draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-04.txt   draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-05.txt 
6lo S. Chakrabarti 6lo S. Chakrabarti
Internet-Draft Ericsson Internet-Draft Ericsson
Updates: 4944, 6282 (if approved) G. Montenegro Updates: 4944, 6282 (if approved) G. Montenegro
Intended status: Standards Track Microsoft Intended status: Standards Track Microsoft
Expires: February 9, 2017 R. Droms Expires: March 20, 2017 R. Droms
Cisco Cisco
J. Woodyatt J. Woodyatt
Nest Nest
August 8, 2016 September 16, 2016
6lowpan ESC Dispatch Code Points and Guidelines 6lowpan ESC Dispatch Code Points and Guidelines
draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-04 draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-05
Abstract Abstract
RFC4944 defines ESC dispatch type for additional dispatch bytes in RFC4944 defines the ESC dispatch type to allow for additional
the 6lowpan header. The value of ESC byte has been updated by dispatch bytes in the 6lowpan header. The value of the ESC byte was
RFC6282. However, the usage of ESC extension byte has not been updated by RFC6282, however, its usage was not defined either in
defined in RFC6282 and RFC4944. This document updates RFC4944 and RFC6282 or in RFC4944. This document updates RFC4944 and RFC6282 by
RFC6282 by defining the ESC extension byte code points including defining the ESC extension byte code points including registration of
registration of entries for known use-cases at the time of writing of entries for known use cases at the time of writing of this document.
this document.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 9, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 20, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 3, line 12 skipping to change at page 3, line 12
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC4944] section 5.1 defines the dispatch header and types. The ESC [RFC4944] section 5.1 defines the dispatch header and types. The ESC
type is defined for using additional dispatch bytes in the 6lowpan type is defined for using additional dispatch bytes in the 6lowpan
header. RFC 6282 modifies the value of the ESC dispatch type and it header. RFC 6282 modifies the value of the ESC dispatch type and it
is recorded in IANA registry [6LOWPAN-IANA]. However, the bytes and is recorded in IANA registry [6LOWPAN-IANA]. However, the bytes and
usage following the ESC byte are not defined in either [RFC4944] and usage following the ESC byte are not defined in either [RFC4944] and
[RFC6282]. However, in recent years with 6lowpan deployments, the [RFC6282]. However, in recent years with 6lowpan deployments,
implementations and Standards organizations have started using the implementations and standards organizations have started using the
ESC extension bytes and a co-ordination between the respective ESC extension bytes and co-ordination between the respective
organizations and IETF/IANA are needed. organizations and IETF/IANA is needed.
The following sections record the ITU-T specification for ESC The following sections record the ITU-T specification for ESC
dispatch byte code points as an existing known usage and propose the dispatch byte code points as an existing known usage and propose the
definition of ESC extension bytes for future applications. The definition of ESC extension bytes for future applications. The
document also requests IANA actions for the first extension byte document also requests IANA actions for the first extension byte
following the ESC byte. following the ESC byte.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
skipping to change at page 4, line 6 skipping to change at page 4, line 6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 1| ESC | ESC EXT Type | Extended Dispatch Payload |0 1| ESC | ESC EXT Type | Extended Dispatch Payload
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Frame Format with ESC Byte Figure 1: Frame Format with ESC Byte
ESC: The left-most byte is the ESC dispatch type containing '0100000' ESC: The left-most byte is the ESC dispatch type containing '0100000'
ESC Extension Type (EET): It is the first byte following the ESC ESC Extension Type (EET): It is the first byte following the ESC
byte. Extension type defines the payload for the additional dispatch byte. Extension type defines the payload for the additional dispatch
bytes. The values are from 0 to 255. Value 0 and 255 are reserved bytes. The values are from 0 to 255. Values 0 and 255 are reserved
for future use. These values are assigned by IANA. The EET values for future use. These values are assigned by IANA. The EET values
are similar to dispatch values in the 6lowpan header except they are are similar to dispatch values in the 6lowpan header except they are
preceded by the ESC byte. Thus, ESC extension types and dispatch preceded by the ESC byte. Thus, ESC extension types and dispatch
values are using orthogonal code spaces. Though not desirable, values are using orthogonal code spaces. Though not desirable,
multiple ESC bytes MAY appear in a 6lowpan header. Section 3.1 multiple ESC bytes MAY appear in a 6lowpan header. Section 3.1
describes how to handle unknown ESC dispatch type. describes how to handle an unknown ESC dispatch type.
Extended Dispatch Payload(EDP): This part of frame format must be Extended Dispatch Payload(EDP): This part of the frame format must be
defined by the corresponding extension type. A specification is defined by the corresponding extension type. A specification is
required to define each usage of extension type and its corresponding required to define each usage of extension type and its corresponding
Extension Payload. For the sake of interoperability, specifications Extension Payload. For the sake of interoperability, specifications
of extension bytes MUST NOT redefine the existing ESC Extension Type of extension bytes MUST NOT redefine the existing ESC Extension Type
codes. codes.
Section 5.1 in RFC4944 indicates that the Extension Type field may Section 5.1 in RFC4944 indicates that the Extension Type field may
contain additional dispatch values larger than 63, as corrected by contain additional dispatch values larger than 63, as corrected by
[4944-ERRATA]. For the sake of interoperability, the new dispatch [4944-ERRATA]. For the sake of interoperability, the new dispatch
type (EET) MUST NOT modify the behavior of existing dispatch types type (EET) MUST NOT modify the behavior of existing dispatch types
skipping to change at page 4, line 36 skipping to change at page 4, line 36
3.1. Interaction with other RFC4944 implementations 3.1. Interaction with other RFC4944 implementations
It is expected that RFC4944 existing implementations are not capable It is expected that RFC4944 existing implementations are not capable
of processing ESC extension data bytes as defined in this document. of processing ESC extension data bytes as defined in this document.
However, implementers have to assume that existing implementation However, implementers have to assume that existing implementation
that attempt to process an EET unknown to them will simply drop the that attempt to process an EET unknown to them will simply drop the
packet or ignore the ESC dispatch bytes. packet or ignore the ESC dispatch bytes.
If an implementation following this document, during processing of If an implementation following this document, during processing of
the received packet reaches the ESC byte for which it does not the received packet reaches an ESC byte for which it does not
understand the extension bytes (EET), it MUST drop that packet. understand the extension bytes (EET), it MUST drop that packet.
However, it is important to clarify that a router node SHOULD forward However, it is important to clarify that a router node SHOULD forward
a 6lowpan packet with the EET bytes as long as it does not attempt to a 6lowpan packet with the EET bytes as long as it does not attempt to
process any unknown ESC extension bytes. process any unknown ESC extension bytes.
Sequence Of dispatch bytes and ESC bytes: Multiple ESC extension Sequence Of dispatch bytes and ESC bytes: Multiple ESC extension
bytes may appear in a packet. The ESC bytes can appear as the first, bytes may appear in a packet. The ESC bytes can appear as the first,
last or middle dispatch bytes. However, a packet will get dropped by last or middle dispatch bytes. However, a packet will get dropped by
any node that does not understand the EET at the beginning of the any node that does not understand the EET at the beginning of the
packet. The closer to the end of the packet are the EET's, the packet. The closer to the end of the packet are the EET's, the
skipping to change at page 6, line 32 skipping to change at page 6, line 32
This document clarifies that NALP dispatch codes only provide an This document clarifies that NALP dispatch codes only provide an
escape method for non-6LoWPAN payloads when they appear as the escape method for non-6LoWPAN payloads when they appear as the
initial byte of a LoWPAN encapsulation, and that the potential initial byte of a LoWPAN encapsulation, and that the potential
meaning of their appearance in any other location is reserved for meaning of their appearance in any other location is reserved for
future use. future use.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
This document requests IANA to register the 'ESC Extension Type' This document requests IANA to register the 'ESC Extension Type'
values as per the policy 'Specification Required'[RFC5226] as values per the policy 'Specification Required' [RFC5226], following
specified in this document which follows the same policy as in the the same policy as in the IANA section of [RFC4944]. For each
IANA section of [RFC4944]. For each Extension Type (except the Extension Type (except the Reserved values) the specification MUST
Reserved values) the specification MUST define corresponding Extended define corresponding Extended Dispatch Payload frame bytes for the
Dispatch Payload frame bytes for the receiver implementation to read receiver implementation to read the ESC bytes in an interoperable
the ESC bytes with interoperability. fashion.
[RFC5226] section 4.1 also indicates that "Specification Srequired" [RFC5226] section 4.1 also indicates that "Specification Required"
implies a Designated expert review of the public specification which implies a Designated Expert review of the public specification
is requesting registry for the ESC Extenstion Type values. requesting registration of the ESC Extension Type values.
The allocation of code-points should follow the guidelines on "Usage The allocation of code points should follow the guidelines on "Usage
Of ESC Dispatch Bytes" and the typical example sections. ESC Of ESC Dispatch Bytes" and the typical example sections. ESC
Extension type code points MUST be used in conjunction with 6lo Extension type code points MUST be used in conjunction with 6lo
protocols following [RFC4944] or its derivatives. The requesting protocols following [RFC4944] or its derivatives. The requesting
document MUST specify how the ESC dispatch bytes will be used along document MUST specify how the ESC dispatch bytes will be used along
with 6LOWPAN headers in their use-cases. with 6LOWPAN headers in their use cases.
The initial values for the 'ESC Extension Type' fields are: The initial values for the 'ESC Extension Type' fields are:
+-------+---------------------------------+---------------+ +-------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference | | Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+---------------------------------+---------------+ +-------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| 0 | Reserved for future use | This document | | 0 | Reserved for future use | This document |
| | | | | | | |
| 1-31 | Used by ITU-T G.9903 and G.9905 | ITU-T G.9903 &| | 1-31 | Used by ITU-T G.9903 and G.9905 | ITU-T G.9903 &|
| | Command IDs | ITU-T G.9905 | | | Command IDs | ITU-T G.9905 |
skipping to change at page 7, line 27 skipping to change at page 7, line 27
| |(Reserved for future IANA | | | |(Reserved for future IANA | |
| | Assignment-- Spec Required) | | | | Assignment-- Spec Required) | |
| | | | | | | |
| 255 | Reserved for future use | This document | | 255 | Reserved for future use | This document |
+-------+---------------------------------+---------------+ +-------+---------------------------------+---------------+
Figure 4: Initial Values for IANA Registry Figure 4: Initial Values for IANA Registry
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
There is no additional security threats due to the assignments of ESC There are no additional security threats due to the assignments of
byte usage described in this document. However, this document ESC byte usage described in this document. Furthermore, this
forbids defining any extended dispatch values or extension types that document forbids defining any extended dispatch values or extension
modifies the behavior of existing Dispatch types. types that modify the behavior of existing Dispatch types.
6. Acknowledgements 6. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the members of the 6lo WG members for The authors would like to thank the members of the 6lo WG for their
the comments in the mailing list. Many thanks to Carsten Bormann, comments. Many thanks to Carsten Bormann, Ralph Droms, Thierry Lys,
Ralph Droms, Thierry Lys, Cedric Lavenu, Pascal Thubert for their Cedric Lavenu, Pascal Thubert for discussions regarding the bits
discussions regarding resolving the bits allocation issues which led allocation issues, which led to this document. Jonathan Hui and
to this document. Jonathan Hui and Robert Cregie provided extensive Robert Cragie provided extensive reviews and guidance for
reviews and guidance for interoperability. The authors acknowledges interoperability. The authors acknowledge the comments from the
the comments from the following people for shaping this document: following people that helped shape this document: Paul Duffy, Don
Paul Duffy, Don Sturek, Michael Richardson, Xavier Vilajosana and Sturek, Michael Richardson, Xavier Vilajosana and Scott Mansfield.
Scott Mansfield. Brian Haberman, our document shepherd helped us Thanks to Brian Haberman, our document shepherd, for guidance in the
modify the IANA section for guideline. IANA section.
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[4944-ERRATA] [4944-ERRATA]
"https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4944". "https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4944".
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
RFC2119, March 1997, RFC2119, March 1997,
skipping to change at page 8, line 46 skipping to change at page 8, line 46
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Samita Chakrabarti Samita Chakrabarti
Ericsson Ericsson
300 Holger Way 300 Holger Way
San Jose, CA San Jose, CA
US USA
Email: samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com Email: samitac.ietf@gmail.com
Gabriel Montenegro Gabriel Montenegro
Microsoft Microsoft
Seattle USA
US
Email: gabriel.montenegro@microsoft.com Email: gabriel.montenegro@microsoft.com
Ralph Droms Ralph Droms
Cisco Cisco
USA USA
Email: rdroms@cisco.com Email: rdroms.ietf@gmail.com
James Woodyatt James Woodyatt
Nest Nest
Mountain View, CA Mountain View, CA
USA USA
Email: jhw@netstlabs.com Email: jhw@netstlabs.com
 End of changes. 21 change blocks. 
50 lines changed or deleted 47 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/