draft-ietf-taps-transports-09.txt   draft-ietf-taps-transports-10.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: July 31, 2016 M. Kuehlewind, Ed. Expires: September 5, 2016 M. Kuehlewind, Ed.
ETH Zurich ETH Zurich
January 28, 2016 March 04, 2016
Services provided by IETF transport protocols and congestion control Services provided by IETF transport protocols and congestion control
mechanisms mechanisms
draft-ietf-taps-transports-09 draft-ietf-taps-transports-10
Abstract Abstract
This document describes, surveys, classifies and compares the This document describes, surveys, classifies and compares the
protocol mechanisms provided by existing IETF protocols, as protocol mechanisms provided by existing IETF protocols, as
background for determining a common set of transport services. It background for determining a common set of transport services. It
examines the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), Multipath TCP, the examines the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), Multipath TCP, the
Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP), the User Datagram Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP), the User Datagram
Protocol (UDP), UDP-Lite, the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol Protocol (UDP), UDP-Lite, the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol
(DCCP), the Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP), the Realtime (DCCP), the Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP), the Realtime
skipping to change at page 1, line 44 skipping to change at page 1, line 44
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 July 31, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 5, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 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 34 skipping to change at page 2, line 34
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Existing Transport Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Existing Transport Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Transport Control Protocol (TCP) . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. Transport Control Protocol (TCP) . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.1. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1.1. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.2. Interface description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1.2. Interface description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.3. Transport Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1.3. Transport Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Multipath TCP (MPTCP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2. Multipath TCP (MPTCP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.1. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2.1. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.2. Interface Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2.2. Interface Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.3. Transport features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2.3. Transport features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3. Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) . . . . . . . 10 3.3. User Datagram Protocol (UDP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3.1. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.3.1. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3.2. Interface Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.3.2. Interface Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3.3. Transport Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.3.3. Transport Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.4. User Datagram Protocol (UDP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.4. Lightweight User Datagram Protocol (UDP-Lite) . . . . . . 12
3.4.1. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.4.1. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.4.2. Interface Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.4.2. Interface Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.4.3. Transport Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.4.3. Transport Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.5. Lightweight User Datagram Protocol (UDP-Lite) . . . . . . 18 3.5. Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) . . . . . . . 14
3.5.1. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.5.1. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.5.2. Interface Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.5.2. Interface Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.5.3. Transport Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.5.3. Transport Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.6. Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) . . . . . . . 19 3.6. Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) . . . . . . . 19
3.6.1. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.6.1. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.6.2. Interface Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.6.2. Interface Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.6.3. Transport Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.6.3. Transport Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.7. Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) . . . . . . . . 22 3.7. Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram TLS (DTLS) as
a pseudotransport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.7.1. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.7.1. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.7.2. Interface Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.7.2. Interface Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.7.3. Transport Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.7.3. Transport Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.8. Realtime Transport Protocol (RTP) . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.8. Realtime Transport Protocol (RTP) . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.8.1. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.8.1. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.8.2. Interface Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.8.2. Interface Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.8.3. Transport Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.8.3. Transport Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.9. File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport/Asynchronous 3.9. Hypertext Transport Protocol (HTTP) over TCP as a
Layered Coding Reliable Multicast (FLUTE/ALC) . . . . . . 25 pseudotransport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.9.1. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.9.1. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.9.2. Interface Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3.9.2. Interface Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.9.3. Transport Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3.9.3. Transport features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.10. NACK-Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM) . . . . . . . . . 29 3.10. File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport/Asynchronous
3.10.1. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Layered Coding Reliable Multicast (FLUTE/ALC) . . . . . . 30
3.10.2. Interface Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 3.10.1. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.10.3. Transport Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 3.10.2. Interface Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.11. Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram TLS (DTLS) as 3.10.3. Transport Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
a pseudotransport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.11. NACK-Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM) . . . . . . . . . 33
3.11.1. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.11.1. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.11.2. Interface Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 3.11.2. Interface Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.11.3. Transport Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 3.11.3. Transport Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.12. Hypertext Transport Protocol (HTTP) over TCP as a 3.12. Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) . . . . . . . . 35
pseudotransport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 3.12.1. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.12.1. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 3.12.2. Interface Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.12.2. Interface Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 3.12.3. Transport Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.12.3. Transport features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4. Congestion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 4. Congestion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5. Transport Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 5. Transport Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
skipping to change at page 4, line 51 skipping to change at page 4, line 51
provide partial integrity protection to enable corruption tolerance. provide partial integrity protection to enable corruption tolerance.
Usually a protocol has been designed to support one specific type of Usually a protocol has been designed to support one specific type of
delivery/framing: data either needs to be divided into transmission delivery/framing: data either needs to be divided into transmission
units based on network packets (datagram service), a data stream is units based on network packets (datagram service), a data stream is
segmented and re-combined across multiple packets (stream service), segmented and re-combined across multiple packets (stream service),
or whole objects such as files are handled accordingly. This or whole objects such as files are handled accordingly. This
decision strongly influences the interface that is provided to the decision strongly influences the interface that is provided to the
upper layer. upper layer.
In addition, transport protocols offer a certain support on In addition, transport protocols offer a certain support for
transmission control. For example, a transport service can provide transmission control. For example, a transport service can provide
flow control to allow a receiver to regulate the transmission rate of flow control to allow a receiver to regulate the transmission rate of
a sender. Further a transport service can provide congestion control a sender. Further a transport service can provide congestion control
(see Section 4). As an example TCP and SCTP provide congestion (see Section 4). As an example TCP and SCTP provide congestion
control for use in the Internet, whereas UDP leaves this function to control for use in the Internet, whereas UDP leaves this function to
the upper layer protocol that uses UDP. the upper layer protocol that uses UDP.
Security features are often provided independent of the transport Security features are often provided independent of the transport
protocol, via Transport Layer Security (TLS, see {{transport-layer- protocol, via Transport Layer Security (TLS, see Section 3.7) or by
security-tls-and- datagram-tls-dtls-as-a-pseudotransport}}) or by the the application layer protocol itself. The security properties TLS
application layer protocol itself. The security properties TLS
provides to the application (such as confidentiality, integrity, and provides to the application (such as confidentiality, integrity, and
authenticity) are also features of the transport layer, even though authenticity) are also features of the transport layer, even though
they are often presently implemented in a separate protocol. they are often presently implemented in a separate protocol.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The following terms are used throughout this document, and in The following terms are used throughout this document, and in
subsequent documents produced by TAPS that describe the composition subsequent documents produced by TAPS that describe the composition
and decomposition of transport services. and decomposition of transport services.
skipping to change at page 6, line 33 skipping to change at page 6, line 33
TCP provides multiplexing to multiple sockets on each host using port TCP provides multiplexing to multiple sockets on each host using port
numbers. A similar approach is adopted by other IETF-defined numbers. A similar approach is adopted by other IETF-defined
transports. An active TCP session is identified by its four-tuple of transports. An active TCP session is identified by its four-tuple of
local and remote IP addresses and local port and remote port numbers. local and remote IP addresses and local port and remote port numbers.
The destination port during connection setup is often used to The destination port during connection setup is often used to
indicate the requested service. indicate the requested service.
TCP partitions a continuous stream of bytes into segments, sized to TCP partitions a continuous stream of bytes into segments, sized to
fit in IP packets based on a negotiated maximum segment size and fit in IP packets based on a negotiated maximum segment size and
further constrained by the effective MTU from PMTUD. ICMP-based Path further constrained by the effective Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU)
MTU discovery [RFC1191][RFC1981] as well as Packetization Layer Path from Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD). ICMP-based Path MTU discovery
MTU Discovery (PMTUD) [RFC4821] have been defined by the IETF. [RFC1191][RFC1981] as well as Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery
(PMTUD) [RFC4821] have been defined by the IETF.
Each byte in the stream is identified by a sequence number. The Each byte in the stream is identified by a sequence number. The
sequence number is used to order segments on receipt, to identify sequence number is used to order segments on receipt, to identify
segments in acknowledgments, and to detect unacknowledged segments segments in acknowledgments, and to detect unacknowledged segments
for retransmission. This is the basis of the reliable, ordered for retransmission. This is the basis of the reliable, ordered
delivery of data in a TCP stream. TCP Selective Acknowledgment delivery of data in a TCP stream. TCP Selective Acknowledgment
(SACK) [RFC2018] extends this mechanism by making it possible to (SACK) [RFC2018] extends this mechanism by making it possible to
provide earlier identification of which segments are missing, provide earlier identification of which segments are missing,
allowing faster retransmission. SACK-based methods (e.g. DSACK) can allowing faster retransmission. SACK-based methods (e.g. DSACK) can
also result in less spurious retransmission. also result in less spurious retransmission.
Receiver flow control is provided by a sliding window: limiting the Receiver flow control is provided by a sliding window: limiting the
amount of unacknowledged data that can be outstanding at a given amount of unacknowledged data that can be outstanding at a given
time. The window scale option [RFC7323] allows a receiver to use time. The window scale option [RFC7323] allows a receiver to use
windows greater than 64KB. windows greater than 64KB.
All TCP senders provide congestion control, such as described in All TCP senders provide congestion control, such as described in
[RFC5681]. TCP's congestion control mechanism is tied to a sliding [RFC5681]. TCP uses a sequence number with a sliding receiver window
window as well [RFC5681]. Examples for different kind of congestion for flow control. The TCP congestion control mechanism also utilises
control schemes are given in Section 4. The sending window at a this TCP sequence number to manage a separate congestion window
given point in time is the minimum of the receiver window and the [RFC5681]. The sending window at a given point in time is the
congestion window. The congestion window is increased in the absence minimum of the receiver window and the congestion window. The
of congestion and, respectively, decreased if congestion is detected. congestion window is increased in the absence of congestion and,
Often loss is implicitly handled as a congestion indication which is respectively, decreased if congestion is detected. Often loss is
detected in TCP (also as input for retransmission handling) based on implicitly handled as a congestion indication which is detected in
two mechanisms: A retransmission timer with exponential back-up or TCP (also as input for retransmission handling) based on two
the reception of three acknowledgment for the same segment, so called mechanisms: A retransmission timer with exponential back-up or the
reception of three acknowledgment for the same segment, so called
duplicated ACKs (Fast retransmit). In addition, Explicit Congestion duplicated ACKs (Fast retransmit). In addition, Explicit Congestion
Notification (ECN) [RFC3168] can be used in TCP, if supported by both Notification (ECN) [RFC3168] can be used in TCP, if supported by both
endpoints, that allows a network node to signal congestion without endpoints, that allows a network node to signal congestion without
inducing loss. Alternatively, a delay-based congestion control inducing loss. Alternatively, a delay-based congestion control
scheme can be used in TCP that reacts to changes in delay as an early scheme can be used in TCP that reacts to changes in delay as an early
indication of congestion as also further described in Section 4. indication of congestion as also further described in Section 4.
Examples for different kind of congestion control schemes are given
in Section 4.
TCP protocol instances can be extended [RFC7414] and tuned. Some TCP protocol instances can be extended [RFC7414] and tuned. Some
features are sender-side only, requiring no negotiation with the features are sender-side only, requiring no negotiation with the
receiver; some are receiver-side only, some are explicitly negotiated receiver; some are receiver-side only, some are explicitly negotiated
during connection setup. during connection setup.
TCP may buffer data, e.g., to optimize processing or capacity usage. TCP may buffer data, e.g., to optimize processing or capacity usage.
TCP can therefore provides mechanisms to control this, including an TCP can therefore provides mechanisms to control this, including an
optional "PUSH" function [RFC0793] that explicitly requests the optional "PUSH" function [RFC0793] that explicitly requests the
transport service not to delay data. By default, TCP segment transport service not to delay data. By default, TCP segment
skipping to change at page 10, line 24 skipping to change at page 10, line 24
pair for TCP). pair for TCP).
The document also recommends the use of extensions defined for SCTP The document also recommends the use of extensions defined for SCTP
[RFC6458] (see next section) to support multihoming for resilience [RFC6458] (see next section) to support multihoming for resilience
and mobility. and mobility.
3.2.3. Transport features 3.2.3. Transport features
As an extension to TCP, MPTCP provides mostly the same features. By As an extension to TCP, MPTCP provides mostly the same features. By
establishing multiple sessions between available endpoints, it can establishing multiple sessions between available endpoints, it can
additionally provide soft failover solutions should one of the paths additionally provide soft failover solutions in the case that one of
become unusable. the paths become unusable.
The transport features provided by MPTCP in addition to TCP therefore The transport features provided by MPTCP in addition to TCP therefore
are: are:
o multihoming for load-balancing, with endpoint multiplexing of a o multihoming for load-balancing, with endpoint multiplexing of a
single byte stream, using either coupled congestion control or for single byte stream, using either coupled congestion control or for
throughput maximization, throughput maximization,
o address family multiplexing (using IPv4 and IPv6 for the same o address family multiplexing (using IPv4 and IPv6 for the same
session), session),
o resilience to network failure and/or handover. o resilience to network failure and/or handover.
3.3. Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) 3.3. User Datagram Protocol (UDP)
The User Datagram Protocol (UDP) [RFC0768] [RFC2460] is an IETF
standards track transport protocol. It provides a unidirectional
datagram protocol that preserves message boundaries. It provides no
error correction, congestion control, or flow control. It can be
used to send broadcast datagrams (IPv4) or multicast datagrams (IPv4
and IPv6), in addition to unicast and anycast datagrams. IETF
guidance on the use of UDP is provided in
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis]. UDP is widely implemented and widely
used by common applications, including DNS.
3.3.1. Protocol Description
UDP is a connection-less protocol that maintains message boundaries,
with no connection setup or feature negotiation. The protocol uses
independent messages, ordinarily called datagrams. It provides
detection of payload errors and misdelivery of packets to an
unintended endpoint, either of which result in discard of received
datagrams, with no indication to the user of the service.
It is possible to create IPv4 UDP datagrams with no checksum, and
while this is generally discouraged [RFC1122]
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis], certain special cases permit this use.
These datagrams rely on the IPv4 header checksum to protect from
misdelivery to an unintended endpoint. IPv6 does not permit UDP
datagrams with no checksum, although in certain cases this rule may
be relaxed [RFC6935].
UDP does not provide reliability and does not provide retransmission.
This implies messages may be re-ordered, lost, or duplicated in
transit. Note that due to the relatively weak form of checksum used
by UDP, applications that require end to end integrity of data are
recommended to include a stronger integrity check of their payload
data.
Because UDP provides no flow control, a receiving application that is
unable to run sufficiently fast, or frequently, may miss messages.
The lack of congestion handling implies UDP traffic may experience
loss when using an overloaded path, and may cause the loss of
messages from other protocols (e.g., TCP) when sharing the same
network path.
On transmission, UDP encapsulates each datagram into a single IP
packet or several IP packet fragments. This allows a datagram to be
larger than the effective path MTU. Fragments are reassembled before
delivery to the UDP receiver, making this transparent to the user of
the transport service. When the jumbograms are supported, larger
messages may be sent without performing fragmentation.
Applications that need to provide fragmentation or that have other
requirements such as receiver flow control, congestion control,
PathMTU discovery/PLPMTUD, support for ECN, etc. need these to be
provided by protocols operating over UDP [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis].
3.3.2. Interface Description
[RFC0768] describes basic requirements for an API for UDP. Guidance
on use of common APIs is provided in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis].
A UDP endpoint consists of a tuple of (IP address, port number). De-
multiplexing using multiple abstract endpoints (sockets) on the same
IP address is supported. The same socket may be used by a single
server to interact with multiple clients (note: this behavior differs
from TCP, which uses a pair of tuples to identify a connection).
Multiple server instances (processes) that bind to the same socket
can cooperate to service multiple clients. The socket implementation
arranges to not duplicate the same received unicast message to
multiple server processes.
Many operating systems also allow a UDP socket to be "connected",
i.e., to bind a UDP socket to a specific (remote) UDP endpoint.
Unlike TCP's connect primitive, 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
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis].
3.3.3. Transport Features
The transport features provided by UDP are:
o unicast, multicast, anycast, or IPv4 broadcast transport,
o port multiplexing (where a receiving port can be configured to
receive datagrams from multiple senders),
o message-oriented delivery,
o uni- or bidirectional communication where the transmissions in
each direction are independent,
o non-reliable delivery,
o unordered delivery,
o error detection (implemented using a segment checksum to verify
delivery to the correct endpoint and integrity of the data;
optional for IPv4 and optional under specific conditions for IPv6
where all or none of the payload data is protected),
3.4. Lightweight User Datagram Protocol (UDP-Lite)
The Lightweight User Datagram Protocol (UDP-Lite) [RFC3828] is an
IETF standards track transport protocol. It provides a
unidirectional, datagram protocol that preserves message boundaries.
IETF guidance on the use of UDP- Lite is provided in
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis]. A UDP-Lite service may support IPv4
broadcast, multicast, anycast and unicast, and IPv6 multicast,
anycast and unicast.
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 error tolerate payload corruption
when used 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]).
3.4.1. Protocol Description
Like UDP, UDP-Lite is a connection-less datagram protocol, with no
connection setup or feature negotiation. It changes the semantics of
the UDP "payload length" field to that of a "checksum coverage
length" field, and is identified by a different IP protocol/next-
header value. The "checksum coverage length" field specifies the
intended checksum coverage, with the remaining unprotected part of
the payload called the "error-insensitive part". Applications using
UDP-Lite therefore cannot make assumptions regarding the correctness
of the data received in the insensitive part of the UDP-Lite payload.
Otherwise, UDP-Lite is semantically identical to UDP. In the same
way as for UDP, mechanisms for receiver flow control, congestion
control, PMTU or PLPMTU discovery, support for ECN, etc. needs to be
provided by upper layer protocols [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis].
3.4.2. Interface Description
There is no API currently specified in the RFC Series, but guidance
on use of common APIs is provided in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis].
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. The checksum coverage may also be made visible to the
application via the UDP-Lite MIB module [RFC5097].
3.4.3. Transport Features
The transport features provided by UDP-Lite are:
o unicast, multicast, anycast, or IPv4 broadcast transport (as for
UDP),
o port multiplexing (as for UDP),
o message-oriented delivery (as for UDP),
o Uni- or bidirectional communication where the transmissions in
each direction are independent (as for UDP),
o non-reliable delivery (as for UDP),
o non-ordered delivery (as for UDP),
o partial or full payload error detection (where the checksum
coverage field indicates the size of the payload data covered by
the checksum).
3.5. Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
SCTP is a message-oriented IETF standards track transport protocol. SCTP is a message-oriented IETF standards track transport protocol.
The base protocol is specified in [RFC4960]. It supports multi- The base protocol is specified in [RFC4960]. It supports multi-
homing and path failover to provide resilience to path failures. An homing and path failover to provide resilience to path failures. An
SCTP association has multiple streams in each direction, providing SCTP association has multiple streams in each direction, providing
in-sequence delivery of user messages within each stream. This in-sequence delivery of user messages within each stream. This
allows it to minimize head of line blocking. SCTP supports multiple allows it to minimize head of line blocking. SCTP supports multiple
stream scheduling schemes controlling stream multiplexing, including stream scheduling schemes controlling stream multiplexing, including
priority and fair weighting schemes. priority and fair weighting schemes.
SCTP was originally developed for transporting telephony signaling SCTP was originally developed for transporting telephony signaling
messages and is deployed in telephony signaling networks, especially messages and is deployed in telephony signaling networks, especially
in mobile telephony networks. It can also be used for other in mobile telephony networks. It can also be used for other
services, for example, in the WebRTC framework for data channels. services, for example, in the WebRTC framework for data channels.
3.3.1. Protocol Description 3.5.1. Protocol Description
SCTP is a connection-oriented protocol using a four way handshake to SCTP is a connection-oriented protocol using a four way handshake to
establish an SCTP association, and a three way message exchange to establish an SCTP association, and a three way message exchange to
gracefully shut it down. It uses the same port number concept as gracefully shut it down. It uses the same port number concept as
DCCP, TCP, UDP, and UDP-Lite. SCTP only supports unicast. DCCP, TCP, UDP, and UDP-Lite. SCTP only supports unicast.
SCTP uses the 32-bit CRC32c for protecting SCTP packets against bit SCTP uses the 32-bit CRC32c for protecting SCTP packets against bit
errors and misdelivery of packets to an unintended endpoint. This is errors and misdelivery of packets to an unintended endpoint. This is
stronger than the 16-bit checksums used by TCP or UDP. However, stronger than the 16-bit checksums used by TCP or UDP. However,
partial payload checksum coverage as provided by DCCP or UDP-Lite is partial payload checksum coverage as provided by DCCP or UDP-Lite is
skipping to change at page 13, line 7 skipping to change at page 16, line 32
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-natsupp] defines methods for endpoints and [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-natsupp] defines methods for endpoints and
middleboxes to provide NAT traversal for SCTP over IPv4. For legacy middleboxes to provide NAT traversal for SCTP over IPv4. For legacy
NAT traversal, [RFC6951] defines the UDP encapsulation of SCTP- NAT traversal, [RFC6951] defines the UDP encapsulation of SCTP-
packets. Alternatively, SCTP packets can be encapsulated in DTLS packets. Alternatively, SCTP packets can be encapsulated in DTLS
packets as specified in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps]. The packets as specified in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps]. The
latter encapsulation is used within the WebRTC context. latter encapsulation is used within the WebRTC context.
SCTP has a well-defined API, described in the next subsection. SCTP has a well-defined API, described in the next subsection.
3.3.2. Interface Description 3.5.2. Interface Description
[RFC4960] defines an abstract API for the base protocol. This API [RFC4960] defines an abstract API for the base protocol. This API
describes the following functions callable by the upper layer of describes the following functions callable by the upper layer of
SCTP: Initialize, Associate, Send, Receive, Receive Unsent Message, SCTP: Initialize, Associate, Send, Receive, Receive Unsent Message,
Receive Unacknowledged Message, Shutdown, Abort, SetPrimary, Status, Receive Unacknowledged Message, Shutdown, Abort, SetPrimary, Status,
Change Heartbeat, Request Heartbeat, Get SRTT Report, Set Failure Change Heartbeat, Request Heartbeat, Get SRTT Report, Set Failure
Threshold, Set Protocol Parameters, and Destroy. The following Threshold, Set Protocol Parameters, and Destroy. The following
notifications are provided by the SCTP stack to the upper layer: notifications are provided by the SCTP stack to the upper layer:
COMMUNICATION UP, DATA ARRIVE, SHUTDOWN COMPLETE, COMMUNICATION LOST, COMMUNICATION UP, DATA ARRIVE, SHUTDOWN COMPLETE, COMMUNICATION LOST,
COMMUNICATION ERROR, RESTART, SEND FAILURE, NETWORK STATUS CHANGE. COMMUNICATION ERROR, RESTART, SEND FAILURE, NETWORK STATUS CHANGE.
skipping to change at page 13, line 45 skipping to change at page 17, line 21
delivery is requested or not. These parameters can also be delivery is requested or not. These parameters can also be
provided on message reception. Additionally a context can be provided on message reception. Additionally a context can be
provided when sending, which can be use in case of send failures. provided when sending, which can be use in case of send failures.
The sending of arbitrary large user messages is supported. The sending of arbitrary large user messages is supported.
o the SCTP Partial Reliability extension defined in [RFC3758] to o the SCTP Partial Reliability extension defined in [RFC3758] to
specify for a user message the PR-SCTP policy and the policy specify for a user message the PR-SCTP policy and the policy
specific parameter. Examples of these policies defined in specific parameter. Examples of these policies defined in
[RFC3758] and [RFC7496] are: [RFC3758] and [RFC7496] are:
* Limiting the time a user message is dealt with by the sender. o Limiting the time a user message is dealt with by the sender.
* Limiting the number of retransmissions for each fragment of a o Limiting the number of retransmissions for each fragment of a user
user message. If the number of retransmissions is limited to message. If the number of retransmissions is limited to 0, one
0, one gets a service similar to UDP. gets a service similar to UDP.
* Abandoning messages of lower priority in case of a send buffer o Abandoning messages of lower priority in case of a send buffer
shortage. shortage.
o the SCTP Authentication extension defined in [RFC4895] allowing to o the SCTP Authentication extension defined in [RFC4895] allowing to
manage the shared keys, the HMAC to use, set the chunk types which manage the shared keys, the HMAC to use, set the chunk types which
are only accepted in an authenticated way, and get the list of are only accepted in an authenticated way, and get the list of
chunks which are accepted by the local and remote end point in an chunks which are accepted by the local and remote end point in an
authenticated way. authenticated way.
o the SCTP Dynamic Address Reconfiguration extension defined in o the SCTP Dynamic Address Reconfiguration extension defined in
[RFC5061]. It allows to manually add and delete local addresses [RFC5061]. It allows to manually add and delete local addresses
for SCTP associations and the enabling of automatic address for SCTP associations and the enabling of automatic address
skipping to change at page 15, line 27 skipping to change at page 19, line 5
cmsgs. These functions provide support for detecting partial cmsgs. These functions provide support for detecting partial
delivery of user messages and notifications. delivery of user messages and notifications.
The SCTP socket API allows a fine-grained control of the protocol The SCTP socket API allows a fine-grained control of the protocol
behavior through an extensive set of socket options. behavior through an extensive set of socket options.
The SCTP kernel implementations of FreeBSD, Linux and Solaris follow The SCTP kernel implementations of FreeBSD, Linux and Solaris follow
mostly the specified extension to the BSD Sockets API for the base mostly the specified extension to the BSD Sockets API for the base
protocol and the corresponding supported protocol extensions. protocol and the corresponding supported protocol extensions.
3.3.3. Transport Features 3.5.3. Transport Features
The transport features provided by SCTP are: The transport features provided by SCTP are:
o connection-oriented transport with feature negotiation and o connection-oriented transport with feature negotiation and
application-to-port mapping, application-to-port mapping,
o unicast transport, o unicast transport,
o port multiplexing, o port multiplexing,
skipping to change at page 16, line 14 skipping to change at page 19, line 41
o user message bundling, o user message bundling,
o flow control using a window-based mechanism, o flow control using a window-based mechanism,
o congestion control using methods similar to TCP, o congestion control using methods similar to TCP,
o strong error detection (CRC32c), o strong error detection (CRC32c),
o transport layer multihoming for resilience and mobility. o transport layer multihoming for resilience and mobility.
3.4. User Datagram Protocol (UDP)
The User Datagram Protocol (UDP) [RFC0768] [RFC2460] is an IETF
standards track transport protocol. It provides a unidirectional
datagram protocol that preserves message boundaries. It provides no
error correction, congestion control, or flow control. It can be
used to send broadcast datagrams (IPv4) or multicast datagrams (IPv4
and IPv6), in addition to unicast and anycast datagrams. IETF
guidance on the use of UDP is provided in
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis]. UDP is widely implemented and widely
used by common applications, including DNS.
3.4.1. Protocol Description
UDP is a connection-less protocol that maintains message boundaries,
with no connection setup or feature negotiation. The protocol uses
independent messages, ordinarily called datagrams. It provides
detection of payload errors and misdelivery of packets to an
unintended endpoint, either of which result in discard of received
datagrams, with no indication to the user of the service.
It is possible to create IPv4 UDP datagrams with no checksum, and
while this is generally discouraged [RFC1122]
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis], certain special cases permit this use.
These datagrams rely on the IPv4 header checksum to protect from
misdelivery to an unintended endpoint. IPv6 does not permit UDP
datagrams with no checksum, although in certain cases this rule may
be relaxed [RFC6935].
UDP does not provide reliability and does not provide retransmission.
This implies messages may be re-ordered, lost, or duplicated in
transit. Note that due to the relatively weak form of checksum used
by UDP, applications that require end to end integrity of data are
recommended to include a stronger integrity check of their payload
data.
Because UDP provides no flow control, a receiving application that is
unable to run sufficiently fast, or frequently, may miss messages.
The lack of congestion handling implies UDP traffic may experience
loss when using an overloaded path, and may cause the loss of
messages from other protocols (e.g., TCP) when sharing the same
network path.
On transmission, UDP encapsulates each datagram into a single IP
packet or several IP packet fragments. This allows a datagram to be
larger than the effective path MTU. Fragments are reassembled before
delivery to the UDP receiver, making this transparent to the user of
the transport service. When the jumbograms are supported, larger
messages may be sent without performing fragmentation.
Applications that need to provide fragmentation or that have other
requirements such as receiver flow control, congestion control,
PathMTU discovery/PLPMTUD, support for ECN, etc. need these to be
provided by protocols operating over UDP [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis].
3.4.2. Interface Description
[RFC0768] describes basic requirements for an API for UDP. Guidance
on use of common APIs is provided in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis].
A UDP endpoint consists of a tuple of (IP address, port number). De-
multiplexing using multiple abstract endpoints (sockets) on the same
IP address is supported. The same socket may be used by a single
server to interact with multiple clients (note: this behavior differs
from TCP, which uses a pair of tuples to identify a connection).
Multiple server instances (processes) that bind to the same socket
can cooperate to service multiple clients. The socket implementation
arranges to not duplicate the same received unicast message to
multiple server processes.
Many operating systems also allow a UDP socket to be "connected",
i.e., to bind a UDP socket to a specific (remote) UDP endpoint.
Unlike TCP's connect primitive, 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
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis].
3.4.3. Transport Features
The transport features provided by UDP are:
o unicast, multicast, anycast, or IPv4 broadcast transport,
o port multiplexing (where a receiving port can be configured to
receive datagrams from multiple senders),
o message-oriented delivery,
o uni- or bidirectional communication where the transmissions in
each direction are independent,
o non-reliable delivery,
o unordered delivery,
o error detection (implemented using a segment checksum to verify
delivery to the correct endpoint and integrity of the data;
optional for IPv4 and optional under specific conditions for IPv6
where all or none of the payload data is protected),
3.5. Lightweight User Datagram Protocol (UDP-Lite)
The Lightweight User Datagram Protocol (UDP-Lite) [RFC3828] is an
IETF standards track transport protocol. It provides a
unidirectional, datagram protocol that preserves message boundaries.
IETF guidance on the use of UDP- Lite is provided in
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis]. A UDP-Lite service may support IPv4
broadcast, multicast, anycast and unicast, and IPv6 multicast,
anycast and unicast.
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 error tolerate payload corruption
when used 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]).
3.5.1. Protocol Description
Like UDP, UDP-Lite is a connection-less datagram protocol, with no
connection setup or feature negotiation. It changes the semantics of
the UDP "payload length" field to that of a "checksum coverage
length" field, and is identified by a different IP protocol/next-
header value. The "checksum coverage length" field specifies the
intended checksum coverage, with the remaining unprotected part of
the payload called the "error-insensitive part". Applications using
UDP-Lite therefore cannot make assumptions regarding the correctness
of the data received in the insensitive part of the UDP-Lite payload.
Otherwise, UDP-Lite is semantically identical to UDP. In the same
way as for UDP, mechanisms for receiver flow control, congestion
control, PMTU or PLPMTU discovery, support for ECN, etc. needs to be
provided by upper layer protocols [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis].
3.5.2. Interface Description
There is no API currently specified in the RFC Series, but guidance
on use of common APIs is provided in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis].
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. The checksum coverage may also be made visible to the
application via the UDP-Lite MIB module [RFC5097].
3.5.3. Transport Features
The transport features provided by UDP-Lite are:
o unicast, multicast, anycast, or IPv4 broadcast transport (as for
UDP),
o port multiplexing (as for UDP),
o message-oriented delivery (as for UDP),
o Uni- or bidirectional communication where the transmissions in
each direction are independent (as for UDP),
o non-reliable delivery (as for UDP),
o non-ordered delivery (as for UDP),
o partial or full payload error detection (where the checksum
coverage field indicates the size of the payload data covered by
the checksum).
3.6. Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) 3.6. Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)
Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) [RFC4340] is an IETF Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) [RFC4340] is an IETF
standards track bidirectional transport protocol that provides standards track bidirectional transport protocol that provides
unicast connections of congestion-controlled messages without unicast connections of congestion-controlled messages without
providing reliability. providing reliability.
The DCCP Problem Statement describes the goals that DCCP sought to The DCCP Problem Statement describes the goals that DCCP sought to
address [RFC4336]: It is suitable for applications that transfer address [RFC4336]: It is suitable for applications that transfer
fairly large amounts of data and that can benefit from control over fairly large amounts of data and that can benefit from control over
skipping to change at page 20, line 30 skipping to change at page 20, line 35
some are explicitly negotiated during connection setup. some are explicitly negotiated during connection setup.
DCCP uses a Connect packet to initiate a session, and permits each DCCP uses a Connect packet to initiate a session, and permits each
endpoint to choose the features it wishes to support. Simultaneous endpoint to choose the features it wishes to support. Simultaneous
open [RFC5596], as in TCP, can enable interoperability in the open [RFC5596], as in TCP, can enable interoperability in the
presence of middleboxes. The Connect packet includes a Service Code presence of middleboxes. The Connect packet includes a Service Code
[RFC5595] that identifies the application or protocol using DCCP, [RFC5595] that identifies the application or protocol using DCCP,
providing middleboxes with information about the intended use of a providing middleboxes with information about the intended use of a
connection. connection.
DCCP service is unicast-only. The DCCP service is unicast-only.
It provides multiplexing to multiple sockets at each endpoint using It provides multiplexing to multiple sockets at each endpoint using
port numbers. An active DCCP session is identified by its four-tuple port numbers. An active DCCP session is identified by its four-tuple
of local and remote IP addresses and local port and remote port of local and remote IP addresses and local port and remote port
numbers. numbers.
The protocol segments data into messages, typically sized to fit in The protocol segments data into messages, typically sized to fit in
IP packets, but which may be fragmented providing they are smaller IP packets, but which may be fragmented providing they are smaller
than the maximum packet size. A DCCP interface allows applications than the maximum packet size. A DCCP interface allows applications
to request fragmentation for packets larger than PMTU, but not larger to request fragmentation for packets larger than PMTU, but not larger
skipping to change at page 22, line 15 skipping to change at page 22, line 20
o unreliable delivery with drop notification, o unreliable delivery with drop notification,
o unordered delivery, o unordered delivery,
o flow control (implemented using the slow receiver function) o flow control (implemented using the slow receiver function)
o partial and full payload error detection (with optional strong o partial and full payload error detection (with optional strong
integrity check). integrity check).
3.7. Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) 3.7. Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram TLS (DTLS) as a
pseudotransport
The Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) [RFC0792] for IPv4 and Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC5246]} and Datagram TLS (DTLS)
ICMP for IPv6 [RFC4433] are IETF standards track protocols. It is a [RFC6347]} are IETF protocols that provide several security-related
connection-less unidirectional protocol that delivers individual features to applications. TLS is designed to run on top of a
messages, without error correction, congestion control, or flow reliable streaming transport protocol (usually TCP), while DTLS is
control. Messages may be sent as unicast, IPv4 broadcast or designed to run on top of a best-effort datagram protocol (UDP or
multicast datagrams (IPv4 and IPv6), in addition to anycast DCCP [RFC5238]). At the time of writing, the current version of TLS
datagrams. is 1.2; which is defined in [RFC5246]. DTLS provides nearly
identical functionality to applications; it is defined in [RFC6347]
and its current version is also 1.2. The TLS protocol evolved from
the Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) protocols developed in the mid-1990s
to support protection of HTTP traffic.
Transport Protocols and upper layer protocols can use received ICMP While older versions of TLS and DTLS are still in use, they provide
messages to help them take appropriate decisions when network or weaker security guarantees. [RFC7457] outlines important attacks on
endpoint errors are reported. For example, to implement, ICMP-based TLS and DTLS. [RFC7525] is a Best Current Practices (BCP) document
Path MTU discovery [RFC1191][RFC1981] or assist in Packetization that describes secure configurations for TLS and DTLS to counter
Layer Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD) [RFC4821]. Such reactions to these attacks. The recommendations are applicable for the vast
received messages need to protect from off-path data injection majority of use cases.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis], to avoid an application receiving
packets created by an unauthorized third party. An application
therefore needs to ensure that all messages are appropriately
validated, by checking the payload of the messages to ensure these
are received in response to actually transmitted traffic (e.g., a
reported error condition that corresponds to a UDP datagram or TCP
segment was actually sent by the application). This requires context
[RFC6056], such as local state about communication instances to each
destination (e.g., in the TCP, DCCP, or SCTP protocols). This state
is not always maintained by UDP-based applications
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis].
3.7.1. Protocol Description 3.7.1. Protocol Description
ICMP is a connection-less unidirectional protocol, It delivers Both TLS and DTLS provide the same security features and can thus be
independent messages, called datagrams. Each message is required to discussed together. The features they provide are:
carry a checksum as an integrity check and to protect from mis-
delivery to an unintended endpoint.
ICMP messages typically relay diagnostic information from an endpoint o Confidentiality
[RFC1122] or network device [RFC1716] addressed to the sender of a
flow. This usually contains the network protocol header of a packet
that encountered a reported issue. Some formats of messages can also
carry other payload data. Each message carries an integrity check
calculated in the same way as for UDP, this checksum is not optional.
The RFC series defines additional IPv6 message formats to support a o Data integrity
range of uses. In the case of IPv6 the protocol incorporates
neighbor discovery [RFC2461] [RFC3971]} (provided by ARP for IPv4)
and the Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) [RFC2710] group management
functions (provided by IGMP for IPv4).
Reliable transmission can not be assumed. A receiving application o Peer authentication (optional)
that is unable to run sufficiently fast, or frequently, may miss o Perfect forward secrecy (optional)
messages since there is no flow or congestion control. In addition
some network devices rate-limit ICMP messages. The authentication of the peer entity can be omitted; a common web
use case is where the server is authenticated and the client is not.
TLS also provides a completely anonymous operation mode in which
neither peer's identity is authenticated. It is important to note
that TLS itself does not specify how a peering entity's identity
should be interpreted. For example, in the common use case of
authentication by means of an X.509 certificate, it is the
application's decision whether the certificate of the peering entity
is acceptable for authorization decisions.
Perfect forward secrecy, if enabled and supported by the selected
algorithms, ensures that traffic encrypted and captured during a
session at time t0 cannot be later decrypted at time t1 (t1 > t0),
even if the long-term secrets of the communicating peers are later
compromised.
As DTLS is generally used over an unreliable datagram transport such
as UDP, applications will need to tolerate lost, re-ordered, or
duplicated datagrams. Like TLS, DTLS conveys application data in a
sequence of independent records. However, because records are mapped
to unreliable datagrams, there are several features unique to DTLS
that are not applicable to TLS:
o Record replay detection (optional).
o Record size negotiation (estimates of PMTU and record size
expansion factor).
o Coveyance of IP don't fragment (DF) bit settings by application.
o An anti-DoS stateless cookie mechanism (optional).
Generally, DTLS follows the TLS design as closely as possible. To
operate over datagrams, DTLS includes a sequence number and limited
forms of retransmission and fragmentation for its internal
operations. The sequence number may be used for detecting replayed
information, according to the windowing procedure described in
Section 4.1.2.6 of [RFC6347]. DTLS forbids the use of stream
ciphers, which are essentially incompatible when operating on
independent encrypted records.
3.7.2. Interface Description 3.7.2. Interface Description
ICMP processing is integrated in many connection-oriented transports, TLS is commonly invoked using an API provided by packages such as
but like other functions needs to be provided by an upper-layer OpenSSL, wolfSSL, or GnuTLS. Using such APIs entails the
protocol when using UDP and UDP-Lite. manipulation of several important abstractions, which fall into the
following categories: long-term keys and algorithms, session state,
and communications/connections. There may also be special APIs
required to deal with time and/or random numbers, both of which are
needed by a variety of encryption algorithms and protocols.
On some stacks, a bound socket also allows a UDP application to be Considerable care is required in the use of TLS APIs to ensure
notified when ICMP error messages are received for its transmissions creation of a secure application. The programmer should have at
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis]. least a basic understanding of encryption and digital signature
algorithms and their strengths, public key infrastructure (including
X.509 certificates and certificate revocation), and the sockets API.
See [RFC7525] and [RFC7457], as mentioned above.
Any response to ICMP error messages ought to be robust to temporary As an example, in the case of OpenSSL, the primary abstractions are
routing failures (sometimes called "soft errors"), e.g., transient the library itself and method (protocol), session, context, cipher
ICMP "unreachable" messages ought to not normally cause a and connection. After initializing the library and setting the
communication abort [RFC5461] [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis]. method, a cipher suite is chosen and used to configure a context
object. Session objects may then be minted according to the
parameters present in a context object and associated with individual
connections. Depending on how precisely the programmer wishes to
select different algorithmic or protocol options, various levels of
details may be required.
3.7.3. Transport Features 3.7.3. Transport Features
ICMP does not provide any transport service directly to applications. Both TLS and DTLS employ a layered architecture. The lower layer is
Used together with other transport protocols, it provides commonly called the record protocol. It is responsible for:
transmission of control, error, and measurement data between
endpoints, or from devices along the path to one endpoint. o message fragmentation,
o authentication and integrity via message authentication codes
(MAC),
o data encryption,
o scheduling transmission using the underlying transport protocol.
DTLS augments the TLS record protocol with:
o ordering and replay protection, implemented using sequence
numbers.
Several protocols are layered on top of the record protocol. These
include the handshake, alert, and change cipher spec protocols.
There is also the data protocol, used to carry application traffic.
The handshake protocol is used to establish cryptographic and
compression parameters when a connection is first set up. In DTLS,
this protocol also has a basic fragmentation and retransmission
capability and a cookie-like mechanism to resist DoS attacks. (TLS
compression is not recommended at present). The alert protocol is
used to inform the peer of various conditions, most of which are
terminal for the connection. The change cipher spec protocol is used
to synchronize changes in cryptographic parameters for each peer.
The data protocol, when used with an appropriate cipher, provides:
o authentication of one end or both ends of a connection,
o confidentiality,
o cryptographic integrity protection.
Both TLS and DTLS are unicast-only.
3.8. Realtime Transport Protocol (RTP) 3.8. 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 transport services, including TCP, data, over multicast or unicast transport services, including TCP,
UDP, UDP-Lite, DCCP, TLS and DTLS. UDP, UDP-Lite, DCCP, TLS and DTLS.
3.8.1. Protocol Description 3.8.1. Protocol Description
skipping to change at page 25, line 44 skipping to change at page 27, line 16
with drop notification (if supported by lower layer protocol), with drop notification (if supported by lower layer protocol),
o connection setup with feature negotiation (using associated o connection setup with feature negotiation (using associated
protocols) and application-to-port mapping (provided by lower protocols) and application-to-port mapping (provided by lower
layer protocol), layer protocol),
o segmentation, o segmentation,
o performance metric reporting (using associated protocols). o performance metric reporting (using associated protocols).
3.9. File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport/Asynchronous Layered 3.9. Hypertext Transport Protocol (HTTP) over TCP as a pseudotransport
Coding Reliable Multicast (FLUTE/ALC)
The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level
protocol widely used on the Internet. It provides object-oriented
delivery of discrete data or files. Version 1.1 of the protocol is
specified in [RFC7230] [RFC7231] [RFC7232] [RFC7233] [RFC7234]
[RFC7235], and version 2 in [RFC7540]. HTTP is usually transported
over TCP using port 80 and 443, although it can be used with other
transports. When used over TCP it inherits its properties.
Application layer protocols may use HTTP as a substrate with an
existing method and data formats, or specify new methods and data
formats. There are various reasons for this practice listed in
[RFC3205]; these include being a well-known and well-understood
protocol, reusability of existing servers and client libraries, easy
use of existing security mechanisms such as HTTP digest
authentication [RFC2617] and TLS [RFC5246], the ability of HTTP to
traverse firewalls makes it work over many types of infrastructure,
and in cases where an application server often needs to support HTTP
anyway.
Depending on application need, the use of HTTP as a substrate
protocol may add complexity and overhead in comparison to a special-
purpose protocol (e.g., HTTP headers, suitability of the HTTP
security model, etc.). [RFC3205] addresses this issue and provides
some guidelines and identifies concerns about the use of HTTP
standard port 80 and 443, the use of HTTP URL scheme and interaction
with existing firewalls, proxies and NATs.
Representational State Transfer (REST) [REST] is another example of
how applications can use HTTP as transport protocol. REST is an
architecture style that may be used to build applications using HTTP
as a communication protocol.
3.9.1. Protocol Description
Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is a request/response protocol. A
client sends a request containing a request method, URI and protocol
version followed by a MIME-like message (see [RFC7231] for the
differences between an HTTP object and a MIME message), containing
information about the client and request modifiers. The message can
also contain a message body carrying application data. The server
responds with a status or error code followed by a MIME-like message
containing information about the server and information about the
data. This may include a message body. It is possible to specify a
data format for the message body using MIME media types [RFC2045].
The protocol has additional features, some relevant to pseudo-
transport are described below.
Content negotiation, specified in [RFC7231], is a mechanism provided
by HTTP to allow selection of a representation for a requested
resource. The client and server negotiate acceptable data formats,
character sets, data encoding (e.g., data can be transferred
compressed using gzip). HTTP can accommodate exchange of messages as
well as data streaming (using chunked transfer encoding [RFC7230]).
It is also possible to request a part of a resource using an object
range request [RFC7233]. The protocol provides powerful cache
control signaling defined in [RFC7234].
The persistent connections of HTTP 1.1 and HTTP 2.0 allow multiple
request- response transactions (streams) during the life-time of a
single HTTP connection. HTTP 2.0 connections can multiplex many
request/response pairs in parallel on a single transport connection.
This reduces overhead during connection establishment and mitigates
transport layer slow-start that would have otherwise been incurred
for each transaction. Both are important to reduce latency for
HTTP's primary use case.
HTTP can be combined with security mechanisms, such as TLS (denoted
by HTTPS). This adds protocol properties provided by such a
mechanism (e.g., authentication, encryption). The TLS Application-
Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) extension [RFC7301] can be used to
negotiate the HTTP version within the TLS handshake, eliminating the
latency incurred by additional round-trip exchanges. Arbitrary
cookie strings, included as part of the MIME headers, are often used
as bearer tokens in HTTP.
3.9.2. Interface Description
There are many HTTP libraries available exposing different APIs. The
APIs provide a way to specify a request by providing a URI, a method,
request modifiers and optionally a request body. For the response,
callbacks can be registered that will be invoked when the response is
received. If TLS is used, the API exposes a registration of
callbacks for a server that requests client authentication and when
certificate verification is needed.
The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has standardized the
XMLHttpRequest API [XHR]. This API can be used for sending HTTP/
HTTPS requests and receiving server responses. Besides the XML data
format, the request and response data format can also be JSON, HTML,
and plain text. JavaScript and XMLHttpRequest are ubiquitous
programming models for websites, and more general applications, where
native code is less attractive.
3.9.3. Transport features
The transport features provided by HTTP, when used as a pseudo-
transport, are:
o unicast transport (provided by the lower layer protocol, usually
TCP),
o uni- or bidirectional communication,
o transfer of objects in multiple streams with object content type
negotiation, supporting partial transmission of object ranges,
o ordered delivery (provided by the lower layer protocol, usually
TCP),
o fully reliable delivery (provided by the lower layer protocol,
usually TCP),
o flow control (provided by the lower layer protocol, usually TCP).
o congestion control (provided by the lower layer protocol, usually
TCP).
HTTPS (HTTP over TLS) additionally provides the following features
(as provided by TLS):
o authentication (of one or both ends of a connection),
o confidentiality,
o integrity protection.
3.10. File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport/Asynchronous Layered
Coding Reliable Multicast (FLUTE/ALC)
FLUTE/ALC is an IETF standards track protocol specified in [RFC6726] FLUTE/ALC is an IETF standards track protocol specified in [RFC6726]
and [RFC5775]. It provides object-oriented delivery of discrete data and [RFC5775]. It provides object-oriented delivery of discrete data
or files. Asynchronous Layer Coding (ALC) provides an underlying or files. Asynchronous Layer Coding (ALC) provides an underlying
reliable transport service and FLUTE a file-oriented specialization reliable transport service and FLUTE a file-oriented specialization
of the ALC service (e.g., to carry associated metadata). The of the ALC service (e.g., to carry associated metadata). The
[RFC6726] and [RFC5775] protocols are non-backward-compatible updates [RFC6726] and [RFC5775] protocols are non-backward-compatible updates
of the [RFC3926] and [RFC3450] experimental protocols; these of the [RFC3926] and [RFC3450] experimental protocols; these
experimental protocols are currently largely deployed in the 3GPP experimental protocols are currently largely deployed in the 3GPP
Multimedia Broadcast and Multicast Services (MBMS) (see [MBMS], Multimedia Broadcast and Multicast Services (MBMS) (see [MBMS],
skipping to change at page 26, line 29 skipping to change at page 30, line 39
byte- and message-streaming, there is an exception: FLUTE/ALC is used byte- and message-streaming, there is an exception: FLUTE/ALC is used
to carry 3GPP Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (DASH) when to carry 3GPP Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (DASH) when
scalability is a requirement (see [MBMS], section 5.6). scalability is a requirement (see [MBMS], section 5.6).
FLUTE/ALC's reliability, delivery mode, congestion control, and flow/ FLUTE/ALC's reliability, delivery mode, congestion control, and flow/
rate control mechanisms can be separately controlled to meet rate control mechanisms can be separately controlled to meet
different application needs. Section 4.1 of different application needs. Section 4.1 of
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis] describes multicast congestion control [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis] describes multicast congestion control
requirements for UDP. requirements for UDP.
3.9.1. Protocol Description 3.10.1. Protocol Description
The FLUTE/ALC protocol works on top of UDP (though it could work on The FLUTE/ALC protocol works on top of UDP (though it could work on
top of any datagram delivery transport protocol), without requiring top of any datagram delivery transport protocol), without requiring
any connectivity from receivers to the sender. Purely unidirectional any connectivity from receivers to the sender. Purely unidirectional
networks are therefore supported by FLUTE/ALC. This guarantees networks are therefore supported by FLUTE/ALC. This guarantees
scalability to an unlimited number of receivers in a session, since scalability to an unlimited number of receivers in a session, since
the sender behaves exactly the same regardless of the number of the sender behaves exactly the same regardless of the number of
receivers. receivers.
FLUTE/ALC supports the transfer of bulk objects such as file or in- FLUTE/ALC supports the transfer of bulk objects such as file or in-
skipping to change at page 28, line 13 skipping to change at page 32, line 22
([RFC6726], section 1.1.4). FLUTE/ALC is often used over a network ([RFC6726], section 1.1.4). FLUTE/ALC is often used over a network
path with pre-provisioned capacity [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis] where path with pre-provisioned capacity [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis] where
there are no flows competing for capacity. In this case, a sender- there are no flows competing for capacity. In this case, a sender-
based rate control mechanism and a single channel is sufficient. based rate control mechanism and a single channel is sufficient.
[RFC6584] provides per-packet authentication, integrity, and anti- [RFC6584] provides per-packet authentication, integrity, and anti-
replay protection in the context of the ALC and NORM protocols. replay protection in the context of the ALC and NORM protocols.
Several mechanisms are proposed that seamlessly integrate into these Several mechanisms are proposed that seamlessly integrate into these
protocols using the ALC and NORM header extension mechanisms. protocols using the ALC and NORM header extension mechanisms.
3.9.2. Interface Description 3.10.2. Interface Description
The FLUTE/ALC specification does not describe a specific application The FLUTE/ALC specification does not describe a specific application
programming interface (API) to control protocol operation. programming interface (API) to control protocol operation.
Open source reference implementations of FLUTE/ALC are available at Open source reference implementations of FLUTE/ALC are available at
http://planete-bcast.inrialpes.fr/ (no longer maintained) and http://planete-bcast.inrialpes.fr/ (no longer maintained) and
http://mad.cs.tut.fi/ (no longer maintained), and these http://mad.cs.tut.fi/ (no longer maintained), and these
implementations specify and document their own APIs. Commercial implementations specify and document their own APIs. Commercial
versions are also available, some derived from the above versions are also available, some derived from the above
implementations, with their own API. implementations, with their own API.
3.9.3. Transport Features 3.10.3. Transport Features
The transport features provided by FLUTE/ALC are: The transport features provided by FLUTE/ALC are:
o unicast, multicast, anycast or IPv4 broadcast transmission, o unicast, multicast, anycast or IPv4 broadcast transmission,
o object-oriented delivery of discrete data or files and associated o object-oriented delivery of discrete data or files and associated
metadata, metadata,
o fully reliable or partially reliable delivery (of file or in- o fully reliable or partially reliable delivery (of file or in-
memory objects), using proactive packet erasure coding (AL-FEC) to memory objects), using proactive packet erasure coding (AL-FEC) to
skipping to change at page 28, line 43 skipping to change at page 33, line 4
o fully reliable or partially reliable delivery (of file or in- o fully reliable or partially reliable delivery (of file or in-
memory objects), using proactive packet erasure coding (AL-FEC) to memory objects), using proactive packet erasure coding (AL-FEC) to
recover from packet erasures, recover from packet erasures,
o ordered or unordered delivery (of file or in-memory objects), o ordered or unordered delivery (of file or in-memory objects),
o error detection (based on the UDP checksum), o error detection (based on the UDP checksum),
o per-packet authentication, o per-packet authentication,
o per-packet integrity, o per-packet integrity,
o per-packet replay protection, o per-packet replay protection,
o congestion control for layered flows (e.g., with WEBRC). o congestion control for layered flows (e.g., with WEBRC).
3.10. NACK-Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM) 3.11. NACK-Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM)
NORM is an IETF standards track protocol specified in [RFC5740]. It NORM is an IETF standards track protocol specified in [RFC5740]. It
provides object-oriented delivery of discrete data or files. provides object-oriented delivery of discrete data or files.
The protocol was designed to support reliable bulk data dissemination The protocol was designed to support reliable bulk data dissemination
to receiver groups using IP Multicast but also provides for point-to- to receiver groups using IP Multicast but also provides for point-to-
point unicast operation. Support for bulk data dissemination point unicast operation. Support for bulk data dissemination
includes discrete file or computer memory-based "objects" as well as includes discrete file or computer memory-based "objects" as well as
byte- and message-streaming. byte- and message-streaming.
NORM can incorporate packet erasure coding as a part of its selective NORM can incorporate packet erasure coding as a part of its selective
ARQ in response to negative acknowledgments from the receiver. The ARQ in response to negative acknowledgments from the receiver. The
packet erasure coding can also be proactively applied for forward packet erasure coding can also be proactively applied for forward
protection from packet loss. NORM transmissions are governed by the protection from packet loss. NORM transmissions are governed by the
TCP-friendly congestion control. The reliability, congestion control TCP-friendly congestion control. The reliability, congestion control
and flow control mechanisms can be separately controlled to meet and flow control mechanisms can be separately controlled to meet
different application needs. different application needs.
3.10.1. Protocol Description 3.11.1. Protocol Description
The NORM protocol is encapsulated in UDP datagrams and thus provides The NORM protocol is encapsulated in UDP datagrams and thus provides
multiplexing for multiple sockets on hosts using port numbers. For multiplexing for multiple sockets on hosts using port numbers. For
loosely coordinated IP Multicast, NORM is not strictly connection- loosely coordinated IP Multicast, NORM is not strictly connection-
oriented although per-sender state is maintained by receivers for oriented although per-sender state is maintained by receivers for
protocol operation. [RFC5740] does not specify a handshake protocol protocol operation. [RFC5740] does not specify a handshake protocol
for connection establishment. Separate session initiation can be for connection establishment. Separate session initiation can be
used to coordinate port numbers. However, in-band "client-server" used to coordinate port numbers. However, in-band "client-server"
style connection establishment can be accomplished with the NORM style connection establishment can be accomplished with the NORM
congestion control signaling messages using port binding techniques congestion control signaling messages using port binding techniques
skipping to change at page 30, line 33 skipping to change at page 34, line 39
congestion event detection based on ECN. congestion event detection based on ECN.
While NORM provides NACK-based reliability, it also supports a While NORM provides NACK-based reliability, it also supports a
positive acknowledgment (ACK) mechanism that can be used for receiver positive acknowledgment (ACK) mechanism that can be used for receiver
flow control. This mechanism is decoupled from the reliability and flow control. This mechanism is decoupled from the reliability and
congestion control, supporting applications with different needs. congestion control, supporting applications with different needs.
One example is use of NORM for quasi-reliable delivery, where timely One example is use of NORM for quasi-reliable delivery, where timely
delivery of newer content may be favored over completely reliable delivery of newer content may be favored over completely reliable
delivery of older content within buffering and RTT constraints. delivery of older content within buffering and RTT constraints.
3.10.2. Interface Description 3.11.2. Interface Description
The NORM specification does not describe a specific application The NORM specification does not describe a specific application
programming interface (API) to control protocol operation. A freely- programming interface (API) to control protocol operation. A freely-
available, open source reference implementation of NORM is available available, open source reference implementation of NORM is available
at https://www.nrl.navy.mil/itd/ncs/products/norm, and a documented at https://www.nrl.navy.mil/itd/ncs/products/norm, and a documented
API is provided for this implementation. While a sockets-like API is API is provided for this implementation. While a sockets-like API is
not currently documented, the existing API supports the necessary not currently documented, the existing API supports the necessary
functions for that to be implemented. functions for that to be implemented.
3.10.3. Transport Features 3.11.3. Transport Features
The transport features provided by NORM are: The transport features provided by NORM are:
o unicast or multicast transport, o unicast or multicast transport,
o unidirectional communication, o unidirectional communication,
o stream-oriented delivery in a single stream or object-oriented o stream-oriented delivery in a single stream or object-oriented
delivery of in-memory data or file bulk content objects, delivery of in-memory data or file bulk content objects,
skipping to change at page 31, line 21 skipping to change at page 35, line 32
o segmentation, o segmentation,
o data bundling (using Nagle's algorithm), o data bundling (using Nagle's algorithm),
o flow control (timer-based and/or ack-based), o flow control (timer-based and/or ack-based),
o congestion control (also supporting fixed rate reliable or o congestion control (also supporting fixed rate reliable or
unreliable delivery). unreliable delivery).
3.11. Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram TLS (DTLS) as a 3.12. Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP)
pseudotransport
Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC5246]} and Datagram TLS (DTLS)
[RFC6347]} are IETF protocols that provide several security-related
features to applications. TLS is designed to run on top of a
reliable streaming transport protocol (usually TCP), while DTLS is
designed to run on top of a best-effort datagram protocol (UDP or
DCCP [RFC5238]). At the time of writing, the current version of TLS
is 1.2; which is defined in [RFC5246]. DTLS provides nearly
identical functionality to applications; it is defined in [RFC6347]
and its current version is also 1.2. The TLS protocol evolved from
the Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) protocols developed in the mid-1990s
to support protection of HTTP traffic.
While older versions of TLS and DTLS are still in use, they provide
weaker security guarantees. [RFC7457] outlines important attacks on
TLS and DTLS. [RFC7525] is a Best Current Practices (BCP) document
that describes secure configurations for TLS and DTLS to counter
these attacks. The recommendations are applicable for the vast
majority of use cases.
3.11.1. Protocol Description
Both TLS and DTLS provide the same security features and can thus be
discussed together. The features they provide are:
o Confidentiality
o Data integrity
o Peer authentication (optional)
o Perfect forward secrecy (optional)
The authentication of the peer entity can be omitted; a common web
use case is where the server is authenticated and the client is not.
TLS also provides a completely anonymous operation mode in which
neither peer's identity is authenticated. It is important to note
that TLS itself does not specify how a peering entity's identity
should be interpreted. For example, in the common use case of
authentication by means of an X.509 certificate, it is the
application's decision whether the certificate of the peering entity
is acceptable for authorization decisions.
Perfect forward secrecy, if enabled and supported by the selected
algorithms, ensures that traffic encrypted and captured during a
session at time t0 cannot be later decrypted at time t1 (t1 > t0),
even if the long-term secrets of the communicating peers are later
compromised.
As DTLS is generally used over an unreliable datagram transport such
as UDP, applications will need to tolerate lost, re-ordered, or
duplicated datagrams. Like TLS, DTLS conveys application data in a
sequence of independent records. However, because records are mapped
to unreliable datagrams, there are several features unique to DTLS
that are not applicable to TLS:
o Record replay detection (optional).
o Record size negotiation (estimates of PMTU and record size
expansion factor).
o Coveyance of IP don't fragment (DF) bit settings by application.
o An anti-DoS stateless cookie mechanism (optional).
Generally, DTLS follows the TLS design as closely as possible. To
operate over datagrams, DTLS includes a sequence number and limited
forms of retransmission and fragmentation for its internal
operations. The sequence number may be used for detecting replayed
information, according to the windowing procedure described in
Section 4.1.2.6 of [RFC6347]. DTLS forbids the use of stream
ciphers, which are essentially incompatible when operating on
independent encrypted records.
3.11.2. Interface Description
TLS is commonly invoked using an API provided by packages such as
OpenSSL, wolfSSL, or GnuTLS. Using such APIs entails the
manipulation of several important abstractions, which fall into the
following categories: long-term keys and algorithms, session state,
and communications/connections. There may also be special APIs
required to deal with time and/or random numbers, both of which are
needed by a variety of encryption algorithms and protocols.
Considerable care is required in the use of TLS APIs to ensure
creation of a secure application. The programmer should have at
least a basic understanding of encryption and digital signature
algorithms and their strengths, public key infrastructure (including
X.509 certificates and certificate revocation), and the sockets API.
See [RFC7525] and [RFC7457], as mentioned above.
As an example, in the case of OpenSSL, the primary abstractions are
the library itself and method (protocol), session, context, cipher
and connection. After initializing the library and setting the
method, a cipher suite is chosen and used to configure a context
object. Session objects may then be minted according to the
parameters present in a context object and associated with individual
connections. Depending on how precisely the programmer wishes to
select different algorithmic or protocol options, various levels of
details may be required.
3.11.3. Transport Features
Both TLS and DTLS employ a layered architecture. The lower layer is
commonly called the record protocol. It is responsible for:
o message fragmentation,
o authentication and integrity via message authentication codes
(MAC),
o data encryption,
o scheduling transmission using the underlying transport protocol.
DTLS augments the TLS record protocol with:
o ordering and replay protection, implemented using sequence
numbers.
Several protocols are layered on top of the record protocol. These
include the handshake, alert, and change cipher spec protocols.
There is also the data protocol, used to carry application traffic.
The handshake protocol is used to establish cryptographic and
compression parameters when a connection is first set up. In DTLS,
this protocol also has a basic fragmentation and retransmission
capability and a cookie-like mechanism to resist DoS attacks. (TLS
compression is not recommended at present). The alert protocol is
used to inform the peer of various conditions, most of which are
terminal for the connection. The change cipher spec protocol is used
to synchronize changes in cryptographic parameters for each peer.
The data protocol, when used with an appropriate cipher, provides:
o authentication of one end or both ends of a connection,
o confidentiality,
o cryptographic integrity protection.
Both TLS and DTLS are unicast-only.
3.12. Hypertext Transport Protocol (HTTP) over TCP as a pseudotransport
The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level
protocol widely used on the Internet. It provides object-oriented
delivery of discrete data or files. Version 1.1 of the protocol is
specified in [RFC7230] [RFC7231] [RFC7232] [RFC7233] [RFC7234]
[RFC7235], and version 2 in [RFC7540]. HTTP is usually transported
over TCP using port 80 and 443, although it can be used with other
transports. When used over TCP it inherits its properties.
Application layer protocols may use HTTP as a substrate with an
existing method and data formats, or specify new methods and data
formats. There are various reasons for this practice listed in
[RFC3205]; these include being a well-known and well-understood
protocol, reusability of existing servers and client libraries, easy
use of existing security mechanisms such as HTTP digest
authentication [RFC2617] and TLS [RFC5246], the ability of HTTP to
traverse firewalls makes it work over many types of infrastructure,
and in cases where an application server often needs to support HTTP
anyway.
Depending on application need, the use of HTTP as a substrate The Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) [RFC0792] for IPv4 and
protocol may add complexity and overhead in comparison to a special- ICMP for IPv6 [RFC4433] are IETF standards track protocols. It is a
purpose protocol (e.g., HTTP headers, suitability of the HTTP connection-less unidirectional protocol that delivers individual
security model, etc.). [RFC3205] addresses this issue and provides messages, without error correction, congestion control, or flow
some guidelines and identifies concerns about the use of HTTP control. Messages may be sent as unicast, IPv4 broadcast or
standard port 80 and 443, the use of HTTP URL scheme and interaction multicast datagrams (IPv4 and IPv6), in addition to anycast
with existing firewalls, proxies and NATs. datagrams.
Representational State Transfer (REST) [REST] is another example of Transport Protocols and upper layer protocols can use received ICMP
how applications can use HTTP as transport protocol. REST is an messages to help them take appropriate decisions when network or
architecture style that may be used to build applications using HTTP endpoint errors are reported. For example, to implement, ICMP-based
as a communication protocol. Path MTU discovery [RFC1191][RFC1981] or assist in Packetization
Layer Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD) [RFC4821]. Such reactions to
received messages need to protect from off-path data injection
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis], to avoid an application receiving
packets created by an unauthorized third party. An application
therefore needs to ensure that all messages are appropriately
validated, by checking the payload of the messages to ensure these
are received in response to actually transmitted traffic (e.g., a
reported error condition that corresponds to a UDP datagram or TCP
segment was actually sent by the application). This requires context
[RFC6056], such as local state about communication instances to each
destination (e.g., in the TCP, DCCP, or SCTP protocols). This state
is not always maintained by UDP-based applications
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis].
3.12.1. Protocol Description 3.12.1. Protocol Description
Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is a request/response protocol. A ICMP is a connection-less unidirectional protocol, It delivers
client sends a request containing a request method, URI and protocol independent messages, called datagrams. Each message is required to
version followed by a MIME-like message (see [RFC7231] for the carry a checksum as an integrity check and to protect from mis-
differences between an HTTP object and a MIME message), containing delivery to an unintended endpoint.
information about the client and request modifiers. The message can
also contain a message body carrying application data. The server
responds with a status or error code followed by a MIME-like message
containing information about the server and information about the
data. This may include a message body. It is possible to specify a
data format for the message body using MIME media types [RFC2045].
The protocol has additional features, some relevant to pseudo-
transport are described below.
Content negotiation, specified in [RFC7231], is a mechanism provided ICMP messages typically relay diagnostic information from an endpoint
by HTTP to allow selection of a representation for a requested [RFC1122] or network device [RFC1716] addressed to the sender of a
resource. The client and server negotiate acceptable data formats, flow. This usually contains the network protocol header of a packet
character sets, data encoding (e.g., data can be transferred that encountered a reported issue. Some formats of messages can also
compressed using gzip). HTTP can accommodate exchange of messages as carry other payload data. Each message carries an integrity check
well as data streaming (using chunked transfer encoding [RFC7230]). calculated in the same way as for UDP, this checksum is not optional.
It is also possible to request a part of a resource using an object
range request [RFC7233]. The protocol provides powerful cache
control signaling defined in [RFC7234].
The persistent connections of HTTP 1.1 and HTTP 2.0 allow multiple The RFC series defines additional IPv6 message formats to support a
request- response transactions (streams) during the life-time of a range of uses. In the case of IPv6 the protocol incorporates
single HTTP connection. HTTP 2.0 connections can multiplex many neighbor discovery [RFC2461] [RFC3971]} (provided by ARP for IPv4)
request/response pairs in parallel on a single transport connection. and the Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) [RFC2710] group management
This reduces overhead during connection establishment and mitigates functions (provided by IGMP for IPv4).
transport layer slow-start that would have otherwise been incurred
for each transaction. Both are important to reduce latency for
HTTP's primary use case.
HTTP can be combined with security mechanisms, such as TLS (denoted Reliable transmission can not be assumed. A receiving application
by HTTPS). This adds protocol properties provided by such a that is unable to run sufficiently fast, or frequently, may miss
mechanism (e.g., authentication, encryption). The TLS Application- messages since there is no flow or congestion control. In addition
Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) extension [RFC7301] can be used to some network devices rate-limit ICMP messages.
negotiate the HTTP version within the TLS handshake, eliminating the
latency incurred by additional round-trip exchanges. Arbitrary
cookie strings, included as part of the MIME headers, are often used
as bearer tokens in HTTP.
3.12.2. Interface Description 3.12.2. Interface Description
There are many HTTP libraries available exposing different APIs. The ICMP processing is integrated in many connection-oriented transports,
APIs provide a way to specify a request by providing a URI, a method, but like other functions needs to be provided by an upper-layer
request modifiers and optionally a request body. For the response, protocol when using UDP and UDP-Lite.
callbacks can be registered that will be invoked when the response is
received. If TLS is used, the API exposes a registration of
callbacks for a server that requests client authentication and when
certificate verification is needed.
The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has standardized the
XMLHttpRequest API [XHR]. This API can be used for sending HTTP/
HTTPS requests and receiving server responses. Besides the XML data
format, the request and response data format can also be JSON, HTML,
and plain text. JavaScript and XMLHttpRequest are ubiquitous
programming models for websites, and more general applications, where
native code is less attractive.
3.12.3. Transport features
The transport features provided by HTTP, when used as a pseudo-
transport, are:
o unicast transport (provided by the lower layer protocol, usually
TCP),
o uni- or bidirectional communication,
o transfer of objects in multiple streams with object content type
negotiation, supporting partial transmission of object ranges,
o ordered delivery (provided by the lower layer protocol, usually
TCP),
o fully reliable delivery (provided by the lower layer protocol,
usually TCP),
o flow control (provided by the lower layer protocol, usually TCP).
o congestion control (provided by the lower layer protocol, usually
TCP).
HTTPS (HTTP over TLS) additionally provides the following features On some stacks, a bound socket also allows a UDP application to be
(as provided by TLS): notified when ICMP error messages are received for its transmissions
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis].
o authentication (of one or both ends of a connection), Any response to ICMP error messages ought to be robust to temporary
routing failures (sometimes called "soft errors"), e.g., transient
ICMP "unreachable" messages ought to not normally cause a
communication abort [RFC5461] [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis].
o confidentiality, 3.12.3. Transport Features
o integrity protection. ICMP does not provide any transport service directly to applications.
Used together with other transport protocols, it provides
transmission of control, error, and measurement data between
endpoints, or from devices along the path to one endpoint.
4. Congestion Control 4. Congestion Control
Congestion control is critical to the stable operation of the Congestion control is critical to the stable operation of the
Internet. A variety of mechanisms are used to provide the congestion Internet. A variety of mechanisms are used to provide the congestion
control needed by many Internet transport protocols. Congestion is control needed by many Internet transport protocols. Congestion is
detected based on sensing of network conditions, whether through detected based on sensing of network conditions, whether through
explicit or implicit feedback. The congestion control mechanisms explicit or implicit feedback. The congestion control mechanisms
that can be applied by different transport protocols are largely that can be applied by different transport protocols are largely
orthogonal to the choice of transport protocol. This section orthogonal to the choice of transport protocol. This section
provides an overview of the congestion control mechanisms available provides an overview of the congestion control mechanisms available
to the protocols described in Section 3. to the protocols described in Section 3.
Many protocols use a separate window to determine the maximum sending Many protocols use a separate window to determine the maximum sending
rate that is allowed by the congestion control. The used congestion rate that is allowed by the congestion control. The used congestion
control mechanism will increase the congestion window if feedback is control mechanism will increase the congestion window if feedback is
received that indicates that the currently used network path is not received that indicates that the currently used network path is not
congested, and will reduce the window otherwise. Window-based congested, and will reduce the window otherwise. Window-based
mechanisms often increase their window slowing over multiple RTTs, mechanisms often increase their window slowing over multiple RTTs,
while decreasing strongly when the first indication of congestion is while decreasing strongly when the first indication of congestion is
received. One example are Additive Increase Multiplicative Decrease received. One example is an Additive Increase Multiplicative
(AIMD) schemes, where the window is increased by a certain number of Decrease (AIMD) scheme, where the window is increased by a certain
packets/bytes for each data segment that has been successfully number of packets/bytes for each data segment that has been
transmitted, while the window is multiplicatively decrease on the successfully transmitted, while the window is multiplicatively
occurrence of a congestion event. This can lead to a rather decrease on the occurrence of a congestion event. This can lead to a
unstable, oscillating sending rate, but will resolve a congestion rather unstable, oscillating sending rate, but will resolve a
situation quickly. TCP New Reno [RFC5681] which is one of the congestion situation quickly. TCP New Reno [RFC5681] which is one of
initial proposed schemes for TCP as well as TCP Cubic the initial proposed schemes for TCP as well as TCP Cubic
[I-D.ietf-tcpm-cubic] which is the default mechanism for TCP in Linux [I-D.ietf-tcpm-cubic] which is the default mechanism for TCP in Linux
are two examples for window-based AIMD schemes. This approach is are two examples for window-based AIMD schemes. This approach is
also used by DCCP CCID-2 for datagram congestion control. also used by DCCP CCID-2 for datagram congestion control.
Some classes of applications prefer to use a transport service that Some classes of applications prefer to use a transport service that
allows sending at a more stable rate, that is slowly varied in allows sending at a more stable rate, that is slowly varied in
response to congestion. Rate-based methods offer this type of response to congestion. Rate-based methods offer this type of
congestion control and have been defined based on the loss ratio and congestion control and have been defined based on the loss ratio and
observed round trip time, such as TFRC [RFC5348] and TFRC-SP observed round trip time, such as TFRC [RFC5348] and TFRC-SP
[RFC4828]. These methods utilize a throughput equation to determine [RFC4828]. These methods utilize a throughput equation to determine
skipping to change at page 38, line 21 skipping to change at page 38, line 29
The tables below summarize some key features to illustrate the range The tables below summarize some key features to illustrate the range
of functions provided across the IETF-specified transports. Figure 1 of functions provided across the IETF-specified transports. Figure 1
considers transports that may be directly layered over the network, considers transports that may be directly layered over the network,
and Figure 2 considers transports layered over another transport and Figure 2 considers transports layered over another transport
service. Features that are permitted, but not required, are marked service. Features that are permitted, but not required, are marked
as "Poss" indicating that it is possible for the transport service to as "Poss" indicating that it is possible for the transport service to
offer this feature. offer this feature.
+---------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ +---------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Feature | TCP | MPTCP| SCTP | UDP | UDP-L|DCCP |ICMP | | Feature | TCP | MPTCP| UDP | UDP | SCTP |DCCP |ICMP |
+---------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ +---------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Datagram | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | | Datagram | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
+---------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ +---------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Conn. Oriented| Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | | Conn. Oriented| Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | No |
+---------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ +---------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Reliability | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | No | | Reliability | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | No |
+---------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ +---------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Partial Rel. | No | No | Poss | N/A | N/A | Yes | N/A | | Partial Rel. | No | No | N/A | N/A | Poss | Yes | N/A |
+---------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ +---------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Corupt. Tol | No | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | | Corupt. Tol | No | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | No |
+---------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ +---------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Cong.Control | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | | Cong.Control | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | No |
+---------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ +---------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Endpoint | 1 | >=1 | >=1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | Endpoint | 1 | >=1 | >=1 | >=1 | >=1 | 1 | 1 |
+---------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ +---------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Multicast Cap.| No | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | | Multicast Cap.| No | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | No |
+---------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ +---------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
Figure 1: Summary comparison: Transport protocols Figure 1: Summary comparison: Transport protocols
+---------------+------+------+------+------+------+ +---------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Feature | RTP | FLUTE| NORM |(D)TLS| HTTP | | Feature |(D)TLS| RTP | HTTP | FLUTE| NORM |
+---------------+------+------+------+------+------+ +---------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Datagram | Yes | No | Both | Both | No | | Datagram | Both | Yes | No | No | Both |
+---------------+------+------+------+------+------+ +---------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Conn. Oriented| No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | | Conn. Oriented| Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
+---------------+------+------+------+------+------+ +---------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Reliability | No | Yes | Poss | Poss | Yes | | Reliability | Poss | No | Yes | Yes | Poss |
+---------------+------+------+------+------+------+ +---------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Partial R | Poss | No | Poss | No | No | | Partial R | No | Poss | No | No | Poss |
+---------------+------+------+------+------+------+ +---------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Corupt. Tol | Poss | No | No | No | No | | Corupt. Tol | No | Poss | No | No | No |
+---------------+------+------+------+------+------+ +---------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Cong.Control | Poss | Poss | Poss | N/A | N/A | | Cong.Control | N/A | Poss | N/A | Poss | Poss |
+---------------+------+------+------+------+------+ +---------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Endpoint | >=1 | >=1 | >=1 | 1 | 1 | | Endpoint | 1 | >=1 | 1 | >=1 | >=1 |
+---------------+------+------+------+------+------+ +---------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Multicast Cap.| Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | | Multicast Cap.| No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
+---------------+------+------+------+------+------+ +---------------+------+------+------+------+------+
Figure 2: Upper layer transports and frameworks Figure 2: Upper layer transports and frameworks
The transport protocol features described in this document could be The transport protocol features described in this document could be
used as a basis for defining common transport features: used as a basis for defining common transport features:
o Control Functions o Control Functions
* Addressing * Addressing
+ unicast (TCP, MPTCP, SCTP, UDP, UDP-Lite, DCCP, ICMP, RTP, + unicast (TCP, MPTCP, UDP, UDP-Lite, SCTP, DCCP, TLS, RTP,
TLS, HTTP) HTTP, ICMP)
+ multicast (UDP, UDP-Lite, DCCP, ICMP, RTP, FLUTE/ALC, NORM). + multicast (UDP, UDP-Lite, RTP, FLUTE/ALC, NORM). Note that,
Note that, as TLS and DTLS are unicast-only, there is no as TLS and DTLS are unicast-only, there is no widely
widely deployed mechanism for supporting the features in the deployed mechanism for supporting the features in the
Security section below when using multicast addressing. Security section below when using multicast addressing.
+ IPv4 broadcast (UDP, UDP-Lite, ICMP) + IPv4 broadcast (UDP, UDP-Lite, ICMP)
+ anycast (UDP, UDP-Lite). Connection-oriented protocols such + anycast (UDP, UDP-Lite). Connection-oriented protocols such
as TCP and DCCP have also been deployed using anycast as TCP and DCCP have also been deployed using anycast
addressing, with the risk that routing changes may cause addressing, with the risk that routing changes may cause
connection failure. connection failure.
* Association type * Association type
+ connection-oriented (TCP, MPTCP, SCTP, DCCP, RTP, NORM, TLS, + connection-oriented (TCP, MPTCP, DCCP, SCTP, TLS, RTP, HTTP,
HTTP) NORM)
+ connectionless (UDP, UDP-Lite, FLUTE/ALC) + connectionless (UDP, UDP-Lite, FLUTE/ALC)
* Multihoming support * Multihoming support
+ resilience and mobility (MPTCP, SCTP) + resilience and mobility (MPTCP, SCTP)
+ load-balancing (MPTCP) + load-balancing (MPTCP)
+ address family multiplexing (MPTCP, SCTP) + address family multiplexing (MPTCP, SCTP)
skipping to change at page 40, line 28 skipping to change at page 40, line 28
+ application-class signaling to middleboxes (DCCP) + application-class signaling to middleboxes (DCCP)
+ error condition signaling from middleboxes and routers to + error condition signaling from middleboxes and routers to
endpoints (ICMP) endpoints (ICMP)
* Signaling * Signaling
+ control information and error signaling (ICMP) + control information and error signaling (ICMP)
+ performance metric reporting (RTP) + application performance reporting (RTP)
o Delivery o Delivery
* Reliability * Reliability
+ fully reliable delivery (TCP, MPTCP, SCTP, FLUTE/ALC, NORM, + fully reliable delivery (TCP, MPTCP, SCTP, TLS, HTTP, FLUTE/
TLS, HTTP) ALC, NORM)
+ partially reliable delivery (SCTP, NORM) + partially reliable delivery (SCTP, NORM)
- using packet erasure coding (FLUTE/ALC, NORM, RTP) - using packet erasure coding (RTP, FLUTE/ALC, NORM)
- with specified policy for dropped messages (SCTP) - with specified policy for dropped messages (SCTP)
+ unreliable delivery (SCTP, UDP, UDP-Lite, DCCP, RTP) + unreliable delivery (SCTP, UDP, UDP-Lite, DCCP, RTP)
- with drop notification to sender (RTP, SCTP, DCCP) - with drop notification to sender (SCTP, DCCP, RTP)
+ error detection + error detection
- checksum for error detection (TCP, MPTCP, SCTP, UDP, UDP- - checksum for error detection (TCP, MPTCP, UDP, UDP-Lite,
Lite, DCCP, ICMP, FLUTE/ALC, NORM, TLS, DTLS) SCTP, DCCP, TLS, DTLS, FLUTE/ALC, NORM, ICMP)
- partial payload checksum protection (UDP-Lite, DCCP). - partial payload checksum protection (UDP-Lite, DCCP).
Some uses of RTP can exploit partial payload checksum Some uses of RTP can exploit partial payload checksum
protection feature to provide a corruption tolerant protection feature to provide a corruption tolerant
transport service. transport service.
- checksum optional (UDP). Possible with IPv4 and in - checksum optional (UDP). Possible with IPv4 and in
certain cases with IPv6. certain cases with IPv6.
* Ordering * Ordering
+ ordered delivery (TCP, MPTCP, SCTP, RTP, FLUTE, TLS, HTTP) + ordered delivery (TCP, MPTCP, SCTP, TLS, RTP, HTTP, FLUTE)
+ unordered delivery permitted (SCTP, UDP, UDP-Lite, DCCP, + unordered delivery permitted (UDP, UDP-Lite, SCTP, DCCP,
RTP, NORM) RTP, NORM)
* Type/framing * Type/framing
+ stream-oriented delivery (TCP, MPTCP, SCTP, TLS, HTTP) + stream-oriented delivery (TCP, MPTCP, SCTP, TLS, HTTP)
- with multiple streams per association (SCTP, HTTP2) - with multiple streams per association (SCTP, HTTP2)
+ message-oriented delivery (SCTP, UDP, UDP-Lite, DCCP, RTP, + message-oriented delivery (UDP, UDP-Lite, SCTP, DCCP, DTLS,
DTLS) RTP)
+ object-oriented delivery of discrete data or files and + object-oriented delivery of discrete data or files and
associated metadata (FLUTE/ALC, NORM, HTTP) associated metadata (HTTP, FLUTE/ALC, NORM)
- with partial delivery of object ranges (HTTP) - with partial delivery of object ranges (HTTP)
* Directionality * Directionality
+ unidirectional (TCP, SCTP, UDP, UDP-Lite DCCP, RTP, FLUTE/ + unidirectional (TCP, UDP, UDP-Lite, SCTP, DCCP, RTP, FLUTE/
ALC, NORM) ALC, NORM)
+ bidirectional (TCP, MPTCP, SCTP, HTTP, TLS) + bidirectional (TCP, MPTCP, SCTP, TLS, HTTP)
o Transmission control o Transmission control
* flow control (TCP, MPTCP, SCTP, DCCP, RTP, TLS, HTTP) * flow control (TCP, MPTCP, SCTP, DCCP, TLS, RTP, HTTP)
* congestion control (TCP, MPTCP, SCTP, DCCP, RTP, FLUTE/ALC, * congestion control (TCP, MPTCP, SCTP, DCCP, RTP, FLUTE/ALC,
NORM). Congestion control can also provided by the transport NORM). Congestion control can also provided by the transport
supporting an upper later transport (e.g., RTP,HTTP, TLS). supporting an upper later transport (e.g., TLS, RTP, HTTP).
* segmentation (TCP, MPTCP, SCTP, RTP, FLUTE/ALC, NORM, TLS, * segmentation (TCP, MPTCP, SCTP, TLS, RTP, HTTP, FLUTE/ALC,
HTTP) NORM)
* data/message bundling (TCP, MPTCP, SCTP, TLS, HTTP) * data/message bundling (TCP, MPTCP, SCTP, TLS, HTTP)
* stream scheduling prioritization (SCTP, HTTP2) * stream scheduling prioritization (SCTP, HTTP2)
* endpoint multiplexing (MPTCP) * endpoint multiplexing (MPTCP)
o Security o Security
* authentication of one end of a connection (FLUTE/ALC, TLS, * authentication of one end of a connection (TLS, DTLS, FLUTE/
DTLS) ALC)
* authentication of both ends of a connection (TLS, DTLS) * authentication of both ends of a connection (TLS, DTLS)
* confidentiality (TLS, DTLS) * confidentiality (TLS, DTLS)
* cryptographic integrity protection (TLS, DTLS) * cryptographic integrity protection (TLS, DTLS)
* replay protection (FLUTE/ALC, DTLS) * replay protection (FLUTE/ALC, DTLS)
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
skipping to change at page 42, line 46 skipping to change at page 42, line 46
In addition to the editors, this document is the work of Brian In addition to the editors, this document is the work of Brian
Adamson, Dragana Damjanovic, Kevin Fall, Simone Ferlin-Oliviera, Adamson, Dragana Damjanovic, Kevin Fall, Simone Ferlin-Oliviera,
Ralph Holz, Olivier Mehani, Karen Nielsen, Colin Perkins, Vincent Ralph Holz, Olivier Mehani, Karen Nielsen, Colin Perkins, Vincent
Roca, and Michael Tuexen. Roca, and Michael Tuexen.
o Section 3.2 on MPTCP was contributed by Simone Ferlin-Oliviera o Section 3.2 on MPTCP was contributed by Simone Ferlin-Oliviera
(ferlin@simula.no) and Olivier Mehani (ferlin@simula.no) and Olivier Mehani
(olivier.mehani@nicta.com.au) (olivier.mehani@nicta.com.au)
o Section 3.4 on UDP was contributed by Kevin Fall (kfall@kfall.com) o Section 3.3 on UDP was contributed by Kevin Fall (kfall@kfall.com)
o Section 3.3 on SCTP was contributed by Michael Tuexen (tuexen@fh- o Section 3.5 on SCTP was contributed by Michael Tuexen (tuexen@fh-
muenster.de) and Karen Nielsen (karen.nielsen@tieto.com) muenster.de) and Karen Nielsen (karen.nielsen@tieto.com)
o Section 3.8 on RTP contains contributions from Colin Perkins o Section 3.8 on RTP contains contributions from Colin Perkins
(csp@csperkins.org) (csp@csperkins.org)
o Section 3.9 on FLUTE/ALC was contributed by Vincent Roca o Section 3.10 on FLUTE/ALC was contributed by Vincent Roca
(vincent.roca@inria.fr) (vincent.roca@inria.fr)
o Section 3.10 on NORM was contributed by Brian Adamson o Section 3.11 on NORM was contributed by Brian Adamson
(brian.adamson@nrl.navy.mil) (brian.adamson@nrl.navy.mil)
o Section 3.11 on TLS and DTLS was contributed by Ralph Holz o Section 3.7 on TLS and DTLS was contributed by Ralph Holz
(ralph.holz@nicta.com.au) and Olivier Mehani (ralph.holz@nicta.com.au) and Olivier Mehani
(olivier.mehani@nicta.com.au) (olivier.mehani@nicta.com.au)
o Section 3.12 on HTTP was contributed by Dragana Damjanovic o Section 3.9 on HTTP was contributed by Dragana Damjanovic
(ddamjanovic@mozilla.com) (ddamjanovic@mozilla.com)
9. Acknowledgments 9. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Joe Touch, Michael Welzl, and the TAPS Working Group for Thanks to Joe Touch, Michael Welzl, and the TAPS Working Group for
the comments, feedback, and discussion. This work is supported by the comments, feedback, and discussion. This work is supported by
the European Commission under grant agreement No. 318627 mPlane and the European Commission under grant agreement No. 318627 mPlane and
from the Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant from the Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant
agreements No. 644334 (NEAT) and No. 688421 (MAMI). This support agreements No. 644334 (NEAT) and No. 688421 (MAMI). This support
does not imply endorsement. does not imply endorsement.
10. Informative References 10. Informative References
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, DOI
DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980, 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>.
[RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5, [RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981, RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, [RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981, 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>.
[RFC0896] Nagle, J., "Congestion Control in IP/TCP Internetworks", [RFC0896] Nagle, J., "Congestion Control in IP/TCP Internetworks",
RFC 896, DOI 10.17487/RFC0896, January 1984, RFC 896, DOI 10.17487/RFC0896, January 1984,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc896>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc896>.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - [RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, DOI 10.17487/
DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989, RFC1122, October 1989,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.
[RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191, [RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1191, November 1990, DOI 10.17487/RFC1191, November 1990,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1191>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1191>.
[RFC1716] Almquist, P. and F. Kastenholz, "Towards Requirements for [RFC1716] Almquist, P. and F. Kastenholz, "Towards Requirements for
IP Routers", RFC 1716, DOI 10.17487/RFC1716, November IP Routers", RFC 1716, DOI 10.17487/RFC1716, November
1994, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1716>. 1994, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1716>.
[RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery [RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery
for IP version 6", RFC 1981, DOI 10.17487/RFC1981, August for IP version 6", RFC 1981, DOI 10.17487/RFC1981, August
1996, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1981>. 1996, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1981>.
[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, Selective Acknowledgment Options", RFC 2018, DOI 10.17487/
DOI 10.17487/RFC2018, October 1996, RFC2018, October 1996,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2018>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2018>.
[RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail [RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies", RFC 2045, DOI 10.17487/RFC2045, November 1996, Bodies", RFC 2045, DOI 10.17487/RFC2045, November 1996,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2045>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2045>.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460, (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>. December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
[RFC2461] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor [RFC2461] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor
Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, DOI
DOI 10.17487/RFC2461, December 1998, 10.17487/RFC2461, December 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2461>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2461>.
[RFC2617] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S., [RFC2617] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S.,
Leach, P., Luotonen, A., and L. Stewart, "HTTP Leach, P., Luotonen, A., and L. Stewart, "HTTP
Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication", Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication",
RFC 2617, DOI 10.17487/RFC2617, June 1999, RFC 2617, DOI 10.17487/RFC2617, June 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2617>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2617>.
[RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast [RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, DOI
DOI 10.17487/RFC2710, October 1999, 10.17487/RFC2710, October 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2710>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2710>.
[RFC2736] Handley, M. and C. Perkins, "Guidelines for Writers of RTP [RFC2736] Handley, M. and C. Perkins, "Guidelines for Writers of RTP
Payload Format Specifications", BCP 36, RFC 2736, Payload Format Specifications", BCP 36, RFC 2736, DOI
DOI 10.17487/RFC2736, December 1999, 10.17487/RFC2736, December 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2736>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2736>.
[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", of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC
RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001, 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC3205, February 2002, RFC 3205, DOI 10.17487/RFC3205, February 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3205>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3205>.
[RFC3260] Grossman, D., "New Terminology and Clarifications for [RFC3260] Grossman, D., "New Terminology and Clarifications for
Diffserv", RFC 3260, DOI 10.17487/RFC3260, April 2002, Diffserv", RFC 3260, DOI 10.17487/RFC3260, April 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3260>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3260>.
skipping to change at page 45, line 39 skipping to change at page 45, line 39
M., and J. Crowcroft, "Forward Error Correction (FEC) M., and J. Crowcroft, "Forward Error Correction (FEC)
Building Block", RFC 3452, DOI 10.17487/RFC3452, December Building Block", RFC 3452, DOI 10.17487/RFC3452, December
2002, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3452>. 2002, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3452>.
[RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550, Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, DOI 10.17487/RFC3550,
July 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>. July 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3550>.
[RFC3738] Luby, M. and V. Goyal, "Wave and Equation Based Rate [RFC3738] Luby, M. and V. Goyal, "Wave and Equation Based Rate
Control (WEBRC) Building Block", RFC 3738, Control (WEBRC) Building Block", RFC 3738, DOI 10.17487/
DOI 10.17487/RFC3738, April 2004, RFC3738, April 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3738>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3738>.
[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, Partial Reliability Extension", RFC 3758, DOI 10.17487/
DOI 10.17487/RFC3758, May 2004, RFC3758, May 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3758>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3758>.
[RFC3828] Larzon, L-A., Degermark, M., Pink, S., Jonsson, L-E., Ed., [RFC3828] Larzon, L-A., Degermark, M., Pink, S., Jonsson, L-E., Ed.,
and G. Fairhurst, Ed., "The Lightweight User Datagram and G. Fairhurst, Ed., "The Lightweight User Datagram
Protocol (UDP-Lite)", RFC 3828, DOI 10.17487/RFC3828, July Protocol (UDP-Lite)", RFC 3828, DOI 10.17487/RFC3828, July
2004, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3828>. 2004, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3828>.
[RFC3926] Paila, T., Luby, M., Lehtonen, R., Roca, V., and R. Walsh, [RFC3926] Paila, T., Luby, M., Lehtonen, R., Roca, V., and R. Walsh,
"FLUTE - File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport", "FLUTE - File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport", RFC
RFC 3926, DOI 10.17487/RFC3926, October 2004, 3926, DOI 10.17487/RFC3926, October 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3926>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3926>.
[RFC3971] Arkko, J., Ed., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander, [RFC3971] Arkko, J., Ed., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander,
"SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, "SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, DOI
DOI 10.17487/RFC3971, March 2005, 10.17487/RFC3971, March 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3971>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3971>.
[RFC4324] Royer, D., Babics, G., and S. Mansour, "Calendar Access [RFC4324] Royer, D., Babics, G., and S. Mansour, "Calendar Access
Protocol (CAP)", RFC 4324, DOI 10.17487/RFC4324, December Protocol (CAP)", RFC 4324, DOI 10.17487/RFC4324, December
2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4324>. 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4324>.
[RFC4336] Floyd, S., Handley, M., and E. Kohler, "Problem Statement [RFC4336] Floyd, S., Handley, M., and E. Kohler, "Problem Statement
for the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", for the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC
RFC 4336, DOI 10.17487/RFC4336, March 2006, 4336, DOI 10.17487/RFC4336, March 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4336>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4336>.
[RFC4340] Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram [RFC4340] Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram
Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, DOI
DOI 10.17487/RFC4340, March 2006, 10.17487/RFC4340, March 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4340>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4340>.
[RFC4341] Floyd, S. and E. Kohler, "Profile for Datagram Congestion [RFC4341] Floyd, S. and E. Kohler, "Profile for Datagram Congestion
Control Protocol (DCCP) Congestion Control ID 2: TCP-like Control Protocol (DCCP) Congestion Control ID 2: TCP-like
Congestion Control", RFC 4341, DOI 10.17487/RFC4341, March Congestion Control", RFC 4341, DOI 10.17487/RFC4341, March
2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4341>. 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4341>.
[RFC4342] Floyd, S., Kohler, E., and J. Padhye, "Profile for [RFC4342] Floyd, S., Kohler, E., and J. Padhye, "Profile for
Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) Congestion Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) Congestion
Control ID 3: TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC)", RFC 4342, Control ID 3: TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC)", RFC 4342,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4342, March 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4342, March 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4342>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4342>.
[RFC4433] Kulkarni, M., Patel, A., and K. Leung, "Mobile IPv4 [RFC4433] Kulkarni, M., Patel, A., and K. Leung, "Mobile IPv4
Dynamic Home Agent (HA) Assignment", RFC 4433, Dynamic Home Agent (HA) Assignment", RFC 4433, DOI
DOI 10.17487/RFC4433, March 2006, 10.17487/RFC4433, March 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4433>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4433>.
[RFC4654] Widmer, J. and M. Handley, "TCP-Friendly Multicast [RFC4654] Widmer, J. and M. Handley, "TCP-Friendly Multicast
Congestion Control (TFMCC): Protocol Specification", Congestion Control (TFMCC): Protocol Specification", RFC
RFC 4654, DOI 10.17487/RFC4654, August 2006, 4654, DOI 10.17487/RFC4654, August 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4654>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4654>.
[RFC4820] Tuexen, M., Stewart, R., and P. Lei, "Padding Chunk and [RFC4820] Tuexen, M., Stewart, R., and P. Lei, "Padding Chunk and
Parameter for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol Parameter for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol
(SCTP)", RFC 4820, DOI 10.17487/RFC4820, March 2007, (SCTP)", RFC 4820, DOI 10.17487/RFC4820, March 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4820>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4820>.
[RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU [RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC4821, March 2007, Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC4821, March 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4821>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4821>.
[RFC4828] Floyd, S. and E. Kohler, "TCP Friendly Rate Control [RFC4828] Floyd, S. and E. Kohler, "TCP Friendly Rate Control
(TFRC): The Small-Packet (SP) Variant", RFC 4828, (TFRC): The Small-Packet (SP) Variant", RFC 4828, DOI
DOI 10.17487/RFC4828, April 2007, 10.17487/RFC4828, April 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4828>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4828>.
[RFC4895] Tuexen, M., Stewart, R., Lei, P., and E. Rescorla, [RFC4895] Tuexen, M., Stewart, R., Lei, P., and E. Rescorla,
"Authenticated Chunks for the Stream Control Transmission "Authenticated Chunks for the Stream Control Transmission
Protocol (SCTP)", RFC 4895, DOI 10.17487/RFC4895, August Protocol (SCTP)", RFC 4895, DOI 10.17487/RFC4895, August
2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4895>. 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4895>.
[RFC4960] Stewart, R., Ed., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", [RFC4960] Stewart, R., Ed., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
RFC 4960, DOI 10.17487/RFC4960, September 2007, RFC 4960, DOI 10.17487/RFC4960, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4960>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4960>.
[RFC5061] Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., Maruyama, S., and M. [RFC5061] Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., Maruyama, S., and M.
Kozuka, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Kozuka, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
Dynamic Address Reconfiguration", RFC 5061, Dynamic Address Reconfiguration", RFC 5061, DOI 10.17487/
DOI 10.17487/RFC5061, September 2007, RFC5061, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5061>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5061>.
[RFC5097] Renker, G. and G. Fairhurst, "MIB for the UDP-Lite [RFC5097] Renker, G. and G. Fairhurst, "MIB for the UDP-Lite
protocol", RFC 5097, DOI 10.17487/RFC5097, January 2008, protocol", RFC 5097, DOI 10.17487/RFC5097, January 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5097>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5097>.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, DOI 10.17487/
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008, RFC5246, August 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
[RFC5238] Phelan, T., "Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) over [RFC5238] Phelan, T., "Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) over
the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC
RFC 5238, DOI 10.17487/RFC5238, May 2008, 5238, DOI 10.17487/RFC5238, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5238>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5238>.
[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", Friendly Rate Control (TFRC): Protocol Specification", RFC
RFC 5348, DOI 10.17487/RFC5348, September 2008, 5348, DOI 10.17487/RFC5348, September 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5348>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5348>.
[RFC5461] Gont, F., "TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors", RFC 5461, [RFC5461] Gont, F., "TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors", RFC 5461, DOI
DOI 10.17487/RFC5461, February 2009, 10.17487/RFC5461, February 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5461>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5461>.
[RFC5595] Fairhurst, G., "The Datagram Congestion Control Protocol [RFC5595] Fairhurst, G., "The Datagram Congestion Control Protocol
(DCCP) Service Codes", RFC 5595, DOI 10.17487/RFC5595, (DCCP) Service Codes", RFC 5595, DOI 10.17487/RFC5595,
September 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5595>. September 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5595>.
[RFC5596] Fairhurst, G., "Datagram Congestion Control Protocol [RFC5596] Fairhurst, G., "Datagram Congestion Control Protocol
(DCCP) Simultaneous-Open Technique to Facilitate NAT/ (DCCP) Simultaneous-Open Technique to Facilitate NAT/
Middlebox Traversal", RFC 5596, DOI 10.17487/RFC5596, Middlebox Traversal", RFC 5596, DOI 10.17487/RFC5596,
September 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5596>. September 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5596>.
[RFC5622] Floyd, S. and E. Kohler, "Profile for Datagram Congestion [RFC5622] Floyd, S. and E. Kohler, "Profile for Datagram Congestion
Control Protocol (DCCP) Congestion ID 4: TCP-Friendly Rate Control Protocol (DCCP) Congestion ID 4: TCP-Friendly Rate
Control for Small Packets (TFRC-SP)", RFC 5622, Control for Small Packets (TFRC-SP)", RFC 5622, DOI
DOI 10.17487/RFC5622, August 2009, 10.17487/RFC5622, August 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5622>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5622>.
[RFC5651] Luby, M., Watson, M., and L. Vicisano, "Layered Coding [RFC5651] Luby, M., Watson, M., and L. Vicisano, "Layered Coding
Transport (LCT) Building Block", RFC 5651, Transport (LCT) Building Block", RFC 5651, DOI 10.17487/
DOI 10.17487/RFC5651, October 2009, RFC5651, October 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5651>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5651>.
[RFC5672] Crocker, D., Ed., "RFC 4871 DomainKeys Identified Mail [RFC5672] Crocker, D., Ed., "RFC 4871 DomainKeys Identified Mail
(DKIM) Signatures -- Update", RFC 5672, (DKIM) Signatures -- Update", RFC 5672, DOI 10.17487/
DOI 10.17487/RFC5672, August 2009, RFC5672, August 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5672>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5672>.
[RFC5740] Adamson, B., Bormann, C., Handley, M., and J. Macker, [RFC5740] Adamson, B., Bormann, C., Handley, M., and J. Macker,
"NACK-Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM) Transport "NACK-Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM) Transport
Protocol", RFC 5740, DOI 10.17487/RFC5740, November 2009, Protocol", RFC 5740, DOI 10.17487/RFC5740, November 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5740>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5740>.
[RFC5775] Luby, M., Watson, M., and L. Vicisano, "Asynchronous [RFC5775] Luby, M., Watson, M., and L. Vicisano, "Asynchronous
Layered Coding (ALC) Protocol Instantiation", RFC 5775, Layered Coding (ALC) Protocol Instantiation", RFC 5775,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5775, April 2010, DOI 10.17487/RFC5775, April 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5775>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5775>.
[RFC5681] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion [RFC5681] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion
Control", RFC 5681, DOI 10.17487/RFC5681, September 2009, Control", RFC 5681, DOI 10.17487/RFC5681, September 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5681>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5681>.
[RFC6056] Larsen, M. and F. Gont, "Recommendations for Transport- [RFC6056] Larsen, M. and F. Gont, "Recommendations for Transport-
Protocol Port Randomization", BCP 156, RFC 6056, Protocol Port Randomization", BCP 156, RFC 6056, DOI
DOI 10.17487/RFC6056, January 2011, 10.17487/RFC6056, January 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6056>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6056>.
[RFC6083] Tuexen, M., Seggelmann, R., and E. Rescorla, "Datagram [RFC6083] Tuexen, M., Seggelmann, R., and E. Rescorla, "Datagram
Transport Layer Security (DTLS) for Stream Control Transport Layer Security (DTLS) for Stream Control
Transmission Protocol (SCTP)", RFC 6083, Transmission Protocol (SCTP)", RFC 6083, DOI 10.17487/
DOI 10.17487/RFC6083, January 2011, RFC6083, January 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6083>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6083>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC6093, TCP Urgent Mechanism", RFC 6093, DOI 10.17487/RFC6093,
January 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6093>. January 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6093>.
[RFC6525] Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., and P. Lei, "Stream Control [RFC6525] Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., and P. Lei, "Stream Control
Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Stream Reconfiguration", Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Stream Reconfiguration", RFC
RFC 6525, DOI 10.17487/RFC6525, February 2012, 6525, DOI 10.17487/RFC6525, February 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6525>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6525>.
[RFC6546] Trammell, B., "Transport of Real-time Inter-network
Defense (RID) Messages over HTTP/TLS", RFC 6546,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6546, April 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6546>.
[RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer [RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347, Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
January 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>. January 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>.
[RFC6356] Raiciu, C., Handley, M., and D. Wischik, "Coupled [RFC6356] Raiciu, C., Handley, M., and D. Wischik, "Coupled
Congestion Control for Multipath Transport Protocols", Congestion Control for Multipath Transport Protocols", RFC
RFC 6356, DOI 10.17487/RFC6356, October 2011, 6356, DOI 10.17487/RFC6356, October 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6356>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6356>.
[RFC6363] Watson, M., Begen, A., and V. Roca, "Forward Error [RFC6363] Watson, M., Begen, A., and V. Roca, "Forward Error
Correction (FEC) Framework", RFC 6363, Correction (FEC) Framework", RFC 6363, DOI 10.17487/
DOI 10.17487/RFC6363, October 2011, RFC6363, October 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6363>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6363>.
[RFC6458] Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., Poon, K., Lei, P., and V. [RFC6458] Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., Poon, K., Lei, P., and V.
Yasevich, "Sockets API Extensions for the Stream Control Yasevich, "Sockets API Extensions for the Stream Control
Transmission Protocol (SCTP)", RFC 6458, Transmission Protocol (SCTP)", RFC 6458, DOI 10.17487/
DOI 10.17487/RFC6458, December 2011, RFC6458, December 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6458>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6458>.
[RFC6584] Roca, V., "Simple Authentication Schemes for the [RFC6584] Roca, V., "Simple Authentication Schemes for the
Asynchronous Layered Coding (ALC) and NACK-Oriented Asynchronous Layered Coding (ALC) and NACK-Oriented
Reliable Multicast (NORM) Protocols", RFC 6584, Reliable Multicast (NORM) Protocols", RFC 6584, DOI
DOI 10.17487/RFC6584, April 2012, 10.17487/RFC6584, April 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6584>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6584>.
[RFC6726] Paila, T., Walsh, R., Luby, M., Roca, V., and R. Lehtonen, [RFC6726] Paila, T., Walsh, R., Luby, M., Roca, V., and R. Lehtonen,
"FLUTE - File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport", "FLUTE - File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport", RFC
RFC 6726, DOI 10.17487/RFC6726, November 2012, 6726, DOI 10.17487/RFC6726, November 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6726>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6726>.
[RFC6773] Phelan, T., Fairhurst, G., and C. Perkins, "DCCP-UDP: A [RFC6773] Phelan, T., Fairhurst, G., and C. Perkins, "DCCP-UDP: A
Datagram Congestion Control Protocol UDP Encapsulation for Datagram Congestion Control Protocol UDP Encapsulation for
NAT Traversal", RFC 6773, DOI 10.17487/RFC6773, November NAT Traversal", RFC 6773, DOI 10.17487/RFC6773, November
2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6773>. 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6773>.
[RFC6824] Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., and O. Bonaventure, [RFC6824] Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., and O. Bonaventure,
"TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple "TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple
Addresses", RFC 6824, DOI 10.17487/RFC6824, January 2013, Addresses", RFC 6824, DOI 10.17487/RFC6824, January 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6824>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6824>.
[RFC6897] Scharf, M. and A. Ford, "Multipath TCP (MPTCP) Application [RFC6897] Scharf, M. and A. Ford, "Multipath TCP (MPTCP) Application
Interface Considerations", RFC 6897, DOI 10.17487/RFC6897, Interface Considerations", RFC 6897, DOI 10.17487/RFC6897,
March 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6897>. March 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6897>.
[RFC6935] Eubanks, M., Chimento, P., and M. Westerlund, "IPv6 and [RFC6935] Eubanks, M., Chimento, P., and M. Westerlund, "IPv6 and
UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets", RFC 6935, UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets", RFC 6935, DOI
DOI 10.17487/RFC6935, April 2013, 10.17487/RFC6935, April 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6935>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6935>.
[RFC6936] Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerlund, "Applicability Statement [RFC6936] Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerlund, "Applicability Statement
for the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums", for the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums",
RFC 6936, DOI 10.17487/RFC6936, April 2013, RFC 6936, DOI 10.17487/RFC6936, April 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6936>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6936>.
[RFC6951] Tuexen, M. and R. Stewart, "UDP Encapsulation of Stream [RFC6951] Tuexen, M. and R. Stewart, "UDP Encapsulation of Stream
Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Packets for End-Host Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Packets for End-Host
to End-Host Communication", RFC 6951, to End-Host Communication", RFC 6951, DOI 10.17487/
DOI 10.17487/RFC6951, May 2013, RFC6951, May 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6951>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6951>.
[RFC7053] Tuexen, M., Ruengeler, I., and R. Stewart, "SACK- [RFC7053] Tuexen, M., Ruengeler, I., and R. Stewart, "SACK-
IMMEDIATELY Extension for the Stream Control Transmission IMMEDIATELY Extension for the Stream Control Transmission
Protocol", RFC 7053, DOI 10.17487/RFC7053, November 2013, Protocol", RFC 7053, DOI 10.17487/RFC7053, November 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7053>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7053>.
[RFC7202] Perkins, C. and M. Westerlund, "Securing the RTP [RFC7202] Perkins, C. and M. Westerlund, "Securing the RTP
Framework: Why RTP Does Not Mandate a Single Media Framework: Why RTP Does Not Mandate a Single Media
Security Solution", RFC 7202, DOI 10.17487/RFC7202, April Security Solution", RFC 7202, DOI 10.17487/RFC7202, April
2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7202>. 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7202>.
[RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer [RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", RFC
RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014, 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.
[RFC7231] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer [RFC7231] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231, Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231, DOI
DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014, 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.
[RFC7232] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer [RFC7232] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Conditional Requests", RFC 7232, Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Conditional Requests", RFC 7232, DOI
DOI 10.17487/RFC7232, June 2014, 10.17487/RFC7232, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7232>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7232>.
[RFC7233] Fielding, R., Ed., Lafon, Y., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., [RFC7233] Fielding, R., Ed., Lafon, Y., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed.,
"Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Range Requests", "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Range Requests",
RFC 7233, DOI 10.17487/RFC7233, June 2014, RFC 7233, DOI 10.17487/RFC7233, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7233>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7233>.
[RFC7234] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke, [RFC7234] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching", Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching",
RFC 7234, DOI 10.17487/RFC7234, June 2014, RFC 7234, DOI 10.17487/RFC7234, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7234>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7234>.
[RFC7235] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer [RFC7235] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication", RFC 7235, Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication", RFC 7235, DOI
DOI 10.17487/RFC7235, June 2014, 10.17487/RFC7235, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7235>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7235>.
[RFC7301] Friedl, S., Popov, A., Langley, A., and E. Stephan, [RFC7301] Friedl, S., Popov, A., Langley, A., and E. Stephan,
"Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer Protocol "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer Protocol
Negotiation Extension", RFC 7301, DOI 10.17487/RFC7301, Negotiation Extension", RFC 7301, DOI 10.17487/RFC7301,
July 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7301>. July 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7301>.
[RFC7323] Borman, D., Braden, B., Jacobson, V., and R. [RFC7323] Borman, D., Braden, B., Jacobson, V., and R.
Scheffenegger, Ed., "TCP Extensions for High Performance", Scheffenegger, Ed., "TCP Extensions for High Performance",
RFC 7323, DOI 10.17487/RFC7323, September 2014, RFC 7323, DOI 10.17487/RFC7323, September 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7323>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7323>.
[RFC7414] Duke, M., Braden, R., Eddy, W., Blanton, E., and A. [RFC7414] Duke, M., Braden, R., Eddy, W., Blanton, E., and A.
Zimmermann, "A Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol Zimmermann, "A Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol
(TCP) Specification Documents", RFC 7414, (TCP) Specification Documents", RFC 7414, DOI 10.17487/
DOI 10.17487/RFC7414, February 2015, RFC7414, February 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7414>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7414>.
[RFC7457] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre, "Summarizing [RFC7457] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre, "Summarizing
Known Attacks on Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Known Attacks on Transport Layer Security (TLS) and
Datagram TLS (DTLS)", RFC 7457, DOI 10.17487/RFC7457, Datagram TLS (DTLS)", RFC 7457, DOI 10.17487/RFC7457,
February 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7457>. February 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7457>.
[RFC7496] Tuexen, M., Seggelmann, R., Stewart, R., and S. Loreto, [RFC7496] Tuexen, M., Seggelmann, R., Stewart, R., and S. Loreto,
"Additional Policies for the Partially Reliable Stream "Additional Policies for the Partially Reliable Stream
Control Transmission Protocol Extension", RFC 7496, Control Transmission Protocol Extension", RFC 7496, DOI
DOI 10.17487/RFC7496, April 2015, 10.17487/RFC7496, April 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7496>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7496>.
[RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre, [RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre,
"Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May (DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May
2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>. 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>.
[RFC7540] Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., "Hypertext [RFC7540] Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)", RFC 7540, Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)", RFC 7540, DOI
DOI 10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015, 10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7540>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7540>.
[I-D.ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits]
Fairhurst, G. and M. Welzl, "The Benefits of using
Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)", draft-ietf-aqm-
ecn-benefits-08 (work in progress), November 2015.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis] [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis]
Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
Guidelines", draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-07 (work in Guidelines", draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis-07 (work in
progress), November 2015. progress), November 2015.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps] [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps]
Tuexen, M., Stewart, R., Jesup, R., and S. Loreto, "DTLS Tuexen, M., Stewart, R., Jesup, R., and S. Loreto, "DTLS
Encapsulation of SCTP Packets", draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp- Encapsulation of SCTP Packets", draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-
dtls-encaps-09 (work in progress), January 2015. dtls-encaps-09 (work in progress), January 2015.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-ndata] [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-ndata]
Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., Loreto, S., and R. Seggelmann, Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., Loreto, S., and R. Seggelmann,
"Stream Schedulers and User Message Interleaving for the "Stream Schedulers and User Message Interleaving for the
Stream Control Transmission Protocol", draft-ietf-tsvwg- Stream Control Transmission Protocol", draft-ietf-tsvwg-
sctp-ndata-04 (work in progress), July 2015. sctp-ndata-04 (work in progress), July 2015.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-failover]
Nishida, Y., Natarajan, P., Caro, A., Amer, P., and K.
Nielsen, "SCTP-PF: Quick Failover Algorithm in SCTP",
draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-failover-14 (work in progress),
December 2015.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-natsupp] [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-natsupp]
Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., and I. Ruengeler, "Stream Control Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., and I. Ruengeler, "Stream Control
Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Network Address Translation Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Network Address Translation
Support", draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-08 (work in progress), Support", draft-ietf-tsvwg-natsupp-08 (work in progress),
July 2015. July 2015.
[I-D.ietf-tcpm-cubic] [I-D.ietf-tcpm-cubic]
Rhee, I., Xu, L., Ha, S., Zimmermann, A., Eggert, L., and Rhee, I., Xu, L., Ha, S., Zimmermann, A., Eggert, L., and
R. Scheffenegger, "CUBIC for Fast Long-Distance Networks", R. Scheffenegger, "CUBIC for Fast Long-Distance Networks",
draft-ietf-tcpm-cubic-00 (work in progress), June 2015. draft-ietf-tcpm-cubic-01 (work in progress), January 2016.
[XHR] van Kesteren, A., Aubourg, J., Song, J., and H. Steen, [XHR] van Kesteren, A., Aubourg, J., Song, J., and H. Steen,
"XMLHttpRequest working draft "XMLHttpRequest working draft
(http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/)", 2000. (http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/)", 2000.
[REST] Fielding, R., "Architectural Styles and the Design of [REST] Fielding, R., "Architectural Styles and the Design of
Network-based Software Architectures, Ph. D. (UC Irvine), Network-based Software Architectures, Ph. D. (UC Irvine),
Chapter 5: Representational State Transfer", 2000. Chapter 5: Representational State Transfer", 2000.
[POSIX] 1-2008, IEEE., "IEEE Standard for Information Technology [POSIX] 1-2008, IEEE., "IEEE Standard for Information Technology
 End of changes. 144 change blocks. 
717 lines changed or deleted 701 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.43. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/