Network Working GroupInternet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. StewartInternet-DraftRequest for Comments: 8260 Netflix, Inc.Intended status:Category: Standards Track M. TuexenExpires: March 5, 2018ISSN: 2070-1721 Muenster Univ. of Appl. Sciences S. Loreto Ericsson R. Seggelmann Metafinanz Informationssysteme GmbHSeptember 1,October 2017 Stream Schedulers and User Message Interleaving for the Stream Control Transmission Protocoldraft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-ndata-13.txtAbstract The Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) is amessage orientedmessage-oriented transport protocol supporting arbitrarily large user messages. This document adds a new chunk to SCTP for carrying payload data. This allows a sender to interleave different user messages that would otherwise result inhead of linehead-of-line blocking at the sender. The interleaving of user messages is required for WebRTCDatachannels.data channels. Whenever an SCTP sender is allowed to send user data, it may choose from multiple outgoing SCTP streams. Multiple ways for performing this selection, called stream schedulers, are defined in this document. A stream scheduler can choose to either implement, or not implement, user message interleaving. Status of This Memo ThisInternet-Draftissubmitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documentsan 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 listIt represents the consensus ofcurrent Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents validthe IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved fora maximumpublication 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 ofsix monthsthis document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may beupdated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documentsobtained atany time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on March 5, 2018.https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8260. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2017 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)(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. User Message Interleaving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. The I-DATA Chunk Supporting User Message Interleaving . . 6 2.2. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2.1. Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.2.2.Sender SideSender-Side Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.2.3.Receiver SideReceiver-Side Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.3. Interaction withotherOther SCTP Extensions . . . . . . . . . 10 2.3.1. SCTP Partial Reliability Extension . . . . . . . . . 10 2.3.2. SCTP Stream Reconfiguration Extension . . . . . . . . 12 3. Stream Schedulers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.1.First Come First ServedFirst-Come, First-Served Scheduler (SCTP_SS_FCFS) . . . . 13 3.2.Round RobinRound-Robin Scheduler (SCTP_SS_RR) . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.3.Round RobinRound-Robin Scheduler per Packet (SCTP_SS_RR_PKT) . . . . 13 3.4.Priority BasedPriority-Based Scheduler (SCTP_SS_PRIO) . . . . . . . . . 13 3.5. Fair Capacity Scheduler (SCTP_SS_FC) . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.6. Weighted Fair Queueing Scheduler (SCTP_SS_WFQ) . . . . . 14 4. Socket API Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.1. Exposure of the Stream Sequence Number (SSN) . . . . . . 14 4.2. SCTP_ASSOC_CHANGE Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.3. Socket Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.3.1. Enable or Disable the Support of User Message Interleaving (SCTP_INTERLEAVING_SUPPORTED) . . . . . 15 4.3.2. Get or Set the Stream Scheduler (SCTP_STREAM_SCHEDULER) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.3.3. Get or Set the Stream Scheduler Parameter (SCTP_STREAM_SCHEDULER_VALUE) . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.4. Explicit EOR Marking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.1. I-DATA Chunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.2. I-FORWARD-TSN Chunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7.AcknowledgmentsReferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 8.. . 19 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . .20 8.1. Normative References. . . . . . . . . . 21 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . .20 8.2. Informative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 1. Introduction 1.1. Overview When SCTP [RFC4960] was initiallydesigneddesigned, it was mainly envisioned for the transport of small signaling messages. Late in the designstagestage, it was decided to add support for fragmentation and reassembly of larger messages with the thought that someday signaling messages in the style of Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261]style signaling messagesmay also need to useSCTPSCTP, and a message that is a single Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU)sized messagewould be too small. Unfortunately this design decision, though valid at the time, did not account for other applications that might send large messages over SCTP. The sending of such large messages overSCTPSCTP, as specified in[RFC4960][RFC4960], can result in a form ofsender side head of linesender-side head-of-line blocking (e.g., when the transmission of a message is blocked from transmission because the sender has started the transmission of another, possibly large, message). Thishead ofhead-of- line blocking is caused by the use of the Transmission Sequence Number (TSN) for three different purposes: 1. As an identifier for DATA chunks to provide a reliable transfer. 2. As an identifier for the sequence of fragments to allow reassembly. 3. As a sequence number allowing up to 2**16 - 1 Stream Sequence Numbers (SSNs) outstanding. The protocol requires all fragments of a user message to have consecutive TSNs. This document allows an SCTP sender to interleave different user messages. This document also defines several stream schedulers for general SCTP associations allowing different relative stream treatments. The stream schedulers may behave differently depending on whether or not user message interleaving has been negotiated for theassociation or not.association. Figure 1 illustrates thebehaviourbehavior of around robinround-robin stream scheduler using DATA chunks when three streams with the Stream Identifiers (SIDs) 0, 1, and 2 are used. Each queue for SID 0 and SID 2 contains a single user message requiring threechunks, thechunks. The queue for SID 1 contains three user messages each requiring a single chunk. It is shown how these user messages are encapsulated inchunkchunks using TSN 0 to TSN 8. Please note that the use of such a scheduler implies late TSNassignmentassignment, but it can be used with an[RFC4960] compliantimplementation that is compliant with [RFC4960] and that does not support user message interleaving. Late TSN assignment means that the sender generates chunks from user messages and assigns the TSN as late as possible in the process of sending the user messages. +---+---+---+ | 0/0 |-+ +---+---+---+ | | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ +---+---+---+ +->|1/2|1/1|2/0|2/0|2/0|1/0|0/0|0/0|0/0| |1/2|1/1|1/0|--->|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| +---+---+---+ +->| 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ +---+---+---+ | | 2/0 |-+ +---+---+---+ +-------+ +-------+ |SID/SSN| |SID/SSN| |-------| +-------+ | TSN | +-------+ Figure 1:Round RobinRound-Robin Scheduler without User Message Interleaving This document describes a new chunk carrying payload data called I-DATA. This chunk incorporates the properties of the current SCTP DATA chunk, all the flags and fields except the Stream Sequence Number (SSN),butand also adds two new fields in its chunkheader,header -- the Fragment Sequence Number (FSN) and the Message Identifier (MID). The FSN is only used for reassembling all fragmentshavingthat have the same MID and the same ordering property. The TSN is only used for the reliable transfer in combination with Selective Acknowledgment (SACK) chunks. In addition, the MID is also used for ensuring ordered delivery instead of using the stream sequence number(The(the I-DATA chunk omitsa SSN.).an SSN). Figure 2 illustrates thebehaviourbehavior of an interleavinground robinround-robin stream scheduler using I-DATA chunks. +---+---+---+ | 0/0 |-+ +---+---+---+ | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ +---+---+---+ +->|2/0/2|1/2/0|0/0/2|2/0/1|1/1/0|0/0/1|2/0/0|1/0/0|0/0/0| |1/2|1/1|1/0|--->|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----| +---+---+---+ +->| 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | | +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ +---+---+---+ | | 2/0 |-+ +---+---+---+ +-----------+ +-------+ |SID/MID/FSN| |SID/MID| |-----------| +-------+ | TSN | +-----------+ Figure 2:Round RobinRound-Robin Scheduler with User Message Interleaving The support of the I-DATA chunk is negotiated during the association setup using the Supported ExtensionsParameterParameter, as defined in [RFC5061]. If I-DATA support has been negotiated for an association, I-DATA chunks are used for alluser-messages.user messages. DATA chunks are not permitted when I-DATA support has been negotiated. It should be noted that an SCTP implementation supporting I-DATA chunks needs to allow the coexistence of associations using DATA chunks and associations using I-DATA chunks. In Section22, this document specifies the user message interleaving by defining the I-DATA chunk, the procedures to useitit, and its interactions with other SCTP extensions.Multiple stream schedulers are defined inSection 3followed indefines multiple stream schedulers, and Section 4by describingdescribes an extension to the socket API for usingwhat isthe mechanism specified in this document. 1.2. Conventions The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in[RFC2119].BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. 2. User Message Interleaving The protocol mechanisms described in this document allow the interleaving of user messages sent on different streams. They do not support the interleaving of multiple messages (ordered or unordered) sent on the same stream. The interleaving of user messages is required for WebRTCDatachannelsdata channels, as specified in[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel].[DATA-CHAN]. An SCTP implementation supporting user message interleaving is REQUIRED to support the coexistence of associations using DATA chunks and associations using I-DATA chunks. If an SCTP implementation supports user message interleaving and the Partial Reliability extension described in [RFC3758] or the Stream Reconfiguration Extension described in [RFC6525], it is REQUIRED to implement the corresponding changes specified in Section 2.3. 2.1. The I-DATA Chunk Supporting User Message Interleaving The following Figure 3 shows the new I-DATA chunk allowing user message interleaving. 0 1 2 3 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 64 | Res |I|U|B|E| Length = Variable | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TSN | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Stream Identifier | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Message Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Payload Protocol Identifier / Fragment Sequence Number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \ \ / User Data / \ \ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 3: I-DATAchunk formatChunk Format The only differences between the I-DATA chunk in Figure 3 and the DATA chunk defined in [RFC4960] and [RFC7053] are the addition of the new Message Identifier (MID) and the new Fragment Sequence Number (FSN) and the removal of the Stream Sequence Number (SSN). The Payload Protocol Identifier(PPID)(PPID), which is already defined for DATA chunks in[RFC4960][RFC4960], and the new FSN are stored at the same location of the packet using the B bit to determine which value is stored at the location. The length of the I-DATA chunk header is 20 bytes, which is 4 bytes more than the length of the DATA chunk header defined in [RFC4960] and [RFC7053]. The old fields are: Res: 4 bits These bits are reserved. They MUST be set to 0 by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver. I bit: 1 bit The (I)mmediate Bit, if set, indicates that the receiver SHOULD NOT delay the sending of the corresponding SACK chunk. Same as the I bit for DATAchunkschunks, as specified in [RFC7053]. U bit: 1 bit The (U)nordered bit, if set, indicates the user message is unordered. Same as the U bit for DATAchunkschunks, as specified in [RFC4960]. B bit: 1 bit The (B)eginning fragment bit, if set, indicates the first fragment of a user message. Same as the B bit for DATAchunkschunks, as specified in [RFC4960]. E bit: 1 bit The (E)nding fragment bit, if set, indicates the last fragment of a user message. Same as the E bit for DATAchunkschunks, as specified in [RFC4960]. Length: 16 bits (unsigned integer) This field indicates the length in bytes of the DATA chunkin bytesfrom the beginning of thetypeType field to the end of the User Datafieldfield, excluding any padding. Similar to the Length for DATAchunkschunks, as specified in [RFC4960]. TSN: 32 bits (unsigned integer) This value represents the TSN for this I-DATA chunk. Same as the TSN for DATAchunkschunks, as specified in [RFC4960]. Stream Identifier: 16 bits (unsigned integer) Identifies the stream to which the user data belongs. Same as the Stream Identifier for DATAchunkschunks, as specified in [RFC4960]. The new fields are: Reserved: 16 bits (unsigned integer) This field is reserved. It MUST be set to 0 by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver. Message Identifier (MID): 32 bits (unsigned integer) The MID is the same for all fragments of a usermessage,message; it is used to determine which fragments (enumerated by the FSN) belong to the same user message. For ordered user messages, the MID is also used by the SCTP receiver to deliver the user messages in the correct order to the upper layer (similar to the SSN of the DATA chunk defined in [RFC4960]). The sender uses two counters for each outgoingstream two counters,stream: one for orderedmessages,messages and one for unordered messages. All of these counters are independent and initially 0. They are incremented by 1 for each user message. Please note that the serial number arithmetic defined in [RFC1982] using SERIAL_BITS = 32 applies. Therefore, the sender MUST NOT have more than 2**31 - 1 ordered messages for each outgoing stream in flight and MUST NOT have more than 2**31 - 1 unordered messages for each outgoing stream in flight. A message is considered inflight,flight if at leastonone of its I-DATA chunks is not acknowledged in anon-renegableway(i.e.that cannot be reneged (i.e., not acknowledged by the cumulative TSN Ack). Please note that the MID is in "network byte order", a.k.a. Big Endian. Payload Protocol Identifier (PPID) / Fragment Sequence Number (FSN): 32 bits (unsigned integer) If the B bit is set, this field contains the PPID of the user message. Note that in this case, this field is not touched by an SCTP implementation; therefore, its byte order is not necessarily in network byte order. The upper layer is responsible for any byte order conversions to this field, similar to the PPID of DATA chunks. In thiscasecase, the FSN is implicitly considered to be 0. If the B bit is not set, this field contains the FSN. The FSN is used to enumerate all fragments of a single user message, starting from 0 and incremented by 1. The last fragment of a message MUST have the E bit set. Note that the FSN MAY wrap completely multipletimestimes, thus allowing arbitrarily large user messages. For theFSNFSN, the serial number arithmetic defined in [RFC1982] applies with SERIAL_BITS = 32. Therefore, a sender MUST NOT have more than 2**31 - 1 fragments of a single user message in flight. A fragment is considered inflight,flight if it is not acknowledged in anon-renegable way.way that cannot be reneged. Please note that the FSN is in "network byte order", a.k.a. Big Endian. 2.2. Procedures This subsection describes how the support of the I-DATA chunk is negotiated and how the I-DATA chunk is used by the sender and receiver. The handling of the I bit for the I-DATA chunk corresponds to the handling of the I bit for the DATA chunk described in [RFC7053]. 2.2.1. Negotiation An SCTPend pointendpoint indicates user message interleaving support by listing the I-DATAChunkchunk within the Supported ExtensionsParameterParameter, as defined in [RFC5061]. User message interleaving has been negotiated for an association if bothend pointsendpoints have indicated I-DATA support. If user message interleaving support has been negotiated for an association, I-DATA chunks MUST be used for all user messages andDATA-chunksDATA chunks MUST NOT be used. If user message interleaving support has not been negotiated for an association, DATA chunks MUST be used for all user messages and I-DATA chunks MUST NOT be used. Anend pointendpoint implementing the socket API specified in [RFC6458] MUST NOT indicate user message interleaving support unless the user has requested its use(e.g.(e.g., via the socketAPI,API; see Section 4.3). This constraint is made since the usage of this chunk requires that the application is capable of handling interleaved messages upon reception within an association. This is not the default choice within the socket API (see the SCTP_FRAGMENT_INTERLEAVE socket option in Section 8.1.20 of[RFC6458]) thus[RFC6458]); thus, the user MUST indicate to the SCTP implementation its support for receiving completely interleaved messages. Note that stacks that do not implement [RFC6458] may use other methods to indicate interleaved message support and thus indicate the support of user message interleaving. The crucial point is that the SCTP stack MUST know that the application can handle interleaved messages before indicating the I-DATA support. 2.2.2.Sender SideSender-Side Considerations Thesender sidesender-side usage of the I-DATA chunk is quite simple. Instead of using the TSN for fragmentation purposes, the sender uses the new FSN field to indicate which fragment number is being sent. The first fragment MUST have the B bit set. The last fragment MUST have the E bit set. All other fragments MUST NOT have the Bbitor E bit set. All other properties of the existing SCTP DATA chunk also apply to the I-DATA chunk,i.e.i.e., congestion control as well as receiver window conditions MUST beobservedobserved, as defined in [RFC4960]. Note that the usage of this chunk implies the late assignment of the actual TSN to any chunk being sent. Each I-DATA chunk uses a single TSN. This way messages from other streams may be interleaved with the fragmented message. Please note that this is the only form of interleaving support. For example, it is not possible to interleave multiple ordered or unordered user messages from the same stream. The sender MUST NOT process (move user data into I-DATA chunks and assign a TSN to it) more than one user message in any given stream at any time. At any time, a sender MAY process multiple user messages, each of them on different streams. The sender MUST assign TSNs to I-DATA chunks in a way that the receiver can make progress. One way to achieve this is to assign a higher TSN to the later fragments of a user message and send out the I-DATA chunks such that the TSNs are in sequence. 2.2.3.Receiver SideReceiver-Side Considerations Upon reception of an SCTP packet containing an I-DATA chunk whose user message needs to be reassembled, the receiver MUST first use the SID to identify the stream, consider the U bit to determine if it is part of an ordered or unordered message, find the user message identified by theMIDMID, andfinallyuse the FSN for reassembly of the message and not the TSN. The receiver MUST NOT make any assumption about the TSN assignments of the sender. Note that a non-fragmented message is indicated by the fact that both the E and B bits are set. A message (either ordered or unordered)may be identified as being fragmentedwhose E and B bits are not bothset.set may be identified as being fragmented. If I-DATA support has been negotiated for an association, the reception of a DATA chunk is a violation of the above rules and therefore the receiver of the DATA chunk MUST abort the association by sending an ABORT chunk. The ABORT chunk MAY include the 'Protocol Violation' error cause. The same applies if I-DATA support has not been negotiated for an association and an I-DATA chunk is received. 2.3. Interaction withotherOther SCTP Extensions The usage of the I-DATA chunk might interfere with other SCTP extensions. Future SCTP extensions MUST describe if and how they interfere with the usage of I-DATA chunks. For the SCTP extensions already defined when this document was published, the details are given in the following subsections. 2.3.1. SCTP Partial Reliability Extension When the SCTP extension defined in [RFC3758] is used in combination with the user message interleaving extension, the new I-FORWARD-TSN chunk MUST be used instead of the FORWARD-TSN chunk. The difference between the FORWARD-TSN and the I-FORWARD-TSN chunk is that the 16-bit Stream Sequence Number (SSN) has been replaced by the 32-bit Message Identifier(MID)(MID), and the largest skipped MID can also be provided for unordered messages. Therefore, the principle applied to orderedmessagemessages when using FORWARD-TSN chunks is applied to ordered and unordered messages when using I-FORWARD-TSN chunks. 0 1 2 3 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type = 194 | Flags = 0x00 | Length = Variable | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | New Cumulative TSN | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Stream Identifier | Reserved |U| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Message Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ \ \ / / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Stream Identifier | Reserved |U| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Message Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 4: I-FORWARD-TSNchunk formatChunk Format The old fields are: Flags:8-bits8 bits (unsigned integer) These bits are reserved. They MUST be set to 0 by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver. Same as the Flags for FORWARD TSNchunkschunks, as specified in [RFC3758]. Length:16-bits16 bits (unsigned integer) This field holds the length of the chunk. Similar to the Length for FORWARD TSNchunkschunks, as specified in [RFC3758]. New Cumulative TSN:32-bits32 bits (unsigned integer) This indicates thenew cumulativeNew Cumulative TSN to the data receiver. Same as the New Cumulative TSN for FORWARD TSNchunkschunks, as specified in [RFC3758]. The new fields are: Stream Identifier (SID):16-bits16 bits (unsigned integer) This field holds the stream number this entry refers to. Reserved: 15 bits This field is reserved. It MUST be set to 0 by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver. U bit: 1 bit The U bit specifies if the Message Identifier of this entry refers to unordered messages (U bit is set) or ordered messages (U bit is not set). Message Identifier (MID): 32 bits (unsigned integer) This field holds the largest Message Identifier for ordered or unordered messages indicated by the U bit that was skipped for the stream specified by the Stream Identifier. For orderedmessagesmessages, this is similar to the FORWARD-TSN chunk, just replacing the 16-bit SSN by the 32-bit MID. Support for the I-FORWARD-TSN chunk is negotiated during the SCTP association setup via the Supported ExtensionsParameterParameter, as defined in [RFC5061].Only if both end points indicated their support of user message interleaving and the I-FORWARD-TSN chunk, theThe partial reliability extension is negotiated and can be used in combination with user messageinterleaving.interleaving only if both endpoints indicated their support of user message interleaving and the I-FORWARD-TSN chunk. The FORWARD-TSN chunk MUST be used in combination with the DATA chunk and MUST NOT be used in combination with the I-DATA chunk. TheI- FORWARD-TSNI-FORWARD-TSN chunk MUST be used in combination with the I-DATA chunk and MUST NOT be used in combination with the DATA chunk. If I-FORWARD-TSN support has been negotiated for an association, the reception of a FORWARD-TSN chunk is a violation of the above rules and therefore the receiver of the FORWARD-TSN chunk MUST abort the association by sending an ABORT chunk. The ABORT chunk MAY include the 'Protocol Violation' error cause. The same applies ifI-FORWARD- TSNI-FORWARD-TSN support has not been negotiated for an association and aFORWARD- TSNFORWARD-TSN chunk is received. 2.3.2. SCTP Stream Reconfiguration Extension When an association resets the SSN using the SCTP extension defined in [RFC6525], the two counters (one for the ordered messages, one for the unordered messages) used for the MIDs MUST be reset to 0. Since most schedulers, especially all schedulers supporting user message interleaving, require late TSN assignment, it should be noted that the implementation of [RFC6525] needs to handle this. 3. Stream Schedulers This section defines several stream schedulers. The stream schedulers may behave differently depending on whether or not user message interleaving has been negotiated for theassociation or not.association. An implementation MAY implement any subset of them. If the implementation is used for WebRTCDatachannelsdata channels, as specified in[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel][DATA-CHAN], it MUST implement the Weighted Fair Queueing Scheduler defined in Section 3.6. The selection of the stream scheduler is done at the sender side. There is no mechanism provided forsignallingsignaling the stream scheduler being used to the receiver side or evenletfor letting the receiver side influence the selection of the stream scheduler used at the sender side. 3.1.First Come First ServedFirst-Come, First-Served Scheduler (SCTP_SS_FCFS) The simple first-come, first-served scheduler of user messages is used. It just passes through the messages in the order in which they have been delivered by the application. No modification of the order is done at all. The usage of user message interleaving does not affect the sending of the chunks, except that I-DATA chunks are used instead of DATA chunks. 3.2.Round RobinRound-Robin Scheduler (SCTP_SS_RR) When notusinginterleaving usermessage interleaving,messages, this scheduler provides a fair scheduling based on the number of user messages by cycling around non-empty stream queues. Whenusinginterleaving usermessage interleaving,messages, this scheduler provides a fair scheduling based on the number of I-DATA chunks by cycling around non-empty stream queues. 3.3.Round RobinRound-Robin Scheduler per Packet (SCTP_SS_RR_PKT) This is a round-robin scheduler, which only switches streams when starting to fill a new packet. It bundles only DATA or I-DATA chunks referring to the same stream in a packet. This scheduler minimizes head-of-line blocking when a packet is lost because only a single stream is affected. 3.4.Priority BasedPriority-Based Scheduler (SCTP_SS_PRIO) Scheduling of user messages with strict priorities is used. The priority is configurable per outgoing SCTP stream. Streams having a higher priority will be scheduled first and when multiple streams have the same priority, the scheduling between them is implementation dependent. Whenusingthe scheduler interleaves usermessage interleaving,messages, the sending oflarge lower prioritylarge, lower-priority user messages will not delay the sending ofhigher priorityhigher-priority user messages. 3.5. Fair Capacity Scheduler (SCTP_SS_FC) A fair capacity distribution between the streams is used. This scheduler considers the lengths of the messages of each stream and schedules them in a specific way to maintain an equal capacity for all streams. The details are implementation dependent.Using user messageinterleaving user messages allows for a better realization of the fair capacity usage. 3.6. Weighted Fair Queueing Scheduler (SCTP_SS_WFQ) Aweighted fair queueingWeighted Fair Queueing scheduler between the streams is used. The weight is configurable per outgoing SCTP stream. This scheduler considers the lengths of the messages of each stream and schedules them in a specific way to use the capacity according to the given weights. If the weight of stream S1 is n times the weight of stream S2, the scheduler should assign to stream S1 n times the capacity it assigns to stream S2. The details are implementation dependent.UsingInterleaving usermessage interleavingmessages allows for a better realization of the capacity usage according to the given weights. Thisschedulerscheduler, in combination with user messageinterleavinginterleaving, is used for WebRTCDatachannelsdata channels, as specified in[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel].[DATA-CHAN]. 4. Socket API Considerations This section describes how the socket API defined in [RFC6458] is extended to allow applications to use the extension described in this document. Please note that this section is informational only. 4.1. Exposure of the Stream Sequence Number (SSN) The socket API defined in [RFC6458] defines several structures in which the SSN of a received user message is exposed to the application. The list of these structures includes: struct sctp_sndrcvinfo Specified in Section 5.3.2SCTP Header Information Structure (SCTP_SNDRCV)of [RFC6458] and marked as deprecated. struct sctp_extrcvinfo Specified in Section 5.3.3Extended SCTP Header Information Structure (SCTP_EXTRCV)ofof [RFC6458] and marked as deprecated. struct sctp_rcvinfo Specified in Section 5.3.5SCTP Receive Information Structure (SCTP_RCVINFO)of [RFC6458]. If user message interleaving is used, thelower orderlower-order 16 bits of the MID are used as the SSN when filling out these structures. 4.2. SCTP_ASSOC_CHANGE Notification When an SCTP_ASSOC_CHANGE notification (specified in Section 6.1.1 of [RFC6458]) is delivered indicating a sac_state of SCTP_COMM_UP or SCTP_RESTART for an SCTP association where both peers support the I-DATA chunk, SCTP_ASSOC_SUPPORTS_INTERLEAVING should be listed in the sac_info field. 4.3. Socket Options +-----------------------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+ |option nameOption Name |data typeData Type |getGet |setSet | +-----------------------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+ | SCTP_INTERLEAVING_SUPPORTED | struct sctp_assoc_value | X | X | | SCTP_STREAM_SCHEDULER | struct sctp_assoc_value | X | X | | SCTP_STREAM_SCHEDULER_VALUE | struct | X | X | | | sctp_stream_value | | | +-----------------------------+-------------------------+-----+-----+ 4.3.1. Enable or Disable the Support of User Message Interleaving (SCTP_INTERLEAVING_SUPPORTED) This socket option allows the enabling or disabling of the negotiation of user message interleaving support for future associations. For existingassociationsassociations, it allowsto queryfor querying whether or not user message interleaving support was negotiatedor noton a particular association. This socket option uses IPPROTO_SCTP as its level and SCTP_INTERLEAVING_SUPPORTED as its name. It can be used with getsockopt() and setsockopt(). The socket option value uses the following structure defined in [RFC6458]: struct sctp_assoc_value { sctp_assoc_t assoc_id; uint32_t assoc_value; }; assoc_id: This parameter is ignored for one-to-one style sockets. For one-to-many style sockets, this parameter indicates upon which association the user is performing an action. The special sctp_assoc_t SCTP_FUTURE_ASSOC can also beused,used; it is an error to use SCTP_{CURRENT|ALL}_ASSOC in assoc_id. assoc_value: A non-zero value encodes the enabling of user messageinterleavinginterleaving, whereas a value of0zero encodes the disabling of user message interleaving. sctp_opt_info() needs to be extended to support SCTP_INTERLEAVING_SUPPORTED. An application using user message interleaving should also set the fragment interleave level to 2 by using the SCTP_FRAGMENT_INTERLEAVE socket option specified in Section 8.1.20 of [RFC6458]. This allows the interleaving of user messages from different streams. Please note that it does not allow the interleaving of user messages (ordered or unordered) on the same stream. Failure to set this option can possibly lead to application deadlock. Some implementations might therefore put some restrictions on setting combinations of these values. Setting the interleaving level to at least 2 before enabling the negotiation of user message interleaving should work on all platforms. Since the default fragment interleave level is not 2, user message interleaving is disabled per default. 4.3.2. Get or Set the Stream Scheduler (SCTP_STREAM_SCHEDULER) A stream scheduler can be selected with the SCTP_STREAM_SCHEDULER option for setsockopt(). The struct sctp_assoc_value is used to specify the association for which the scheduler should be changed and the value of the desired algorithm. The definition of struct sctp_assoc_value is the same as in [RFC6458]: struct sctp_assoc_value { sctp_assoc_t assoc_id; uint32_t assoc_value; }; assoc_id: Holds the identifierforof the associationoffor which the scheduler should be changed. The special SCTP_{FUTURE|CURRENT|ALL}_ASSOC can also be used. This parameter is ignored for one-to-one style sockets. assoc_value: This specifies which scheduler is used. The following constants can be used: SCTP_SS_DEFAULT: The default scheduler used by the SCTP implementation. Typical values are SCTP_SS_FCFS or SCTP_SS_RR. SCTP_SS_FCFS: Use the scheduler specified in Section 3.1. SCTP_SS_RR: Use the scheduler specified in Section 3.2. SCTP_SS_RR_PKT: Use the scheduler specified in Section 3.3. SCTP_SS_PRIO: Use the scheduler specified in Section 3.4. The priority can be assigned with the sctp_stream_value struct. The higher the assigned value, the lower thepriority, that ispriority. That is, the default value 0 is the highestprioritypriority, and therefore the default scheduling will be used if no priorities have been assigned. SCTP_SS_FB: Use the scheduler specified in Section 3.5. SCTP_SS_WFQ: Use the scheduler specified in Section 3.6. The weight can be assigned with the sctp_stream_value struct. sctp_opt_info() needs to be extended to support SCTP_STREAM_SCHEDULER. 4.3.3. Get or Set the Stream Scheduler Parameter (SCTP_STREAM_SCHEDULER_VALUE) Some schedulers require additional information to be set for individual streams as shown in the following table: +-----------------+-----------------+ |nameName |per stream infoPer-Stream Info | +-----------------+-----------------+ | SCTP_SS_DEFAULT | n/a | | SCTP_SS_FCFS | no | | SCTP_SS_RR | no | | SCTP_SS_RR_PKT | no | | SCTP_SS_PRIO | yes | | SCTP_SS_FB | no | | SCTP_SS_WFQ | yes | +-----------------+-----------------+ This is achieved with the SCTP_STREAM_SCHEDULER_VALUE option and the corresponding struct sctp_stream_value. The definition of struct sctp_stream_value is as follows: struct sctp_stream_value { sctp_assoc_t assoc_id; uint16_t stream_id; uint16_t stream_value; }; assoc_id: Holds the identifierforof the associationoffor which the scheduler should be changed. The special SCTP_{FUTURE|CURRENT|ALL}_ASSOC can also be used. This parameter is ignored for one-to-one style sockets. stream_id: Holds thestream ididentifier of the stream for which additional information has to be provided. stream_value: The meaning of this field depends on the scheduler specified. It is ignored when the scheduler does not need additional information. sctp_opt_info() needs to be extended to support SCTP_STREAM_SCHEDULER_VALUE. 4.4. Explicit EOR Marking Using explicit End of Record (EOR) marking for an SCTP association supporting user message interleaving allows the user to interleave the sending of user messages on different streams. 5. IANA Considerations[NOTE to RFC-Editor: "RFCXXXX" is to be replaced by the RFC number you assign this document. ] [NOTE to RFC-Editor: The suggested values for the chunk types and the chunk flags are tentative and to be confirmed by IANA. ] This document (RFCXXXX) is the reference for all registrations described in this section.Two new chunk types haveto bebeen assigned by IANA. 5.1. I-DATA Chunk IANAshould assignhas assigned the chunk type for this chunk from the pool of chunks with the upper two bits set to '01'. Thisrequires an additional lineappears in the "Chunk Types" registry forSCTP:SCTP as follows: +----------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+ | ID Value | Chunk Type | Reference | +----------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+ | 64 | Payload Data supporting Interleaving |[RFCXXXX]RFC 8260 | | | (I-DATA) | | +----------+--------------------------------------------+-----------+ The registration tableas(as defined in[RFC6096][RFC6096]) for the chunk flags of this chunk type is initiallygiven by the following table:as follows: +------------------+-----------------+-----------+ | Chunk Flag Value | Chunk Flag Name | Reference | +------------------+-----------------+-----------+ | 0x01 | E bit |[RFCXXXX]RFC 8260 | | 0x02 | B bit |[RFCXXXX]RFC 8260 | | 0x04 | U bit |[RFCXXXX]RFC 8260 | | 0x08 | I bit |[RFCXXXX]RFC 8260 | | 0x10 | Unassigned | | | 0x20 | Unassigned | | | 0x40 | Unassigned | | | 0x80 | Unassigned | | +------------------+-----------------+-----------+ 5.2. I-FORWARD-TSN Chunk IANAshould assignhas assigned the chunk type for this chunk from the pool of chunks with the upper two bits set to '11'. Thisrequires an additional lineappears in the "Chunk Types" registry forSCTP:SCTP as follows: +----------+---------------+-----------+ | ID Value | Chunk Type | Reference | +----------+---------------+-----------+ | 194 | I-FORWARD-TSN |[RFCXXXX]RFC 8260 | +----------+---------------+-----------+ The registration tableas(as defined in[RFC6096][RFC6096]) for the chunk flags of this chunk type is initially empty. 6. Security Considerations This document does not add any additional security considerations in addition to the ones given in [RFC4960] and [RFC6458]. It should be noted that the application has to consent that it is willing to do the more complex reassembly support required for user message interleaving. When doing so, an application has to provide a reassembly buffer for each incoming stream. It has to protect itself against these buffers taking too many resources. If user message interleaving is not used, only a single reassembly buffer needs to be provided for each association. But the application has to protect itself for excessive resource usages there too. 7.Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank Benoit Claise, Julian Cordes, Spencer Dawkins, Gorry Fairhurst, Lennart Grahl, Christer Holmberg, Mirja Kuehlewind, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner, Karen E. Egede Nielsen, Maksim Proshin, Eric Rescorla, Irene Ruengeler, Felix Weinrank, Michael Welzl, Magnus Westerlund, and Lixia Zhang for their invaluable comments. This work has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 644334 (NEAT). The views expressed are solely those of the author(s). 8.References8.1.7.1. Normative References [RFC1982] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Serial Number Arithmetic", RFC 1982, DOI 10.17487/RFC1982, August 1996,<https://www.rfc- editor.org/info/rfc1982>.<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1982>. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,<https://www.rfc- editor.org/info/rfc2119>.<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. [RFC3758] Stewart, R., Ramalho, M., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., and P. Conrad, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Partial Reliability Extension", RFC 3758, DOI 10.17487/RFC3758, May 2004,<https://www.rfc- editor.org/info/rfc3758>.<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3758>. [RFC4960] Stewart, R., Ed., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 4960, DOI 10.17487/RFC4960, September 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4960>. [RFC5061] Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., Maruyama, S., and M. Kozuka, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Dynamic Address Reconfiguration", RFC 5061, DOI 10.17487/RFC5061, September 2007,<https://www.rfc- editor.org/info/rfc5061>.<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5061>. [RFC6096] Tuexen, M. and R. Stewart, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Chunk Flags Registration", RFC 6096, DOI 10.17487/RFC6096, January 2011,<https://www.rfc- editor.org/info/rfc6096>.<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6096>. [RFC6525] Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., and P. Lei, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Stream Reconfiguration", RFC 6525, DOI 10.17487/RFC6525, February 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6525>. [RFC7053] Tuexen, M., Ruengeler, I., and R. Stewart, "SACK- IMMEDIATELY Extension for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 7053, DOI 10.17487/RFC7053, November 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7053>.8.2.[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. 7.2. Informative References[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel][DATA-CHAN] Jesup, R., Loreto, S., and M. Tuexen, "WebRTC Data Channels",draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-13 (workWork inprogress),Progress, draft-ietf-rtcweb-data- channel-13, January 2015. [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,<https://www.rfc- editor.org/info/rfc3261>.<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>. [RFC6458] Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., Poon, K., Lei, P., and V. Yasevich, "Sockets API Extensions for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)", RFC 6458, DOI 10.17487/RFC6458, December 2011,<https://www.rfc- editor.org/info/rfc6458>.<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6458>. Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank Benoit Claise, Julian Cordes, Spencer Dawkins, Gorry Fairhurst, Lennart Grahl, Christer Holmberg, Mirja Kuehlewind, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner, Karen E. Egede Nielsen, Maksim Proshin, Eric Rescorla, Irene Ruengeler, Felix Weinrank, Michael Welzl, Magnus Westerlund, and Lixia Zhang for their invaluable comments. This work has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 644334 (NEAT). The views expressed are solely those of the authors. Authors' Addresses Randall R. Stewart Netflix, Inc. Chapin, SC 29036 United States of America Email: randall@lakerest.net Michael Tuexen Muenster University of Applied Sciences Stegerwaldstrasse 39 48565 Steinfurt Germany Email: tuexen@fh-muenster.de Salvatore Loreto Ericsson Torshamnsgatan 21 164 80 Stockholm Sweden Email: Salvatore.Loreto@ericsson.com Robin Seggelmann Metafinanz Informationssysteme GmbH Leopoldstrasse 146 80804 Muenchen Germany Email: rfc@robin-seggelmann.com