wdiff rfc8066.original rfc8066.txt

6lo
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Chakrabarti
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 8066
Updates: 4944, 6282 (if approved) G. Montenegro
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track Microsoft
Expires: June 11, 2017
ISSN: 2070-1721 R. Droms

J. Woodyatt
Google
December 8, 2016

6lowpan
February 2017

IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN)
ESC Dispatch Code Points and Guidelines
draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-07

Abstract

RFC4944

RFC 4944 defines the ESC dispatch type to allow for additional dispatch
octets in the 6lowpan 6LoWPAN header. The value of the ESC dispatch type was
updated by RFC6282, RFC 6282; however, its usage was not defined
either in RFC6282 either RFC
6282 or in RFC4944. RFC 4944. This document updates RFC4944 RFC 4944 and
RFC6282 RFC 6282 by
defining the ESC extension octet code points including and listing registration of
entries for known use cases at the time of writing of this document.

Status of this This Memo

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

Internet-Drafts are working documents an Internet Standards Track document.

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

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

Information about the current status of six months this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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 June 11, 2017.
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8066.

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

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2
3. Usage of ESC dispatch octets . Dispatch Octets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Interaction with other RFC4944 implementations . Other RFC 4944 Implementations . . . . . 4
3.2. ESC Extension Octets Typical Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4
3.3. ITU-T G.9903 ESC type usage Type Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5
3.4. NALP and ESC dispatch types . Dispatch Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Acknowledgements . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. References . . . . 7
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2. Informative References . . . . 8
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Acknowledgements . . . . . . 8
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1. Introduction

[RFC4944] section

Section 5.1 of [RFC4944] defines the dispatch header and types. The
ESC type is defined for using to use additional dispatch octets in the 6lowpan 6LoWPAN
header. RFC 6282 modifies the value of the ESC dispatch type and
that value is recorded in IANA registry [6LOWPAN-IANA]. [IANA-6LoWPAN]. However, the
octets and usage following the ESC dispatch type are not defined in
either [RFC4944] and or [RFC6282]. In recent years with 6lowpan 6LoWPAN
deployments, implementations and standards organizations have started
using the ESC extension octets. This highlights the need for an
updated IANA registration policy.

The following sections record

This document defines the ITU-T specification for ESC
dispatch octet code points as an existing known usage new "ESC Extension Types" registry and propose the
definition of
ESC extension octets for future applications. The In addition, this
document also requests IANA actions for the first extension octet
following records the ITU-T specification for ESC dispatch type. octet code
points as an existing known usage.

2. Terminology

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

3. Usage of ESC dispatch octets Dispatch Octets

RFC 4944 [RFC4944] first introduces this "ESC" dispatch header type
for extension of dispatch octets. RFC 6282 [RFC6282] subsequently
modified its value to [01 000000].

This document specifies that the first octet following the ESC
dispatch type be used for extension type (extended dispatch values).
Subsequent octets are left unstructured for the specific use of the
extension type:

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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ESC | ESC EXT Type | Extended Dispatch Payload
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 1: Frame Format with ESC dispatch type Dispatch Type

ESC: The left-most octet is the ESC dispatch type containing
'01000000'
'01000000'.

ESC Extension Type (EET): It is the first octet following the ESC
dispatch type. Extension type defines the payload for the additional
dispatch octets. The values are from 0 to 255. Values 0 and 255 are
reserved for future use. The remaining values from 1 to 254 are
assigned by IANA. The EET values are similar to dispatch values in
the 6lowpan 6LoWPAN header except they are preceded by the ESC dispatch type.
Thus, ESC extension types and dispatch values are using orthogonal
code spaces. Though not desirable, multiple ESC dispatch types MAY
appear in a 6lowpan 6LoWPAN header. Section 3.1 describes how to handle an
unknown ESC dispatch type.

Extended Dispatch Payload (EDP): This part of the frame format must
be defined by the corresponding extension type. A specification is
required to define each the usage of each extension type and its
corresponding Extension Payload. For the sake of interoperability,
specifications of extension octets MUST NOT redefine the existing ESC
Extension Type codes.

Section 5.1 in RFC4944 of RFC 4944 indicates that the Extension Type field may
contain additional dispatch values larger than 63, as corrected by
[4944-ERRATA].
[Err4359]. For the sake of interoperability, the new dispatch type
(EET) MUST NOT modify the behavior of existing dispatch types
[RFC4944].

3.1. Interaction with other RFC4944 implementations Other RFC 4944 Implementations

It is expected that existing implementations of RFC4944 RFC 4944 are not
capable of processing ESC extension data octets as defined in this
document. However, implementers have to assume that an existing
implementation that attempt attempts to process an EET that is unknown to
them will simply drop the packet or ignore the ESC dispatch octets.

If an implementation following this document, during processing of
the received packet packet, reaches an ESC dispatch type for which it does
not understand the extension octets (EET), it MUST ESC Extension Type (EET) octets, it MUST drop that
packet. However, it is important to clarify that a router node
SHOULD forward a 6lowpan 6LoWPAN packet with the EET octets as long as it
does not attempt to process any unknown ESC extension octets.

Multiple ESC extension octets may appear in a packet. The ESC
dispatch types can appear as the first, last last, or middle dispatch
octets. However, a packet will get dropped by any node that does not
understand the EET at the beginning of the packet. Placing an EET
toward the front of the packet has a greater probability of causing
the packet to be dropped than placing the same EET later in the
packet. Placement of an EET later in the packet increases the chance
that a legacy device will recognize and successfully process some
dispatch type [RFC4944] before the EET. In this case, the legacy
device will ignore the EET instead of dropping the entire packet.

3.2. ESC Extension Octets Typical Sequence

ESC Extension octets

The sequence and order of ESC extension octets with respect to the
6LoWPAN Mesh header and LoWPAN_IPHC LOWPAN_IPHC header are described below. When
the LOWPAN_IPHC dispatch type is present, ESC dispatch types MUST
appear before the LOWPAN_IPHC dispatch type in order to maintain
backward compatibility with RFC6282 section 3.2. Section 3.2 of RFC 6282. The following
diagrams provide examples of ESC extension octet usages:

A LoWPAN encapsulated IPv6 Header compressed packet:

+-------+------+--------+--------+-----------------+--------+
| ESC | EET | EDP |Dispatch| LOWPAN_IPHC hdr | Payld |
+-------+------+--------+--------+-----------------+--------+

A LoWPAN_IPHC Header, Mesh header and an ESC extension octet:

+-----+-----+-----+----+------+-------+---------------+------+
|M typ| Mhdr| ESC | EET|EDP |Disptch|LOWPAN_IPHC hdr| Payld|
+-----+-----+-----+----+------+-------+---------------+------+

A Mesh header with ESC dispatch types
+-------+-------+-----+-----+-------+
| M Typ | M Hdr | ESC | EET |EDP |
+-------+-------+-----+-----+-------+

With Fragment header

+-------+-------+--------+------+-----+-----+-------+
| M Typ | M Hdr | F Typ | F hdr|ESC | EET | EDP |
+-------+-------+--------+------+-----+-----+-------+

ESC dispatch type as a LowPAN encapsulation

+--------+--------+--------+
| ESC | EET | EDP |
+--------+--------+--------+

Figure 2: A 6lowpan packet 6LoWPAN Packet with ESC dispatch types Dispatch Types

3.3. ITU-T G.9903 ESC type usage Type Usage

The ESC dispatch type is used in [G3-PLC] to provide native mesh
routing and bootstrapping functionalities. The ITU-T recommendation
[G3-PLC] section 9.4.2.3 (see Section 9.4.2.3) defines commands which that are formatted
like ESC Extension type Type fields. The command ID values are 0x01 to
0x1F.

The frame format is defined as follows:

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 | Command ID | Command Payload
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 3: G.9903 Frame Format with ESC dispatch type Dispatch Type

3.4. NALP and ESC dispatch types Dispatch Types

According to RFC4944 [RFC4944] section 5.1, Section 5.1 of RFC 4944 [RFC4944], NALP dispatch octets
are reserved for use as a kind of escape code for identification of non-
6lowpan
non-6LoWPAN payloads. Since ESC dispatch types are part of 6lowpan 6LoWPAN
dispatch types (extended), they are orthogonal to NALP octets.

This document clarifies that NALP dispatch codes only provide an
escape method for non-6LoWPAN payloads when they appear as the
initial octet of a LoWPAN encapsulation, and that the potential
meaning of their appearance in any other location is reserved for
future use.

4. IANA Considerations

This document requests

IANA to register has registered the 'ESC Extension Type' Types' values per the policy
'Specification Required' [RFC5226], following the same policy as in
the IANA Considerations section of [RFC4944]. For each Extension
Type (except the Reserved values) values), the specification MUST define
corresponding Extended Dispatch Payload frame octets for the receiver
implementation to read the ESC dispatch types in an interoperable
fashion.

[RFC5226] section

Section 4.1 also of [RFC5226] indicates that "Specification Required"
calls for a Designated Expert review of the public specification
requesting registration of the ESC Extension Type values.

The allocation of code points should follow the guidelines on "Usage
of ESC dispatch octets" Dispatch Octets" (Section 3) and the typical example
(Section 3.2) sections. ESC Extension type Type code points MUST be used
in conjunction with 6lo protocols following [RFC4944] or its
derivatives. The requesting document MUST specify how the ESC
dispatch octets will be used along with 6LOWPAN 6LoWPAN headers in their use
cases.

The initial values for the 'ESC Extension Type' fields are: are as
follows:

Figure 4: Initial Values for IANA the ESC Extension Types Registry

5. Security Considerations

There are no additional security threats due to the assignments of
ESC dispatch type usage described in this document. Furthermore,
this document forbids defining any extended dispatch values or
extension types that modify the behavior of existing Dispatch dispatch types.

6. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the members of the 6lo WG for their
comments. Many thanks to Carsten Bormann, Ralph Droms, Thierry Lys,
Cedric Lavenu, Pascal Thubert for discussions regarding the bits
allocation issues, which led to this document. Jonathan Hui and
Robert Cragie provided extensive reviews and guidance for
interoperability. The authors acknowledge the comments from the
following people that helped shape this document: Paul Duffy, Don
Sturek, Michael Richardson, Xavier Vilajosana, Scott Mansfield, Dale
Worley and Russ Housley. Thanks to Brian Haberman, our document
shepherd, for guidance in the IANA Considerations section.

This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool.

7. References

7.1.

6.1. Normative References

[4944-ERRATA]
"https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4944".

[Err4359] RFC Errata, , Erratum ID 4359, RFC 4944,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=4359>.

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/
RFC2119, 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

[RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>.

[RFC6282] Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6
Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6282>.

7.2.

6.2. Informative References

[6LOWPAN-IANA]
"https://www.iana.org/assignments/_6lowpan-parameters/
_6lowpan-parameters.xhtml".

[6loCHART]
"https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/6lo/charter".

[G3-PLC] "http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.9903-201402-I". International Telecommunications Union, "G.9903 :
Narrowband orthogonal frequency division multiplexing
power line communication transceivers for G3-PLC
networks", February 2014,
<http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.9903-201402-I>.

[IANA-6LoWPAN]
IANA, "IPv6 Low Power Personal Area Network Parameters",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/_6lowpan-parameters>.

[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the members of the 6lo WG for their
comments. Many thanks to Carsten Bormann, Ralph Droms, Thierry Lys,
Cedric Lavenu, and Pascal Thubert for discussions regarding the bits
allocation issues, which led to this document. Jonathan Hui and
Robert Cragie provided extensive reviews and guidance for
interoperability. The authors acknowledge the comments from the
following people that helped shape this document: Paul Duffy, Don
Sturek, Michael Richardson, Xavier Vilajosana, Scott Mansfield, Dale
Worley, and Russ Housley. Thanks to Brian Haberman, our document
shepherd, for guidance in the IANA Considerations section.

Authors' Addresses

Samita Chakrabarti
San Jose, CA
USA

Email: samitac.ietf@gmail.com

Gabriel Montenegro
Microsoft
USA

Email: gabriel.montenegro@microsoft.com
Ralph Droms
USA

Email: rdroms.ietf@gmail.com

James Woodyatt
Google
Mountain View, CA
USA

Email: jhw@google.com