a Node State TLV (Section 7.2.3)
   (including node data) for the node with the matching node identifier.

7.2.  Data TLVs

7.2.1.  Node Endpoint TLV

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type: NODE-ENDPOINT (3)     |          Length: > 4          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        Node Identifier                        |
   |                  (length fixed in DNCP profile)               |
   ...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Endpoint Identifier                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   This TLV identifies both the local node's node identifier, as well as
   the particular endpoint's endpoint identifier.



Stenberg & Barth         Expires January 4, 2016               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft     Distributed Node Consensus Protocol         July 2015


7.2.2.  Network State TLV

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Type: NETWORK-STATE (4)    |          Length: > 0          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     H(sequence number of node 1 .. H(node data of node 1) ..  |
   |    .. sequence number of node N .. H(node data of node N))    |
   |                  (length fixed in DNCP profile)               |
   ...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   This TLV contains the current locally calculated network state hash,
   see Section 4.1 for how it is calculated.

7.2.3.  Node State TLV

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |      Type: NODE-STATE (5)     |          Length: > 8          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        Node Identifier                        |
   |                  (length fixed in DNCP profile)               |
   ...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Sequence Number                         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Milliseconds Since Origination                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         H(Node Data)                          |
   |                  (length fixed in DNCP profile)               |
   ...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |       (optionally) Node Data (a set of nested TLVs)           |
   ...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   This TLV represents the local node's knowledge about the published
   state of a node in the DNCP network identified by the Node Identifier
   field in the TLV.

   Every node, including the originating one, MUST update the
   Milliseconds Since Origination whenever it sends a Node State TLV
   based on when the node estimates the data was originally published.
   This is, e.g., to ensure that any relative timestamps contained
   within the published node data can be correctly offset and



Stenberg & Barth         Expires January 4, 2016               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft     Distributed Node Consensus Protocol         July 2015


   interpreted.  Ultimately, what is provided is just an approximation,
   as transmission delays are not accounted for.

   Absent any changes, if the originating node notices that the 32-bit
   milliseconds since origination value would be close to overflow
   (greater than 2^32-2^16), the node MUST re-publish its TLVs even if
   there is no change.  In other words, absent any other changes, the
   TLV set MUST be re-published roughly every 48 days.

   The actual node data of the node may be included within the TLV as
   well in the optional Node Data field.  In a DNCP profile which
   supports fragmentation, described in Section 6.3, the TLV data may be
   only partial but it MUST contain full individual TLVs.  The set of
   TLVs MUST be strictly ordered based on ascending binary content
   (including TLV type and length).  This enables, e.g., efficient state
   delta processing and no-copy indexing by TLV type by the recipient.
   The Node Data content MUST be passed along exactly as it was
   received.  It SHOULD be also verified on receipt that the locally
   calculated H(Node Data) matches the content of the field within the
   TLV, and if the hash differs, the TLV SHOULD be ignored.

7.3.  Data TLVs within Node State TLV

   These TLVs are published by the DNCP nodes, and therefore only
   encoded within the Node State TLVs.  If encountered outside Node
   State TLV, they MUST be silently ignored.

7.3.1.  Fragment Count TLV

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Type: FRAGMENT-COUNT (7)     |         Length: > 0           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                             Count                             |
   |                  (length fixed in DNCP profile)               |
   ...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   If the DNCP profile supports node data fragmentation as specified in
   Section 6.3, this TLV indicates that the node data is encoded as a
   sequence of Node State TLVs.  Following Node State TLVs with Node
   Identifiers up to Count greater than the current one MUST be
   considered reachable and part of the same logical set of node data
   that this TLV is within.  The fragment portion of the Node Identifier
   of the Node State TLV this TLV appears in MUST be zero.





Stenberg & Barth         Expires January 4, 2016               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft     Distributed Node Consensus Protocol         July 2015


7.3.2.  Neighbor TLV

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |       Type: NEIGHBOR (8)      |          Length: > 8          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    Neighbor Node Identifier                   |
   |                  (length fixed in DNCP profile)               |
   ...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                  Neighbor Endpoint Identifier                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    Local Endpoint Identifier                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   This TLV indicates that the node in question vouches that the
   specified neighbor is reachable by it on the specified local
   endpoint.  The presence of this TLV at least guarantees that the node
   publishing it has received traffic from the neighbor recently.  For
   guaranteed up-to-date bidirectional reachability, the existence of
   both nodes' matching Neighbor TLVs needs to be checked.

7.3.3.  Keep-Alive Interval TLV

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Type: KEEP-ALIVE-INTERVAL (9) |          Length: 8            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Endpoint Identifier                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           Interval                            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   This TLV indicates a non-default interval being used to send keep-
   alives specified in Section 6.1.

   Endpoint identifier is used to identify the particular endpoint for
   which the interval applies.  If 0, it applies for ALL endpoints for
   which no specific TLV exists.

   Interval specifies the interval in milliseconds at which the node
   sends keep-alives.  A value of zero means no keep-alives are sent at
   all; in that case, some lower layer mechanism that ensures presence
   of nodes MUST be available and used.





Stenberg & Barth         Expires January 4, 2016               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft     Distributed Node Consensus Protocol         July 2015


8.  Security and Trust Management

   If specified in the DNCP profile, either DTLS [RFC6347] or TLS
   [RFC5246] may be used to authenticate and encrypt either some (if
   specified optional in the profile), or all unicast traffic.  The
   following methods for establishing trust are defined, but it is up to
   the DNCP profile to specify which ones may, should or must be
   supported.

8.1.  Pre-Shared Key Based Trust Method

   A PSK-based trust model is a simple security management mechanism
   that allows an administrator to deploy devices to an existing network
   by configuring them with a pre-defined key, similar to the
   configuration of an administrator password or WPA-key.  Although
   limited in nature it is useful to provide a user-friendly security
   mechanism for smaller networks.

8.2.  PKI Based Trust Method

   A PKI-based trust-model enables more advanced management capabilities
   at the cost of increased complexity and bootstrapping effort.  It
   however allows trust to be managed in a centralized manner and is
   therefore useful for larger networks with a need for an authoritative
   trust management.

8.3.  Certificate Based Trust Consensus Method

   The certificate-based consensus model is designed to be a compromise
   between trust management effort and flexibility.  It is based on
   X.509-certificates and allows each DNCP node to provide a trust
   verdict on any other certificate and a consensus is found to
   determine whether a node using this certificate or any certificate
   signed by it is to be trusted.

   A DNCP node not using this security method MUST ignore all announced
   trust verdicts and MUST NOT announce any such verdicts by itself,
   i.e., any other normative language in this subsection does not apply
   to it.

   The current effective trust verdict for any certificate is defined as
   the one with the highest priority from all trust verdicts announced
   for said certificate at the time.








Stenberg & Barth         Expires January 4, 2016               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft     Distributed Node Consensus Protocol         July 2015


8.3.1.  Trust Verdicts

   Trust verdicts are statements of DNCP nodes about the trustworthiness
   of X.509-certificates.  There are 5 possible trust verdicts in order
   of ascending priority:

      0 (Neutral): no trust verdict exists but the DNCP network should
      determine one.

      1 (Cached Trust): the last known effective trust verdict was
      Configured or Cached Trust.

      2 (Cached Distrust): the last known effective trust verdict was
      Configured or Cached Distrust.

      3 (Configured Trust): trustworthy based upon an external ceremony
      or configuration.

      4 (Configured Distrust): not trustworthy based upon an external
      ceremony or configuration.

   Trust verdicts are differentiated in 3 groups:

   o  Configured verdicts are used to announce explicit trust verdicts a
      node has based on any external trust bootstrap or predefined
      relation a node has formed with a given certificate.

   o  Cached verdicts are used to retain the last known trust state in
      case all nodes with configured verdicts about a given certificate
      have been disconnected or turned off.

   o  The Neutral verdict is used to announce a new node intending to
      join the network so a final verdict for it can be found.

   The current effective trust verdict for any certificate is defined as
   the one with the highest priority within the set of trust verdicts
   announced for the certificate in the DNCP network.  A node MUST be
   trusted for participating in the DNCP network if and only if the
   current effective trust verdict for its own certificate or any one in
   its certificate hierarchy is (Cached or Configured) Trust and none of
   the certificates in its hierarchy have an effective trust verdict of
   (Cached or Configured) Distrust.  In case a node has a configured
   verdict, which is different from the current effective trust verdict
   for a certificate, the current effective trust verdict takes
   precedence in deciding trustworthiness.  Despite that, the node still
   retains and announces its configured verdict.





Stenberg & Barth         Expires January 4, 2016               [Page 24]


Internet-Draft     Distributed Node Consensus Protocol         July 2015


8.3.2.  Trust Cache

   Each node SHOULD maintain a trust cache containing the current
   effective trust verdicts for all certificates currently announced in
   the DNCP network.  This cache is used as a backup of the last known
   state in case there is no node announcing a configured verdict for a
   known certificate.  It SHOULD be saved to a non-volatile memory at
   reasonable time intervals to survive a reboot or power outage.

   Every time a node (re)joins the network or detects the change of an
   effective trust verdict for any certificate, it will synchronize its
   cache, i.e., store new effective trust verdicts overwriting any
   previously cached verdicts.  Configured verdicts are stored in the
   cache as their respective cached counterparts.  Neutral verdicts are
   never stored and do not override existing cached verdicts.

8.3.3.  Announcement of Verdicts

   A node SHOULD always announce any configured trust verdicts it has
   established by itself, and it MUST do so if announcing the configured
   trust verdict leads to a change in the current effective trust
   verdict for the respective certificate.  In absence of configured
   verdicts, it MUST announce cached trust verdicts it has stored in its
   trust cache, if one of the following conditions applies:

   o  The stored trust verdict is Cached Trust and the current effective
      trust verdict for the certificate is Neutral or does not exist.

   o  The stored trust verdict is Cached Distrust and the current
      effective trust verdict for the certificate is Cached Trust.

   A node rechecks these conditions whenever it detects changes of
   announced trust verdicts anywhere in the network.

   Upon encountering a node with a hierarchy of certificates for which
   there is no effective trust verdict, a node adds a Neutral Trust-
   Verdict-TLV to its node data for all certificates found in the
   hierarchy, and publishes it until an effective trust verdict
   different from Neutral can be found for any of the certificates, or a
   reasonable amount of time (10 minutes is suggested) with no reaction
   and no further authentication attempts has passed.  Such trust
   verdicts SHOULD also be limited in rate and number to prevent denial-
   of-service attacks.

   Trust verdicts are announced using Trust-Verdict TLVs:






Stenberg & Barth         Expires January 4, 2016               [Page 25]


Internet-Draft     Distributed Node Consensus Protocol         July 2015


   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type: Trust-Verdict (10)    |        Length: 37-100         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Verdict    |                 (reserved)                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   |                      SHA-256 Fingerprint                      |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          Common Name                          |

      Verdict represents the numerical index of the trust verdict.

      (reserved) is reserved for future additions and MUST be set to 0
      when creating TLVs and ignored when parsing them.

      SHA-256 Fingerprint contains the SHA-256 [RFC6234] hash value of
      the certificate in DER-format.

      Common Name contains the variable-length (1-64 bytes) common name
      of the certificate.  Final byte MUST have value of 0.

8.3.4.  Bootstrap Ceremonies

   The following non-exhaustive list of methods describes possible ways
   to establish trust relationships between DNCP nodes and node
   certificates.  Trust establishment is a two-way process in which the
   existing network must trust the newly added node and the newly added
   node must trust at least one of its neighboring nodes.  It is
   therefore necessary that both the newly added node and an already
   trusted node perform such a ceremony to successfully introduce a node
   into the DNCP network.  In all cases an administrator MUST be
   provided with external means to identify the node belonging to a
   certificate based on its fingerprint and a meaningful common name.

8.3.4.1.  Trust by Identification

   A node implementing certificate-based trust MUST provide an interface
   to retrieve the current set of effective trust verdicts, fingerprints
   and names of all certificates currently known and set configured
   trust verdicts to be announced.  Alternatively it MAY provide a



Stenberg & Barth         Expires January 4, 2016               [Page 26]


Internet-Draft     Distributed Node Consensus Protocol         July 2015


   companion DNCP node or application with these capabilities with which
   it has a pre-established trust relationship.

8.3.4.2.  Preconfigured Trust

   A node MAY be preconfigured to trust a certain set of node or CA
   certificates.  However such trust relationships MUST NOT result in
   unwanted or unrelated trust for nodes not intended to be run inside
   the same network (e.g., all other devices by the same manufacturer).

8.3.4.3.  Trust on Button Press

   A node MAY provide a physical or virtual interface to put one or more
   of its internal network interfaces temporarily into a mode in which
   it trusts the certificate of the first DNCP node it can successfully
   establish a connection with.

8.3.4.4.  Trust on First Use

   A node which is not associated with any other DNCP node MAY trust the
   certificate of the first DNCP node it can successfully establish a
   connection with.  This method MUST NOT be used when the node has
   already associated with any other DNCP node.

9.  DNCP Profile-Specific Definitions

   Each DNCP profile MUST specify the following aspects:

   o  Unicast and optionally multicast transport protocol(s) to be used.
      If multicast-based node and status discovery is desired, a
      datagram-based transport supporting multicast has to be available.

   o  How the chosen transport(s) are secured: Not at all, optionally or
      always with the TLS scheme defined here using one or more of the
      methods, or with something else.  If the links with DNCP nodes can
      be sufficiently secured or isolated, it is possible to run DNCP in
      a secure manner without using any form of authentication or
      encryption.

   o  Transport protocols' parameters such as port numbers to be used,
      or multicast address to be used.  Unicast, multicast, and secure
      unicast may each require different parameters, if applicable.

   o  When receiving TLVs, what sort of TLVs are ignored in addition -
      as specified in Section 4.4 - e.g., for security reasons.  A DNCP
      profile may safely define the following DNCP TLVs to be safely
      ignored:




Stenberg & Barth         Expires January 4, 2016               [Page 27]


Internet-Draft     Distributed Node Consensus Protocol         July 2015


      *  Anything received over multicast, except Node Endpoint TLV
         (Section 7.2.1) and Network State TLV (Section 7.2.2).

      *  Any TLVs received over unreliable unicast or multicast at too
         high rate; Trickle will ensure eventual convergence given the
         rate slows down at some point.

   o  How to deal with node identifier collision as described in
      Section 4.4.  Main options are either for one or both nodes to
      assign new node identifiers to themselves, or to notify someone
      about a fatal error condition in the DNCP network.

   o  Imin, Imax and k ranges to be suggested for implementations to be
      used in the Trickle algorithm.  The Trickle algorithm does not
      require these to be the same across all implementations for it to
      work, but similar orders of magnitude helps implementations of a
      DNCP profile to behave more consistently and to facilitate
      estimation of lower and upper bounds for convergence behavior of
      the network.

   o  Hash function H(x) to be used, and how many bits of the output are
      actually used.  The chosen hash function is used to handle both
      hashing of node specific data, and network state hash, which is a
      hash of node specific data hashes.  SHA-256 defined in [RFC6234]
      is the recommended default choice, but a non-cryptographic hash
      function could be used as well.

   o  DNCP_NODE_IDENTIFIER_LENGTH: The fixed length of a node identifier
      (in bytes).

   o  Whether to send keep-alives, and if so, whether per-endpoint
      (requires multicast transport), or per-peer.  Keep-alive has also
      associated parameters:

      *  DNCP_KEEPALIVE_INTERVAL: How often keep-alives are to be sent
         by default (if enabled).

      *  DNCP_KEEPALIVE_MULTIPLIER: How many times the
         DNCP_KEEPALIVE_INTERVAL (or peer-supplied keep-alive interval
         value) a node may not be heard from to be considered still
         valid.  This is just a default used in absence of any other
         configuration information, or particular per-endpoint
         configuration.

   o  Whether to support fragmentation, and if so, the number of bytes
      reserved for fragment count in the node identifier.





Stenberg & Barth         Expires January 4, 2016               [Page 28]


Internet-Draft     Distributed Node Consensus Protocol         July 2015


10.  Security Considerations

   DNCP-based protocols may use multicast to indicate DNCP state changes
   and for keep-alive purposes.  However, no actual published data TLVs
   will be sent across that channel.  Therefore an attacker may only
   learn hash values of the state within DNCP and may be able to trigger
   unicast synchronization attempts between nodes on a local link this
   way.  A DNCP node should therefore rate-limit its reactions to
   multicast packets.

   When using DNCP to bootstrap a network, PKI based solutions may have
   issues when validating certificates due to potentially unavailable
   accurate time, or due to inability to use the network to either check
   Certifcate Revocation Lists or perform on-line validation.

   The Certificate-based trust consensus mechanism defined in this
   document allows for a consenting revocation, however in case of a
   compromised device the trust cache may be poisoned before the actual
   revocation happens allowing the distrusted device to rejoin the
   network using a different identity.  Stopping such an attack might
   require physical intervention and flushing of the trust caches.

11.  IANA Considerations

   IANA should set up a registry for DNCP TLV types, with the following
   initial contents:

   0: Reserved

   1: Request network state

   2: Request node state

   3: Node endpoint

   4: Network state

   5: Node state

   6: Reserved (was: Custom)

   7: Fragment count

   8: Neighbor

   9: Keep-alive interval

   10: Trust-Verdict



Stenberg & Barth         Expires January 4, 2016               [Page 29]


Internet-Draft     Distributed Node Consensus Protocol         July 2015


   32-191: Reserved for per-DNCP profile use

   192-255: Reserved for per-implementation experimentation.  How
   collision is avoided is out of scope of this document.

   For the rest of the values (11-31, 256-65535), policy of 'standards
   action' should be used.

12.  References

12.1.  Normative references

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

   [RFC6206]  Levis, P., Clausen, T., Hui, J., Gnawali, O., and J. Ko,
              "The Trickle Algorithm", RFC 6206, March 2011.

   [RFC6347]  Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
              Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, January 2012.

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.

12.2.  Informative references

   [RFC3493]  Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., and W.
              Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6", RFC
              3493, February 2003.

   [RFC6234]  Eastlake, D. and T. Hansen, "US Secure Hash Algorithms
              (SHA and SHA-based HMAC and HKDF)", RFC 6234, May 2011.

Appendix A.  Alternative Modes of Operation

   Beyond what is described in the main text, the protocol allows for
   other uses.  These are provided as examples.

A.1.  Read-only Operation

   If a node uses just a single endpoint and does not need to publish
   any TLVs, full DNCP node functionality is not required.  Such limited
   node can acquire and maintain view of the TLV space by implementing
   the processing logic as specified in Section 4.4.  Such node would
   not need Trickle, peer-maintenance or even keep-alives at all, as the
   DNCP nodes' use of it would guarantee eventual receipt of network
   state hashes, and synchronization of node data, even in presence of
   unreliable transport.



Stenberg & Barth         Expires January 4, 2016               [Page 30]


Internet-Draft     Distributed Node Consensus Protocol         July 2015


A.2.  Forwarding Operation

   If a node with a pair of endpoints does not need to publish any TLVs,
   it can detect (for example) nodes with the highest node identifier on
   each of the endpoints (if any).  Any TLVs received from one of them
   would be forwarded verbatim as unicast to the other node with highest
   node identifier.

   Any tinkering with the TLVs would remove guarantees of this scheme
   working; however passive monitoring would obviously be fine.  This
   type of simple forwarding cannot be chained, as it does not send
   anything proactively.

Appendix B.  Some Questions and Answers [RFC Editor: please remove]

   Q: 32-bit endpoint id?

   A: Here, it would save 32 bits per neighbor if it was 16 bits (and
   less is not realistic).  However, TLVs defined elsewhere would not
   seem to even gain that much on average.  32 bits is also used for
   ifindex in various operating systems, making for simpler
   implementation.

   Q: Why have topology information at all?

   A: It is an alternative to the more traditional seq#/TTL-based
   flooding schemes.  In steady state, there is no need to, e.g., re-
   publish every now and then.

Appendix C.  Changelog [RFC Editor: please remove]

   draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-06:

   o  Removed custom TLV.

   o  Made keep-alive multipliers local implementation choice, profiles
      just provide guidance on sane default value.

   o  Removed the DNCP_GRACE_INTERVAL as it is really implementation
      choice.

   o  Simplified the suggested structures in data model.

   o  Reorganized the document and provided an overview section.

   draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-04:





Stenberg & Barth         Expires January 4, 2016               [Page 31]


Internet-Draft     Distributed Node Consensus Protocol         July 2015


   o  Added mandatory rate limiting for network state requests, and
      optional slightly faster convergence mechanism by including
      current local network state in the remote network state requests.

   draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-03:

   o  Renamed connection -> endpoint.

   o  !!! Backwards incompatible change: Renumbered TLVs, and got rid of
      node data TLV; instead, node data TLV's contents are optionally
      within node state TLV.

   draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-02:

   o  Changed DNCP "messages" into series of TLV streams, allowing
      optimized round-trip saving synchronization.

   o  Added fragmentation support for bigger node data and for chunking
      in absence of reliable L2 and L3 fragmentation.

   draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-01:

   o  Fixed keep-alive semantics to consider unicast requests also
      updates of most recently consistent, and added proactive unicast
      request to ensure even inconsistent keep-alive messages eventually
      triggering consistency timestamp update.

   o  Facilitated (simple) read-only clients by making Node Connection
      TLV optional if just using DNCP for read-only purposes.

   o  Added text describing how to deal with "dense" networks, but left
      actual numbers and mechanics up to DNCP profiles and (local)
      configurations.

   draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-00: Split from pre-version of draft-ietf-
   homenet-hncp-03 generic parts.  Changes that affect implementations:

   o  TLVs were renumbered.

   o  TLV length does not include header (=-4).  This facilitates, e.g.,
      use of DHCPv6 option parsing libraries (same encoding), and
      reduces complexity (no need to handle error values of length less
      than 4).

   o  Trickle is reset only when locally calculated network state hash
      is changes, not as remote different network state hash is seen.
      This prevents, e.g., attacks by multicast with one multicast




Stenberg & Barth         Expires January 4, 2016               [Page 32]


Internet-Draft     Distributed Node Consensus Protocol         July 2015


      packet to force Trickle reset on every interface of every node on
      a link.

   o  Instead of 'ping', use 'keep-alive' (optional) for dead peer
      detection.  Different message used!

Appendix D.  Draft Source [RFC Editor: please remove]

   As usual, this draft is available at https://github.com/fingon/ietf-
   drafts/ in source format (with nice Makefile too).  Feel free to send
   comments and/or pull requests if and when you have changes to it!

Appendix E.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Ole Troan, Pierre Pfister, Mark Baugher, Mark Townsley,
   Juliusz Chroboczek, Jiazi Yi, Mikael Abrahamsson, Brian Carpenter,
   Thomas Clausen and DENG Hui for their contributions to the draft.

Authors' Addresses

   Markus Stenberg
   Helsinki  00930
   Finland

   Email: markus.stenberg@iki.fi


   Steven Barth
   Halle  06114
   Germany

   Email: cyrus@openwrt.org



















Stenberg & Barth         Expires January 4, 2016               [Page 33]


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