draft-ietf-taps-transports-00.txt   draft-ietf-taps-transports-01.txt 
Network Working Group G. Fairhurst, Ed. Network Working Group G. Fairhurst, Ed.
Internet-Draft University of Aberdeen Internet-Draft University of Aberdeen
Intended status: Informational B. Trammell, Ed. Intended status: Informational B. Trammell, Ed.
Expires: June 18, 2015 ETH Zurich Expires: June 22, 2015 M. Kuehlewind, Ed.
December 15, 2014 ETH Zurich
December 19, 2014
Services provided by IETF transport protocols and congestion control Services provided by IETF transport protocols and congestion control
mechanisms mechanisms
draft-ietf-taps-transports-00 draft-ietf-taps-transports-01
Abstract Abstract
This document describes services provided by existing IETF protocols This document describes services provided by existing IETF protocols
and congestion control mechanisms. It is designed to help and congestion control mechanisms. It is designed to help
application and network stack programmers and to inform the work of application and network stack programmers and to inform the work of
the IETF TAPS Working Group. the IETF TAPS Working Group.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 35 skipping to change at page 1, line 36
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 18, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 22, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 12 skipping to change at page 2, line 12
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Most Internet applications make use of the Transport Services Most Internet applications make use of the Transport Services
provided by TCP (a reliable, in-order stream protocol) or UDP (an provided by TCP (a reliable, in-order stream protocol) or UDP (an
unreliable datagram protocol). We use the term "Transport Service" unreliable datagram protocol). We use the term "Transport Service"
to mean an end-to-end facility provided by the transport layer. That to mean the end-to-end service provided to an application by the
service can only be provided correctly if information is supplied transport layer. That service can only be provided correctly if
from the application. The application may determine the information information about the intended usage is supplied from the
to be supplied at design time, compile time, or run time and may application. The application may determine this information at
include guidance on whether an aspect of the service is required, a design time, compile time, or run time, and may include guidance on
preference by the application, or something in between. Examples of whether a feature is required, a preference by the application, or
Transport service facilities are reliable delivery, ordered delivery, something in between. Examples of features of Transport Services are
content privacy to in-path devices, integrity protection, and minimal reliable delivery, ordered delivery, content privacy to in-path
latency. devices, integrity protection, and minimal latency.
Transport protocols such as SCTP, DCCP, MPTCP, UDP and UDP-Lite have
been defined at the transport layer.
In addition, a transport service may be built on top of these The IETF has defined a wide variety of transport protocols beyond TCP
transport protocols, using a fraemwork such as WebSockets, or RTP. and UDP, including TCP, SCTP, DCCP, MP-TCP, and UDP-Lite. Transport
Service built on top of UDP or UDP-Lite typically also need to services may be provided directly by these transport protocols, or
specify a congestion control mechanism, such as TFRC or the LEDBAT layered on top of them using protocols such as WebSockets (which runs
congestion control mechanism. This extends the set of available over TCP) or RTP (over TCP or UDP). Services built on top of UDP or
Transport Services beyond those provided to applications by TCP and UDP-Lite typically also need to specify additional mechanisms,
UDP. including a congestion control mechanism (such as a windowed
congestion control, TFRC or LEDBAT congestion control mechanism).
This extends the set of available Transport Services beyond those
provided to applications by TCP and UDP.
Transport services can aslo be differentiated by the services they Transport protocols can also be differentiated by the features of the
provide: for instance, SCTP offers a message-based service that does services they provide: for instance, SCTP offers a message-based
not suffer head-of-line blocking when used with multiple stream, service that does not suffer head-of-line blocking when used with
because it can accept blocks of data out of order, UDP-Lite provides multiple stream, because it can accept blocks of data out of order,
partial integrity protection when used over link-layer services that UDP-Lite provides partial integrity protection, and LEDBAT can
can support this, and LEDBAT can provide low-priority "scavenger" provide low-priority "scavenger" communication.
communication.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The following terms are defined throughout this document, and in The following terms are defined throughout this document, and in
subsequent documents produced by TAPS describing the composition and subsequent documents produced by TAPS describing the composition and
decomposition of transport services. decomposition of transport services.
The terminology below is that as was presented at the TAPS WG meeting [Editor Note: The terminology below was presented at the TAPS WG
in Honolulu. While the factoring of the terminology seems meeting in Honolulu. While the factoring of the terminology seems
uncontroversial, thre may be some entities which still require names uncontroversial, there may be some entities which still require names
(e.g. information about the interface between the transport and lower (e.g. information about the interface between the transport and lower
layers which could lead to the availablity or unavailibility of layers which could lead to the availablity or unavailibility of
certain transport protocol features) certain transport protocol features). Comments are welcome via the
TAPS mailing list.]
Transport Service Feature: a specific feature a transport service Transport Service Feature: a specific end-to-end feature that a
provides to its clients end-to-end. Examples include transport service provides to its clients. Examples include
confidentiality, reliable delivery, ordered delivery, message- confidentiality, reliable delivery, ordered delivery, message-
versus-stream orientation, etc. versus-stream orientation, etc.
Transport Service: a set of transport service features, without an Transport Service: a set of transport service features, without an
association to any given framing protocol, which provides a association to any given framing protocol, which provides a
complete service to an application. complete service to an application.
Transport Protocol: an implementation that provides one or more Transport Protocol: an implementation that provides one or more
different transport services using a specific framing and header different transport services using a specific framing and header
format on the wire. format on the wire.
Transport Protocol Component: an implementation of a transport Transport Protocol Component: an implementation of a transport
service feature within a protocol service feature within a protocol.
Transport Service Instance: an arrangement of transport protocols Transport Service Instance: an arrangement of transport protocols
with a selected set of features and configuration parameters that with a selected set of features and configuration parameters that
implements a single transport service, e.g. a protocol stack (RTP implements a single transport service, e.g. a protocol stack (RTP
over UDP) over UDP).
Application: an entity that uses the transport layer for end-to-end Application: an entity that uses the transport layer for end-to-end
delivery data across the network. delivery data across the network (this may also be an upper layer
protocol or tunnel encpasulation).
3. Transport Protocols 3. Existing Transport Protocols
This section provides a list of known IETF transport protocol and This section provides a list of known IETF transport protocol and
transport protocol frameworks. transport protocol frameworks.
[Editor Note: Contributions to the sections in the list below are
welcome]
3.1. Transport Control Protocol (TCP) 3.1. Transport Control Protocol (TCP)
TCP [RFC0793] provides a bidirectional byte-oriented stream over a TCP is an IETF standards track transport protocol. [RFC0793]
connection- oriented protocol. The protocol and API use the byte- introduces TCP as follows: "The Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
stream model. is intended for use as a highly reliable host-to-host protocol
between hosts in packet-switched computer communication networks, and
in interconnected systems of such networks." Since its introduction,
TCP has become the default connection-oriented, stream-based
transport protocol in the Internet. It is widely implemented by
endpoints and widely used by common applications.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Mirja Kuehlewind signed up as contributor for this 3.1.1. Protocol Description
section.]
3.1.1. Multipath TCP (MPTCP) TCP is a connection-oriented protocol, providing a three way
handshake to allow a client and server to set up a connection, and
mechanisms for orderly completion and immediate teardown of a
connection. TCP is defined by a family of RFCs [RFC4614].
3.2. Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) TCP provides multiplexing to multiple sockets on each host using port
numbers. An active TCP session is identified by its four-tuple of
local and remote IP addresses and local port and remote port numbers.
SCTP [RFC4960] provides a bidirectional set of logical unicast TCP partitions a continuous stream of bytes into segments, sized to
streams over one a connection-oriented protocol. The protocol and fit in IP packets, constrained by the maximum size of lower layer
API use messages, rather than a byte-stream. Each stream of messages frame. PathMTU discovery is supported. Each byte in the stream is
is independently managed, therefore retransmission does not hold back identified by a sequence number. The sequence number is used to
order segments on receipt, to identify segments in acknowledgments,
and to detect unacknowledged segments for retransmission. This is
the basis of TCP's reliable, ordered delivery of data in a stream.
TCP Selective Acknowledgment [RFC2018] extends this mechanism by
making it possible to identify missing segments more precisely,
reducing spurious retransmission.
Receiver flow control is provided by a sliding window: limiting the
amount of unacknowledged data that can be outstanding at a given
time. The window scale option [RFC7323] allows a receiver to use
windows greater than 64KB.
All TCP senders provide Congestion Control: This uses a separate
window, where each time congestion is detected, this congestion
window is reduced. A receiver detects congestion using one of three
mechanisms: A retransmission timer, loss (interpreted as a congestion
signal), and Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) [RFC3168] to
provide early signaling (see [I-D.ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits])
A TCP protocol instance can be extended [RFC4614] and tuned. Some
features are sender-side only, requiring no negotiation with the
receiver; some are receiver-side only, some are explicitly negotiated
during connection setup.
By default, TCP segment partitioning uses Nagle's algorithm [RFC0896]
to buffer data at the sender into large segments, potentially
incurring sender-side buffering delay; this algorithm can be disabled
by the sender to transmit more immediately, e.g. to enable smoother
interactive sessions.
A TCP service is unicast.
3.1.2. Interface description
A TCP API is defined in [REF], but there is currently no API
specified in the RFC series.
In API implementations derived from the BSD Sockets API, TCP sockets
are created using the "SOCK_STREAM" socket type.
The features used by a protocol instance may be set and tuned via
this API.
(more on the API goes here)
3.1.3. Transport Protocol Components
The transport protocol components provided by TCP are:
o unicast
o connection-oriented setup with feature negotiation
o port multiplexing
o reliable delivery
o ordered delivery
o segmented, stream-oriented delivery in a single stream
o congestion control
(discussion of how to map this to features and TAPS: what does the
higher layer need to decide? what can the transport layer decide
based on global settings? what must the transport layer decide based
on network characteristics?)
3.2. Multipath TCP (MP-TCP)
[Editor Note: a few sentences describing Multipath TCP [RFC6824] go
here. Note that this adds transport-layer multihoming to the
components TCP provides]
3.3. Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
SCTP [RFC4960] is an IETF standards track transport protocol that
provides a bidirectional s set of logical unicast meessage streams
over a connection-oriented protocol. The protocol and API use
messages, rather than a byte-stream. Each stream of messages is
independently managed, therefore retransmission does not hold back
data sent using other logical streams. data sent using other logical streams.
The SCTP Partial Reliability Extension (SCTP-PR) is defined in
[RFC3758].
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Michael Tuexen and Karen Nielsen signed up as [EDITOR'S NOTE: Michael Tuexen and Karen Nielsen signed up as
contributors for these sections.] contributors for these sections.]
3.2.1. Partial Reliability for SCTP (PR-SCTP) 3.3.1. Protocol Description
PR-SCTP [RFC3758] is a variant of SCTP that provides partial An SCTP service is unicast.
reliability.
3.3. User Datagram Protocol (UDP) 3.3.2. Interface Description
The User Datagram Protocol (UDP) [RFC0768] provides a unidirectional The SCTP API is described in the specifications published in the RFC
series.
3.3.3. Transport Protocol Components
The transport protocol components provided by SCTP are:
o unicast
o connection-oriented setup with feature negotiation
o port multiplexing
o reliable or partially reliable delivery
o ordered delivery within a stream
o support for multiple prioritised streams
o message-oriented delivery
o congestion control
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Please update list.]
3.4. User Datagram Protocol (UDP)
The User Datagram Protocol (UDP) [RFC0768] [RFC2460] is an IETF
standards track transport protocol. It provides a uni-directional
minimal message-passing transport that has no inherent congestion minimal message-passing transport that has no inherent congestion
control mechanisms. The service may be multicast and/or unicast. control mechanisms or other transport functions. IETF guidance on
the use of UDP is provided in [RFC5405]. UDP is widely implemented
by endpoints and widely used by common applications.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Kevin Fall signed up as contributor for this [EDITOR'S NOTE: Kevin Fall signed up as a contributor for this
section.] section.]
3.3.1. UDP-Lite 3.4.1. Protocol Description
A special class of applications can derive benefit from having UDP is a connection-less datagram protocol, with no connection setup
partially-damaged payloads delivered, rather than discarded, when or feature negotiation. The protocol and API use messages, rather
using paths that include error-prone links. Such applications can than a byte-stream. Each stream of messages is independently
tolerate payload corruption and may choose to use the Lightweight managed, therefore retransmission does not hold back data sent using
User Datagram Protocol [RFC3828]. The service may be multicast and/ other logical streams.
or unicast.
3.4. Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) It provides multiplexing to multiple sockets on each host using port
numbers. An active UDP session is identified by its four-tuple of
local and remote IP addresses and local port and remote port numbers.
The Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) [RFC4340] is a UDP fragments packets into IP packets, constrained by the maximum
bidirectional transport protocol that provides unicast connections of size of lower layer frame.
congestion-controlled unreliable messages. DCCP is suitable for
applications that transfer fairly large amounts of data and that can
benefit from control over the tradeoff between timeliness and
reliability.
3.5. Realtime Transport Protocol (RTP) Mechanisms for receiver flow control, congestion control, PathMTU
discovery, support for ECN, etc need to be provided by upper layer
protocols [RFC5405].
For IPv4 the UDP checksum is optional, but recommended for use in the
general Internet [RFC5405]. [RFC2460] requires the use of this
checksum for IPv6, but [RFC6935] permits this to be relaxed for
specific types of application. The checksum support considerations
for omitting the checksum are defined in [RFC6936].
A UDP service may support IPv4 broadcast, multicast, anycast and
unicast.
3.4.2. Interface Description
There is no current API specified in the RFC Series, but guidance on
use of common APIs is provided in [RFC5405].
3.4.3. Transport Protocol Components
The transport protocol components provided by UDP are:
o unicast
o IPv4 broadcast, multicast and anycast
o non-reliable, non-ordered delivery
o message-oriented delivery
o optional checksum protection.
3.5. Lightweight User Datagram Protocol (UDP-Lite)
The Lightweight User Datagram Protocol (UDP-Lite) [RFC3828] is an
IETF standards track transport protocol. UDP-Lite provides a
bidirectional set of logical unicast or multicast message streams
over a datagram protocol. IETF guidance on the use of UDP-Lite is
provided in [RFC5405].
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Gorry Fairhurst signed up as a contributor for this
section.]
3.5.1. Protocol Description
UDP-Lite is a connection-less datagram protocol, with no connection
setup or feature negotiation. The protocol and API use messages,
rather than a byte-stream. Each stream of messages is independently
managed, therefore retransmission does not hold back data sent using
other logical streams.
It provides multiplexing to multiple sockets on each host using port
numbers. An active UDP-Lite session is identified by its four-tuple
of local and remote IP addresses and local port and remote port
numbers.
UDP-Lite fragments packets into IP packets, constrained by the
maximum size of lower layer frame.
UDP-Lite changes the semantics of the UDP "payload length" field to
that of a "checksum coverage length" field. Otherwise, UDP-Lite is
semantically identical to UDP. Applications using UDP-Lite therefore
can not make assumptions regarding the correctness of the data
received in the insensitive part of the UDP-Lite payload.
As for UDP, mechanisms for receiver flow control, congestion control,
PathMTU discovery, support for ECN, etc need to be provided by upper
layer protocols [RFC5405].
Examples of use include a class of applications that can derive
benefit from having partially-damaged payloads delivered, rather than
discarded. One use is to support are tolerate payload corruption and
over paths that include error-prone links, another application is
when header integrity checks are required but payload integrity is
provided by some other mechanism (e.g. [RFC6936].
A UDP-Lite service may support IPv4 broadcast, multicast, anycast and
unicast.
3.5.2. Interface Description
There is no current API specified in the RFC Series, but guidance on
use of common APIs is provided in [RFC5405].
The interface of UDP-Lite differs from that of UDP by the addition of
a single (socket) option that communicates a checksum coverage length
value: at the sender, this specifies the intended checksum coverage,
with the remaining unprotected part of the payload called the "error-
insensitive part". The checksum coverage may also be made visible to
the application via the UDP-Lite MIB module [RFC5097].
3.5.3. Transport Protocol Components
The transport protocol components provided by UDP-Lite are:
o unicast
o IPv4 broadcast, multicast and anycast
o non-reliable, non-ordered delivery
o message-oriented delivery
o partial integrity protection
3.6. Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)
Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) [RFC4340] is an IETF
standards track bidirectional transport protocol that provides
unicast connections of congestion-controlled unreliable messages.
DCCP is suitable for applications that transfer fairly large amounts
of data and that can benefit from control over the trade off between
timeliness and reliability [RFC4336].
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Gorry Fairhurst signed up as a contributor for this
section.]
3.6.1. Protocol Description
DCCP is a connection-oriented datagram protocol, providing a three
way handshake to allow a client and server to set up a connection,
and mechanisms for orderly completion and immediate teardown of a
connection. The protocol is defined by a family of RFCs.
It provides multiplexing to multiple sockets on each host using port
numbers. An active DCCP session is identified by its four-tuple of
local and remote IP addresses and local port and remote port numbers.
At connection setup, DCCP also exchanges the the service code
[RFC5595] mechanism to allow transport instantiations to indicate the
service treatment that is expected from the network.
The protocol segments data into messages, sized to fit in IP packets,
constrained by the maximum size of lower layer frame. Each message
is identified by a sequence number. The sequence number is used to
identify segments in acknowledgments, to detect unacknowledged
segments, to measure RTT, etc. The protocol may support ordered or
unordered delivery of data, and does not itself provide
retransmission.
Receiver flow control is supported: limiting the amount of
unacknowledged data that can be outstanding at a given time.
A DCCP protocol instance can be extended [RFC4340] and tuned. Some
features are sender-side only, requiring no negotiation with the
receiver; some are receiver-side only, some are explicitly negotiated
during connection setup.
DCCP supports negotiation of the congestion control profile, examples
of specified profiles include [RFC4341] [RFC4342] [RFC5662]. All
IETF-defined methods provide Congestion Control.
Examples of suitable applications include interactive applications,
streaming media or on-line games [RFC4336].
A DCCP service is unicast.
3.6.2. Interface Description
There is no current API specified in the RFC Series.
3.6.3. Transport Protocol Components
The transport protocol components provided by DCCP are:
o unicast
o connection-oriented setup
o feature negotiation
o non-reliable, ordered delivery
o message-oriented delivery
o partial integrity protection
3.7. Realtime Transport Protocol (RTP)
RTP provides an end-to-end network transport service, suitable for RTP provides an end-to-end network transport service, suitable for
applications transmitting real-time data, such as audio, video or applications transmitting real-time data, such as audio, video or
data, over multicast or unicast network services, including TCP, UDP, data, over multicast or unicast network services, including TCP, UDP,
UDP-Lite, DCCP. UDP-Lite, DCCP.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Varun Singh signed up as contributor for this [EDITOR'S NOTE: Varun Singh signed up as contributor for this
section.] section.]
3.6. Hypertext Transport Protocol (HTTP) as a pseudotransport 3.8. Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram TLS (DTLS) as a
pseudotransport
(A few words on TLS [RFC5246] and DTLS [RFC6347] here, and how they
get used by other protocols to meet security goals as an add-on
interlayer above transport.)
3.8.1. Protocol Description
3.8.2. Interface Description
3.8.3. Transport Protocol Components
3.9. Hypertext Transport Protocol (HTTP) as a pseudotransport
[RFC3205] [RFC3205]
3.6.1. WebSockets 3.9.1. Protocol Description
3.9.2. Interface Description
3.9.3. Transport Protocol Components
3.10. WebSockets
[RFC6455] [RFC6455]
3.10.1. Protocol Description
3.10.2. Interface Description
3.10.3. Transport Protocol Components
4. Transport Service Features 4. Transport Service Features
Features as derived from the subsections above. (drawn from the candidate features provided by protocol components in
the previous section - please discussion on list)
This section is blank for now. 4.1. Complete Protocol Feature Matrix
(a comprehensive matrix table goes here; Volunteer: Dave Thaler)
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
This document has no considerations for IANA. This document has no considerations for IANA.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
This document surveys existing transport protocols and protocols This document surveys existing transport protocols and protocols
providing transport-like services. Confidentiality, integrity, and providing transport-like services. Confidentiality, integrity, and
authenticity are among the features provided by those services. This authenticity are among the features provided by those services. This
skipping to change at page 5, line 41 skipping to change at page 12, line 35
7. Contributors 7. Contributors
Non-editor contributors of text will be listed here, as in the Non-editor contributors of text will be listed here, as in the
authors section. authors section.
8. Acknowledgments 8. Acknowledgments
This work is partially supported by the European Commission under This work is partially supported by the European Commission under
grant agreement FP7-ICT-318627 mPlane; support does not imply grant agreement FP7-ICT-318627 mPlane; support does not imply
endorsement. Special thanks to Mirja Kuehlewind for the terminology endorsement.
section and for leading the terminology discussion in Honolulu.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September
1981. 1981.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
August 1980. August 1980.
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC [RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
793, September 1981. 793, September 1981.
[RFC0896] Nagle, J., "Congestion control in IP/TCP internetworks", [RFC0896] Nagle, J., "Congestion control in IP/TCP internetworks",
RFC 896, January 1984. RFC 896, January 1984.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - [RFC1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989. Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.
[RFC2018] Mathis, M., Mahdavi, J., Floyd, S., and A. Romanow, "TCP [RFC2018] Mathis, M., Mahdavi, J., Floyd, S., and A. Romanow, "TCP
Selective Acknowledgment Options", RFC 2018, October 1996. Selective Acknowledgment Options", RFC 2018, October 1996.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition [RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC
3168, September 2001. 3168, September 2001.
[RFC3205] Moore, K., "On the use of HTTP as a Substrate", BCP 56, [RFC3205] Moore, K., "On the use of HTTP as a Substrate", BCP 56,
RFC 3205, February 2002. RFC 3205, February 2002.
[RFC3390] Allman, M., Floyd, S., and C. Partridge, "Increasing TCP's [RFC3390] Allman, M., Floyd, S., and C. Partridge, "Increasing TCP's
Initial Window", RFC 3390, October 2002. Initial Window", RFC 3390, October 2002.
[RFC3758] Stewart, R., Ramalho, M., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., and P. [RFC3758] Stewart, R., Ramalho, M., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., and P.
Conrad, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Conrad, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
Partial Reliability Extension", RFC 3758, May 2004. Partial Reliability Extension", RFC 3758, May 2004.
[RFC3828] Larzon, L-A., Degermark, M., Pink, S., Jonsson, L-E., and [RFC3828] Larzon, L-A., Degermark, M., Pink, S., Jonsson, L-E., and
G. Fairhurst, "The Lightweight User Datagram Protocol G. Fairhurst, "The Lightweight User Datagram Protocol
(UDP-Lite)", RFC 3828, July 2004. (UDP-Lite)", RFC 3828, July 2004.
[RFC4336] Floyd, S., Handley, M., and E. Kohler, "Problem Statement
for the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC
4336, March 2006.
[RFC4340] Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram [RFC4340] Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram
Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, March 2006. Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, March 2006.
[RFC4341] Floyd, S. and E. Kohler, "Profile for Datagram Congestion
Control Protocol (DCCP) Congestion Control ID 2: TCP-like
Congestion Control", RFC 4341, March 2006.
[RFC4342] Floyd, S., Kohler, E., and J. Padhye, "Profile for
Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) Congestion
Control ID 3: TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC)", RFC 4342,
March 2006.
[RFC4614] Duke, M., Braden, R., Eddy, W., and E. Blanton, "A Roadmap
for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Specification
Documents", RFC 4614, September 2006.
[RFC4960] Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC [RFC4960] Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC
4960, September 2007. 4960, September 2007.
[RFC5097] Renker, G. and G. Fairhurst, "MIB for the UDP-Lite
protocol", RFC 5097, January 2008.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.
[RFC5348] Floyd, S., Handley, M., Padhye, J., and J. Widmer, "TCP [RFC5348] Floyd, S., Handley, M., Padhye, J., and J. Widmer, "TCP
Friendly Rate Control (TFRC): Protocol Specification", RFC Friendly Rate Control (TFRC): Protocol Specification", RFC
5348, September 2008. 5348, September 2008.
[RFC5405] Eggert, L. and G. Fairhurst, "Unicast UDP Usage Guidelines [RFC5405] Eggert, L. and G. Fairhurst, "Unicast UDP Usage Guidelines
for Application Designers", BCP 145, RFC 5405, November for Application Designers", BCP 145, RFC 5405, November
2008. 2008.
[RFC5595] Fairhurst, G., "The Datagram Congestion Control Protocol
(DCCP) Service Codes", RFC 5595, September 2009.
[RFC5662] Shepler, S., Eisler, M., and D. Noveck, "Network File
System (NFS) Version 4 Minor Version 1 External Data
Representation Standard (XDR) Description", RFC 5662,
January 2010.
[RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP [RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
Authentication Option", RFC 5925, June 2010. Authentication Option", RFC 5925, June 2010.
[RFC5681] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion [RFC5681] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion
Control", RFC 5681, September 2009. Control", RFC 5681, September 2009.
[RFC6093] Gont, F. and A. Yourtchenko, "On the Implementation of the [RFC6093] Gont, F. and A. Yourtchenko, "On the Implementation of the
TCP Urgent Mechanism", RFC 6093, January 2011. TCP Urgent Mechanism", RFC 6093, January 2011.
[RFC6298] Paxson, V., Allman, M., Chu, J., and M. Sargent, [RFC6298] Paxson, V., Allman, M., Chu, J., and M. Sargent,
"Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer", RFC 6298, June "Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer", RFC 6298, June
2011. 2011.
[RFC6935] Eubanks, M., Chimento, P., and M. Westerlund, "IPv6 and
UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets", RFC 6935, April 2013.
[RFC6936] Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerlund, "Applicability Statement
for the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums",
RFC 6936, April 2013.
[RFC6455] Fette, I. and A. Melnikov, "The WebSocket Protocol", RFC [RFC6455] Fette, I. and A. Melnikov, "The WebSocket Protocol", RFC
6455, December 2011. 6455, December 2011.
[RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, January 2012.
[RFC6691] Borman, D., "TCP Options and Maximum Segment Size (MSS)", [RFC6691] Borman, D., "TCP Options and Maximum Segment Size (MSS)",
RFC 6691, July 2012. RFC 6691, July 2012.
[RFC6824] Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., and O. Bonaventure,
"TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple
Addresses", RFC 6824, January 2013.
[RFC7323] Borman, D., Braden, B., Jacobson, V., and R. [RFC7323] Borman, D., Braden, B., Jacobson, V., and R.
Scheffenegger, "TCP Extensions for High Performance", RFC Scheffenegger, "TCP Extensions for High Performance", RFC
7323, September 2014. 7323, September 2014.
[I-D.ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits]
Welzl, M. and G. Fairhurst, "The Benefits and Pitfalls of
using Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)", draft-ietf-
aqm-ecn-benefits-00 (work in progress), October 2014.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Godred Fairhurst (editor) Godred Fairhurst (editor)
University of Aberdeen University of Aberdeen
School of Engineering, Fraser Noble Building School of Engineering, Fraser Noble Building
Aberdeen AB24 3UE Aberdeen AB24 3UE
Email: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk Email: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Brian Trammell (editor) Brian Trammell (editor)
ETH Zurich ETH Zurich
Gloriastrasse 35 Gloriastrasse 35
8092 Zurich 8092 Zurich
Switzerland Switzerland
Email: ietf@trammell.ch Email: ietf@trammell.ch
Mirja Kuehlewind (editor)
ETH Zurich
Gloriastrasse 35
8092 Zurich
Switzerland
Email: mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch
 End of changes. 51 change blocks. 
87 lines changed or deleted 464 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/