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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04

Network Working Group                                         R. Stewart
Internet-Draft                                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: January 20, 2007                                      M. Tuexen
                                      Univ. of Applied Sciences Muenster
                                                           July 19, 2006


      Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Interop Scoring
                  draft-stewart-tsvwg-sctpscore-04.txt

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

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

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 20, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

   This memo describes some of the scoring to be used in the testing of
   Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) at upcoming interops.








Stewart & Tuexen        Expires January 20, 2007                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft               Interop Scoring                   July 2006


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Base protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.1.  Basic Communication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.2.  Beyond Basic Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.3.  Bulk Transfer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  Protocol Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.1.  Partial reliable SCTP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.2.  AUTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.3.  AddIP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.4.  PktDrpRep  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.5.  Stream Reset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   4.  Bonus Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   7.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 12
































Stewart & Tuexen        Expires January 20, 2007                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft               Interop Scoring                   July 2006


1.  Introduction

   This document will be used as a basis for point scoring at upcoming
   SCTP interops.  Its purpose is similar to that described in RFC1025
   [1].  It is hoped that a clear definition of where and how to score
   points will further the development of SCTP RFC2960 [4].

   Note that while attending an interop no one else will score your
   points for you.  We trust that all implementations will faithfully
   record their points that are received honestly.  Note also that these
   scores are NOT to be used for marketing purposes.  They are for the
   use of the implementations to know how well they are doing.  The only
   reporting that will be done is a basic summary to the Transport Area
   Working Group but please note that NO company or implementation names
   will be attached.

   Note Bene: Checksums must be enforced.  No points will be awarded if
   the checksum test is disabled.


2.  Base protocol

   The base protocol is described in the following documents:
   o  RFC2960 [4]
   o  RFC3309 [5]
   o  RFC4460 [7]
   These three documents are combined in 2960bis [8].

2.1.  Basic Communication

   These points will be scored for EACH peer implementation that you
   successfully communicate with.

      2 points for being the sender of the INIT chunk and completing
      setup of an association.
      2 points for being the sender of the INIT-ACK chunk and completing
      setup of an association.
      1 point for sending data on the association where you sent the
      INIT.
      1 point for sending data on the association where you sent the
      INIT-ACK.
      2 points for gracefully ending the conversation by being the
      sender of the SHUTDOWN.
      2 points for gracefully ending the conversation by being the
      sender of the SHUTDOWN-ACK.
      4 points for repeating the above without reinitializing the SCTP.

   In order to receive all of the above points (14) an implementation



Stewart & Tuexen        Expires January 20, 2007                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft               Interop Scoring                   July 2006


   will need to:
   o  send an INIT chunk and setup an association.
   o  send a data chunk on that association.
   o  receive a data chunk on that association.
   o  send a SHUTDOWN chunk and bring the association to a close.
   o  receive an INIT-ACK and setup a new association (after the
      previous one is closed).
   o  send a data chunk on that association.
   o  receive a data chunk on that association.
   o  receive a SHUTDOWN chunk and send a SHUTDOWN-ACK and close the
      association.
   o  without restarting repeat these steps once.

   You can get 5 extra points if you do not include any address
   parameter in the INIT-/INIT-ACK chunk in case you are using ony one
   of your addresses.

   You get 20 points for correctly handling unknown parameters in the
   INIT and INIT-ACK chunk.  A testtool for this test will be available
   at the interop.

   You get 10 extra points for not sending more than one packet in
   response to a packet containing multiple chunks.  A testtool for this
   test will be available at the interop.

   You can get 10 extra points for not sending chunks on non-confirmed
   paths.  A testtool for this test will be available at the interop.

   Note that for the above extra points, these are only awarded once per
   implementation and NOT every time you demonstrate this behaviour.

2.2.  Beyond Basic Communication

   Note that, unless otherwise specified, these points are scored once
   per implementation.

      10 points for bring up multiple associations at the same time to
      different implementations.  The implementation must send and
      receive data on both associations simultaneously.

      15 points for correctly handling ECN.

      10 points for correctly handling both Transmission Sequence Number
      (TSN) and Stream Sequence Number (SSN) wrap around.

      5 points for correctly being able to process a "Kamikaze" packet
      (AKA nastygram, christmas tree packet, lamp test segment, et al.).
      That is, correctly handle a segment with the maximum combination



Stewart & Tuexen        Expires January 20, 2007                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft               Interop Scoring                   July 2006


      of features at once (e.g., a COOKIE-ECHO, SACK, ASCONF, UNKNOWN-
      CHUNK, SHUTDOWN).

      5 additional points if the response to the "Kamikaze" packet is
      bundled.

      10 additional points if the implementation supports ECN and thus
      the "Kamikaze" packet is expanded to include COOKIE-ECHO, SACK,
      ECN, ASCONF, UNKNOWN-CHUNK, SHUTDOWN.

      30 points for KOing your opponent with legal blows (That is,
      operate a connection until one SCTP or the other crashes, the
      surviving SCTP has KOed the other.  Legal blows are chunks that
      meet the requirements of the specification).  Note that these
      points are scored each time you KO an opponent for a new reason.
      Repeated KO's of an opponent using the same method count only
      once.

      20 points for KOing your opponent with dirty blows (Dirty blows
      are packets or chunks that violate the requirements of the
      specification).  Note that these points are can also be scored
      multiple times just like legal blows with the same restrictions
      listed above.

      10 points for showing your opponents checksum is disabled or using
      the old checksum aka Adler-32 RFC3309 [5].  Note that these points
      are only awarded for packets that went over a physical wire (aka
      it is legal to disable the checksum when talking to you own
      machine via the loopback device).  Note also that you can score
      these points multiple times.

      10 points for showing you can fast-retransmit.

      10 points for showing your t3-timer retransmits to an alternate
      destination (aka uses the multi-homed facility during
      retransmission).

      10 points for properly demonstrating the partial delivery API.

      10 points for demonstrating recognition and proper handling of
      restart.

      10 points for correctly handling INIT collision.

      10 points for correctly handling the STALE COOKIE case (sending of
      the error chunk).





Stewart & Tuexen        Expires January 20, 2007                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft               Interop Scoring                   July 2006


      10 points for an automatic resend of the INIT in case of a STALE
      COOKIE with an appropriate COOKIE-PRESERVATIVE parameter such that
      the association gets established.

      10 points for doing bulk transfer for over 10 minutes at a high
      constant rate.

      5 points for handling the restart with data transfer after that.

      10 points for proving that your opponent accepts additional
      addresses during the restart compared to the original association.

      2 points for the correct handling of an unknown chunk with high
      order bits 00, 01, 10, and 11. 2 additional points (10 in total)
      for handling all four cases correctly.

      2 points for the correct handling of an unknown parameter with
      high order bits 00, 01, 10, and 11. 2 additional points (10 in
      total) for handling all four cases correctly.

      5 points for handling excessive packet duplication during
      association setup.  Excessive packet duplication means that every
      packet is duplicated in the network.

      5 points for handling excessive packet duplication during DATA
      transfer.


2.3.  Bulk Transfer

   For the following tests participants should provide a test
   application which can send/receive a specific number of user messages
   of a given length as fast as the protocol allows.

   These points will be scored once for receiving and once for sending
   for EACH peer implementation that you successfully communicate with.
   A Gigabit Ethernet connection with an MTU of 9000 bytes will be
   provided.

      5 points for transferring 10000000 user messages of length 1 bytes
      between two implementations in a reasonable time.

      5 points for transferring 10000000 user messages of length 10
      bytes between two implementations in a reasonable time.

      5 points for transferring 10000000 user messages of length 1452
      bytes between two implementations in a reasonable time.




Stewart & Tuexen        Expires January 20, 2007                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft               Interop Scoring                   July 2006


      5 points for transferring 10000000 user messages of length 8952
      bytes between two implementations in a reasonable time.


   The following tests will be performed over a network connection with
   a limited bandwidth of 1 Mbit/sec.
      5 points for transferring 10000000 user messages of length 1 bytes
      between two implementations in a reasonable time.

      5 points for transferring 1000000 user messages of length 10 bytes
      between two implementations in a reasonable time.

      5 points for transferring 100000 user messages of length 1452
      bytes between two implementations in a reasonable time.

      5 points for transferring 10000 user messages of length 8952 bytes
      between two implementations in a reasonable time.


   A resonable time is when the transfer was limited by the sender CPU,
   the receiver CPU, or the link in between.


3.  Protocol Extensions

3.1.  Partial reliable SCTP

   This extension is described in PRSCTP [6].
      10 points for sending a FWD-TSN to skip a "timed-out" data chunk.

      10 points for correctly adopting the new cumulative-ack point
      indicated by a FWD-TSN.

      10 points for freeing data chunks to the application that were
      held awaiting the FWD-TSN.

      10 points for properly handling the partial-delivery API where the
      last part of a message already being delivered is subjected to a
      FWD-TSN.


3.2.  AUTH

   This extension is currently being described in AUTH [9].
      10 points successfully negotiating a non-empty set of chunks to
      authenticate and sending them in an authenticated way.





Stewart & Tuexen        Expires January 20, 2007                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft               Interop Scoring                   July 2006


      10 points for handling all chunks which can be authenticated in an
      authenticated way.

      20 points for showing that your peer requested a chunk to be
      authenticated and accepts it without being authenticated.

      20 points for forecasting the random numbers of your peer.


3.3.  AddIP

   This extension is currently being described in ADDIP [10].
      10 points for using this extension in a authenticated way as
      requested by the document.

      5 points for sending and receiving an adaptation layer indication.

      10 points for adding an IP address to an existing association.

      10 points for deleting an IP address from an existing association.

      10 points for requesting that your peer set a primary address.

      10 points for showing that you honored the request to set a
      primary address and thus adopted a new primary address.

      20 points for catching a peer that attempts to support this
      extension and DOES NOT support the AUTH extension.  To earn the 20
      points you MUST not accept the association but instead send an
      ABORT in response to your peers INIT.

3.4.  PktDrpRep

   This extension is currently being described in PKTDRPREP [11].
      10 points for handling a packet drop report.

      10 points sending a notification due to checksum errors.


3.5.  Stream Reset

   This extension is currently being described in STRRST [12].
      5 points for handling a Outgoing SSN Reset Request.

      5 points for handling an Incoming SSN Reset Request.






Stewart & Tuexen        Expires January 20, 2007                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft               Interop Scoring                   July 2006


      5 points for handling a SSN/TSN Reset Request.

      5 points for handling a Outgoing SSN Reset Request combined with
      an Incoming SSN Reset Request.

   Handling a request means sending it and receiving it.


4.  Bonus Points

   You can also Bonus Points (directly from RFC1025 [1] with one added
   item :>)
      10 points for the best excuse.

      20 points for the fewest excuses.

      20 points for the fastest transfer of 1000000 DATA chunks of 100
      Byte length between two implementations. (not from RFC1025)

      30 points for the longest conversation.

      40 points for the most simultaneous connections.

      50 points for the most simultaneous connections with distinct
      SCTPs.

      50 points for hijacking an existing association between other
      participants.

   Please note that except for that last item the whole period of the
   interop is relevant.


5.  IANA Considerations

   There are no actions required from IANA.


6.  Security Considerations

   For security considerations please consult the corresponding section
   of the referenced protocol specifications.

7.  Normative References

   [1]   Postel, J., "TCP and IP bake off", RFC 1025, September 1987.

   [2]   Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3",



Stewart & Tuexen        Expires January 20, 2007                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft               Interop Scoring                   July 2006


         BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

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

   [4]   Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Morneault, K., Sharp, C., Schwarzbauer,
         H., Taylor, T., Rytina, I., Kalla, M., Zhang, L., and V.
         Paxson, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 2960,
         October 2000.

   [5]   Stone, J., Stewart, R., and D. Otis, "Stream Control
         Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Checksum Change", RFC 3309,
         September 2002.

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

   [7]   Stewart, R., Arias-Rodriguez, I., Poon, K., Caro, A., and M.
         Tuexen, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
         Specification Errata and Issues", RFC 4460, April 2006.

   [8]   Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
         draft-ietf-tsvwg-2960bis-02 (work in progress), June 2006.

   [9]   Tuexen, M., "Authenticated Chunks for Stream Control
         Transmission Protocol (SCTP)", draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-auth-03
         (work in progress), June 2006.

   [10]  Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
         Dynamic Address  Reconfiguration",
         draft-ietf-tsvwg-addip-sctp-15 (work in progress), June 2006.

   [11]  Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
         Packet Drop Reporting", draft-stewart-sctp-pktdrprep-05 (work
         in progress), June 2006.

   [12]  Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
         Stream Reset", draft-stewart-sctpstrrst-02 (work in progress),
         February 2006.











Stewart & Tuexen        Expires January 20, 2007               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft               Interop Scoring                   July 2006


Authors' Addresses

   Randall R. Stewart
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   4875 Forest Drive
   Suite 200
   Columbia, SC  29206
   USA

   Email: rrs@cisco.com


   Michael Tuexen
   Univ. of Applied Sciences Muenster
   Stegerwaldstr. 39
   48565 Steinfurt
   Germany

   Email: tuexen@fh-muenster.de
































Stewart & Tuexen        Expires January 20, 2007               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft               Interop Scoring                   July 2006


Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.




Stewart & Tuexen        Expires January 20, 2007               [Page 12]


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