wdiff rfc8304.original rfc8304.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) G. Fairhurst
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 8304 T. Jones
Intended status:
Category: Informational University of Aberdeen
Expires: March 23,
ISSN: 2070-1721 February 2018 September 19, 2017

Transport Features of the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) and
Lightweight UDP (UDP-
Lite) Transport Protocols
draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp-07 (UDP-Lite)

Abstract

This is an informational document that describes the transport
protocol interface primitives provided by the User Datagram Protocol
(UDP) and the Lightweight User Datagram Protocol (UDP-Lite) transport
protocols. It identifies the datagram services exposed to
applications and how an application can configure and use the
features offered by the Internet datagram transport service. RFCxxxx RFC
8303 documents the usage of transport features provided by IETF
transport protocols, describing the way UDP, UDP-Lite UDP-Lite, and other
transport protocols expose their services to applications and how an
application can configure and use the features that make up these
services. This document provides input to and context for that
document, as well as offering offers a road map to documentation that may be
of help to
users of the UDP and UDP-Lite protocols.

XXX RFC-Ed Note - please replace RFCxxxx with the published RFC
number for I-D.ietf-taps-transports-usage, when these documents are
both published XXX.

Status of This Memo

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

Internet-Drafts are working documents not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.

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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a maximum candidate for any level of six months Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.

Information about the current status of 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 March 23, 2018.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8304.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. UDP and UDP-Lite Primitives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Primitives Provided by UDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. Excluded Primitives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2. Primitives Provided by UDP-Lite . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.1. 12
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2. 12
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A. Multicast Primitives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix B. Revision Notes
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 19

1. Introduction

This document presents defined interactions between transport
protocols and applications in the form of 'primitives' (function
calls) for the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) [RFC0768] and the
Lightweight User Datagram Protocol (UDP-Lite) [RFC3828]. In this
usage, the word application refers to any program built on the
datagram interface, and including tunnels and other upper layer upper-layer protocols
that use UDP and UDP-LIte. UDP-Lite.

UDP is widely implemented and deployed. It is used for a wide range
of applicatons. applications. A special class of applications can derive benefit
from having partially damaged payloads delivered, rather than
discarded, when using paths that include error-prone links.
Applications that can tolerate payload corruption can choose to use
UDP-Lite instead of UDP and use the application programming interface
(API) to control checksum protection. Conversely, UDP applications
could choose to use UDP-Lite, but this is currently less widely
deployed
deployed, and users could encounter paths that do not support UDP-
LIte.
UDP-Lite. These topics are discussed more in section Section 3.4 of the UDP "UDP
Usage Guidelines Guidelines" [RFC8085].

The IEEE standard API for TCP/IP applications is the "socket"
interface [POSIX]. An application can use the recv() and send()
POSIX functions as well as the recvfrom() and sendto() and recvmsg() recvfrom(), sendto(), recvmsg(), and
sendmsg() functions. The UDP and UDP-Lite sockets API differs from
that for TCP in several key ways. (Examples of usage of this API are
provided in [STEVENS].) In UDP and UDP-Lite, each datagram is a
self-contained message of a specified length, and options at the
transport layer can be used to set properties for all subsequent
datagrams sent using a socket or changed for each datagram. For
datagrams, this can require the application to use the API to set IP-
level
IP-level information (the IP (IP Time To Live (TTL), Differentiated Services
(DiffServ)
Code Point, Point (DSCP), IP fragmentation, etc) etc.) for the datagrams it sends
and receives. In contrast, when using TCP and other
connection-oriented connection-
oriented transports, the IP-level information normally either remains
the same for the duration of a connection or is controlled by the
transport protocol rather than the application.

Socket options are used in the socket sockets API to provide additional
functions
functions. For example, the IP_RECVTTL socket option is used by some
UDP multicast applications to return the IP TTL field from the IP
header of a received datagram.

Some platforms also offer applications the ability to directly
assemble and transmit IP packets through "raw sockets" or similar
facilities. The raw socket sockets API is a second, more cumbersome, method
to send UDP datagrams. The use of this API is discussed in the RFC
series in the UDP Guidelines [RFC8085].

The list of transport service features and primitives in this
document is strictly based on the parts of protocol specifications in
RFC-series
the RFC series that relate to what the transport protocol provides to
an application that uses it and how the application interacts with
the transport protocol. Primitives can be invoked by an application
or a transport protocol; the latter type is called an "event".

The description in Section 3 follows the methodology defined by the
IETF TAPS working group Working Group in [I-D.ietf-taps-transports-usage]. [RFC8303]. Specifically, this document
provides the first pass of this process, which discusses the relevant
RFC text describing primitives for each protocol. [I-D.ietf-taps-transports-usage] [RFC8303] uses
this input to document the usage of transport features provided by
IETF transport protocols, describing the way UDP, UDP-Lite UDP-Lite, and other
transport protocols expose their services to applications and how an
application can configure and use the features that make up these
services.

The presented road map to documentation of the transport interface
may also help developers working with UDP and UDP-Lite.

2. Terminology

This document provides details for the Pass pass 1 analysis of UDP and
UDP-Lite that is used in "Usage "On the Usage of Transport Features Provided
by IETF Transport Protocols" [I-D.ietf-taps-transports-usage]. [RFC8303]. It uses common terminology
defined in that document and also quotes RFCs that use the
terminology of RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

3. UDP and UDP-Lite Primitives

The User Datagram Protocol (UDP) [RFC0768][RFC8200]

UDP [RFC0768] [RFC8200] and UDP-Lite
protocols [RFC3828] are IETF standards track Standards
Track transport protocols. These protocols provide unidirectional,
datagram services, supporting transmit and receive operations that
preserve message boundaries.

This section summarises summarizes the relevant text parts of the RFCs
describing the UDP and UDP-Lite protocols, focusing on what the
transport protocols provide to the application and how the transport
is used (based on abstract API descriptions, where they are
available). It describes how UDP is used with IPv4 or IPv6 to send
unicast or anycast datagrams and the use is used to send broadcast datagrams
for IPv4. A set of network-layer primitives required to use UDP or
UDP-Lite with IP multicast (for IPv4 and IPv6) have been specified in
the RFC series. Appendix A describes where to find documentation for
network-layer primitives required to use UDP or UDP-Lite with IP
multicast (for IPv4 and IPv6).

3.1. Primitives Provided by UDP

The User

"User Datagram Protocol (UDP) Protocol" [RFC0768] States: "This states:

This User Datagram Protocol (UDP) is defined to make available a
datagram mode of packet-switched computer communication in the
environment of an interconnected set of computer networks." It "provides networks...This
protocol provides a procedure for application programs to send
messages to other programs with a minimum of protocol mechanism (..)". mechanism.

The User Interface section of RFC768 RFC 768 states that the user interface
to an application should allow "the

the creation of new receive ports, receive operations on the
receive ports that return the data octets and an indication of
source port and source address, and an operation that allows a
datagram to be sent, specifying the data, source and destination
ports and addresses to be sent". sent.

UDP has been defined for IPv6 [RFC8200], together with API extensions
for a Basic "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6 IPv6" [RFC3493].

[RFC6935] and [RFC6936] define an update to the UDP transport
originally specified in RFC2460. [RFC2460] (note that RFC 2460 has been
obsoleted by RFC 8200). This enables use of a zero UDP checksum mode
with a tunnel protocol, providing that the method satisfies the
requirements in the corresponding applicability statement [RFC6936].

UDP offers only a basic transport interface. UDP datagrams may be
directly sent and received, without exchanging messages between the
endpoints to setup set up a connection (i.e., no handshake is performed by
the transport protocol prior to communication). Using the sockets
API, applications can receive packets from more than one IP source
address on a single UDP socket. Common support allows specification
of the local IP address, destination IP address, local port port, and
destination port values. Any or all of these can be indicated, with
defaults supplied by the local system when these are not specified.
The local endpoint address is set using the BIND call and set on call. At the remote
end, the remote endpoint address is set using the CONNECT call. The
CLOSE function has local significance only. It does not impact the
status of the remote endpoint.

Neither UDP nor UDP-Lite provide congestion control, retransmission,
nor do they provide
or mechanisms for application-level packetisation packetization that would avoid IP
fragmentation and other transport functions. This means that
applications using UDP need to provide additional functions on top of
the UDP transport API [RFC8085]. Some transport functions require
parameters to be passed through the API to control the network layer
(IPv4 or IPv6). These additional primitives could be considered a
part of the network layer (e.g., control of the setting of the Don't
Fragment (DF) flag on a transmitted IPv4
datagram), datagram) but are
nonetheless essential to allow a user of the UDP API to implement
functions that are normally associated with the transport layer (such
as probing for the path maximum transmission size). This document
includes such primitives.

Guidance on the use of the services provided by UDP is provided in
the UDP Guidelines [RFC8085]. This also states "many that

many operating systems also allow a UDP socket to be connected,
i.e., to bind a UDP socket to a specific pair of addresses and
ports. This is similar to the corresponding TCP sockets API
functionality. However, for UDP, this is only a local operation
that serves to simplify the local send/receive functions and to
filter the traffic for the specified addresses and ports. Binding
a UDP socket does not establish a connection - -- UDP does not
notify the remote endpoint end when a local UDP socket is bound. Binding a
socket also allows configuring options that affect the UDP or IP
layers, for example, use of the UDP checksum or the IP Timestamp Option.
option. On some stacks, a bound socket also allows an application
to be notified when Internet Control
Message (ICMP) ICMP error messages are received for its
transmissions
[RFC1122]." [RFC1122].

The POSIX Base Specifications [POSIX] define an API that offers
mechanisms for an application to receive asynchronous data events at
the socket layer. Calls such as "poll", "select" "select", or "queue" allow
an application to be notified when data has arrived at a socket or
when a socket has flushed its buffers.

A callback-driven API to the network interface can be structured on
top of these calls. Implicit connection setup allows an application
to delegate connection life management to the transport API. The
transport API uses protocol primitives to offer the automated service
to the application via the sockets API. By combining UDP primitives
(CONNECT.UDP,
(CONNECT.UDP and SEND.UDP), a higher level higher-level API could offer a similar
service.

The following datagram primitives are specified:

CONNECT: The CONNECT primitive allows the association of source and
destination port sets to a socket to enable creation of a
'connection' for UDP traffic. This UDP connection allows an
application to be notified of errors received from the network
stack and provides a shorthand access to the send SEND and receive RECEIVE
primitives. Since UDP is itself connectionless, no datagrams are
sent because this primitive is executed. A further connect call
can be used to change the association.

The roles of a client and a server are often not appropriate for
UDP, where connections can be peer-to-peer. The listening
functions are performed using one of the forms of the CONNECT
primitive:

1. bind(): A bind operation sets the local port, port either
implicitly, triggered by a "sendto" operation on an unbound
unconnected socket using an ephemeral port. Or port, or by an explicit
"bind" to use a configured or well-known port.

2. bind(); connect(): A bind operation that is followed by a
CONNECT primitive. The bind operation establishes the use of
a known local port for datagrams, datagrams rather than using an
ephemeral port. The connect operation specifies a known
address port combination to be used by default for future
datagrams. This form either is used either after receiving a
datagram from an endpoint that causes the creation of a
connection,
connection or can be triggered by third party a third-party configuration
or a protocol trigger (such as reception of a UDP Service
Description Protocol, SDP [RFC4566], Protocol (SDP) [RFC4566] record).

SEND: The SEND primitive hands over a provided number of bytes that
UDP should send to the other side of a UDP connection in a UDP
datagram. The primitive can be used by an application to directly
send datagrams to an endpoint defined by an address/port pair. If
a connection has been created, then the address/port pair is
inferred from the current connection for the socket. Connecting a
socket allows network errors to be returned to the application as
a notification on the send SEND primitive. Messages passed to the send SEND
primitive that cannot be sent atomically in an IP packet will not
be sent by the network layer, generating an error.

RECEIVE: The RECEIVE primitive allocates a receiving buffer to
accommodate a received datagram. The primitive returns the number
of bytes provided from a received UDP datagram. Section 4.1.3.5
of the requirements of Internet hosts [RFC1122] states "When a UDP
datagram is received, its specific-destination address MUST be
passed up to the application layer."

CHECKSUM_ENABLED: The optional CHECKSUM_ENABLED primitive controls
whether a sender enables the UDP checksum when sending datagrams (
[RFC0768] and [RFC6935] [RFC6936] [RFC8085]). [RFC8085]. When unset, this
overrides the default UDP behaviour, behavior, disabling the checksum on
sending. Section 4.1.3.4 of the requirements for Internet hosts
[RFC1122] states that "An application MAY optionally be able to
control whether a UDP checksum will be generated, but it MUST
default to checksumming on."

REQUIRE_CHECKSUM: The optional REQUIRE_CHECKSUM primitive determines
whether UDP datagrams received with a zero checksum are permitted
or discarded, discarded; UDP defaults to requiring checksums.
Section 4.1.3.4 of the requirements for Internet hosts [RFC1122]
states that "An application MAY optionally be able to control
whether UDP datagrams without checksums should be discarded or
passed to the application." Section 3.1 of the specification for
UDP-Lite [RFC3828] requires that the checksum field is non-zero, and hence be non-zero;
hence, the UDP-Lite API must discard all datagrams received with a
zero checksum.

SET_IP_OPTIONS: The SET_IP_OPTIONS primitive requests the network- network
layer to send a datagram with the specified IP options.
Section 4.1.3.2 of the requirements for Internet hosts[RFC1122] hosts [RFC1122]
states that an "application MUST be able to specify IP options to
be sent in its UDP datagrams, and UDP MUST pass these options to
the IP layer."
GET_IP_OPTIONS: The GET_IP_OPTIONS primitive retrieves the IP
options of a datagram received at the network-layer. network layer.
Section 4.1.3.2 of the requirements for Internet hosts[RFC1122] hosts [RFC1122]
states that a UDP receiver "MUST pass any IP option that it
receives from the IP layer transparently to the application
layer".
layer."

SET_DF: The SET_DF primitive allows the network-layer network layer to fragment
packets using the Fragment Offset in IPv4 [RFC6864] and a host to
use Fragment Headers in IPv6 [RFC8200]. The SET_DF primitive sets
the Don't Fragment (DF) flag in the IPv4 packet header that
carries a UDP datagram, which allows routers to fragment IPv4
packets. Although some specific applications rely on
fragmentation support, in general, a UDP application should
implement a method that avoids IP fragmentation (section (Section 4 of
[RFC8085]). NOTE: In many other IETF transports (e.g., TCP, SCTP) TCP and
the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)), the transport
provides the support needed to use DF. However, when using UDP,
the application is responsible for the techniques needed to
discover the effective Path Maximum Transmission Unit MTU (PMTU) allowed on the network
path, coordinating with the network layer. Classical PMTU Path MTU
Discovery (PMTUD) [RFC1191] relies upon the network path returning
ICMP Fragmentation Needed or ICMPv6 Packet Too Big messages to the
sender. When these ICMP messages are not delivered (or filtered) filtered),
a sender is unable to learn the actual
path MTU, PMTU, and UDP Datagrams datagrams
larger than the PMTU will be "black holed". To avoid this, an
application can instead implement Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery (PLPMTUD) [RFC4821] that does not rely upon network
support for ICMPv6 messages and is therefore considered more
robust than standard PMTUD, as recommended in [RFC8085] and
[RFC8201].

GET_MMS_S: The GET_MMS_S primitive retrieves a network-layer value
that indicates the maximum message size (MMS) that may be sent at
the transport layer using a non-fragmented IP packet from the
configured interface. This value is specified in section Section 6.1 of
[RFC1191] and section Section 5.1 of [RFC8201]. It is calculated from
Effective Maximum Transmit Unit MTU for Sending (EMTU_S), (EMTU_S) and the link MTU for the given
source IP address. This takes into account the size of the IP
header plus space reserved by the IP layer for additional headers
(if any). UDP applications should use this value as part of a
method to avoid sending UDP datagrams that would result in IP
packets that exceed the effective PMTU allowed across the network
path. The effective PMTU (specified in Section 1 of [RFC1191]) is
equivalent to the EMTU_S (specified in [RFC1122]). The
specification of PLPMTUD [RFC4821] states: "If

If PLPMTUD updates the MTU for a particular path, all
Packetization Layer sessions that share the path representation
(as described in Section 5.2) SHOULD be notified to make use of
the new MTU and make the required congestion control adjustments".
adjustments.

GET_MMS_R: The GET_MMS_R primitive retrieves a network-layer value
that indicates the maximum message size (MMS) MMS that may be received at the transport layer
from the configured interface. This value is specified in section
Section 3.1 of [RFC1191]. It is calculated from Effective Maximum Transmit Unit MTU for
Receiving (EMTU_R), (EMTU_R) and the link MTU for the given source IP
address, and it takes into account the size of the IP header plus
space reserved by the IP layer for additional headers (if any).

SET_TTL: The SET_TTL primitive sets the hop limit Hop Limit (TTL field) in the
network-layer
network layer that is used in the IPv4 header of a packet that
carries an a UDP datagram. This is used to limit the scope of
unicast datagrams. Section 3.2.2.4 of the requirements for
Internet hosts [RFC1122] states an "incoming that "An incoming Time Exceeded
message MUST be passed to the transport layer". layer."

GET_TTL: The GET_TTL primitive retrieves the value of the TTL field
in an IP packet received at the network layer. An application
using the Generalized TTL Security Mechanism (GTSM) [RFC5082] can
use this information to trust datagrams with a TTL value within
the expected range, as described in Section 3 of RFC5082. RFC 5082.

SET_MIN_TTL: The SET_MIN_TTL primitive restricts Datagrams datagrams delivered
to the application to those received with an IP TTL value greater
than or equal to the passed parameter. This primitive can be used
to implement applications such as Generalized TTL Security Mechanism
(GTSM) GTSM [RFC5082] to too, as described
in Section 3 of RFC5082, RFC 5082, but this RFC does not specify this
method.

SET_IPV6_UNICAST_HOPS: The SET_IPV6_UNICAST_HOPS primitive sets the
network-layer hop limit Hop Limit field in an IPv6 packet header [RFC8200]
carrying a UDP datagram. For IPv6 unicast datagrams, this is
functionally equivalent to the SET_TTL IPv4 function.

GET_IPV6_UNICAST_HOPS: The GET_IPV6_UNICAST_HOPS primitive is a
network-layer function that reads the hop count in the IPv6 header
[RFC8200] information of a received UDP datagram. This is
specified in section Section 6.3 of RFC3542. RFC 3542. For IPv6 unicast datagrams,
this is functionally equivalent to the GET_TTL IPv4 function.

SET_DSCP: The SET_DSCP primitive is a network-layer function that
sets the DSCP, DSCP (or the legacy Type of Service, ToS) Service (ToS)) value
[RFC2474] to be used in the field of an IP header of a packet that
carries a UDP datagram. Section 2.4 of the requirements for
Internet hosts[RFC1123] hosts [RFC1123] states that "Applications MUST select
appropriate ToS values when they invoke transport layer services,
and these values MUST be configurable.". configurable." The application should be
able to change the ToS during the connection lifetime, and the ToS
value should be passed to the IP layer unchanged. Section 4.1.4
of [RFC1122] also states that on reception the "UDP MAY pass the
received ToS value up to the application layer". layer." The
DiffServ Diffserv model
[RFC2475] [RFC3260] replaces this field in the IP
Header header assigning
the six most significant bits to carry the DSCP field [RFC2474].
Preserving the intention of the host requirements [RFC1122] to
allow the application to specify the "Type of Service", this Service" should be
interpreted to mean that an API should allow the application to
set the DSCP. Section 3.1.6 3.1.8 of the UDP Guidelines [RFC8085]
describes the way UDP applications should use this field. Normally
Normally, a UDP socket will assign a single DSCP value to all
datagrams in a flow, but a sender is allowed to use different DSCP
values for datagrams within the same flow in certain cases[RFC8085]. cases
[RFC8085]. There are guidelines for WebRTC that illustrate this
use [RFC7657].

SET_ECN: The SET_ECN primitive is a network-layer function that sets
the Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) field in the IP Header header
of a UDP datagram. The ECN field defaults to a value of 00. When
the use of the ToS field was redefined by DiffServ Diffserv [RFC3260], 2
bits of the field were assigned to support ECN [RFC3168].
Section 3.1.5 of the UDP Guidelines [RFC8085] describes the way
UDP applications should use this field. NOTE: In many other IETF
transports (e.g., TCP) TCP), the transport provides the support needed
to use ECN, ECN; when using UDP, the application or higher layer higher-layer
protocol is itself responsible for the techniques needed to use
ECN.

GET_ECN: The GET_ECN primitive is a network-layer function that
returns the value of the ECN field in the IP Header header of a received
UDP datagram. Section 3.1.5 of the UDP Guidelines [RFC8085] states that a UDP
receiver "MUST check the ECN field at the receiver for each UDP
datagram that it receives on this port", requiring the UDP
receiver API to pass to pass the received ECN field up to the application
layer to enable appropriate congestion feedback.

ERROR_REPORT

ERROR_REPORT: The ERROR_REPORT event informs an application of "soft
errors", including the arrival of an ICMP or ICMPv6 error message.
Section 4.1.4 of the host requirements for Internet hosts [RFC1122]
states that "UDP MUST pass to the application layer all ICMP error
messages that it receives from the IP layer." For example, this
event is required to implement ICMP-based Path MTU Discovery
[RFC1191] [RFC8201]. UDP applications must perform a CONNECT to
receive ICMP errors.

CLOSE: The close CLOSE primitive closes a connection. No further
datagrams can be sent or received. Since UDP is itself
connectionless, no datagrams are sent when this primitive is
executed.

3.1.1. Excluded Primitives

Section 3.4 of

In the host requirements [RFC1122] also for Internet hosts [RFC1122], Section 3.4
describes
"GET_MAXSIZES, GET_SRCADDR (Section 3.3.4.3) GET_MAXSIZES and ADVISE_DELIVPROB:". ADVISE_DELIVPROB, and Section 3.3.4.4
describes GET_SRCADDR. These mechanisms are no longer used. It also
specifies use of the Source Quench ICMP message, which has since been
deprecated [RFC6633].

The IPV6_V6ONLY function is a network-layer primitive that applies to
all transport services, as defined in Section 5.3 of the basic socket
interface for IPv6 [RFC3493]. This restricts the use of information
from the name resolver to only allow communication of AF_INET6
sockets to use IPv6 only. This is not considered part of the
transport service.

3.2. Primitives Provided by UDP-Lite

The Lightweight User Datagram Protocol (UDP-Lite)

UDP-Lite [RFC3828] provides similar services to UDP. It changed the
semantics of the UDP "payload length" field to that of a "checksum
coverage length" field. UDP-Lite requires the pseudo-header checksum
to be computed at the sender and checked at a receiver. Apart from
the length and coverage changes, UDP-Lite is semantically identical
to UDP.

The sending interface of UDP-Lite differs from that of UDP by the
addition of a single (socket) option that communicates the checksum
coverage length. This specifies the intended checksum coverage, with
the remaining unprotected part of the payload called the "error-
insensitive part".

The receiving interface of UDP-Lite differs from that of UDP by the
addition of a single (socket) option that specifies the minimum
acceptable checksum coverage. The UDP-Lite Management Information
Base (MIB) [RFC5097] further defines the checksum coverage method.
Guidance on the use of services provided by UDP-Lite is provided in
the UDP Guidelines [RFC8085].

UDP-Lite requires use of the UDP or UDP-Lite checksum, and hence checksum; hence, it is
not permitted to use the "DISABLE_CHECKSUM:" DISABLE_CHECKSUM function to disable use of
a checksum, nor is it possible to disable receiver checksum
processing using the "REQUIRE_CHECKSUM:" function . REQUIRE_CHECKSUM function. All other primitives
and functions for UDP are permitted.

In addition, the following are defined:

SET_CHECKSUM_COVERAGE: The SET_CHECKSUM_COVERAGE primitive sets the
coverage area for a sent datagram. UDP-Lite traffic uses this
primitive to set the coverage length provided by the UDP checksum.
Section 3.3 of the UDP-Lite MIB [RFC5097] specification [RFC3828] states that
"Applications that wish to define the payload as partially
insensitive to bit errors ... Should errors...should do this by an explicit system
call on the sender side." The default is to provide the same
coverage as for UDP.

SET_MIN_COVERAGE

SET_MIN_COVERAGE: The SET_MIN_COVERAGE primitive sets the minimum
acceptable coverage protection for received datagrams. UDP-Lite
traffic uses this primitive to set the coverage length that is
checked on receive. (Section 1.1 of the UDP-Lite MIB [RFC5097] describes the
corresponding MIB entry as udpliteEndpointMinCoverage.)
Section 3.3 of the UDP-Lite specification [RFC3828] states that "applications
"Applications that wish to receive payloads that were only
partially covered by a checksum should inform the receiving system
by an explicit system call". call." The default is to require only
minimal coverage of the datagram payload.

4. Acknowledgements

This work was partially funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020
research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 644334
(NEAT). Thanks to all who have commented or contributed, including
Joe Touch, Ted Hardie, Aaron Falk, Tommy Pauly, and Francis Dupont.

5. IANA Considerations

This memo includes no request to IANA.

The authors request the section to be removed during conversion into
an RFC by the RFC Editor.

6. document does not require any IANA actions.

5. Security Considerations

Security considerations for the use of UDP and UDP-Lite are provided
in the referenced RFCs. Security guidance for application usage is
provided in the UDP-Guidelines UDP Guidelines [RFC8085].

6. References

7.1.

6.1. Normative References

[I-D.ietf-taps-transports-usage]
Welzl, M., Tuexen, M., and N. Khademi, "On the Usage of
Transport Features Provided by IETF Transport Protocols",
draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-08 (work in progress),
August 2017.

[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>.

[RFC1112] Deering, S., "Host extensions for IP multicasting", STD 5,
RFC 1112, DOI 10.17487/RFC1112, August 1989,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1112>.

[RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.

[RFC1123] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Application and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1123, October 1989,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1123>.

[RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1191, November 1990,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1191>.

[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>.

[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.

[RFC3493] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., and W.
Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6",
RFC 3493, DOI 10.17487/RFC3493, February 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3493>.

[RFC3828] Larzon, L-A., Degermark, M., Pink, S., Jonsson, L-E., Ed.,
and G. Fairhurst, Ed., "The Lightweight User Datagram
Protocol (UDP-Lite)", RFC 3828, DOI 10.17487/RFC3828, July
2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3828>.

[RFC6864] Touch, J., "Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field",
RFC 6864, DOI 10.17487/RFC6864, February 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6864>.

[RFC6935] Eubanks, M., Chimento, P., and M. Westerlund, "IPv6 and
UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets", RFC 6935,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6935, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6935>.

[RFC6936] Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerlund, "Applicability Statement
for the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums",
RFC 6936, DOI 10.17487/RFC6936, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6936>.

[RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085,
March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>.

[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.

[RFC8201] McCann, J., Deering, S., Mogul, J., and R. Hinden, Ed.,
"Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", STD 87, RFC 8201,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8201, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8201>.

7.2.

[RFC8303] Welzl, M., Tuexen, M., and N. Khademi, "On the Usage of
Transport Features Provided by IETF Transport Protocols",
RFC 8303, DOI 10.17487/RFC8303, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8303>.

6.2. Informative References

[POSIX] "IEEE Std. 1003.1-2001, , IEEE, "Standard for Information Technology - Portable
Operating System Interface (POSIX)",
Open Group Technical Standard: (POSIX(R)) Base Specifications
Specifications", Issue
6, ISO/IEC 9945:2002", 7, IEEE 1003.1,
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7582338/>.

[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
December 2001. 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.

[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.

[RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
Services", RFC 2475, DOI 10.17487/RFC2475, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2475>.

[RFC3260] Grossman, D., "New Terminology and Clarifications for
Diffserv", RFC 3260, DOI 10.17487/RFC3260, April 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3260>.

[RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
3", RFC 3376, DOI 10.17487/RFC3376, October 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3376>.

[RFC3678] Thaler, D., Fenner, B., and B. Quinn, "Socket Interface
Extensions for Multicast Source Filters", RFC 3678,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3678, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3678>.

[RFC3810] Vida, R., Ed. and L. Costa, Ed., "Multicast Listener
Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3810, June 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3810>.

[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, DOI 10.17487/RFC4566,
July 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4566>.

[RFC4604] Holbrook, H., Cain, B., and B. Haberman, "Using Internet
Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast
Listener Discovery Protocol Version 2 (MLDv2) for Source-
Specific Multicast", RFC 4604, DOI 10.17487/RFC4604,
August 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4604>.

[RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC4821, March 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4821>.

[RFC5082] Gill, V., Heasley, J., Meyer, D., Savola, P., Ed., and C.
Pignataro, "The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism
(GTSM)", RFC 5082, DOI 10.17487/RFC5082, October 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5082>.

[RFC5097] Renker, G. and G. Fairhurst, "MIB for the UDP-Lite
protocol", RFC 5097, DOI 10.17487/RFC5097, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5097>.

[RFC5790] Liu, H., Cao, W., and H. Asaeda, "Lightweight Internet
Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast
Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) Protocols", RFC 5790,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5790, February 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5790>.

[RFC6633] Gont, F., "Deprecation of ICMP Source Quench Messages",
RFC 6633, DOI 10.17487/RFC6633, May 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6633>.

[RFC7657] Black, D., Ed. and P. Jones, "Differentiated Services
(Diffserv) and Real-Time Communication", RFC 7657,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7657, November 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7657>.

[STEVENS] "Stevens, Stevens, W., Fenner, B., and A. Rudoff, "UNIX Network
Programming, The sockets Networking API", Addison-
Wesley.", 2004. Volume 1, ISBN-
13: 9780131411555, October 2003.

Appendix A. Multicast Primitives

This appendix describes primitives that are used when UDP and UDP-
Lite
UDP-Lite support IPv4/IPv6 Multicast. multicast. Multicast services are not
considered by the IETF TAPS WG, but the currently specified
primitives are included for completeness in this appendix. Guidance
on the use of UDP and UDP-Lite for multicast services is provided in
the UDP Guidelines[RFC8085]. Guidelines [RFC8085].

IP multicast may be supported by using the Any Source Multicast (ASM)
model or by the Source-Specific Multicast (SSM) model. The latter
requires use of a Multicast Source Filter (MSF) when specifying an IP
multicast group destination address.

Use of multicast requires additional primitives at the transport API
that need to be called to coordinate operation of the IPv4 and IPv6
network layer
network-layer protocols. For example, to receive datagrams sent to a
group, an endpoint must first become a member of a multicast group at
the network layer. Local multicast reception is signalled signaled for IPv4 by
the Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) [RFC3376] [RFC4604].
IPv6 uses the equivalent Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) protocol
[RFC3810] [RFC5790], carried over ICMPv6. A lightweight version of
these protocols has also been specified [RFC5790].

The following are defined:

JoinGroup:

JoinHostGroup: Section 7.1 of the Host "Host Extensions for IP Multicasting Multicasting"
[RFC1112] provides a function that allows receiving traffic from
an IP multicast group.

JoinLocalGroup: Section 7.2 7.3 of the Host "Host Extensions for IP
Multicasting Multicasting"
[RFC1112] provides a function that allows receiving traffic from a
local IP multicast group.

LeaveHostGroup: Section 7.1 of the Host "Host Extensions for IP
Multicasting Multicasting"
[RFC1112] provides a function that allows leaving an IP multicast
group.

LeaveLocalGroup: Section 7.2 7.3 of the Host "Host Extensions for IP
Multicasting
Multicasting" [RFC1112] provides a function that allows leaving a
local IP multicast group.

IPV6_MULTICAST_IF: Section 5.2 of the basic socket extensions for
IPv6 [RFC3493] states that this sets the interface that will be
used for outgoing multicast packets.

IP_MULTICAST_TTL: This sets the time to live time-to-live field t to use for
outgoing IPv4 multicast packets. This is used to limit the scope
of multicast datagrams. Methods such as The "The Generalized TTL
Security Mechanism (GTSM) [RFC5082], (GTSM)" [RFC5082] set this value to ensure
link-local transmission. GTSM also requires the UDP receiver API
to pass the received value of this field to the application.

IPV6_MULTICAST_HOPS: Section 5.2 of the basic socket extensions for
IPv6 [RFC3493] states that this sets the hop count to use for
outgoing multicast IPv6 packets. (This is equivalent to
IP_MULTICAST_TTL used for IPv4 multicast). multicast.)

IPV6_MULTICAST_LOOP: Section 5.2 of the basic socket extensions for
IPv6 [RFC3493] states that this sets whether a copy of a datagram
is looped back by the IP layer for local delivery when the
datagram is sent to a group to which the sending host itself
belongs).

IPV6_JOIN_GROUP: Section 5.2 of the basic socket extensions for IPv6
[RFC3493] provides a function that allows an endpoint to join an
IPv6 multicast group.

SIOCGIPMSFILTER: Section 8.1 of the socket interface for MSF
[RFC3678] provides a function that allows reading the multicast
source filters.

SIOCSIPMSFILTER: Section 8.1 of the socket interface for MSF
[RFC3678] provides a function that allows setting/modifying the
multicast source filters.

IPV6_LEAVE_GROUP: Section 5.2 of the basic socket extensions for
IPv6 [RFC3493] provides a function that allows leaving an IPv6
multicast group.

Section 4.1.1 of the Socket Interface Extensions

The socket interface extensions for MSF [RFC3678] updates the
multicast interface to add support for MSF for IPv4 and IPv6 required
by IGMPv3. Three Section 3 defines both basic and advanced APIs, and
Section 5 describes protocol-independent versions of these APIs.
Four sets of API functionality are therefore defined:

1. IPv4 Basic (Delta-based) API. "Each function call specifies a
single source address which should be added to or removed from
the existing filter for a given multicast group address on
which to listen."

2. IPv4 Advanced (Full-state) API. "This API allows an
application to define a complete source-filter comprised of
zero or more source addresses, and replace the previous filter
with a new one."

3. Protocol-Independent Basic MSF (Delta-based) API.

4. Protocol-Independent Advanced MSF (Full-state) API.

It specifies the following primitives:

IP_ADD_MEMBERSHIP: This is used to join an ASM group.

IP_BLOCK_SOURCE: This MSF can block data from a given multicast
source to a given ASM or SSM group.

IP_UNBLOCK_SOURCE: This updates an MSF to undo a previous call to
IP_UNBLOCK_SOURCE for an ASM or SSM group.

IP_DROP_MEMBERSHIP: This is used to leave an ASM or SSM group.
(In SSM, this drops all sources that have been joined for a
particular group and interface. The operations are the same as
if the socket had been closed.)

Section 4.1.2 of the socket interface for MSF [RFC3678] updates the
interface to add IPv4 MSF support to IGMPv3 using ASM:

IP_ADD_SOURCE_MEMBERSHIP: This is used to join an SSM group.

IP_DROP_SOURCE_MEMBERSHIP: This is used to leave an SSM group.

Section 4.1.2 4.2 of the socket interface for MSF [RFC3678] defines the
Advanced (Full-state) API:

setipv4sourcefilter

setipv4sourcefilter: This is used to join an IPv4 multicast group, group
or to enable multicast from a specified source.

getipv4sourcefilter: This is used to leave an IPv4 multicast group, group
or to filter multicast from a specified source.

Section 5.1 of the socket interface for MSF [RFC3678] specifies
Protocol-Independent Multicast API functions:

MCAST_JOIN_GROUP

MCAST_JOIN_GROUP: This is used to join an ASM group.

MCAST_JOIN_SOURCE_GROUP

MCAST_JOIN_SOURCE_GROUP: This is used to join an SSM group.

MCAST_BLOCK_SOURCE: This is used to block a source in an ASM
group.

MCAST_UNBLOCK_SOURCE: This removes a previous MSF set by
MCAST_BLOCK_SOURCE.

MCAST_LEAVE_GROUP: This leaves an ASM or SSM group.

MCAST_LEAVE_SOURCE_GROUP: This leaves a an SSM group.

Section 5.2 of the socket interface for MSF [RFC3678] specifies the
Protocol-Independent Advanced MSF (Full-state) API applicable for
both IPv4 and IPv6:

setsourcefilter

setsourcefilter: This is used to join an IPv4 or IPv6 multicast
group,
group or to enable multicast from a specified source.

getsourcefilter: This is used to leave an IPv4 or IPv6 multicast
group,
group or to filter multicast from a specified source.

The Lightweight IGMPv3 (LW_IGMPv3) and MLDv2 protocol [RFC5790]
updates this interface (in Section 7.2 of RFC5790).

Appendix B. Revision Notes

Note to RFC-Editor: please remove this entire section prior to
publication.

Individual draft -00:

o This is the first version. Comments and corrections are welcome
directly to the authors or via the IETF TAPS working group mailing
list.

Individual draft -01:

o Includes ability of a UDP receiver to disallow zero checksum
datagrams.

o Fixes to references and some connect on UDP usage.

Individual draft -02:

o Fixes to address issues noted by WG.

o Completed Multicast section to specify modern APIs.

o Noted comments on API usage for UDP.

o Feedback from various reviewers.

Individual draft -03:

o Removes pass 2 and 3 of the TAPS analysis from this revision.
These are expected to be incorporated into a combined draft of the
TAPS WG.

o Fixed Typos.

TAPS WG draft -00:

o Expected to progress with draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage of the
TAPS WG.

TAPS WG draft -01:

o No intentional changes were made to the specification of
primitives, this update is editorial

o Reorganised text to eliminate the appendices.

o Editorial changes were make to complete the document for a WGLSeC.

o Rephrasing to eliminate using references as nouns, and to make
text more consistent.

o One appendix was incorporated.

o RFC 5790).

Acknowledgements

This appendix work was moved to the end (for later deletion partially funded by the RFC-
Ed).

TAPS WG draft -02:

o Updated to align with latest taps-transport-usage ID.

o Revised to clarify MTU usage and track work in IPv6 PMTU

o Usage of DF clarified.

TAPS WG draft -03

o edit to MMS entries.

TAPS WG draft -04

o Typos noted by Tommy Pauly 4/6/2017 and corrected here.

o Checked and corrected parenthesis and use of period.

o Document Shepherd review 7/2017.

o Fixed citations and abbreviations.

TAPS WG draft -05

o AD review 8/2017.

o Updates to reflect published RFCs and refer to PMTUD for IPv6.

o Aligned to latest TAPS transport usage ID.

TAPS WG draft -06

o Fix to text for get TTL European Union's Horizon 2020
research and IPv6 Hop Count

TAPS WG draft -07

o Edit after secdir review - text on how a sender knows how innovation programme under grant agreement No. 644334
(NEAT). Thanks to
request UDP-Lite - added a para;

o Abstract query about citing TAPS-transports;

o Secdir editorial/format fixes all who have been applied.

o Moved the note about "LISTEN:" to the text on "CONNECT:", Mirja
suggested clarity that there is no LISTEN primitive for UDP.

o Ben Campbell: Clarified the socket options were common examples
used by multicast sockets.

o Ben Campbell: Clarified that RFC 2119 is being cited, commented or contributed, including
Joe Touch, Ted Hardie, Aaron Falk, Tommy Pauly, and not used
to create new terms.

o Ben Campbell: Added a direct copy of the text in RFC 768
describing the User Interface.

o Francis Dupont: Many technical corrections. Dupont.

Authors' Addresses

Godred Fairhurst
University of Aberdeen
School of Engineering
Fraser Noble Building
Fraser Noble Building Aberdeen AB24 3UE
UK
United Kingdom

Email: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Tom Jones
University of Aberdeen
School of Engineering
Fraser Noble Building
Aberdeen AB24 3UE
UK
United Kingdom

Email: tom@erg.abdn.ac.uk