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

Versions: (draft-fairhurst-taps-transports) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 RFC 8095

Network Working Group                                  G. Fairhurst, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                    University of Aberdeen
Intended status: Informational                          B. Trammell, Ed.
Expires: August 10, 2015                              M. Kuehlewind, Ed.
                                                              ETH Zurich
                                                       February 06, 2015


  Services provided by IETF transport protocols and congestion control
                               mechanisms
                     draft-ietf-taps-transports-02

Abstract

   This document describes services provided by existing IETF protocols
   and congestion control mechanisms.  It is designed to help
   application and network stack programmers and to inform the work of
   the IETF TAPS Working Group.

Status of This Memo

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 10, 2015.

Copyright Notice

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

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



Fairhurst, et al.        Expires August 10, 2015                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft               TAPS Transports               February 2015


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

1.  Introduction

   Most Internet applications make use of the Transport Services
   provided by TCP (a reliable, in-order stream protocol) or UDP (an
   unreliable datagram protocol).  We use the term "Transport Service"
   to mean the end-to-end service provided to an application by the
   transport layer.  That service can only be provided correctly if
   information about the intended usage is supplied from the
   application.  The application may determine this information at
   design time, compile time, or run time, and may include guidance on
   whether a feature is required, a preference by the application, or
   something in between.  Examples of features of Transport Services are
   reliable delivery, ordered delivery, content privacy to in-path
   devices, integrity protection, and minimal latency.

   The IETF has defined a wide variety of transport protocols beyond TCP
   and UDP, including TCP, SCTP, DCCP, MP-TCP, and UDP-Lite.  Transport
   services may be provided directly by these transport protocols, or
   layered on top of them using protocols such as WebSockets (which runs
   over TCP) or RTP (over TCP or UDP).  Services built on top of UDP or
   UDP-Lite typically also need to specify additional mechanisms,
   including a congestion control mechanism (such as a windowed
   congestion control, TFRC or LEDBAT congestion control mechanism).
   This extends the set of available Transport Services beyond those
   provided to applications by TCP and UDP.

   Transport protocols can also be differentiated by the features of the
   services they provide: for instance, SCTP offers a message-based
   service that does not suffer head-of-line blocking when used with
   multiple stream, because it can accept blocks of data out of order,
   UDP-Lite provides partial integrity protection, and LEDBAT can
   provide low-priority "scavenger" communication.

2.  Terminology

   The following terms are defined throughout this document, and in
   subsequent documents produced by TAPS describing the composition and
   decomposition of transport services.

   [NOTE: The terminology below was presented at the TAPS WG meeting in
   Honolulu.  While the factoring of the terminology seems
   uncontroversial, there may be some entities which still require names
   (e.g. information about the interface between the transport and lower
   layers which could lead to the availablity or unavailibility of




Fairhurst, et al.        Expires August 10, 2015                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft               TAPS Transports               February 2015


   certain transport protocol features).  Comments are welcome via the
   TAPS mailing list.]

   Transport Service Feature:  a specific end-to-end feature that a
      transport service provides to its clients.  Examples include
      confidentiality, reliable delivery, ordered delivery, message-
      versus-stream orientation, etc.

   Transport Service:  a set of transport service 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.

   Transport Protocol Component:  an implementation of a transport
      service feature within a protocol.

   Transport Service Instance:  an arrangement of transport protocols
      with a selected set of features and configuration parameters that
      implements a single transport service, e.g. a protocol stack (RTP
      over UDP).

   Application:  an entity that uses the transport layer for end-to-end
      delivery data across the network (this may also be an upper layer
      protocol or tunnel encpasulation).

3.  Existing Transport Protocols

   This section provides a list of known IETF transport protocol and
   transport protocol frameworks.

   [EDITOR'S NOTE: Contributions to the subsections below are welcome]

3.1.  Transport Control Protocol (TCP)

   TCP is an IETF standards track transport protocol.  [RFC0793]
   introduces TCP as follows: "The Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
   is intended for use as a highly reliable host-to-host protocol
   between hosts in packet-switched computer communication networks, and
   in interconnected systems of such networks."  Since its introduction,
   TCP has become the default connection-oriented, stream-based
   transport protocol in the Internet.  It is widely implemented by
   endpoints and widely used by common applications.






Fairhurst, et al.        Expires August 10, 2015                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft               TAPS Transports               February 2015


3.1.1.  Protocol Description

   TCP is a connection-oriented protocol, providing a three way
   handshake to allow a client and server to set up a connection, and
   mechanisms for orderly completion and immediate teardown of a
   connection.  TCP is defined by a family of RFCs [RFC4614].

   TCP provides multiplexing to multiple sockets on each host using port
   numbers.  An active TCP session is identified by its four-tuple of
   local and remote IP addresses and local port and remote port numbers.
   The destination port during connection setup has a different role as
   it is often used to indicate the requested service.

   TCP partitions a continuous stream of bytes into segments, sized to
   fit in IP packets.  ICMP-based PathMTU discovery [RFC1191][RFC1981]
   as well as Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD) [RFC4821]
   are supported.

   Each byte in the stream is identified by a sequence number.  The
   sequence number is used to order segments on receipt, to identify
   segments in acknowledgments, and to detect unacknowledged segments
   for retransmission.  This is the basis of TCP's reliable, ordered
   delivery of data in a stream.  TCP Selective Acknowledgment [RFC2018]
   extends this mechanism by making it possible to identify missing
   segments more precisely, reducing spurious retransmission.

   Receiver flow control is provided by a sliding window: limiting the
   amount of unacknowledged data that can be outstanding at a given
   time.  The window scale option [RFC7323] allows a receiver to use
   windows greater than 64KB.

   All TCP senders provide Congestion Control: This uses a separate
   window, where each time congestion is detected, this congestion
   window is reduced.  A receiver detects congestion using one of three
   mechanisms: A retransmission timer, detection of loss (interpreted as
   a congestion signal), or Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)
   [RFC3168] to provide early signaling (see
   [I-D.ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits])

   A TCP protocol instance can be extended [RFC4614] and tuned.  Some
   features are sender-side only, requiring no negotiation with the
   receiver; some are receiver-side only, some are explicitly negotiated
   during connection setup.

   By default, TCP segment partitioning uses Nagle's algorithm [RFC0896]
   to buffer data at the sender into large segments, potentially
   incurring sender-side buffering delay; this algorithm can be disabled




Fairhurst, et al.        Expires August 10, 2015                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft               TAPS Transports               February 2015


   by the sender to transmit more immediately, e.g. to enable smoother
   interactive sessions.

   [EDITOR'S NOTE: add URGENT and PUSH flag (note [RFC6093] says SHOULD
   NOT use due to the range of TCP implementations that process TCP
   urgent indications differently.) ]

   A checksum provides an Integrity Check and is mandatory across the
   entire packet.  The TCP checksum does not support partial corruption
   protection as in DCCP/UDP-Lite).  This check protects from
   misdelivery of data corrupted data, but is relatively weak, and
   applications that require end to end integrity of data are
   recommended to include a stronger integrity check of their payload
   data.

   A TCP service is unicast.

3.1.2.  Interface description

   A User/TCP Interface is defined in [RFC0793] providing six user
   commands: Open, Send, Receive, Close, Status.  This interface does
   not describe configuration of TCP options or parameters beside use of
   the PUSH and URGENT flags.

   In API implementations derived from the BSD Sockets API, TCP sockets
   are created using the "SOCK_STREAM" socket type.

   The features used by a protocol instance may be set and tuned via
   this API.

   (more on the API goes here)

3.1.3.  Transport Protocol Components

   The transport protocol components provided by TCP are:

   o  unicast

   o  connection setup with feature negotiation and application-to-port
      mapping

   o  port multiplexing

   o  reliable delivery

   o  ordered delivery for each byte stream

   o  error detection (checksum)



Fairhurst, et al.        Expires August 10, 2015                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft               TAPS Transports               February 2015


   o  segmentation

   o  stream-oriented delivery in a single stream

   o  data bundling (Nagle's algorithm)

   o  flow control

   o  congestion control

   [EDITOR'S NOTE: discussion of how to map this to features and TAPS:
   what does the higher layer need to decide? what can the transport
   layer decide based on global settings? what must the transport layer
   decide based on network characteristics?]

3.2.  Multipath TCP (MP-TCP)

   [EDITOR'S NOTE: a few sentences describing Multipath TCP [RFC6824] go
   here.  Note that this adds transport-layer multihoming to the
   components TCP provides]

3.3.  Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)

   SCTP [RFC4960] is an IETF standards track transport protocol that
   provides a bidirectional set of logical unicast meessage streams over
   a connection-oriented protocol.
   Compared to TCP, this protocol and API use messages, rather than a
   byte-stream.  Each stream of messages is independently managed,
   therefore retransmission does not hold back data sent using other
   logical streams.

   An SCTP Integrity Check is mandatory across the entire packet (it
   does not support partial corruption protection as in DCCP/UD-Lite).

   The SCTP Partial Reliability Extension (SCTP-PR) is defined in
   [RFC3758].

   SCTP supports PLPMTU discovery using padding chunks to construct path
   probes.

   [EDITOR'S NOTE: Michael Tuexen and Karen Nielsen signed up as
   contributors for these sections.]

3.3.1.  Protocol Description

   An SCTP service is unicast.

   PLPMTUD is required for SCTP.



Fairhurst, et al.        Expires August 10, 2015                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft               TAPS Transports               February 2015


3.3.2.  Interface Description

   The SCTP API is described in the specifications published in the RFC
   series.

3.3.3.  Transport Protocol Components

   The transport protocol components provided by SCTP are:

   o  unicast

   o  connection setup with feature negotiation and application-to-port
      mapping

   o  port multiplexing

   o  reliable or partially reliable delivery

   o  ordered delivery within a stream

   o  support for multiple prioritised streams

   o  flow control (slow receiver function)

   o  message-oriented delivery

   o  congestion control

   o  application PDU bundling

   o  integrity check

   [EDITOR'S NOTE: update this list.]

3.4.  User Datagram Protocol (UDP)

   The User Datagram Protocol (UDP) [RFC0768] [RFC2460] is an IETF
   standards track transport protocol.  It provides a uni-directional
   minimal message-passing transport that has no inherent congestion
   control mechanisms or other transport functions.  IETF guidance on
   the use of UDP is provided in [RFC5405].  UDP is widely implemented
   by endpoints and widely used by common applications.

   [EDITOR'S NOTE: Kevin Fall signed up as a contributor for this
   section.]






Fairhurst, et al.        Expires August 10, 2015                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft               TAPS Transports               February 2015


3.4.1.  Protocol Description

   UDP is a connection-less datagram protocol, with no connection setup
   or feature negotiation.  The protocol and API use messages, rather
   than a byte-stream.  Each stream of messages is independently
   managed, therefore retransmission does not hold back data sent using
   other logical streams.

   It provides multiplexing to multiple sockets on each host using port
   numbers.  An active UDP session is identified by its four-tuple of
   local and remote IP addresses and local port and remote port numbers.

   UDP maps each data segement into an IP packet, or a sequence of IP
   fragemnts.

   UDP is connectionless.  However, applications send a sequence of
   messages that constitute a UDP flow.  Therefore mechanisms for
   receiver flow control, congestion control, PathMTU discovery/PLPMTUD,
   support for ECN, etc need to be provided by upper layer protocols
   [RFC5405].

   PMTU discovery and PLPMTU discovery may be used by upper layer
   protocols built on top of UDP [RFC5405].

   For IPv4 the UDP checksum is optional, but recommended for use in the
   general Internet [RFC5405].  [RFC2460] requires the use of this
   checksum for IPv6, but [RFC6935] permits this to be relaxed for
   specific types of application.  The checksum support considerations
   for omitting the checksum are defined in [RFC6936].

   This check protects from misdelivery of data corrupted data, but is
   relatively weak, and applications that require end to end integrity
   of data are recommended to include a stronger integrity check of
   their payload data.

   A UDP service may support IPv4 broadcast, multicast, anycast and
   unicast, determined by the IP destination address.

3.4.2.  Interface Description

   [RFC0768] describes basic requirements for an API for UDP.  Guidance
   on use of common APIs is provided in [RFC5405].

   Many operating systems also allow a UDP socket to be connected, i.e.,
   to bind a UDP socket to a specific pair of addresses and ports.  This
   is similar to the corresponding TCP sockets API functionality.
   However, for UDP, this is only a local operation that serves to




Fairhurst, et al.        Expires August 10, 2015                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft               TAPS Transports               February 2015


   simplify the local send/receive functions and to filter the traffic
   for the specified addresses and ports [RFC5405].

3.4.3.  Transport Protocol Components

   The transport protocol components provided by UDP are:

   o  unicast

   o  port multiplexing

   o  IPv4 broadcast, multicast and anycast

   o  non-reliable delivery

   o  flow control (slow receiver function)

   o  non-ordered delivery

   o  message-oriented delivery

   o  optional checksum protection.

3.5.  Lightweight User Datagram Protocol (UDP-Lite)

   The Lightweight User Datagram Protocol (UDP-Lite) [RFC3828] is an
   IETF standards track transport protocol.  UDP-Lite provides a
   bidirectional set of logical unicast or multicast message streams
   over a datagram protocol.  IETF guidance on the use of UDP-Lite is
   provided in [RFC5405].

   [EDITOR'S NOTE: Gorry Fairhurst signed up as a contributor for this
   section.]

3.5.1.  Protocol Description

   UDP-Lite is a connection-less datagram protocol, with no connection
   setup or feature negotiation.  The protocol use messages, rather than
   a byte-stream.  Each stream of messages is independently managed,
   therefore retransmission does not hold back data sent using other
   logical streams.

   It provides multiplexing to multiple sockets on each host using port
   numbers.  An active UDP-Lite session is identified by its four-tuple
   of local and remote IP addresses and local port and remote port
   numbers.





Fairhurst, et al.        Expires August 10, 2015                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft               TAPS Transports               February 2015


   UDP-Lite fragments packets into IP packets, constrained by the
   maximum size of IP packet.

   UDP-Lite changes the semantics of the UDP "payload length" field to
   that of a "checksum coverage length" field.  Otherwise, UDP-Lite is
   semantically identical to UDP.  Applications using UDP-Lite therefore
   can not make assumptions regarding the correctness of the data
   received in the insensitive part of the UDP-Lite payload.

   As for UDP, mechanisms for receiver flow control, congestion control,
   PMTU or PLPMTU discovery, support for ECN, etc need to be provided by
   upper layer protocols [RFC5405].

   Examples of use include a class of applications that can derive
   benefit from having partially-damaged payloads delivered, rather than
   discarded.  One use is to support error tolerate payload corruption
   when used over paths that include error-prone links, another
   application is when header integrity checks are required, but payload
   integrity is provided by some other mechanism (e.g.  [RFC6936].

   A UDP-Lite service may support IPv4 broadcast, multicast, anycast and
   unicast.

3.5.2.  Interface Description

   There is no current API specified in the RFC Series, but guidance on
   use of common APIs is provided in [RFC5405].

   The interface of UDP-Lite differs from that of UDP by the addition of
   a single (socket) option that communicates a checksum coverage length
   value: at the sender, this specifies the intended checksum coverage,
   with the remaining unprotected part of the payload called the "error-
   insensitive part".  The checksum coverage may also be made visible to
   the application via the UDP-Lite MIB module [RFC5097].

3.5.3.  Transport Protocol Components

   The transport protocol components provided by UDP-Lite are:

   o  unicast

   o  IPv4 broadcast, multicast and anycast

   o  port multiplexing

   o  non-reliable, non-ordered delivery

   o  message-oriented delivery



Fairhurst, et al.        Expires August 10, 2015               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft               TAPS Transports               February 2015


   o  partial integrity protection

3.6.  Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)

   Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) [RFC4340] is an IETF
   standards track bidirectional transport protocol that provides
   unicast connections of congestion-controlled unreliable messages.

   [EDITOR'S NOTE: Gorry Fairhurst signed up as a contributor for this
   section.]

   The DCCP Problem Statement describes the goals that DCCP sought to
   address [RFC4336].  It is suitable for applications that transfer
   fairly large amounts of data and that can benefit from control over
   the trade off between timeliness and reliability [RFC4336].

   It offers low overhead, and many characteristics common to UDP, but
   can avoid "Re-inventing the wheel" each time a new multimedia
   application emerges.  Specifically it includes core functions
   (feature negotiation, path state management, RTT calculation, PMTUD,
   etc): This allows applications to use a compatible method defining
   how they send packets and where suitable to choose common algorithms
   to manage their functions.  Examples of suitable applications include
   interactive applications, streaming media or on-line games [RFC4336].

3.6.1.  Protocol Description

   DCCP is a connection-oriented datagram protocol, providing a three
   way handshake to allow a client and server to set up a connection,
   and mechanisms for orderly completion and immediate teardown of a
   connection.  The protocol is defined by a family of RFCs.

   It provides multiplexing to multiple sockets on each host using port
   numbers.  An active DCCP session is identified by its four-tuple of
   local and remote IP addresses and local port and remote port numbers.
   At connection setup, DCCP also exchanges the the service code
   [RFC5595] mechanism to allow transport instantiations to indicate the
   service treatment that is expected from the network.

   The protocol segments data into messages, typically sized to fit in
   IP packets, but which may be fragemented providing they are less than
   the A DCCP interface MAY allow applications to request fragmentation
   for packets larger than PMTU, but not larger than the maximum packet
   size allowed by the current congestion control mechanism (CCMPS)
   [RFC4340].

   Each message is identified by a sequence number.  The sequence number
   is used to identify segments in acknowledgments, to detect



Fairhurst, et al.        Expires August 10, 2015               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft               TAPS Transports               February 2015


   unacknowledged segments, to measure RTT, etc.  The protocol may
   support ordered or unordered delivery of data, and does not itself
   provide retransmission.  There is a Data Checksum option, which
   contains a strong CRC, lets endpoints detect application data
   corruption.  It also supports reduced checksum coverage, a partial
   integrity mechanisms similar to UDP-lIte.

   Receiver flow control is supported: limiting the amount of
   unacknowledged data that can be outstanding at a given time.

   A DCCP protocol instance can be extended [RFC4340] and tuned.  Some
   features are sender-side only, requiring no negotiation with the
   receiver; some are receiver-side only, some are explicitly negotiated
   during connection setup.

   DCCP supports negotiation of the congestion control profile, to
   provide Plug and Play congestion control mechanisms.  examples of
   specified profiles include [RFC4341] [RFC4342] [RFC5662].  All IETF-
   defined methods provide Congestion Control.

   DCCP use a Connect packet to start a session, and permits half-
   connections that allow each client to choose features it wishes to
   support.  Simultaneous open [RFC5596], as in TCP, can enable
   interoperability in the presence of middleboxes.  The Connect packet
   includes a Service Code field [RFC5595] designed to allow middle
   boxes and endpoints to identify the characteristics required by a
   session.  A lightweight UDP-based encapsulation (DCCP-UDP) has been
   defined [RFC6773] that permits DCCP to be used over paths where it is
   not natively supported.  Support in NAPT/NATs is defined in [RFC4340]
   and [RFC5595].

   Upper layer protocols specified on top of DCCP include: DTLS
   [RFC5595], RTP [RFC5672], ICE/SDP [RFC6773].

   A DCCP service is unicast.

   A common packet format has allowed tools to evolve that can read and
   interpret DCCP packets (e.g.  Wireshark).

3.6.2.  Interface Description

   API charactersitics include: - Datagram transmission.  - Notification
   of the current maximum packet size.  - Send and reception of zero-
   length payloads.  - Set the Slow Receiver flow control at areceiver.
   - Detct a Slow receiver at the sender.

   There is no current API specified in the RFC Series.




Fairhurst, et al.        Expires August 10, 2015               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft               TAPS Transports               February 2015


3.6.3.  Transport Protocol Components

   The transport protocol components provided by DCCP are:

   o  unicast

   o  connection setup with feature negotiation and application-to-port
      mapping

   o  Service Codes

   o  port multiplexing

   o  non-reliable, ordered delivery

   o  flow control (slow receiver function)

   o  drop notification

   o  timestamps

   o  message-oriented delivery

   o  partial integrity protection

3.7.  Realtime Transport Protocol (RTP)

   RTP provides an end-to-end network transport service, suitable for
   applications transmitting real-time data, such as audio, video or
   data, over multicast or unicast network services, including TCP, UDP,
   UDP-Lite, DCCP.

   [EDITOR'S NOTE: Varun Singh signed up as contributor for this
   section.]

3.8.  Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram TLS (DTLS) as a

   pseudo transport

   [NOTE: A few words on TLS [RFC5246] and DTLS [RFC6347] here, and how
   they get used by other protocols to meet security goals as an add-on
   interlayer above transport.]

3.8.1.  Protocol Description







Fairhurst, et al.        Expires August 10, 2015               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft               TAPS Transports               February 2015


3.8.2.  Interface Description

3.8.3.  Transport Protocol Components

3.9.  Hypertext Transport Protocol (HTTP) as a pseudotransport

   [RFC3205]

   [EDITOR'S NOTE: No identified contributor for this section yet.]

3.9.1.  Protocol Description

3.9.2.  Interface Description

3.9.3.  Transport Protocol Components

3.10.  WebSockets

   [RFC6455]

   [EDITOR'S NOTE: No identified contributor for this section yet.]

3.10.1.  Protocol Description

3.10.2.  Interface Description

3.10.3.  Transport Protocol Components

4.  Transport Service Features

   [EDITOR'S NOTE: this section will drawn from the candidate features
   provided by protocol components in the previous section - please
   discuss on taps@ietf.org list]

4.1.  Complete Protocol Feature Matrix

   [EDITOR'S NOTE: Dave Thaler has signed up as a contributor for this
   section.  Michael Welzl also has a beginning of a matrix which could
   be useful here.]

   [EDITOR'S NOTE: The below is a strawman proposal below by Gorry
   Fairhurst for initial discussion]

   The table below summarises protocol mechanisms that have been
   standardised.  It does not make an assessment on whether specific
   implementations are fully compliant to these specifications.





Fairhurst, et al.        Expires August 10, 2015               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft               TAPS Transports               February 2015


   +-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
   | Mechanism       | UDP     | UDP-L   | DCCP    | SCTP    | TCP     |
   +-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
   | Unicast         | Yes     | Yes     | Yes     | Yes     | Yes     |
   |                 |         |         |         |         |         |
   | Mcast/IPv4Bcast | Yes(2)  | Yes     | No      | No      | No      |
   |                 |         |         |         |         |         |
   | Port Mux        | Yes     | Yes     | Yes     | Yes     | Yes     |
   |                 |         |         |         |         |         |
   | Mode            | Dgram   | Dgram   | Dgram   | Stream  | Stream  |
   |                 |         |         |         |         |         |
   | Connected       | No      | No      | Yes     | Yes     | Yes     |
   |                 |         |         |         |         |         |
   | Data bundling   | No      | No      | No      | No      | Yes     |
   |                 |         |         |         |         |         |
   | Feature Nego    | No      | No      | Yes     | Yes     | Yes     |
   |                 |         |         |         |         |         |
   | Options         | No      | No      | Support | Support | Support |
   |                 |         |         |         |         |         |
   | Data priority   | *       | *       | *       | Yes     | No      |
   |                 |         |         |         |         |         |
   | Data bundling   | No      | No      | No      | No      | Yes     |
   |                 |         |         |         |         |         |
   | Reliability     | None    | None    | None    | Select  | Full    |
   |                 |         |         |         |         |         |
   | Ordered deliv   | No      | No      | No      | Stream  | Yes     |
   |                 |         |         |         |         |         |
   | Corruption Tol. | No      | Support | Support | No      | No      |
   |                 |         |         |         |         |         |
   | Flow Control    | No      | No      | Support | Yes     | Yes     |
   |                 |         |         |         |         |         |
   | PMTU/PLPMTU     | (1)     | (1)     | Yes     | Yes     | Yes     |
   |                 |         |         |         |         |         |
   | Cong Control    | (1)     | (1)     | Yes     | Yes     | Yes     |
   |                 |         |         |         |         |         |
   | ECN Support     | (1)     | (1)     | Yes     | No      | Yes     |
   |                 |         |         |         |         |         |
   | NAT support     | Limited | Limited | Support | TBD     | Support |
   |                 |         |         |         |         |         |
   | Security        | DTLS    | DTLS    | DTLS    | DTLS    | TLS, AO |
   |                 |         |         |         |         |         |
   | UDP encaps      | N/A     | None    | Yes     | Yes     | None    |
   |                 |         |         |         |         |         |
   | RTP support     | Support | Support | Support | ?       | Support |
   +-----------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

   Note (1): this feature requires support in an upper layer protocol.




Fairhurst, et al.        Expires August 10, 2015               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft               TAPS Transports               February 2015


   Note (2): this feature requires support in an upper layer protocol
   when used with IPv6.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no considerations for IANA.

6.  Security Considerations

   This document surveys existing transport protocols and protocols
   providing transport-like services.  Confidentiality, integrity, and
   authenticity are among the features provided by those services.  This
   document does not specify any new components or mechanisms for
   providing these features.  Each RFC listed in this document discusses
   the security considerations of the specification it contains.

7.  Contributors

   [EDITOR'S NOTE: Non-editor contributors of text will be listed here,
   as noted in the authors section.]

8.  Acknowledgments

   This work is partially supported by the European Commission under
   grant agreement FP7-ICT-318627 mPlane; support does not imply
   endorsement.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC0791]  Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September
              1981.

9.2.  Informative References

   [RFC0768]  Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
              August 1980.

   [RFC0793]  Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
              793, September 1981.

   [RFC0896]  Nagle, J., "Congestion control in IP/TCP internetworks",
              RFC 896, January 1984.

   [RFC1122]  Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
              Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.




Fairhurst, et al.        Expires August 10, 2015               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft               TAPS Transports               February 2015


   [RFC1191]  Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
              November 1990.

   [RFC1981]  McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery
              for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996.

   [RFC2018]  Mathis, M., Mahdavi, J., Floyd, S., and A. Romanow, "TCP
              Selective Acknowledgment Options", RFC 2018, October 1996.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

   [RFC3168]  Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
              of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC
              3168, September 2001.

   [RFC3205]  Moore, K., "On the use of HTTP as a Substrate", BCP 56,
              RFC 3205, February 2002.

   [RFC3390]  Allman, M., Floyd, S., and C. Partridge, "Increasing TCP's
              Initial Window", RFC 3390, October 2002.

   [RFC3758]  Stewart, R., Ramalho, M., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., and P.
              Conrad, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
              Partial Reliability Extension", RFC 3758, May 2004.

   [RFC3828]  Larzon, L-A., Degermark, M., Pink, S., Jonsson, L-E., and
              G. Fairhurst, "The Lightweight User Datagram Protocol
              (UDP-Lite)", RFC 3828, July 2004.

   [RFC4336]  Floyd, S., Handley, M., and E. Kohler, "Problem Statement
              for the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC
              4336, March 2006.

   [RFC4340]  Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram
              Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, March 2006.

   [RFC4341]  Floyd, S. and E. Kohler, "Profile for Datagram Congestion
              Control Protocol (DCCP) Congestion Control ID 2: TCP-like
              Congestion Control", RFC 4341, March 2006.

   [RFC4342]  Floyd, S., Kohler, E., and J. Padhye, "Profile for
              Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) Congestion
              Control ID 3: TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC)", RFC 4342,
              March 2006.






Fairhurst, et al.        Expires August 10, 2015               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft               TAPS Transports               February 2015


   [RFC4614]  Duke, M., Braden, R., Eddy, W., and E. Blanton, "A Roadmap
              for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Specification
              Documents", RFC 4614, September 2006.

   [RFC4821]  Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
              Discovery", RFC 4821, March 2007.

   [RFC4960]  Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC
              4960, September 2007.

   [RFC5097]  Renker, G. and G. Fairhurst, "MIB for the UDP-Lite
              protocol", RFC 5097, January 2008.

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

   [RFC5348]  Floyd, S., Handley, M., Padhye, J., and J. Widmer, "TCP
              Friendly Rate Control (TFRC): Protocol Specification", RFC
              5348, September 2008.

   [RFC5405]  Eggert, L. and G. Fairhurst, "Unicast UDP Usage Guidelines
              for Application Designers", BCP 145, RFC 5405, November
              2008.

   [RFC5595]  Fairhurst, G., "The Datagram Congestion Control Protocol
              (DCCP) Service Codes", RFC 5595, September 2009.

   [RFC5596]  Fairhurst, G., "Datagram Congestion Control Protocol
              (DCCP) Simultaneous-Open Technique to Facilitate NAT/
              Middlebox Traversal", RFC 5596, September 2009.

   [RFC5662]  Shepler, S., Eisler, M., and D. Noveck, "Network File
              System (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version 1 External Data
              Representation Standard (XDR) Description", RFC 5662,
              January 2010.

   [RFC5672]  Crocker, D., "RFC 4871 DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM)
              Signatures -- Update", RFC 5672, August 2009.

   [RFC6773]  Phelan, T., Fairhurst, G., and C. Perkins, "DCCP-UDP: A
              Datagram Congestion Control Protocol UDP Encapsulation for
              NAT Traversal", RFC 6773, November 2012.

   [RFC5925]  Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
              Authentication Option", RFC 5925, June 2010.

   [RFC5681]  Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion
              Control", RFC 5681, September 2009.



Fairhurst, et al.        Expires August 10, 2015               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft               TAPS Transports               February 2015


   [RFC6093]  Gont, F. and A. Yourtchenko, "On the Implementation of the
              TCP Urgent Mechanism", RFC 6093, January 2011.

   [RFC6298]  Paxson, V., Allman, M., Chu, J., and M. Sargent,
              "Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer", RFC 6298, June
              2011.

   [RFC6935]  Eubanks, M., Chimento, P., and M. Westerlund, "IPv6 and
              UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets", RFC 6935, April 2013.

   [RFC6936]  Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerlund, "Applicability Statement
              for the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums",
              RFC 6936, April 2013.

   [RFC6455]  Fette, I. and A. Melnikov, "The WebSocket Protocol", RFC
              6455, December 2011.

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

   [RFC6691]  Borman, D., "TCP Options and Maximum Segment Size (MSS)",
              RFC 6691, July 2012.

   [RFC6824]  Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., and O. Bonaventure,
              "TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple
              Addresses", RFC 6824, January 2013.

   [RFC7323]  Borman, D., Braden, B., Jacobson, V., and R.
              Scheffenegger, "TCP Extensions for High Performance", RFC
              7323, September 2014.

   [I-D.ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits]
              Welzl, M. and G. Fairhurst, "The Benefits and Pitfalls of
              using Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)", draft-ietf-
              aqm-ecn-benefits-00 (work in progress), October 2014.

Authors' Addresses

   Godred Fairhurst (editor)
   University of Aberdeen
   School of Engineering, Fraser Noble Building
   Aberdeen AB24 3UE

   Email: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk







Fairhurst, et al.        Expires August 10, 2015               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft               TAPS Transports               February 2015


   Brian Trammell (editor)
   ETH Zurich
   Gloriastrasse 35
   8092 Zurich
   Switzerland

   Email: ietf@trammell.ch


   Mirja Kuehlewind (editor)
   ETH Zurich
   Gloriastrasse 35
   8092 Zurich
   Switzerland

   Email: mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch



































Fairhurst, et al.        Expires August 10, 2015               [Page 20]


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