idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits29729/draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC6282, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC6282 though, so this could be OK. -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC4944, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC4944 though, so this could be OK. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC4944, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2005-07-13) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (February 25, 2016) is 2277 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: '01 000000' is mentioned on line 101, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'Mesh-hdr' is mentioned on line 124, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'Payload' is mentioned on line 125, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'ESC' is mentioned on line 125, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'EET' is mentioned on line 125, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'RFC5226' is defined on line 285, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '4944-ERRATA' -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 7 warnings (==), 6 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 6lo S. Chakrabarti 3 Internet-Draft Ericsson 4 Updates: 4944, 6282 (if approved) G. Montenegro 5 Intended status: Standards Track Microsoft 6 Expires: August 28, 2016 R. Droms 7 Cisco 8 J. Woodyatt 9 Nest 10 February 25, 2016 12 IANA Registry for 6lowpan ESC Dispatch Code points 13 draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-01 15 Abstract 17 RFC4944 defines ESC dispatch type for additional dispatch bytes in 18 the 6lowpan header. The value of ESC byte has been updated by 19 RFC6282. However, the usage of ESC extension byte has not been 20 defined in RFC6282 and RFC4944. The purpose of this document is to 21 define the ESC extension byte code points and to request 22 corresponding IANA actions. 24 Status of this Memo 26 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 27 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 29 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 30 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 31 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 32 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 34 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 35 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 36 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 37 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 39 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 28, 2016. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 44 document authors. All rights reserved. 46 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 47 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 48 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 49 publication of this document. Please review these documents 50 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 51 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 52 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 53 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 54 described in the Simplified BSD License. 56 Table of Contents 58 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 3. Usage of ESC dispatch bytes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 3.1. Interaction with other RFC4944 implementations . . . . . . 4 62 3.2. ESC Extension Bytes Typical Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 3.3. Example: ITU-T G.9903 ESC type usage . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 3.4. NALP and ESC bytes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 65 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 66 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 67 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 68 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 69 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 70 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 71 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 73 1. Introduction 75 [RFC4944] section 5.1 defines the dispatch header and types. The ESC 76 type is defined for using additional dispatch bytes in the 6lowpan 77 header. RFC 6282 modifies the value of the ESC dispatch type and it 78 is recorded in IANA registry [6LOWPAN-IANA]. However, the bytes and 79 usage following the ESC byte are not defined in either [RFC4944] and 80 [RFC6282]. However, in recent years with 6lowpan deployments, the 81 implementations and Standards organizations have started using the 82 ESC extension bytes and a co-ordination between the respective 83 organizations and IETF/IANA are needed. 85 The following sections record the ITU-T specification for ESC 86 dispatch byte code points as an existing known usage and propose the 87 definition of ESC extension bytes for future applications. The 88 document also requests IANA actions for the first extension byte 89 following the ESC byte. 91 2. Terminology 93 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 94 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 95 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 97 3. Usage of ESC dispatch bytes 99 RFC 4944 [RFC4944] first introduces this "ESC" dispatch header type 100 for extension of dispatch bytes. RFC 6282 [RFC6282] subsequently 101 modified its value to [01 000000]. 103 This document specifies that the first octet following the ESC byte 104 be used for extension type (extended dispatch values). Subsequent 105 octets are left unstructured for the specific use of the extension 106 type: 108 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 1 109 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 110 |0 1| ESC | ESC EXT Type | Extended Dispatch Payload 111 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 113 Figure 1: Frame Format with ESC Byte 115 ESC: The left-most byte is the ESC dispatch type containing '0100000' 116 ESC Extension Type (EET): It is the first byte following the ESC 117 byte. Extension type defines the payload for the additional dispatch 118 bytes. The values are from 0 to 255. Value 0 and 255 are reserved 119 for future use. These values are assigned by IANA. The EET values 120 are similar to dispatch values in the 6lowpan header except they are 121 preceeded by the ESC byte. Thus, ESC extension types and dispatch 122 values are using orthogonal code spaces. Though not desirable, 123 multiple ESC bytes MAY appear in a 6lowpan header. For example, it 124 is possible to form [Mesh-hdr][6lowpan- 125 IPHC][Payload][ESC][EET][Payload][ESC][EET][Payload] as long as it 126 follows the same semantics defined in this document and does not 127 induce fragmentation. Section 3.1 describes how to handle unknown 128 ESC dispatch type. 130 Extended Dispatch Payload(EDP): This part of frame format must be 131 defined by the corresponding extension type. A specification is 132 required to define each usage of extension type and its corresponding 133 Extension Payload. For the sake of interoperability, specifications 134 of extension bytes MUST NOT redefine the existing ESC Extension Type 135 codes. 137 Section 5.1 in RFC4944 indicates that the Extension Type field may 138 contain additional dispatch values larger than 63, as corrected by 139 [4944-ERRATA]. For the sake of interoperability, the new dispatch 140 type (EET) MUST NOT modify the behavior of existing dispatch types 141 [RFC4944]. 143 3.1. Interaction with other RFC4944 implementations 145 It is expected that RFC4944 existing implementations are not capable 146 of processing ESC extension data bytes as defined in this document. 147 However, implementors have to assume that existing implementation 148 that attempt to process an EET unknown to them will simply drop the 149 packet or ignore the ESC dispatch bytes. 151 If an implementation following this document, during processing of 152 the received packet reaches the ESC byte for which it does not 153 understand the extension bytes (EET), it MUST drop that packet. 154 However, it is important to clarify that a router node SHOULD forward 155 a 6lowpan packet with the EET bytes as long as it does not attempt to 156 process any unknown ESC extension bytes. 158 Sequence Of dispatch bytes and ESC bytes: Multiple ESC extension 159 bytes may appear in a packet. The ESC bytes can appear as the first, 160 last or middle dispatch bytes. However, a packet will get dropped by 161 any node that does not understand the EET at the beginning of the 162 packet. The closer to the end of the packet are the EET's, the 163 higher chance there is that a legacy node will recognize and 164 successfully process some dispatch type [RFC4944] before the EET and 165 then ignore the EET instead of dropping the entire packet. 167 3.2. ESC Extension Bytes Typical Sequence 169 The following diagram provides an example when ESC extension bytes 170 might be used: 172 A LoWPAN encapsulated HC1 compressed packet: 173 +----------+-----------------+---------+-----+-----+--------+ 174 | Dispatch | LOWPAN_IPHC hdr | Payld |ESC | EET |EPayld | 175 +----------------------------+---------+-----+-----+--------+ 177 A LoWPAN_IPHC Header, Mesh header and an ESC extenstion byte: 179 +-------+-------+--------+--------+-------+-----+-----+-------+ 180 | M Typ | M Hdr | LOWPAN_IPHC Hdr | Payld |ESC | EET | EPayld| 181 +-------+-------+--------+--------+-------+-----+-----+-------+ 183 Figure 2: A 6lowpan packet with ESC Bytes 185 3.3. Example: ITU-T G.9903 ESC type usage 187 [G3-PLC] provides native mesh-under functionalities. The ESC 188 dispatch type is used with the command frames specified in figure 189 9-12 and Table 9-35 in [G3-PLC] . The command ID values are 0x01 to 190 0x1F. 192 The frame format is defined as follows: 194 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 1 195 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 196 |0 1| ESC | Command ID | Command Payload 197 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 199 Figure 3: G.9903 Frame Format with ESC Byte 201 3.4. NALP and ESC bytes 203 According to RFC4944 [RFC4944] section 5.1, NALP dispatch bytes are 204 used for non-6lowpan packets. Since ESC bytes are part of 6lowpan 205 dispatch types (extended), they are orthogonal to NALP bytes. 207 4. IANA Considerations 209 This document requests IANA to register the 'ESC Extension Type' 210 values as per the policy 'Specification Required'[RFC5226] as 211 specified in this document which follows the same policy as in the 212 IANA section of [RFC4944]. For each Extension Type (except the 213 Reserved values) the specification MUST define corresponding Extended 214 Dispatch Payload frame bytes for the receiver implementation to read 215 the ESC bytes with interoperability. 217 The initial values for the 'ESC Extension Type' fields are: 219 +-------+---------------------------------+---------------+ 220 | Value | Description | Reference | 221 +-------+---------------------------------+---------------+ 222 | 0 | Reserved for future use | This document | 223 | | | | 224 | 1-31 | Used by ITU-T G.9903 and G.9905 | ITU-T G.9903 &| 225 | | Command IDs | ITU-T G.9905 | 226 | | | | 227 | 32-254| Unassigned | This document | 228 | |(Reserved for future IANA | | 229 | | Assignment-- Spec Required) | | 230 | | | | 231 | 255 | Reserved for future use | This document | 232 +-------+---------------------------------+---------------+ 234 Figure 4: Initial Values for IANA Registry 236 5. Security Considerations 238 There is no additional security threats due to the assignments of ESC 239 byte usage described in this document. However, this document 240 forbids defining any extended dispatch values or extension types that 241 modifies the behavior of existing Dispatch types. 243 6. Acknowledgements 245 The authors would like to thank the members of the 6lo WG members for 246 the comments in the mailing list. Many thanks to Carsten Bormann, 247 Ralph Droms, Thierry Lys, Cedric Lavenu, Pascal Thubert for their 248 discussions regarding resolving the bits allocation issues which led 249 to this document. Jonathan Hui and Robert Cregie provided extensive 250 reviews and guidance for interoperability. The authors acknowledges 251 the comments from the following people for shaping this document: 252 Paul Duffy, Don Sturek, Michael Richardson, Xavier Vilajosana and 253 Scott Mansfield. 255 7. References 257 7.1. Normative References 259 [4944-ERRATA] 260 "https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4944". 262 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 263 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/ 264 RFC2119, March 1997, 265 . 267 [RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler, 268 "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 269 Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007, 270 . 272 [RFC6282] Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6 273 Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282, 274 DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011, 275 . 277 7.2. Informative References 279 [6LOWPAN-IANA] 280 "https://www.iana.org/assignments/_6lowpan-parameters/ 281 _6lowpan-parameters.xhtml". 283 [G3-PLC] "http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.9903-201402-I". 285 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 286 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 287 DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, 288 . 290 Authors' Addresses 292 Samita Chakrabarti 293 Ericsson 294 300 Holger Way 295 San Jose, CA 296 US 298 Phone: +1 408 750 5843 299 Email: samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com 301 Gabriel Montenegro 302 Microsoft 303 Seattle 304 US 306 Email: gabriel.montenegro@microsoft.com 308 Ralph Droms 309 Cisco 310 USA 312 Email: rdroms@cisco.com 314 James Woodyatt 315 Nest 316 Mountain View, CA 317 USA 319 Email: jhw@netstlabs.com