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

Versions: (draft-gjessing-taps-minset) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11

TAPS                                                            M. Welzl
Internet-Draft                                               S. Gjessing
Intended status: Informational                        University of Oslo
Expires: March 31, 2019                               September 27, 2018


          A Minimal Set of Transport Services for End Systems
                       draft-ietf-taps-minset-11

Abstract

   This draft recommends a minimal set of Transport Services offered by
   end systems, and gives guidance on choosing among the available
   mechanisms and protocols.  It is based on the set of transport
   features in RFC 8303.

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 https://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 March 31, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.




Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Deriving the minimal set  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  The Reduced Set of Transport Features . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  CONNECTION Related Transport Features . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  DATA Transfer Related Transport Features  . . . . . . . .   8
       4.2.1.  Sending Data  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.2.2.  Receiving Data  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.2.3.  Errors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.1.  Sending Messages, Receiving Bytes . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.2.  Stream Schedulers Without Streams . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.3.  Early Data Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.4.  Sender Running Dry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.5.  Capacity Profile  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     5.6.  Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     5.7.  Packet Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   6.  The Minimal Set of Transport Features . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     6.1.  ESTABLISHMENT, AVAILABILITY and TERMINATION . . . . . . .  14
     6.2.  MAINTENANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       6.2.1.  Connection groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       6.2.2.  Individual connections  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     6.3.  DATA Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       6.3.1.  Sending Data  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       6.3.2.  Receiving Data  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   Appendix A.  The Superset of Transport Features . . . . . . . . .  25
     A.1.  CONNECTION Related Transport Features . . . . . . . . . .  26
     A.2.  DATA Transfer Related Transport Features  . . . . . . . .  42
       A.2.1.  Sending Data  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
       A.2.2.  Receiving Data  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  46
       A.2.3.  Errors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  47
   Appendix B.  Revision information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  48
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  50

1.  Introduction

   Currently, the set of transport services that most applications use
   is based on TCP and UDP (and protocols that are layered on top of
   them); this limits the ability for the network stack to make use of
   features of other transport protocols.  For example, if a protocol



Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


   supports out-of-order message delivery but applications always assume
   that the network provides an ordered bytestream, then the network
   stack can not immediately deliver a message that arrives out-of-
   order: doing so would break a fundamental assumption of the
   application.  The net result is unnecessary head-of-line blocking
   delay.

   By exposing the transport services of multiple transport protocols, a
   transport system can make it possible for applications to use these
   services without being statically bound to a specific transport
   protocol.  The first step towards the design of such a system was
   taken by [RFC8095], which surveys a large number of transports, and
   [RFC8303] as well as [RFC8304], which identify the specific transport
   features that are exposed to applications by the protocols TCP,
   MPTCP, UDP(-Lite) and SCTP as well as the LEDBAT congestion control
   mechanism.  LEDBAT was included as the only congestion control
   mechanism in this list because the "low extra delay background
   transport" service that it offers is significantly different from the
   typical service provided by other congestion control mechanisms.
   This memo is based on these documents and follows the same
   terminology (also listed below).  Because the considered transport
   protocols conjointly cover a wide range of transport features, there
   is reason to hope that the resulting set (and the reasoning that led
   to it) will also apply to many aspects of other transport protocols
   that may be in use today, or may be designed in the future.

   By decoupling applications from transport protocols, a transport
   system provides a different abstraction level than the Berkeley
   sockets interface [POSIX].  As with high- vs. low-level programming
   languages, a higher abstraction level allows more freedom for
   automation below the interface, yet it takes some control away from
   the application programmer.  This is the design trade-off that a
   transport system developer is facing, and this document provides
   guidance on the design of this abstraction level.  Some transport
   features are currently rarely offered by APIs, yet they must be
   offered or they can never be used.  Other transport features are
   offered by the APIs of the protocols covered here, but not exposing
   them in an API would allow for more freedom to automate protocol
   usage in a transport system.  The minimal set presented here is an
   effort to find a middle ground that can be recommended for transport
   systems to implement, on the basis of the transport features
   discussed in [RFC8303].

   Applications use a wide variety of APIs today.  While this document
   was created to ensure the API developed in the Transport Services
   (TAPS) Working Group ([I-D.ietf-taps-interface]) includes the most
   important transport features, the minimal set presented here must be
   reflected in *all* network APIs in order for the underlying



Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


   functionality to become usable everywhere.  For example, it does not
   help an application that talks to a library which offers its own
   communication interface if the underlying Berkeley Sockets API is
   extended to offer "unordered message delivery", but the library only
   exposes an ordered bytestream.  Both the Berkeley Sockets API and the
   library would have to expose the "unordered message delivery"
   transport feature (alternatively, there may be ways for certain types
   of libraries to use this transport feature without exposing it, based
   on knowledge about the applications -- but this is not the general
   case).  Similarly, transport protocols such as SCTP offer multi-
   streaming, which cannot be utilized, e.g., to prioritize messages
   between streams, unless applications communicate the priorities and
   the group of connections upon which these priorities should be
   applied.  In most situations, in the interest of being as flexible
   and efficient as possible, the best choice will be for a library to
   expose at least all of the transport features that are recommended as
   a "minimal set" here.

   This "minimal set" can be implemented "one-sided" over TCP.  This
   means that a sender-side transport system can talk to a standard TCP
   receiver, and a receiver-side transport system can talk to a standard
   TCP sender.  If certain limitations are put in place, the "minimal
   set" can also be implemented "one-sided" over UDP.  While the
   possibility of such "one-sided" implementation may help deployment,
   it comes at the cost of limiting the set to services that can also be
   provided by TCP (or, with further limitations, UDP).  Thus, the
   minimal set of transport features here is applicable for many, but
   not all, applications: some application protocols have requirements
   that are not met by this "minimal set".

   Note that, throughout this document, protocols are meant to be used
   natively.  For example, when transport features of UDP, or
   "implementation over" UDP is discussed, this refers to native usage
   of UDP.

2.  Terminology

   Transport Feature:  a specific end-to-end feature that the transport
      layer provides to an application.  Examples include
      confidentiality, reliable delivery, ordered delivery, message-
      versus-stream orientation, etc.
   Transport Service:  a set of Transport Features, without an
      association to any given framing protocol, which provides a
      complete service to an application.
   Transport Protocol:  an implementation that provides one or more
      different transport services using a specific framing and header
      format on the wire.




Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


   Application:  an entity that uses a transport layer interface for
      end-to-end delivery of data across the network (this may also be
      an upper layer protocol or tunnel encapsulation).
   Application-specific knowledge:  knowledge that only applications
      have.
   End system:  an entity that communicates with one or more other end
      systems using a transport protocol.  An end system provides a
      transport layer interface to applications.
   Connection:  shared state of two or more end systems that persists
      across messages that are transmitted between these end systems.
   Connection Group:  a set of connections which share the same
      configuration (configuring one of them causes all other
      connections in the same group to be configured in the same way).
      We call connections that belong to a connection group "grouped",
      while "ungrouped" connections are not a part of a connection
      group.
   Socket:  the combination of a destination IP address and a
      destination port number.

   Moreover, throughout the document, the protocol name "UDP(-Lite)" is
   used when discussing transport features that are equivalent for UDP
   and UDP-Lite; similarly, the protocol name "TCP" refers to both TCP
   and MPTCP.

3.  Deriving the minimal set

   We assume that applications have no specific requirements that need
   knowledge about the network, e.g. regarding the choice of network
   interface or the end-to-end path.  Even with these assumptions, there
   are certain requirements that are strictly kept by transport
   protocols today, and these must also be kept by a transport system.
   Some of these requirements relate to transport features that we call
   "Functional".

   Functional transport features provide functionality that cannot be
   used without the application knowing about them, or else they violate
   assumptions that might cause the application to fail.  For example,
   ordered message delivery is a functional transport feature: it cannot
   be configured without the application knowing about it because the
   application's assumption could be that messages always arrive in
   order.  Failure includes any change of the application behavior that
   is not performance oriented, e.g. security.

   "Change DSCP" and "Disable Nagle algorithm" are examples of transport
   features that we call "Optimizing": if a transport system
   autonomously decides to enable or disable them, an application will
   not fail, but a transport system may be able to communicate more
   efficiently if the application is in control of this optimizing



Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


   transport feature.  These transport features require application-
   specific knowledge (e.g., about delay/bandwidth requirements or the
   length of future data blocks that are to be transmitted).

   The transport features of IETF transport protocols that do not
   require application-specific knowledge and could therefore be
   utilized by a transport system on its own without involving the
   application are called "Automatable".

   We approach the construction of a minimal set of transport features
   in the following way:

   1.  Categorization (Appendix A): the superset of transport features
       from [RFC8303] is presented, and transport features are
       categorized as Functional, Optimizing or Automatable for later
       reduction.
   2.  Reduction (Section 4): a shorter list of transport features is
       derived from the categorization in the first step.  This removes
       all transport features that do not require application-specific
       knowledge or would result in semantically incorrect behavior if
       they were implemented over TCP or UDP.
   3.  Discussion (Section 5): the resulting list shows a number of
       peculiarities that are discussed, to provide a basis for
       constructing the minimal set.
   4.  Construction (Section 6): Based on the reduced set and the
       discussion of the transport features therein, a minimal set is
       constructed.

   Following [RFC8303] and retaining its terminology, we divide the
   transport features into two main groups as follows:

   1.  CONNECTION related transport features
       - ESTABLISHMENT
       - AVAILABILITY
       - MAINTENANCE
       - TERMINATION

   2.  DATA Transfer related transport features
       - Sending Data
       - Receiving Data
       - Errors


4.  The Reduced Set of Transport Features

   By hiding automatable transport features from the application, a
   transport system can gain opportunities to automate the usage of
   network-related functionality.  This can facilitate using the



Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


   transport system for the application programmer and it allows for
   optimizations that may not be possible for an application.  For
   instance, system-wide configurations regarding the usage of multiple
   interfaces can better be exploited if the choice of the interface is
   not entirely up to the application.  Therefore, since they are not
   strictly necessary to expose in a transport system, we do not include
   automatable transport features in the reduced set of transport
   features.  This leaves us with only the transport features that are
   either optimizing or functional.

   A transport system should be able to communicate via TCP or UDP if
   alternative transport protocols are found not to work.  For many
   transport features, this is possible -- often by simply not doing
   anything when a specific request is made.  For some transport
   features, however, it was identified that direct usage of neither TCP
   nor UDP is possible: in these cases, even not doing anything would
   incur semantically incorrect behavior.  Whenever an application would
   make use of one of these transport features, this would eliminate the
   possibility to use TCP or UDP.  Thus, we only keep the functional and
   optimizing transport features for which an implementation over either
   TCP or UDP is possible in our reduced set.

   The following list contains the transport features from Appendix A,
   reduced using these rules.  The "minimal set" derived in this
   document is meant to be implementable "one-sided" over TCP, and, with
   limitations, UDP.  In the list, we therefore precede a transport
   feature with "T:" if an implementation over TCP is possible, "U:" if
   an implementation over UDP is possible, and "T,U:" if an
   implementation over either TCP or UDP is possible.

4.1.  CONNECTION Related Transport Features

   ESTABLISHMENT:

   o  T,U: Connect
   o  T,U: Specify number of attempts and/or timeout for the first
      establishment message
   o  T,U: Disable MPTCP
   o  T: Configure authentication
   o  T: Hand over a message to reliably transfer (possibly multiple
      times) before connection establishment
   o  T: Hand over a message to reliably transfer during connection
      establishment

   AVAILABILITY:

   o  T,U: Listen
   o  T,U: Disable MPTCP



Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


   o  T: Configure authentication

   MAINTENANCE:

   o  T: Change timeout for aborting connection (using retransmit limit
      or time value)
   o  T: Suggest timeout to the peer
   o  T,U: Disable Nagle algorithm
   o  T,U: Notification of Excessive Retransmissions (early warning
      below abortion threshold)
   o  T,U: Specify DSCP field
   o  T,U: Notification of ICMP error message arrival
   o  T: Change authentication parameters
   o  T: Obtain authentication information
   o  T,U: Set Cookie life value
   o  T,U: Choose a scheduler to operate between streams of an
      association
   o  T,U: Configure priority or weight for a scheduler
   o  T,U: Disable checksum when sending
   o  T,U: Disable checksum requirement when receiving
   o  T,U: Specify checksum coverage used by the sender
   o  T,U: Specify minimum checksum coverage required by receiver
   o  T,U: Specify DF field
   o  T,U: Get max. transport-message size that may be sent using a non-
      fragmented IP packet from the configured interface
   o  T,U: Get max. transport-message size that may be received from the
      configured interface
   o  T,U: Obtain ECN field
   o  T,U: Enable and configure a "Low Extra Delay Background Transfer"

   TERMINATION:

   o  T: Close after reliably delivering all remaining data, causing an
      event informing the application on the other side
   o  T: Abort without delivering remaining data, causing an event
      informing the application on the other side
   o  T,U: Abort without delivering remaining data, not causing an event
      informing the application on the other side
   o  T,U: Timeout event when data could not be delivered for too long

4.2.  DATA Transfer Related Transport Features

4.2.1.  Sending Data

   o  T: Reliably transfer data, with congestion control
   o  T: Reliably transfer a message, with congestion control
   o  T,U: Unreliably transfer a message
   o  T: Configurable Message Reliability



Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


   o  T: Ordered message delivery (potentially slower than unordered)
   o  T,U: Unordered message delivery (potentially faster than ordered)
   o  T,U: Request not to bundle messages
   o  T: Specifying a key id to be used to authenticate a message
   o  T,U: Request not to delay the acknowledgement (SACK) of a message

4.2.2.  Receiving Data

   o  T,U: Receive data (with no message delimiting)
   o  U: Receive a message
   o  T,U: Information about partial message arrival

4.2.3.  Errors

   This section describes sending failures that are associated with a
   specific call to in the "Sending Data" category (Appendix A.2.1).

   o  T,U: Notification of send failures
   o  T,U: Notification that the stack has no more user data to send
   o  T,U: Notification to a receiver that a partial message delivery
      has been aborted

5.  Discussion

   The reduced set in the previous section exhibits a number of
   peculiarities, which we will discuss in the following.  This section
   focuses on TCP because, with the exception of one particular
   transport feature ("Receive a message" -- we will discuss this in
   Section 5.1), the list shows that UDP is strictly a subset of TCP.
   We can first try to understand how to build a transport system that
   can run over TCP, and then narrow down the result further to allow
   that the system can always run over either TCP or UDP (which
   effectively means removing everything related to reliability,
   ordering, authentication and closing/aborting with a notification to
   the peer).

   Note that, because the functional transport features of UDP are --
   with the exception of "Receive a message" -- a subset of TCP, TCP can
   be used as a replacement for UDP whenever an application does not
   need message delimiting (e.g., because the application-layer protocol
   already does it).  This has been recognized by many applications that
   already do this in practice, by trying to communicate with UDP at
   first, and falling back to TCP in case of a connection failure.








Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


5.1.  Sending Messages, Receiving Bytes

   For implementing a transport system over TCP, there are several
   transport features related to sending, but only a single transport
   feature related to receiving: "Receive data (with no message
   delimiting)" (and, strangely, "information about partial message
   arrival").  Notably, the transport feature "Receive a message" is
   also the only non-automatable transport feature of UDP(-Lite) for
   which no implementation over TCP is possible.

   To support these TCP receiver semantics, we define an "Application-
   Framed Bytestream" (AFra-Bytestream).  AFra-Bytestreams allow senders
   to operate on messages while minimizing changes to the TCP socket
   API.  In particular, nothing changes on the receiver side - data can
   be accepted via a normal TCP socket.

   In an AFra-Bytestream, the sending application can optionally inform
   the transport about message boundaries and required properties per
   message (configurable order and reliability, or embedding a request
   not to delay the acknowledgement of a message).  Whenever the sending
   application specifies per-message properties that relax the notion of
   reliable in-order delivery of bytes, it must assume that the
   receiving application is 1) able to determine message boundaries,
   provided that messages are always kept intact, and 2) able to accept
   these relaxed per-message properties.  Any signaling of such
   information to the peer is up to an application-layer protocol and
   considered out of scope of this document.

   For example, if an application requests to transfer fixed-size
   messages of 100 bytes with partial reliability, this needs the
   receiving application to be prepared to accept data in chunks of 100
   bytes.  If, then, some of these 100-byte messages are missing (e.g.,
   if SCTP with Configurable Reliability is used), this is the expected
   application behavior.  With TCP, no messages would be missing, but
   this is also correct for the application, and the possible
   retransmission delay is acceptable within the best-effort service
   model (see [RFC7305], Section 3.5).  Still, the receiving application
   would separate the byte stream into 100-byte chunks.

   Note that this usage of messages does not require all messages to be
   equal in size.  Many application protocols use some form of Type-
   Length-Value (TLV) encoding, e.g. by defining a header including
   length fields; another alternative is the use of byte stuffing
   methods such as COBS [COBS].  If an application needs message
   numbers, e.g. to restore the correct sequence of messages, these must
   also be encoded by the application itself, as the sequence number
   related transport features of SCTP are not provided by the "minimum
   set" (in the interest of enabling usage of TCP).



Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


5.2.  Stream Schedulers Without Streams

   We have already stated that multi-streaming does not require
   application-specific knowledge.  Potential benefits or disadvantages
   of, e.g., using two streams of an SCTP association versus using two
   separate SCTP associations or TCP connections are related to
   knowledge about the network and the particular transport protocol in
   use, not the application.  However, the transport features "Choose a
   scheduler to operate between streams of an association" and
   "Configure priority or weight for a scheduler" operate on streams.
   Here, streams identify communication channels between which a
   scheduler operates, and they can be assigned a priority.  Moreover,
   the transport features in the MAINTENANCE category all operate on
   assocations in case of SCTP, i.e. they apply to all streams in that
   assocation.

   With only these semantics necessary to represent, the interface to a
   transport system becomes easier if we assume that connections may be
   not only a transport protocol's connection or association, but could
   also be a stream of an existing SCTP association, for example.  We
   only need to allow for a way to define a possible grouping of
   connections.  Then, all MAINTENANCE transport features can be said to
   operate on connection groups, not connections, and a scheduler
   operates on the connections within a group.

   To be compatible with multiple transport protocols and uniformly
   allow access to both transport connections and streams of a multi-
   streaming protocol, the semantics of opening and closing need to be
   the most restrictive subset of all of the underlying options.  For
   example, TCP's support of half-closed connections can be seen as a
   feature on top of the more restrictive "ABORT"; this feature cannot
   be supported because not all protocols used by a transport system
   (including streams of an association) support half-closed
   connections.

5.3.  Early Data Transmission

   There are two transport features related to transferring a message
   early: "Hand over a message to reliably transfer (possibly multiple
   times) before connection establishment", which relates to TCP Fast
   Open [RFC7413], and "Hand over a message to reliably transfer during
   connection establishment", which relates to SCTP's ability to
   transfer data together with the COOKIE-Echo chunk.  Also without TCP
   Fast Open, TCP can transfer data during the handshake, together with
   the SYN packet -- however, the receiver of this data may not hand it
   over to the application until the handshake has completed.  Also,
   different from TCP Fast Open, this data is not delimited as a message
   by TCP (thus, not visible as a ``message'').  This functionality is



Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


   commonly available in TCP and supported in several implementations,
   even though the TCP specification does not explain how to provide it
   to applications.

   A transport system could differentiate between the cases of
   transmitting data "before" (possibly multiple times) or "during" the
   handshake.  Alternatively, it could also assume that data that are
   handed over early will be transmitted as early as possible, and
   "before" the handshake would only be used for messages that are
   explicitly marked as "idempotent" (i.e., it would be acceptable to
   transfer them multiple times).

   The amount of data that can successfully be transmitted before or
   during the handshake depends on various factors: the transport
   protocol, the use of header options, the choice of IPv4 and IPv6 and
   the Path MTU.  A transport system should therefore allow a sending
   application to query the maximum amount of data it can possibly
   transmit before (or, if exposed, during) connection establishment.

5.4.  Sender Running Dry

   The transport feature "Notification that the stack has no more user
   data to send" relates to SCTP's "SENDER DRY" notification.  Such
   notifications can, in principle, be used to avoid having an
   unnecessarily large send buffer, yet ensure that the transport sender
   always has data available when it has an opportunity to transmit it.
   This has been found to be very beneficial for some applications
   [WWDC2015].  However, "SENDER DRY" truly means that the entire send
   buffer (including both unsent and unacknowledged data) has emptied --
   i.e., when it notifies the sender, it is already too late, the
   transport protocol already missed an opportunity to send data.  Some
   modern TCP implementations now include the unspecified
   "TCP_NOTSENT_LOWAT" socket option that was proposed in [WWDC2015],
   which limits the amount of unsent data that TCP can keep in the
   socket buffer; this allows to specify at which buffer filling level
   the socket becomes writable, rather than waiting for the buffer to
   run empty.

   SCTP allows to configure the sender-side buffer too: the automatable
   Transport Feature "Configure send buffer size" provides this
   functionality, but only for the complete buffer, which includes both
   unsent and unacknowledged data.  SCTP does not allow to control these
   two sizes separately.  It therefore makes sense for a transport
   system to allow for uniform access to "TCP_NOTSENT_LOWAT" as well as
   the "SENDER DRY" notification.






Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


5.5.  Capacity Profile

   The transport features:

   o  Disable Nagle algorithm
   o  Enable and configure a "Low Extra Delay Background Transfer"
   o  Specify DSCP field

   all relate to a QoS-like application need such as "low latency" or
   "scavenger".  In the interest of flexibility of a transport system,
   they could therefore be offered in a uniform, more abstract way,
   where a transport system could e.g. decide by itself how to use
   combinations of LEDBAT-like congestion control and certain DSCP
   values, and an application would only specify a general "capacity
   profile" (a description of how it wants to use the available
   capacity).  A need for "lowest possible latency at the expense of
   overhead" could then translate into automatically disabling the Nagle
   algorithm.

   In some cases, the Nagle algorithm is best controlled directly by the
   application because it is not only related to a general profile but
   also to knowledge about the size of future messages.  For fine-grain
   control over Nagle-like functionality, the "Request not to bundle
   messages" is available.

5.6.  Security

   Both TCP and SCTP offer authentication.  TCP authenticates complete
   segments.  SCTP allows to configure which of SCTP's chunk types must
   always be authenticated -- if this is exposed as such, it creates an
   undesirable dependency on the transport protocol.  For compatibility
   with TCP, a transport system should only allow to configure complete
   transport layer packets, including headers, IP pseudo-header (if any)
   and payload.

   Security is discussed in a separate document
   [I-D.ietf-taps-transport-security].  The minimal set presented in the
   present document excludes all security related transport features
   from Appendix A: "Configure authentication", "Change authentication
   parameters", "Obtain authentication information" and "Set Cookie life
   value" as well as "Specifying a key id to be used to authenticate a
   message".  It also excludes security transport features not listed in
   Appendix A, including content privacy to in-path devices.








Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


5.7.  Packet Size

   UDP(-Lite) has a transport feature called "Specify DF field".  This
   yields an error message in case of sending a message that exceeds the
   Path MTU, which is necessary for a UDP-based application to be able
   to implement Path MTU Discovery (a function that UDP-based
   applications must do by themselves).  The "Get max. transport-message
   size that may be sent using a non-fragmented IP packet from the
   configured interface" transport feature yields an upper limit for the
   Path MTU (minus headers) and can therefore help to implement Path MTU
   Discovery more efficiently.

6.  The Minimal Set of Transport Features

   Based on the categorization, reduction, and discussion in Section 3,
   this section describes a minimal set of transport features that end
   systems should offer.  Any configuration based the described minimum
   set of transport feature can always be realized over TCP but also
   gives the transport system flexibility to choose another transport if
   implemented.  In the text of this section, "not UDP" is used to
   indicate elements of the system that cannot be implemented over UDP.
   Conversely, all elements of the system that are not marked with "not
   UDP" can also be implemented over UDP.

   The arguments laid out in Section 5 ("discussion") were used to make
   the final representation of the minimal set as short, simple and
   general as possible.  There may be situations where these arguments
   do not apply -- e.g., implementers may have specific reasons to
   expose multi-streaming as a visible functionality to applications, or
   the restrictive open / close semantics may be problematic under some
   circumstances.  In such cases, the representation in Section 4
   ("reduction") should be considered.

   As in Section 3, Section 4 and [RFC8303], we categorize the minimal
   set of transport features as 1) CONNECTION related (ESTABLISHMENT,
   AVAILABILITY, MAINTENANCE, TERMINATION) and 2) DATA Transfer related
   (Sending Data, Receiving Data, Errors).  Here, the focus is on
   connections that the transport system offers as an abstraction to the
   application, as opposed to connections of transport protocols that
   the transport system uses.

6.1.  ESTABLISHMENT, AVAILABILITY and TERMINATION

   A connection must first be "created" to allow for some initial
   configuration to be carried out before the transport system can
   actively or passively establish communication with a remote end
   system.  As a configuration of the newly created connection, an
   application can choose to disallow usage of MPTCP.  Furthermore, all



Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


   configuration parameters in Section 6.2 can be used initially,
   although some of them may only take effect when a connection has been
   established with a chosen transport protocol.  Configuring a
   connection early helps a transport system make the right decisions.
   For example, grouping information can influence the transport system
   to implement a connection as a stream of a multi-streaming protocol's
   existing association or not.

   For ungrouped connections, early configuration is necessary because
   it allows the transport system to know which protocols it should try
   to use.  In particular, a transport system that only makes a one-time
   choice for a particular protocol must know early about strict
   requirements that must be kept, or it can end up in a deadlock
   situation (e.g., having chosen UDP and later be asked to support
   reliable transfer).  As an example description of how to correctly
   handle these cases, we provide the following decision tree (this is
   derived from Section 4.1 excluding authentication, as explained in
   Section 9):

































Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


   - Will it ever be necessary to offer any of the following?
     *  Reliably transfer data
     *  Notify the peer of closing/aborting
     *  Preserve data ordering

     Yes: SCTP or TCP can be used.
     - Is any of the following useful to the application?
       * Choosing a scheduler to operate between connections
         in a group, with the possibility to configure a priority
         or weight per connection
       * Configurable message reliability
       * Unordered message delivery
       * Request not to delay the acknowledgement (SACK) of a message

       Yes: SCTP is preferred.
       No:
       - Is any of the following useful to the application?
         * Hand over a message to reliably transfer (possibly
           multiple times) before connection establishment
         * Suggest timeout to the peer
         * Notification of Excessive Retransmissions (early
           warning below abortion threshold)
         * Notification of ICMP error message arrival

         Yes: TCP is preferred.
         No: SCTP and TCP are equally preferable.


     No: all protocols can be used.
     - Is any of the following useful to the application?
       *  Specify checksum coverage used by the sender
       *  Specify minimum checksum coverage required by receiver

       Yes: UDP-Lite is preferred.
       No: UDP is preferred.


   Note that this decision tree is not optimal for all cases.  For
   example, if an application wants to use "Specify checksum coverage
   used by the sender", which is only offered by UDP-Lite, and
   "Configure priority or weight for a scheduler", which is only offered
   by SCTP, the above decision tree will always choose UDP-Lite, making
   it impossible to use SCTP's schedulers with priorities between
   grouped connections.  Also, several other factors may influence the
   decisions for or against a protocol -- e.g.  penetration rates, the
   ability to work through NATs, etc.  We caution implementers to be
   aware of the full set of trade-offs, for which we recommend




Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


   consulting the list in Section 4.1 when deciding how to initialize a
   connection.

   To summarize, the following parameters serve as input for the
   transport system to help it choose and configure a suitable protocol:

   o  Reliability: a boolean that should be set to true when any of the
      following will be useful to the application: reliably transfer
      data; notify the peer of closing/aborting; preserve data ordering.
   o  Checksum coverage: a boolean to specify whether it will be useful
      to the application to specify checksum coverage when sending or
      receiving.
   o  Configure message priority: a boolean that should be set to true
      when any of the following per-message configuration or
      prioritization mechanisms will be useful to the application:
      choosing a scheduler to operate between grouped connections, with
      the possibility to configure a priority or weight per connection;
      configurable message reliability; unordered message delivery;
      requesting not to delay the acknowledgement (SACK) of a message.
   o  Early message timeout notifications: a boolean that should be set
      to true when any of the following will be useful to the
      application: hand over a message to reliably transfer (possibly
      multiple times) before connection establishment; suggest timeout
      to the peer; notification of excessive retransmissions (early
      warning below abortion threshold); notification of ICMP error
      message arrival.

   Once a connection is created, it can be queried for the maximum
   amount of data that an application can possibly expect to have
   reliably transmitted before or during transport connection
   establishment (with zero being a possible answer) (see
   Section 6.2.1).  An application can also give the connection a
   message for reliable transmission before or during connection
   establishment (not UDP); the transport system will then try to
   transmit it as early as possible.  An application can facilitate
   sending a message particularly early by marking it as "idempotent"
   (see Section 6.3.1); in this case, the receiving application must be
   prepared to potentially receive multiple copies of the message
   (because idempotent messages are reliably transferred, asking for
   idempotence is not necessary for systems that support UDP).

   After creation, a transport system can actively establish
   communication with a peer, or it can passively listen for incoming
   connection requests.  Note that active establishment may or may not
   trigger a notification on the listening side.  It is possible that
   the first notification on the listening side is the arrival of the
   first data that the active side sends (a receiver-side transport
   system could handle this by continuing to block a "Listen" call,



Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


   immediately followed by issuing "Receive", for example; callback-
   based implementations could simply skip the equivalent of "Listen").
   This also means that the active opening side is assumed to be the
   first side sending data.

   A transport system can actively close a connection, i.e. terminate it
   after reliably delivering all remaining data to the peer (if reliable
   data delivery was requested earlier (not UDP)), in which case the
   peer is notified that the connection is closed.  Alternatively, a
   connection can be aborted without delivering outstanding data to the
   peer.  In case reliable or partially reliable data delivery was
   requested earlier (not UDP), the peer is notified that the connection
   is aborted.  A timeout can be configured to abort a connection when
   data could not be delivered for too long (not UDP); however, timeout-
   based abortion does not notify the peer application that the
   connection has been aborted.  Because half-closed connections are not
   supported, when a host implementing a transport system receives a
   notification that the peer is closing or aborting the connection (not
   UDP), its peer may not be able to read outstanding data.  This means
   that unacknowledged data residing in a transport system's send buffer
   may have to be dropped from that buffer upon arrival of a "close" or
   "abort" notification from the peer.

6.2.  MAINTENANCE

   A transport system must offer means to group connections, but it
   cannot guarantee truly grouping them using the transport protocols
   that it uses (e.g., it cannot be guaranteed that connections become
   multiplexed as streams on a single SCTP association when SCTP may not
   be available).  The transport system must therefore ensure that
   group- versus non-group-configurations are handled correctly in some
   way (e.g., by applying the configuration to all grouped connections
   even when they are not multiplexed, or informing the application
   about grouping success or failure).

   As a general rule, any configuration described below should be
   carried out as early as possible to aid the transport system's
   decision making.

6.2.1.  Connection groups

   The following transport features and notifications (some directly
   from Section 4, some new or changed, based on the discussion in
   Section 5) automatically apply to all grouped connections:

   (not UDP) Configure a timeout: this can be done with the following
   parameters:




Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


   o  A timeout value for aborting connections, in seconds
   o  A timeout value to be suggested to the peer (if possible), in
      seconds
   o  The number of retransmissions after which the application should
      be notifed of "Excessive Retransmissions"

   Configure urgency: this can be done with the following parameters:

   o  A number to identify the type of scheduler that should be used to
      operate between connections in the group (no guarantees given).
      Schedulers are defined in [RFC8260].
   o  A "capacity profile" number to identify how an application wants
      to use its available capacity.  Choices can be "lowest possible
      latency at the expense of overhead" (which would disable any
      Nagle-like algorithm), "scavenger", or values that help determine
      the DSCP value for a connection (e.g.  similar to table 1 in
      [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos]).
   o  A buffer limit (in bytes); when the sender has less than the
      provided limit of bytes in the buffer, the application may be
      notified.  Notifications are not guaranteed, and it is optional
      for a transport system to support buffer limit values greater than
      0.  Note that this limit and its notification should operate
      across the buffers of the whole transport system, i.e.  also any
      potential buffers that the transport system itself may use on top
      of the transport's send buffer.

   Following Section 5.7, these properties can be queried:

   o  The maximum message size that may be sent without fragmentation
      via the configured interface.  This is optional for a transport
      system to offer, and may return an error ("not available").  It
      can aid applications implementing Path MTU Discovery.
   o  The maximum transport message size that can be sent, in bytes.
      Irrespective of fragmentation, there is a size limit for the
      messages that can be handed over to SCTP or UDP(-Lite); because
      the service provided by a transport system is independent of the
      transport protocol, it must allow an application to query this
      value -- the maximum size of a message in an Application-Framed-
      Bytestream (see Section 5.1).  This may also return an error when
      data is not delimited ("not available").
   o  The maximum transport message size that can be received from the
      configured interface, in bytes (or "not available").
   o  The maximum amount of data that can possibly be sent before or
      during connection establishment, in bytes.


   In addition to the already mentioned closing / aborting notifications
   and possible send errors, the following notifications can occur:



Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


   o  Excessive Retransmissions: the configured (or a default) number of
      retransmissions has been reached, yielding this early warning
      below an abortion threshold.
   o  ICMP Arrival (parameter: ICMP message): an ICMP packet carrying
      the conveyed ICMP message has arrived.
   o  ECN Arrival (parameter: ECN value): a packet carrying the conveyed
      ECN value has arrived.  This can be useful for applications
      implementing congestion control.
   o  Timeout (parameter: s seconds): data could not be delivered for s
      seconds.
   o  Drain: the send buffer has either drained below the configured
      buffer limit or it has become completely empty.  This is a generic
      notification that tries to enable uniform access to
      "TCP_NOTSENT_LOWAT" as well as the "SENDER DRY" notification (as
      discussed in Section 5.4 -- SCTP's "SENDER DRY" is a special case
      where the threshold (for unsent data) is 0 and there is also no
      more unacknowledged data in the send buffer).

6.2.2.  Individual connections

   Configure priority or weight for a scheduler, as described in
   [RFC8260].

   Configure checksum usage: this can be done with the following
   parameters, but there is no guarantee that any checksum limitations
   will indeed be enforced (the default behavior is "full coverage,
   checksum enabled"):

   o  A boolean to enable / disable usage of a checksum when sending
   o  The desired coverage (in bytes) of the checksum used when sending
   o  A boolean to enable / disable requiring a checksum when receiving
   o  The required minimum coverage (in bytes) of the checksum when
      receiving

6.3.  DATA Transfer

6.3.1.  Sending Data

   When sending a message, no guarantees are given about the
   preservation of message boundaries to the peer; if message boundaries
   are needed, the receiving application at the peer must know about
   them beforehand (or the transport system cannot use TCP).  Note that
   an application should already be able to hand over data before the
   transport system establishes a connection with a chosen transport
   protocol.  Regarding the message that is being handed over, the
   following parameters can be used:





Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


   o  Reliability: this parameter is used to convey a choice of: fully
      reliable with congestion control (not UDP), unreliable without
      congestion control, unreliable with congestion control (not UDP),
      partially reliable with congestion control (see [RFC3758] and
      [RFC7496] for details on how to specify partial reliability) (not
      UDP).  The latter two choices are optional for a transport system
      to offer and may result in full reliability.  Note that
      applications sending unreliable data without congestion control
      should themselves perform congestion control in accordance with
      [RFC8085].
   o  (not UDP) Ordered: this boolean parameter lets an application
      choose between ordered message delivery (true) and possibly
      unordered, potentially faster message delivery (false).
   o  Bundle: a boolean that expresses a preference for allowing to
      bundle messages (true) or not (false).  No guarantees are given.
   o  DelAck: a boolean that, if false, lets an application request that
      the peer would not delay the acknowledgement for this message.
   o  Fragment: a boolean that expresses a preference for allowing to
      fragment messages (true) or not (false), at the IP level.  No
      guarantees are given.
   o  (not UDP) Idempotent: a boolean that expresses whether a message
      is idempotent (true) or not (false).  Idempotent messages may
      arrive multiple times at the receiver (but they will arrive at
      least once).  When data is idempotent it can be used by the
      receiver immediately on a connection establishment attempt.  Thus,
      if data is handed over before the transport system establishes a
      connection with a chosen transport protocol, stating that a
      message is idempotent facilitates transmitting it to the peer
      application particularly early.

   An application can be notified of a failure to send a specific
   message.  There is no guarantee of such notifications, i.e. send
   failures can also silently occur.

6.3.2.  Receiving Data

   A receiving application obtains an "Application-Framed Bytestream"
   (AFra-Bytestream); this concept is further described in Section 5.1).
   In line with TCP's receiver semantics, an AFra-Bytestream is just a
   stream of bytes to the receiver.  If message boundaries were
   specified by the sender, a receiver-side transport system
   implementing only the minimum set of transport services defined here
   will still not inform the receiving application about them (this
   limitation is only needed for transport systems that are implemented
   to directly use TCP).

   Different from TCP's semantics, if the sending application has
   allowed that messages are not fully reliably transferred, or



Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


   delivered out of order, then such re-ordering or unreliability may be
   reflected per message in the arriving data.  Messages will always
   stay intact - i.e. if an incomplete message is contained at the end
   of the arriving data block, this message is guaranteed to continue in
   the next arriving data block.

7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank all the participants of the TAPS
   Working Group and the NEAT and MAMI research projects for valuable
   input to this document.  We especially thank Michael Tuexen for help
   with connection connection establishment/teardown, Gorry Fairhurst
   for his suggestions regarding fragmentation and packet sizes, and
   Spencer Dawkins for his extremely detailed and constructive review.
   This work has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020
   research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 644334
   (NEAT).

8.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.

9.  Security Considerations

   Authentication, confidentiality protection, and integrity protection
   are identified as transport features by [RFC8095].  Often, these
   features are provided by a protocol or layer on top of the transport
   protocol; none of the full-featured standards-track transport
   protocols in [RFC8303], which this document is based upon, provides
   all of these transport features on its own.  Therefore, they are not
   considered in this document, with the exception of native
   authentication capabilities of TCP and SCTP for which the security
   considerations in [RFC5925] and [RFC4895] apply.  The minimum
   requirements for a secure transport system are discussed in a
   separate document (Section 5 on Security Features and Transport
   Dependencies of [I-D.ietf-taps-transport-security]).

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-taps-transport-security]
              Pauly, T., Perkins, C., Rose, K., and C. Wood, "A Survey
              of Transport Security Protocols", draft-ietf-taps-
              transport-security-02 (work in progress), June 2018.






Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


   [RFC8095]  Fairhurst, G., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and M. Kuehlewind,
              Ed., "Services Provided by IETF Transport Protocols and
              Congestion Control Mechanisms", RFC 8095,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8095, March 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8095>.

   [RFC8303]  Welzl, M., Tuexen, M., and N. Khademi, "On the Usage of
              Transport Features Provided by IETF Transport Protocols",
              RFC 8303, DOI 10.17487/RFC8303, February 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8303>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [COBS]     Cheshire, S. and M. Baker, "Consistent Overhead Byte
              Stuffing", IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking Vol. 7, No.
              2, April 1999.

   [I-D.ietf-taps-interface]
              Trammell, B., Welzl, M., Enghardt, T., Fairhurst, G.,
              Kuehlewind, M., Perkins, C., Tiesel, P., and C. Wood, "An
              Abstract Application Layer Interface to Transport
              Services", draft-ietf-taps-interface-01 (work in
              progress), July 2018.

   [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos]
              Jones, P., Dhesikan, S., Jennings, C., and D. Druta, "DSCP
              Packet Markings for WebRTC QoS", draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-
              qos-18 (work in progress), August 2016.

   [LBE-draft]
              Bless, R., "A Lower Effort Per-Hop Behavior (LE PHB)",
              Internet-draft draft-tsvwg-le-phb-03, February 2018.

   [POSIX]    "IEEE Standard for Information Technology--Portable
              Operating System Interface (POSIX(R)) Base Specifications,
              Issue 7", IEEE Std 1003.1-2017 (Revision of IEEE Std
              1003.1-2008), January 2018,
              <http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/
              contents.html>.

   [RFC3758]  Stewart, R., Ramalho, M., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., and P.
              Conrad, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
              Partial Reliability Extension", RFC 3758,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3758, May 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3758>.






Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


   [RFC4895]  Tuexen, M., Stewart, R., Lei, P., and E. Rescorla,
              "Authenticated Chunks for the Stream Control Transmission
              Protocol (SCTP)", RFC 4895, DOI 10.17487/RFC4895, August
              2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4895>.

   [RFC4987]  Eddy, W., "TCP SYN Flooding Attacks and Common
              Mitigations", RFC 4987, DOI 10.17487/RFC4987, August 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4987>.

   [RFC5925]  Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
              Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10.17487/RFC5925,
              June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5925>.

   [RFC6897]  Scharf, M. and A. Ford, "Multipath TCP (MPTCP) Application
              Interface Considerations", RFC 6897, DOI 10.17487/RFC6897,
              March 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6897>.

   [RFC7305]  Lear, E., Ed., "Report from the IAB Workshop on Internet
              Technology Adoption and Transition (ITAT)", RFC 7305,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7305, July 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7305>.

   [RFC7413]  Cheng, Y., Chu, J., Radhakrishnan, S., and A. Jain, "TCP
              Fast Open", RFC 7413, DOI 10.17487/RFC7413, December 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7413>.

   [RFC7496]  Tuexen, M., Seggelmann, R., Stewart, R., and S. Loreto,
              "Additional Policies for the Partially Reliable Stream
              Control Transmission Protocol Extension", RFC 7496,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7496, April 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7496>.

   [RFC8085]  Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
              Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085,
              March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>.

   [RFC8260]  Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., Loreto, S., and R. Seggelmann,
              "Stream Schedulers and User Message Interleaving for the
              Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 8260,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8260, November 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8260>.

   [RFC8304]  Fairhurst, G. and T. Jones, "Transport Features of the
              User Datagram Protocol (UDP) and Lightweight UDP (UDP-
              Lite)", RFC 8304, DOI 10.17487/RFC8304, February 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8304>.





Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


   [SCTP-stream-1]
              Weinrank, F. and M. Tuexen, "Transparent Flow Mapping for
              NEAT", IFIP NETWORKING Workshop on Future of Internet
              Transport (FIT 2017), June 2017.

   [SCTP-stream-2]
              Welzl, M., Niederbacher, F., and S. Gjessing, "Beneficial
              Transparent Deployment of SCTP", IEEE GlobeCom 2011,
              December 2011.

   [WWDC2015]
              Lakhera, P. and S. Cheshire, "Your App and Next Generation
              Networks", Apple Worldwide Developers Conference 2015, San
              Francisco, USA, June 2015,
              <https://developer.apple.com/videos/wwdc/2015/?id=719>.

Appendix A.  The Superset of Transport Features

   In this description, transport features are presented following the
   nomenclature "CATEGORY.[SUBCATEGORY].FEATURENAME.PROTOCOL",
   equivalent to "pass 2" in [RFC8303].  We also sketch how functional
   or optimizing transport features can be implemented by a transport
   system.  The "minimal set" derived in this document is meant to be
   implementable "one-sided" over TCP, and, with limitations, UDP.
   Hence, for all transport features that are categorized as
   "functional" or "optimizing", and for which no matching TCP and/or
   UDP primitive exists in "pass 2" of [RFC8303], a brief discussion on
   how to implement them over TCP and/or UDP is included.

   We designate some transport features as "automatable" on the basis of
   a broader decision that affects multiple transport features:

   o  Most transport features that are related to multi-streaming were
      designated as "automatable".  This was done because the decision
      on whether to use multi-streaming or not does not depend on
      application-specific knowledge.  This means that a connection that
      is exhibited to an application could be implemented by using a
      single stream of an SCTP association instead of mapping it to a
      complete SCTP association or TCP connection.  This could be
      achieved by using more than one stream when an SCTP association is
      first established (CONNECT.SCTP parameter "outbound stream
      count"), maintaining an internal stream number, and using this
      stream number when sending data (SEND.SCTP parameter "stream
      number").  Closing or aborting a connection could then simply free
      the stream number for future use.  This is discussed further in
      Section 5.2.
   o  With the exception of "Disable MPTCP", all transport features that
      are related to using multiple paths or the choice of the network



Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 25]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


      interface were designated as "automatable".  For example, "Listen"
      could always listen on all available interfaces and "Connect"
      could use the default interface for the destination IP address.

   Finally, in three cases, transport features are aggregated and/or
   slightly changed from [RFC8303] in the description below.  These
   transport features are marked as "CHANGED FROM RFC8303".  These do
   not add any new functionality but just represent a simple refactoring
   step that helps to streamline the derivation process (e.g., by
   removing a choice of a parameter for the sake of applications that
   may not care about this choice).  The corresponding transport
   features are automatable, and they are listed immediately below the
   "CHANGED FROM RFC8303" transport feature.

A.1.  CONNECTION Related Transport Features

   ESTABLISHMENT:

   o  Connect
      Protocols: TCP, SCTP, UDP(-Lite)
      Functional because the notion of a connection is often reflected
      in applications as an expectation to be able to communicate after
      a "Connect" succeeded, with a communication sequence relating to
      this transport feature that is defined by the application
      protocol.
      Implementation: via CONNECT.TCP, CONNECT.SCTP or CONNECT.UDP(-
      Lite).



   o  Specify which IP Options must always be used
      Protocols: TCP, UDP(-Lite)
      Automatable because IP Options relate to knowledge about the
      network, not the application.



   o  Request multiple streams
      Protocols: SCTP
      Automatable because using multi-streaming does not require
      application-specific knowledge (example implementations of using
      multi-streaming without involving the application are described in
      [SCTP-stream-1] and [SCTP-stream-2]).
      Implementation: see Section 5.2.


   o  Limit the number of inbound streams
      Protocols: SCTP



Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 26]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


      Automatable because using multi-streaming does not require
      application-specific knowledge.
      Implementation: see Section 5.2.


   o  Specify number of attempts and/or timeout for the first
      establishment message
      Protocols: TCP, SCTP
      Functional because this is closely related to potentially assumed
      reliable data delivery for data that is sent before or during
      connection establishment.
      Implementation: Using a parameter of CONNECT.TCP and CONNECT.SCTP.
      Implementation over UDP: Do nothing (this is irrelevant in case of
      UDP because there, reliable data delivery is not assumed).


   o  Obtain multiple sockets
      Protocols: SCTP
      Automatable because the non-parallel usage of multiple paths to
      communicate between the same end hosts relates to knowledge about
      the network, not the application.



   o  Disable MPTCP
      Protocols: MPTCP
      Optimizing because the parallel usage of multiple paths to
      communicate between the same end hosts can improve performance.
      Whether to use this feature depends on knowledge about the network
      as well as application-specific knowledge (see Section 3.1 of
      [RFC6897]).
      Implementation: via a boolean parameter in CONNECT.MPTCP.
      Implementation over TCP: Do nothing.
      Implementation over UDP: Do nothing.


   o  Configure authentication
      Protocols: TCP, SCTP
      Functional because this has a direct influence on security.
      Implementation: via parameters in CONNECT.TCP and CONNECT.SCTP.
      With TCP, this allows to configure Master Key Tuples (MKTs) to
      authenticate complete segments (including the TCP IPv4
      pseudoheader, TCP header, and TCP data).  With SCTP, this allows
      to specify which chunk types must always be authenticated.
      Authenticating only certain chunk types creates a reduced level of
      security that is not supported by TCP; to be compatible, this
      should therefore only allow to authenticate all chunk types.  Key




Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 27]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


      material must be provided in a way that is compatible with both
      [RFC4895] and [RFC5925].
      Implementation over UDP: Not possible (UDP does not offer this
      functionality).


   o  Indicate (and/or obtain upon completion) an Adaptation Layer via
      an adaptation code point
      Protocols: SCTP
      Functional because it allows to send extra data for the sake of
      identifying an adaptation layer, which by itself is application-
      specific.
      Implementation: via a parameter in CONNECT.SCTP.
      Implementation over TCP: not possible (TCP does not offer this
      functionality).
      Implementation over UDP: not possible (UDP does not offer this
      functionality).



   o  Request to negotiate interleaving of user messages
      Protocols: SCTP
      Automatable because it requires using multiple streams, but
      requesting multiple streams in the CONNECTION.ESTABLISHMENT
      category is automatable.
      Implementation: controlled via a parameter in CONNECT.SCTP.  One
      possible implementation is to always try to enable interleaving.



   o  Hand over a message to reliably transfer (possibly multiple times)
      before connection establishment
      Protocols: TCP
      Functional because this is closely tied to properties of the data
      that an application sends or expects to receive.
      Implementation: via a parameter in CONNECT.TCP.
      Implementation over UDP: not possible (UDP does not provide
      reliability).


   o  Hand over a message to reliably transfer during connection
      establishment
      Protocols: SCTP
      Functional because this can only work if the message is limited in
      size, making it closely tied to properties of the data that an
      application sends or expects to receive.
      Implementation: via a parameter in CONNECT.SCTP.




Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 28]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


      Implementation over TCP: not possible (TCP does not allow
      identification of message boundaries because it provides a byte
      stream service)
      Implementation over UDP: not possible (UDP is unreliable).


   o  Enable UDP encapsulation with a specified remote UDP port number
      Protocols: SCTP
      Automatable because UDP encapsulation relates to knowledge about
      the network, not the application.




   AVAILABILITY:

   o  Listen
      Protocols: TCP, SCTP, UDP(-Lite)
      Functional because the notion of accepting connection requests is
      often reflected in applications as an expectation to be able to
      communicate after a "Listen" succeeded, with a communication
      sequence relating to this transport feature that is defined by the
      application protocol.
      CHANGED FROM RFC8303.  This differs from the 3 automatable
      transport features below in that it leaves the choice of
      interfaces for listening open.
      Implementation: by listening on all interfaces via LISTEN.TCP (not
      providing a local IP address) or LISTEN.SCTP (providing SCTP port
      number / address pairs for all local IP addresses).  LISTEN.UDP(-
      Lite) supports both methods.


   o  Listen, 1 specified local interface
      Protocols: TCP, SCTP, UDP(-Lite)
      Automatable because decisions about local interfaces relate to
      knowledge about the network and the Operating System, not the
      application.



   o  Listen, N specified local interfaces
      Protocols: SCTP
      Automatable because decisions about local interfaces relate to
      knowledge about the network and the Operating System, not the
      application.






Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 29]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


   o  Listen, all local interfaces
      Protocols: TCP, SCTP, UDP(-Lite)
      Automatable because decisions about local interfaces relate to
      knowledge about the network and the Operating System, not the
      application.



   o  Specify which IP Options must always be used
      Protocols: TCP, UDP(-Lite)
      Automatable because IP Options relate to knowledge about the
      network, not the application.



   o  Disable MPTCP
      Protocols: MPTCP
      Optimizing because the parallel usage of multiple paths to
      communicate between the same end hosts can improve performance.
      Whether to use this feature depends on knowledge about the network
      as well as application-specific knowledge (see Section 3.1 of
      [RFC6897]).
      Implementation: via a boolean parameter in LISTEN.MPTCP.
      Implementation over TCP: Do nothing.
      Implementation over UDP: Do nothing.


   o  Configure authentication
      Protocols: TCP, SCTP
      Functional because this has a direct influence on security.
      Implementation: via parameters in LISTEN.TCP and LISTEN.SCTP.
      Implementation over TCP: With TCP, this allows to configure Master
      Key Tuples (MKTs) to authenticate complete segments (including the
      TCP IPv4 pseudoheader, TCP header, and TCP data).  With SCTP, this
      allows to specify which chunk types must always be authenticated.
      Authenticating only certain chunk types creates a reduced level of
      security that is not supported by TCP; to be compatible, this
      should therefore only allow to authenticate all chunk types.  Key
      material must be provided in a way that is compatible with both
      [RFC4895] and [RFC5925].
      Implementation over UDP: not possible (UDP does not offer
      authentication).


   o  Obtain requested number of streams
      Protocols: SCTP
      Automatable because using multi-streaming does not require
      application-specific knowledge.



Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 30]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


      Implementation: see Section 5.2.


   o  Limit the number of inbound streams
      Protocols: SCTP
      Automatable because using multi-streaming does not require
      application-specific knowledge.
      Implementation: see Section 5.2.


   o  Indicate (and/or obtain upon completion) an Adaptation Layer via
      an adaptation code point
      Protocols: SCTP
      Functional because it allows to send extra data for the sake of
      identifying an adaptation layer, which by itself is application-
      specific.
      Implementation: via a parameter in LISTEN.SCTP.
      Implementation over TCP: not possible (TCP does not offer this
      functionality).
      Implementation over UDP: not possible (UDP does not offer this
      functionality).


   o  Request to negotiate interleaving of user messages
      Protocols: SCTP
      Automatable because it requires using multiple streams, but
      requesting multiple streams in the CONNECTION.ESTABLISHMENT
      category is automatable.
      Implementation: via a parameter in LISTEN.SCTP.




   MAINTENANCE:

   o  Change timeout for aborting connection (using retransmit limit or
      time value)
      Protocols: TCP, SCTP
      Functional because this is closely related to potentially assumed
      reliable data delivery.
      Implementation: via CHANGE_TIMEOUT.TCP or CHANGE_TIMEOUT.SCTP.
      Implementation over UDP: not possible (UDP is unreliable and there
      is no connection timeout).



   o  Suggest timeout to the peer
      Protocols: TCP



Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 31]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


      Functional because this is closely related to potentially assumed
      reliable data delivery.
      Implementation: via CHANGE_TIMEOUT.TCP.
      Implementation over UDP: not possible (UDP is unreliable and there
      is no connection timeout).



   o  Disable Nagle algorithm
      Protocols: TCP, SCTP
      Optimizing because this decision depends on knowledge about the
      size of future data blocks and the delay between them.
      Implementation: via DISABLE_NAGLE.TCP and DISABLE_NAGLE.SCTP.
      Implementation over UDP: do nothing (UDP does not implement the
      Nagle algorithm).



   o  Request an immediate heartbeat, returning success/failure
      Protocols: SCTP
      Automatable because this informs about network-specific knowledge.



   o  Notification of Excessive Retransmissions (early warning below
      abortion threshold)
      Protocols: TCP
      Optimizing because it is an early warning to the application,
      informing it of an impending functional event.
      Implementation: via ERROR.TCP.
      Implementation over UDP: do nothing (there is no abortion
      threshold).



   o  Add path
      Protocols: MPTCP, SCTP
      MPTCP Parameters: source-IP; source-Port; destination-IP;
      destination-Port
      SCTP Parameters: local IP address
      Automatable because the choice of paths to communicate between the
      same end hosts relates to knowledge about the network, not the
      application.



   o  Remove path
      Protocols: MPTCP, SCTP



Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 32]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


      MPTCP Parameters: source-IP; source-Port; destination-IP;
      destination-Port
      SCTP Parameters: local IP address
      Automatable because the choice of paths to communicate between the
      same end host relates to knowledge about the network, not the
      application.



   o  Set primary path
      Protocols: SCTP
      Automatable because the choice of paths to communicate between the
      same end hosts relates to knowledge about the network, not the
      application.



   o  Suggest primary path to the peer
      Protocols: SCTP
      Automatable because the choice of paths to communicate between the
      same end hosts relates to knowledge about the network, not the
      application.



   o  Configure Path Switchover
      Protocols: SCTP
      Automatable because the choice of paths to communicate between the
      same end hosts relates to knowledge about the network, not the
      application.



   o  Obtain status (query or notification)
      Protocols: SCTP, MPTCP
      SCTP parameters: association connection state; destination
      transport address list; destination transport address reachability
      states; current local and peer receiver window size; current local
      congestion window sizes; number of unacknowledged DATA chunks;
      number of DATA chunks pending receipt; primary path; most recent
      SRTT on primary path; RTO on primary path; SRTT and RTO on other
      destination addresses; MTU per path; interleaving supported yes/no
      MPTCP parameters: subflow-list (identified by source-IP; source-
      Port; destination-IP; destination-Port)
      Automatable because these parameters relate to knowledge about the
      network, not the application.





Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 33]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


   o  Specify DSCP field
      Protocols: TCP, SCTP, UDP(-Lite)
      Optimizing because choosing a suitable DSCP value requires
      application-specific knowledge.
      Implementation: via SET_DSCP.TCP / SET_DSCP.SCTP / SET_DSCP.UDP(-
      Lite)



   o  Notification of ICMP error message arrival
      Protocols: TCP, UDP(-Lite)
      Optimizing because these messages can inform about success or
      failure of functional transport features (e.g., host unreachable
      relates to "Connect")
      Implementation: via ERROR.TCP or ERROR.UDP(-Lite).



   o  Obtain information about interleaving support
      Protocols: SCTP
      Automatable because it requires using multiple streams, but
      requesting multiple streams in the CONNECTION.ESTABLISHMENT
      category is automatable.
      Implementation: via STATUS.SCTP.



   o  Change authentication parameters
      Protocols: TCP, SCTP
      Functional because this has a direct influence on security.
      Implementation: via SET_AUTH.TCP and SET_AUTH.SCTP.
      Implementation over TCP: With SCTP, this allows to adjust key_id,
      key, and hmac_id.  With TCP, this allows to change the preferred
      outgoing MKT (current_key) and the preferred incoming MKT
      (rnext_key), respectively, for a segment that is sent on the
      connection.  Key material must be provided in a way that is
      compatible with both [RFC4895] and [RFC5925].
      Implementation over UDP: not possible (UDP does not offer
      authentication).



   o  Obtain authentication information
      Protocols: SCTP
      Functional because authentication decisions may have been made by
      the peer, and this has an influence on the necessary application-
      level measures to provide a certain level of security.
      Implementation: via GET_AUTH.SCTP.



Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 34]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


      Implementation over TCP: With SCTP, this allows to obtain key_id
      and a chunk list.  With TCP, this allows to obtain current_key and
      rnext_key from a previously received segment.  Key material must
      be provided in a way that is compatible with both [RFC4895] and
      [RFC5925].
      Implementation over UDP: not possible (UDP does not offer
      authentication).



   o  Reset Stream
      Protocols: SCTP
      Automatable because using multi-streaming does not require
      application-specific knowledge.
      Implementation: see Section 5.2.


   o  Notification of Stream Reset
      Protocols: STCP
      Automatable because using multi-streaming does not require
      application-specific knowledge.
      Implementation: see Section 5.2.


   o  Reset Association
      Protocols: SCTP
      Automatable because deciding to reset an association does not
      require application-specific knowledge.
      Implementation: via RESET_ASSOC.SCTP.



   o  Notification of Association Reset
      Protocols: STCP
      Automatable because this notification does not relate to
      application-specific knowledge.



   o  Add Streams
      Protocols: SCTP
      Automatable because using multi-streaming does not require
      application-specific knowledge.
      Implementation: see Section 5.2.


   o  Notification of Added Stream
      Protocols: STCP



Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 35]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


      Automatable because using multi-streaming does not require
      application-specific knowledge.
      Implementation: see Section 5.2.


   o  Choose a scheduler to operate between streams of an association
      Protocols: SCTP
      Optimizing because the scheduling decision requires application-
      specific knowledge.  However, if a transport system would not use
      this, or wrongly configure it on its own, this would only affect
      the performance of data transfers; the outcome would still be
      correct within the "best effort" service model.
      Implementation: using SET_STREAM_SCHEDULER.SCTP.
      Implementation over TCP: do nothing (streams are not available in
      TCP, but no guarantee is given that this transport feature has any
      effect).
      Implementation over UDP: do nothing (streams are not available in
      UDP, but no guarantee is given that this transport feature has any
      effect).



   o  Configure priority or weight for a scheduler
      Protocols: SCTP
      Optimizing because the priority or weight requires application-
      specific knowledge.  However, if a transport system would not use
      this, or wrongly configure it on its own, this would only affect
      the performance of data transfers; the outcome would still be
      correct within the "best effort" service model.
      Implementation: using CONFIGURE_STREAM_SCHEDULER.SCTP.
      Implementation over TCP: do nothing (streams are not available in
      TCP, but no guarantee is given that this transport feature has any
      effect).
      Implementation over UDP: do nothing (streams are not available in
      UDP, but no guarantee is given that this transport feature has any
      effect).



   o  Configure send buffer size
      Protocols: SCTP
      Automatable because this decision relates to knowledge about the
      network and the Operating System, not the application (see also
      the discussion in Section 5.4).



   o  Configure receive buffer (and rwnd) size



Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 36]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


      Protocols: SCTP
      Automatable because this decision relates to knowledge about the
      network and the Operating System, not the application.



   o  Configure message fragmentation
      Protocols: SCTP
      Automatable because this relates to knowledge about the network
      and the Operating System, not the application.  Note that this
      SCTP feature does not control IP-level fragmentation, but decides
      on fragmentation of messages by SCTP, in the end system.
      Implementation: by always enabling it with
      CONFIG_FRAGMENTATION.SCTP and auto-setting the fragmentation size
      based on network or Operating System conditions.



   o  Configure PMTUD
      Protocols: SCTP
      Automatable because Path MTU Discovery relates to knowledge about
      the network, not the application.



   o  Configure delayed SACK timer
      Protocols: SCTP
      Automatable because the receiver-side decision to delay sending
      SACKs relates to knowledge about the network, not the application
      (it can be relevant for a sending application to request not to
      delay the SACK of a message, but this is a different transport
      feature).



   o  Set Cookie life value
      Protocols: SCTP
      Functional because it relates to security (possibly weakened by
      keeping a cookie very long) versus the time between connection
      establishment attempts.  Knowledge about both issues can be
      application-specific.
      Implementation over TCP: the closest specified TCP functionality
      is the cookie in TCP Fast Open; for this, [RFC7413] states that
      the server "can expire the cookie at any time to enhance security"
      and section 4.1.2 describes an example implementation where
      updating the key on the server side causes the cookie to expire.
      Alternatively, for implementations that do not support TCP Fast




Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 37]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


      Open, this transport feature could also affect the validity of SYN
      cookies (see Section 3.6 of [RFC4987]).
      Implementation over UDP: not possible (UDP does not offer this
      functionality).



   o  Set maximum burst
      Protocols: SCTP
      Automatable because it relates to knowledge about the network, not
      the application.



   o  Configure size where messages are broken up for partial delivery
      Protocols: SCTP
      Functional because this is closely tied to properties of the data
      that an application sends or expects to receive.
      Implementation over TCP: not possible (TCP does not offer
      identification of message boundaries).
      Implementation over UDP: not possible (UDP does not fragment
      messages).



   o  Disable checksum when sending
      Protocols: UDP
      Functional because application-specific knowledge is necessary to
      decide whether it can be acceptable to lose data integrity with
      respect to random corruption.
      Implementation: via SET_CHECKSUM_ENABLED.UDP.
      Implementation over TCP: do nothing (TCP does not offer to disable
      the checksum, but transmitting data with an intact checksum will
      not yield a semantically wrong result).


   o  Disable checksum requirement when receiving
      Protocols: UDP
      Functional because application-specific knowledge is necessary to
      decide whether it can be acceptable to lose data integrity with
      respect to random corruption.
      Implementation: via SET_CHECKSUM_REQUIRED.UDP.
      Implementation over TCP: do nothing (TCP does not offer to disable
      the checksum, but transmitting data with an intact checksum will
      not yield a semantically wrong result).


   o  Specify checksum coverage used by the sender



Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 38]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


      Protocols: UDP-Lite
      Functional because application-specific knowledge is necessary to
      decide for which parts of the data it can be acceptable to lose
      data integrity with respect to random corruption.
      Implementation: via SET_CHECKSUM_COVERAGE.UDP-Lite.
      Implementation over TCP: do nothing (TCP does not offer to limit
      the checksum length, but transmitting data with an intact checksum
      will not yield a semantically wrong result).
      Implementation over UDP: if checksum coverage is set to cover
      payload data, do nothing.  Else, either do nothing (transmitting
      data with an intact checksum will not yield a semantically wrong
      result), or use the transport feature "Disable checksum when
      sending".


   o  Specify minimum checksum coverage required by receiver
      Protocols: UDP-Lite
      Functional because application-specific knowledge is necessary to
      decide for which parts of the data it can be acceptable to lose
      data integrity with respect to random corruption.
      Implementation: via SET_MIN_CHECKSUM_COVERAGE.UDP-Lite.
      Implementation over TCP: do nothing (TCP does not offer to limit
      the checksum length, but transmitting data with an intact checksum
      will not yield a semantically wrong result).
      Implementation over UDP: if checksum coverage is set to cover
      payload data, do nothing.  Else, either do nothing (transmitting
      data with an intact checksum will not yield a semantically wrong
      result), or use the transport feature "Disable checksum
      requirement when receiving".


   o  Specify DF field
      Protocols: UDP(-Lite)
      Optimizing because the DF field can be used to carry out Path MTU
      Discovery, which can lead an application to choose message sizes
      that can be transmitted more efficiently.
      Implementation: via MAINTENANCE.SET_DF.UDP(-Lite) and
      SEND_FAILURE.UDP(-Lite).
      Implementation over TCP: do nothing (with TCP, the sending
      application is not in control of transport message sizes, making
      this functionality irrelevant).


   o  Get max. transport-message size that may be sent using a non-
      fragmented IP packet from the configured interface
      Protocols: UDP(-Lite)
      Optimizing because this can lead an application to choose message
      sizes that can be transmitted more efficiently.



Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 39]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


      Implementation over TCP: do nothing (this information is not
      available with TCP).



   o  Get max. transport-message size that may be received from the
      configured interface
      Protocols: UDP(-Lite)
      Optimizing because this can, for example, influence an
      application's memory management.
      Implementation over TCP: do nothing (this information is not
      available with TCP).



   o  Specify TTL/Hop count field
      Protocols: UDP(-Lite)
      Automatable because a transport system can use a large enough
      system default to avoid communication failures.  Allowing an
      application to configure it differently can produce notifications
      of ICMP error message arrivals that yield information which only
      relates to knowledge about the network, not the application.



   o  Obtain TTL/Hop count field
      Protocols: UDP(-Lite)
      Automatable because the TTL/Hop count field relates to knowledge
      about the network, not the application.



   o  Specify ECN field
      Protocols: UDP(-Lite)
      Automatable because the ECN field relates to knowledge about the
      network, not the application.



   o  Obtain ECN field
      Protocols: UDP(-Lite)
      Optimizing because this information can be used by an application
      to better carry out congestion control (this is relevant when
      choosing a data transmission transport service that does not
      already do congestion control).
      Implementation over TCP: do nothing (this information is not
      available with TCP).




Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 40]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


   o  Specify IP Options
      Protocols: UDP(-Lite)
      Automatable because IP Options relate to knowledge about the
      network, not the application.



   o  Obtain IP Options
      Protocols: UDP(-Lite)
      Automatable because IP Options relate to knowledge about the
      network, not the application.



   o  Enable and configure a "Low Extra Delay Background Transfer"
      Protocols: A protocol implementing the LEDBAT congestion control
      mechanism
      Optimizing because whether this feature is appropriate or not
      depends on application-specific knowledge.  However, wrongly using
      this will only affect the speed of data transfers (albeit
      including other transfers that may compete with the transport
      system's transfer in the network), so it is still correct within
      the "best effort" service model.
      Implementation: via CONFIGURE.LEDBAT and/or SET_DSCP.TCP /
      SET_DSCP.SCTP / SET_DSCP.UDP(-Lite) [LBE-draft].
      Implementation over TCP: do nothing (TCP does not support LEDBAT
      congestion control, but not implementing this functionality will
      not yield a semantically wrong behavior).
      Implementation over UDP: do nothing (UDP does not offer congestion
      control).




   TERMINATION:

   o  Close after reliably delivering all remaining data, causing an
      event informing the application on the other side
      Protocols: TCP, SCTP
      Functional because the notion of a connection is often reflected
      in applications as an expectation to have all outstanding data
      delivered and no longer be able to communicate after a "Close"
      succeeded, with a communication sequence relating to this
      transport feature that is defined by the application protocol.
      Implementation: via CLOSE.TCP and CLOSE.SCTP.
      Implementation over UDP: not possible (UDP is unreliable and hence
      does not know when all remaining data is delivered; it does also
      not offer to cause an event related to closing at the peer).



Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 41]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


   o  Abort without delivering remaining data, causing an event
      informing the application on the other side
      Protocols: TCP, SCTP
      Functional because the notion of a connection is often reflected
      in applications as an expectation to potentially not have all
      outstanding data delivered and no longer be able to communicate
      after an "Abort" succeeded.  On both sides of a connection, an
      application protocol may define a communication sequence relating
      to this transport feature.
      Implementation: via ABORT.TCP and ABORT.SCTP.
      Implementation over UDP: not possible (UDP does not offer to cause
      an event related to aborting at the peer).



   o  Abort without delivering remaining data, not causing an event
      informing the application on the other side
      Protocols: UDP(-Lite)
      Functional because the notion of a connection is often reflected
      in applications as an expectation to potentially not have all
      outstanding data delivered and no longer be able to communicate
      after an "Abort" succeeded.  On both sides of a connection, an
      application protocol may define a communication sequence relating
      to this transport feature.
      Implementation: via ABORT.UDP(-Lite).
      Implementation over TCP: stop using the connection, wait for a
      timeout.



   o  Timeout event when data could not be delivered for too long
      Protocols: TCP, SCTP
      Functional because this notifies that potentially assumed reliable
      data delivery is no longer provided.
      Implementation: via TIMEOUT.TCP and TIMEOUT.SCTP.
      Implementation over UDP: do nothing (this event will not occur
      with UDP).




A.2.  DATA Transfer Related Transport Features

A.2.1.  Sending Data

   o  Reliably transfer data, with congestion control
      Protocols: TCP, SCTP




Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 42]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


      Functional because this is closely tied to properties of the data
      that an application sends or expects to receive.
      Implementation: via SEND.TCP and SEND.SCTP.
      Implementation over UDP: not possible (UDP is unreliable).



   o  Reliably transfer a message, with congestion control
      Protocols: SCTP
      Functional because this is closely tied to properties of the data
      that an application sends or expects to receive.
      Implementation: via SEND.SCTP.
      Implementation over TCP: via SEND.TCP.  With SEND.TCP, message
      boundaries will not be identifiable by the receiver, because TCP
      provides a byte stream service.
      Implementation over UDP: not possible (UDP is unreliable).



   o  Unreliably transfer a message
      Protocols: SCTP, UDP(-Lite)
      Optimizing because only applications know about the time
      criticality of their communication, and reliably transfering a
      message is never incorrect for the receiver of a potentially
      unreliable data transfer, it is just slower.
      CHANGED FROM RFC8303.  This differs from the 2 automatable
      transport features below in that it leaves the choice of
      congestion control open.
      Implementation: via SEND.SCTP or SEND.UDP(-Lite).
      Implementation over TCP: use SEND.TCP.  With SEND.TCP, messages
      will be sent reliably, and message boundaries will not be
      identifiable by the receiver.



   o  Unreliably transfer a message, with congestion control
      Protocols: SCTP
      Automatable because congestion control relates to knowledge about
      the network, not the application.



   o  Unreliably transfer a message, without congestion control
      Protocols: UDP(-Lite)
      Automatable because congestion control relates to knowledge about
      the network, not the application.





Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 43]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


   o  Configurable Message Reliability
      Protocols: SCTP
      Optimizing because only applications know about the time
      criticality of their communication, and reliably transfering a
      message is never incorrect for the receiver of a potentially
      unreliable data transfer, it is just slower.
      Implementation: via SEND.SCTP.
      Implementation over TCP: By using SEND.TCP and ignoring this
      configuration: based on the assumption of the best-effort service
      model, unnecessarily delivering data does not violate application
      expectations.  Moreover, it is not possible to associate the
      requested reliability to a "message" in TCP anyway.
      Implementation over UDP: not possible (UDP is unreliable).



   o  Choice of stream
      Protocols: SCTP
      Automatable because it requires using multiple streams, but
      requesting multiple streams in the CONNECTION.ESTABLISHMENT
      category is automatable.  Implementation: see Section 5.2.


   o  Choice of path (destination address)
      Protocols: SCTP
      Automatable because it requires using multiple sockets, but
      obtaining multiple sockets in the CONNECTION.ESTABLISHMENT
      category is automatable.



   o  Ordered message delivery (potentially slower than unordered)
      Protocols: SCTP
      Functional because this is closely tied to properties of the data
      that an application sends or expects to receive.
      Implementation: via SEND.SCTP.
      Implementation over TCP: By using SEND.TCP.  With SEND.TCP,
      messages will not be identifiable by the receiver.
      Implementation over UDP: not possible (UDP does not offer any
      guarantees regarding ordering).



   o  Unordered message delivery (potentially faster than ordered)
      Protocols: SCTP, UDP(-Lite)
      Functional because this is closely tied to properties of the data
      that an application sends or expects to receive.
      Implementation: via SEND.SCTP.



Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 44]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


      Implementation over TCP: By using SEND.TCP and always sending data
      ordered: based on the assumption of the best-effort service model,
      ordered delivery may just be slower and does not violate
      application expectations.  Moreover, it is not possible to
      associate the requested delivery order to a "message" in TCP
      anyway.



   o  Request not to bundle messages
      Protocols: SCTP
      Optimizing because this decision depends on knowledge about the
      size of future data blocks and the delay between them.
      Implementation: via SEND.SCTP.
      Implementation over TCP: By using SEND.TCP and DISABLE_NAGLE.TCP
      to disable the Nagle algorithm when the request is made and enable
      it again when the request is no longer made.  Note that this is
      not fully equivalent because it relates to the time of issuing the
      request rather than a specific message.
      Implementation over UDP: do nothing (UDP never bundles messages).



   o  Specifying a "payload protocol-id" (handed over as such by the
      receiver)
      Protocols: SCTP
      Functional because it allows to send extra application data with
      every message, for the sake of identification of data, which by
      itself is application-specific.
      Implementation: SEND.SCTP.
      Implementation over TCP: not possible (this functionality is not
      available in TCP).
      Implementation over UDP: not possible (this functionality is not
      available in UDP).



   o  Specifying a key id to be used to authenticate a message
      Protocols: SCTP
      Functional because this has a direct influence on security.
      Implementation: via a parameter in SEND.SCTP.
      Implementation over TCP: This could be emulated by using
      SET_AUTH.TCP before and after the message is sent.  Note that this
      is not fully equivalent because it relates to the time of issuing
      the request rather than a specific message.
      Implementation over UDP: not possible (UDP does not offer
      authentication).




Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 45]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


   o  Request not to delay the acknowledgement (SACK) of a message
      Protocols: SCTP
      Optimizing because only an application knows for which message it
      wants to quickly be informed about success / failure of its
      delivery.
      Implementation over TCP: do nothing (TCP does not offer this
      functionality, but ignoring this request from the application will
      not yield a semantically wrong behavior).
      Implementation over UDP: do nothing (UDP does not offer this
      functionality, but ignoring this request from the application will
      not yield a semantically wrong behavior).




A.2.2.  Receiving Data

   o  Receive data (with no message delimiting)
      Protocols: TCP
      Functional because a transport system must be able to send and
      receive data.
      Implementation: via RECEIVE.TCP.
      Implementation over UDP: do nothing (UDP only works on messages;
      these can be handed over, the application can still ignore the
      message boundaries).



   o  Receive a message
      Protocols: SCTP, UDP(-Lite)
      Functional because this is closely tied to properties of the data
      that an application sends or expects to receive.
      Implementation: via RECEIVE.SCTP and RECEIVE.UDP(-Lite).
      Implementation over TCP: not possible (TCP does not support
      identification of message boundaries).



   o  Choice of stream to receive from
      Protocols: SCTP
      Automatable because it requires using multiple streams, but
      requesting multiple streams in the CONNECTION.ESTABLISHMENT
      category is automatable.
      Implementation: see Section 5.2.


   o  Information about partial message arrival
      Protocols: SCTP



Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 46]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


      Functional because this is closely tied to properties of the data
      that an application sends or expects to receive.
      Implementation: via RECEIVE.SCTP.
      Implementation over TCP: do nothing (this information is not
      available with TCP).
      Implementation over UDP: do nothing (this information is not
      available with UDP).




A.2.3.  Errors

   This section describes sending failures that are associated with a
   specific call to in the "Sending Data" category (Appendix A.2.1).

   o  Notification of send failures
      Protocols: SCTP, UDP(-Lite)
      Functional because this notifies that potentially assumed reliable
      data delivery is no longer provided.
      CHANGED FROM RFC8303.  This differs from the 2 automatable
      transport features below in that it does not distinugish between
      unsent and unacknowledged messages.
      Implementation: via SENDFAILURE-EVENT.SCTP and SEND_FAILURE.UDP(-
      Lite).
      Implementation over TCP: do nothing (this notification is not
      available and will therefore not occur with TCP).



   o  Notification of an unsent (part of a) message
      Protocols: SCTP, UDP(-Lite)
      Automatable because the distinction between unsent and
      unacknowledged does not relate to application-specific knowledge.



   o  Notification of an unacknowledged (part of a) message
      Protocols: SCTP
      Automatable because the distinction between unsent and
      unacknowledged does not relate to application-specific knowledge.



   o  Notification that the stack has no more user data to send
      Protocols: SCTP





Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 47]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


      Optimizing because reacting to this notification requires the
      application to be involved, and ensuring that the stack does not
      run dry of data (for too long) can improve performance.
      Implementation over TCP: do nothing (see the discussion in
      Section 5.4).
      Implementation over UDP: do nothing (this notification is not
      available and will therefore not occur with UDP).



   o  Notification to a receiver that a partial message delivery has
      been aborted
      Protocols: SCTP
      Functional because this is closely tied to properties of the data
      that an application sends or expects to receive.
      Implementation over TCP: do nothing (this notification is not
      available and will therefore not occur with TCP).
      Implementation over UDP: do nothing (this notification is not
      available and will therefore not occur with UDP).




Appendix B.  Revision information

   XXX RFC-Ed please remove this section prior to publication.

   -02: implementation suggestions added, discussion section added,
   terminology extended, DELETED category removed, various other fixes;
   list of Transport Features adjusted to -01 version of [RFC8303]
   except that MPTCP is not included.

   -03: updated to be consistent with -02 version of [RFC8303].

   -04: updated to be consistent with -03 version of [RFC8303].
   Reorganized document, rewrote intro and conclusion, and made a first
   stab at creating a real "minimal set".

   -05: updated to be consistent with -05 version of [RFC8303] (minor
   changes).  Fixed a mistake regarding Cookie Life value.  Exclusion of
   security related transport features (to be covered in a separate
   document).  Reorganized the document (now begins with the minset,
   derivation is in the appendix).  First stab at an abstract API for
   the minset.

   draft-ietf-taps-minset-00: updated to be consistent with -08 version
   of [RFC8303] ("obtain message delivery number" was removed, as this
   has also been removed in [RFC8303] because it was a mistake in



Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 48]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


   RFC4960.  This led to the removal of two more transport features that
   were only designated as functional because they affected "obtain
   message delivery number").  Fall-back to UDP incorporated (this was
   requested at IETF-99); this also affected the transport feature
   "Choice between unordered (potentially faster) or ordered delivery of
   messages" because this is a boolean which is always true for one
   fall-back protocol, and always false for the other one.  This was
   therefore now divided into two features, one for ordered, one for
   unordered delivery.  The word "reliably" was added to the transport
   features "Hand over a message to reliably transfer (possibly multiple
   times) before connection establishment" and "Hand over a message to
   reliably transfer during connection establishment" to make it clearer
   why this is not supported by UDP.  Clarified that the "minset
   abstract interface" is not proposing a specific API for all TAPS
   systems to implement, but it is just a way to describe the minimum
   set.  Author order changed.

   WG -01: "fall-back to" (TCP or UDP) replaced (mostly with
   "implementation over").  References to post-sockets removed (these
   were statments that assumed that post-sockets requires two-sided
   implementation).  Replaced "flow" with "TAPS Connection" and "frame"
   with "message" to avoid introducing new terminology.  Made sections 3
   and 4 in line with the categorization that is already used in the
   appendix and [RFC8303], and changed style of section 4 to be even
   shorter and less interface-like.  Updated reference draft-ietf-tsvwg-
   sctp-ndata to RFC8260.

   WG -02: rephrased "the TAPS system" and "TAPS connection" etc. to
   more generally talk about transport after the intro (mostly replacing
   "TAPS system" with "transport system" and "TAPS connection" with
   "connection".  Merged sections 3 and 4 to form a new section 3.

   WG -03: updated sentence referencing
   [I-D.ietf-taps-transport-security] to say that "the minimum security
   requirements for a taps system are discussed in a separate security
   document", wrote "example" in the paragraph introducing the decision
   tree.  Removed reference draft-grinnemo-taps-he-03 and the sentence
   that referred to it.

   WG -04: addressed comments from Theresa Enghardt and Tommy Pauly.  As
   part of that, removed "TAPS" as a term everywhere (abstract, intro,
   ..).

   WG -05: addressed comments from Spencer Dawkins.

   WG -06: Fixed nits.

   WG -07: Addressed Genart comments from Robert Sparks.



Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 49]


Internet-Draft         Minimal Transport Services         September 2018


   WG -08: Addressed one more Genart comment from Robert Sparks.

   WG -09: Addressed comments from Mirja Kuehlewind, Alvaro Retana, Ben
   Campbell, Benjamin Kaduk and Eric Rescorla.

   WG -10: Addressed comments from Benjamin Kaduk and Eric Rescorla.

   WG -11: Addressed comments from Alissa Cooper.

Authors' Addresses

   Michael Welzl
   University of Oslo
   PO Box 1080 Blindern
   Oslo  N-0316
   Norway

   Phone: +47 22 85 24 20
   Email: michawe@ifi.uio.no


   Stein Gjessing
   University of Oslo
   PO Box 1080 Blindern
   Oslo  N-0316
   Norway

   Phone: +47 22 85 24 44
   Email: steing@ifi.uio.no






















Welzl & Gjessing         Expires March 31, 2019                [Page 50]


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