draft-ietf-taps-transports-10.txt   draft-ietf-taps-transports-11.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: September 5, 2016 M. Kuehlewind, Ed. Expires: January 8, 2017 M. Kuehlewind, Ed.
ETH Zurich ETH Zurich
March 04, 2016 July 07, 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-10 draft-ietf-taps-transports-11
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
Transport Protocol (RTP), File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport Protocol (RTP), File Delivery over Unidirectional
Transport/Asynchronous Layered Coding Reliable Multicast (FLUTE/ALC), Transport/Asynchronous Layered Coding Reliable Multicast (FLUTE/ALC),
and NACK-Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM), Transport Layer Security and NACK-Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM), Transport Layer Security
(TLS), Datagram TLS (DTLS), and the Hypertext Transport Protocol (TLS), Datagram TLS (DTLS), and the Hypertext Transport Protocol
(HTTP) when used as a pseudotransport. (HTTP), when HTTP is used as a pseudotransport.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 September 5, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 8, 2017.
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 4, line 25 skipping to change at page 4, line 25
1.1. Overview of Transport Features 1.1. Overview of Transport Features
Transport protocols can be differentiated by the features of the Transport protocols can be differentiated by the features of the
services they provide. services they provide.
Some of these provided features are closely related to basic control Some of these provided features are closely related to basic control
function that a protocol needs to work over a network path, such as function that a protocol needs to work over a network path, such as
addressing. The number of participants in a given association also addressing. The number of participants in a given association also
determines its applicability: if a connection is between endpoints determines its applicability: if a connection is between endpoints
(unicast), to one of multiple endpoints (anycast), and/or (unicast), to one of multiple endpoints (anycast), or simultaneously
simultaneously to multiple endpoints (multicast). Unicast protocols to multiple endpoints (multicast). Unicast protocols usually support
usually support bidirectional communication, while multicast is bidirectional communication, while multicast is generally
generally unidirectional. Another feature is whether a transport unidirectional. Another feature is whether a transport requires a
requires a control exchange across the network at setup (e.g., TCP), control exchange across the network at setup (e.g., TCP), or whether
or whether it connection-less (e.g., UDP). it is connection-less (e.g., UDP).
For the delivery of the packets itself, reliability and integrity For packet delivery itself, reliability and integrity protection,
protection, ordering, and framing are basic features. However, these ordering, and framing are basic features. However, these features
features are implemented with different levels of assurance in are implemented with different levels of assurance in different
different protocols. As an example, a transport service may provide protocols. As an example, a transport service may provide full
full reliability, providing detection of loss and retransmission reliability, providing detection of loss and retransmission (e.g.,
(e.g., TCP). SCTP offers a message-based service that can provide TCP). SCTP offers a message-based service that can provide full or
full or partial reliability, and allows the protocol to minimize the partial reliability, and allows the protocol to minimize the head of
head of line blocking due to the support of ordered and unordered line blocking due to the support of ordered and unordered message
message delivery within multiple streams. UDP-Lite and DCCP can delivery within multiple streams. UDP-Lite and DCCP can provide
provide partial integrity protection to enable corruption tolerance. 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 for In addition, transport protocols offer a certain support for
skipping to change at page 6, line 45 skipping to change at page 6, line 45
[RFC1191][RFC1981] as well as Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery [RFC1191][RFC1981] as well as Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery
(PMTUD) [RFC4821] have been defined by the IETF. (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. Duplicate
also result in less spurious retransmission. Selective ACK) can 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 uses a sequence number with a sliding receiver window [RFC5681]. TCP uses a sequence number with a sliding receiver window
for flow control. The TCP congestion control mechanism also utilises for flow control. The TCP congestion control mechanism also utilises
this TCP sequence number to manage a separate congestion window this TCP sequence number to manage a separate congestion window
skipping to change at page 9, line 18 skipping to change at page 9, line 18
o segmentation, o segmentation,
o data bundling (optional; uses Nagle's algorithm to coalesce data o data bundling (optional; uses Nagle's algorithm to coalesce data
sent within the same RTT into full-sized segments), sent within the same RTT into full-sized segments),
o flow control (implemented using a window-based mechanism where the o flow control (implemented using a window-based mechanism where the
receiver advertises the window that it is willing to buffer), receiver advertises the window that it is willing to buffer),
o congestion control (usually implemented using a window-based o congestion control (usually implemented using a window-based
mechanism and four algorithm for different phases of the mechanism and four algorithms for different phases of the
transmission: slow start, congestion avoidance, fast retransmit, transmission: slow start, congestion avoidance, fast retransmit,
and fast recovery [RFC5681]). and fast recovery [RFC5681]).
3.2. Multipath TCP (MPTCP) 3.2. Multipath TCP (MPTCP)
Multipath TCP [RFC6824] is an extension for TCP to support multi- Multipath TCP [RFC6824] is an extension for TCP to support multi-
homing for resilience, mobility and load-balancing. It is designed homing for resilience, mobility and load-balancing. It is designed
to be as transparent as possible to middleboxes. It does so by to be as indistinguishable to middleboxes from non-multipath TCP as
establishing regular TCP flows between a pair of source/destination possible. It does so by establishing regular TCP flows between a
endpoints, and multiplexing the application's stream over these pair of source/destination endpoints, and multiplexing the
flows. Sub-flows can be started over IPv4 or IPv6 for the same application's stream over these flows. Sub- flows can be started
session. over IPv4 or IPv6 for the same session.
3.2.1. Protocol Description 3.2.1. Protocol Description
MPTCP uses TCP options for its control plane. They are used to MPTCP uses TCP options for its control plane. They are used to
signal multipath capabilities, as well as to negotiate data sequence signal multipath capabilities, as well as to negotiate data sequence
numbers, and advertise other available IP addresses and establish new numbers, and advertise other available IP addresses and establish new
sessions between pairs of endpoints. sessions between pairs of endpoints.
By multiplexing one byte stream over separate paths, MPTCP can By multiplexing one byte stream over separate paths, MPTCP can
achieve a higher throughput than TCP in certain situations. However, achieve a higher throughput than TCP in certain situations. However,
skipping to change at page 11, line 23 skipping to change at page 11, line 23
It is possible to create IPv4 UDP datagrams with no checksum, and It is possible to create IPv4 UDP datagrams with no checksum, and
while this is generally discouraged [RFC1122] while this is generally discouraged [RFC1122]
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis], certain special cases permit this use. [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis], certain special cases permit this use.
These datagrams rely on the IPv4 header checksum to protect from These datagrams rely on the IPv4 header checksum to protect from
misdelivery to an unintended endpoint. IPv6 does not permit UDP misdelivery to an unintended endpoint. IPv6 does not permit UDP
datagrams with no checksum, although in certain cases this rule may datagrams with no checksum, although in certain cases this rule may
be relaxed [RFC6935]. be relaxed [RFC6935].
UDP does not provide reliability and does not provide retransmission. UDP does not provide reliability and does not provide retransmission.
This implies messages may be re-ordered, lost, or duplicated in Messages may be re-ordered, lost, or duplicated in transit. Note
transit. Note that due to the relatively weak form of checksum used that due to the relatively weak form of checksum used by UDP,
by UDP, applications that require end to end integrity of data are applications that require end to end integrity of data are
recommended to include a stronger integrity check of their payload recommended to include a stronger integrity check of their payload
data. data.
Because UDP provides no flow control, a receiving application that is Because UDP provides no flow control, a receiving application that is
unable to run sufficiently fast, or frequently, may miss messages. unable to run sufficiently fast, or frequently, may miss messages.
The lack of congestion handling implies UDP traffic may experience The lack of congestion handling implies UDP traffic may experience
loss when using an overloaded path, and may cause the loss of loss when using an overloaded path, and may cause the loss of
messages from other protocols (e.g., TCP) when sharing the same messages from other protocols (e.g., TCP) when sharing the same
network path. network path.
skipping to change at page 13, line 9 skipping to change at page 13, line 9
The Lightweight User Datagram Protocol (UDP-Lite) [RFC3828] is an The Lightweight User Datagram Protocol (UDP-Lite) [RFC3828] is an
IETF standards track transport protocol. It provides a IETF standards track transport protocol. It provides a
unidirectional, datagram protocol that preserves message boundaries. unidirectional, datagram protocol that preserves message boundaries.
IETF guidance on the use of UDP- Lite is provided in IETF guidance on the use of UDP- Lite is provided in
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis]. A UDP-Lite service may support IPv4 [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc5405bis]. A UDP-Lite service may support IPv4
broadcast, multicast, anycast and unicast, and IPv6 multicast, broadcast, multicast, anycast and unicast, and IPv6 multicast,
anycast and unicast. anycast and unicast.
Examples of use include a class of applications that can derive Examples of use include a class of applications that can derive
benefit from having partially-damaged payloads delivered, rather than benefit from having partially-damaged payloads delivered, rather than
discarded. One use is to support error tolerate payload corruption discarded. One use is to provider header integrity checks but allow
when used over paths that include error-prone links, another delivery of corrupted payloads to error-tolerant applications, or
application is when header integrity checks are required, but payload when payload integrity is provided by some other mechanism (see
integrity is provided by some other mechanism (e.g., [RFC6936]). [RFC6936]).
3.4.1. Protocol Description 3.4.1. Protocol Description
Like UDP, UDP-Lite is a connection-less datagram protocol, with no Like UDP, UDP-Lite is a connection-less datagram protocol, with no
connection setup or feature negotiation. It changes the semantics of connection setup or feature negotiation. It changes the semantics of
the UDP "payload length" field to that of a "checksum coverage the UDP "payload length" field to that of a "checksum coverage
length" field, and is identified by a different IP protocol/next- length" field, and is identified by a different IP protocol/next-
header value. The "checksum coverage length" field specifies the header value. The "checksum coverage length" field specifies the
intended checksum coverage, with the remaining unprotected part of intended checksum coverage, with the remaining unprotected part of
the payload called the "error-insensitive part". Applications using the payload called the "error-insensitive part". Applications using
skipping to change at page 15, line 26 skipping to change at page 15, line 26
[RFC4960] specifies TCP-friendly congestion control to protect the [RFC4960] specifies TCP-friendly congestion control to protect the
network against overload. SCTP also uses sliding window flow control network against overload. SCTP also uses sliding window flow control
to protect receivers against overflow. Similar to TCP, SCTP also to protect receivers against overflow. Similar to TCP, SCTP also
supports delaying acknowledgments. [RFC7053] provides a way for the supports delaying acknowledgments. [RFC7053] provides a way for the
sender of user messages to request the immediate sending of the sender of user messages to request the immediate sending of the
corresponding acknowledgments. corresponding acknowledgments.
Each SCTP association has between 1 and 65536 uni-directional streams Each SCTP association has between 1 and 65536 uni-directional streams
in each direction. The number of streams can be different in each in each direction. The number of streams can be different in each
direction. Every user message is sent on a particular stream. User direction. Every user message is sent on a particular stream. User
messages can be sent un-ordered, or ordered upon request by the upper messages can be sent un- ordered, or ordered upon request by the
layer. Un-ordered messages can be delivered as soon as they are upper layer. Un-ordered messages can be delivered as soon as they
completely received. Ordered messages sent on the same stream are are completely received. For user messages not requiring
delivered at the receiver in the same order as sent by the sender. fragmentation, this minimizes head of line blocking. On the other
For user messages not requiring fragmentation, this minimizes head of hand, ordered messages sent on the same stream are delivered at the
line blocking. receiver in the same order as sent by the sender.
The base protocol defined in [RFC4960] does not allow interleaving of The base protocol defined in [RFC4960] does not allow interleaving of
user- messages. Large messages on one stream can therefore block the user- messages. Large messages on one stream can therefore block the
sending of user messages on other streams. sending of user messages on other streams.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-ndata] overcomes this limitation. This draft [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-sctp-ndata] overcomes this limitation. This draft
also specifies multiple algorithms for the sender side selection of also specifies multiple algorithms for the sender side selection of
which streams to send data from, supporting a variety of scheduling which streams to send data from, supporting a variety of scheduling
algorithms including priority based methods. The stream re- algorithms including priority based methods. The stream re-
configuration extension defined in [RFC6525] allows streams to be configuration extension defined in [RFC6525] allows streams to be
reset during the lifetime of an association and to increase the reset during the lifetime of an association and to increase the
skipping to change at page 22, line 23 skipping to change at page 22, line 23
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. Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram TLS (DTLS) as a 3.7. Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram TLS (DTLS) as a
pseudotransport pseudotransport
Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC5246]} and Datagram TLS (DTLS) Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC5246] and Datagram TLS (DTLS)
[RFC6347]} are IETF protocols that provide several security-related [RFC6347] are IETF protocols that provide several security-related
features to applications. TLS is designed to run on top of a features to applications. TLS is designed to run on top of a
reliable streaming transport protocol (usually TCP), while DTLS is reliable streaming transport protocol (usually TCP), while DTLS is
designed to run on top of a best-effort datagram protocol (UDP or 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 DCCP [RFC5238]). At the time of writing, the current version of TLS
is 1.2; which is defined in [RFC5246]. DTLS provides nearly is 1.2; which is defined in [RFC5246]. DTLS provides nearly
identical functionality to applications; it is defined in [RFC6347] identical functionality to applications; it is defined in [RFC6347]
and its current version is also 1.2. The TLS protocol evolved from and its current version is also 1.2. The TLS protocol evolved from
the Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) protocols developed in the mid-1990s the Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) protocols developed in the mid-1990s
to support protection of HTTP traffic. to support protection of HTTP traffic.
skipping to change at page 23, line 34 skipping to change at page 23, line 34
duplicated datagrams. Like TLS, DTLS conveys application data in a duplicated datagrams. Like TLS, DTLS conveys application data in a
sequence of independent records. However, because records are mapped sequence of independent records. However, because records are mapped
to unreliable datagrams, there are several features unique to DTLS to unreliable datagrams, there are several features unique to DTLS
that are not applicable to TLS: that are not applicable to TLS:
o Record replay detection (optional). o Record replay detection (optional).
o Record size negotiation (estimates of PMTU and record size o Record size negotiation (estimates of PMTU and record size
expansion factor). expansion factor).
o Coveyance of IP don't fragment (DF) bit settings by application. o Conveyance of IP don't fragment (DF) bit settings by application.
o An anti-DoS stateless cookie mechanism (optional). o An anti-DoS stateless cookie mechanism (optional).
Generally, DTLS follows the TLS design as closely as possible. To Generally, DTLS follows the TLS design as closely as possible. To
operate over datagrams, DTLS includes a sequence number and limited operate over datagrams, DTLS includes a sequence number and limited
forms of retransmission and fragmentation for its internal forms of retransmission and fragmentation for its internal
operations. The sequence number may be used for detecting replayed operations. The sequence number may be used for detecting replayed
information, according to the windowing procedure described in information, according to the windowing procedure described in
Section 4.1.2.6 of [RFC6347]. DTLS forbids the use of stream Section 4.1.2.6 of [RFC6347]. DTLS forbids the use of stream
ciphers, which are essentially incompatible when operating on ciphers, which are essentially incompatible when operating on
skipping to change at page 27, line 24 skipping to change at page 27, line 24
o performance metric reporting (using associated protocols). o performance metric reporting (using associated protocols).
3.9. Hypertext Transport Protocol (HTTP) over TCP as a pseudotransport 3.9. Hypertext Transport Protocol (HTTP) over TCP as a pseudotransport
The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level
protocol widely used on the Internet. It provides object-oriented protocol widely used on the Internet. It provides object-oriented
delivery of discrete data or files. Version 1.1 of the protocol is delivery of discrete data or files. Version 1.1 of the protocol is
specified in [RFC7230] [RFC7231] [RFC7232] [RFC7233] [RFC7234] specified in [RFC7230] [RFC7231] [RFC7232] [RFC7233] [RFC7234]
[RFC7235], and version 2 in [RFC7540]. HTTP is usually transported [RFC7235], and version 2 in [RFC7540]. HTTP is usually transported
over TCP using port 80 and 443, although it can be used with other over TCP using port 80 and 443, although it can be used with other
transports. When used over TCP it inherits its properties. transports. When used over TCP it inherits TCP's properties.
Application layer protocols may use HTTP as a substrate with an Application layer protocols may use HTTP as a substrate with an
existing method and data formats, or specify new methods and data existing method and data formats, or specify new methods and data
formats. There are various reasons for this practice listed in formats. There are various reasons for this practice listed in
[RFC3205]; these include being a well-known and well-understood [RFC3205]; these include being a well-known and well-understood
protocol, reusability of existing servers and client libraries, easy protocol, reusability of existing servers and client libraries, easy
use of existing security mechanisms such as HTTP digest use of existing security mechanisms such as HTTP digest
authentication [RFC2617] and TLS [RFC5246], the ability of HTTP to authentication [RFC2617] and TLS [RFC5246], the ability of HTTP to
traverse firewalls makes it work over many types of infrastructure, traverse firewalls makes it work over many types of infrastructure,
and in cases where an application server often needs to support HTTP and in cases where an application server often needs to support HTTP
skipping to change at page 28, line 32 skipping to change at page 28, line 32
resource. The client and server negotiate acceptable data formats, resource. The client and server negotiate acceptable data formats,
character sets, data encoding (e.g., data can be transferred character sets, data encoding (e.g., data can be transferred
compressed using gzip). HTTP can accommodate exchange of messages as compressed using gzip). HTTP can accommodate exchange of messages as
well as data streaming (using chunked transfer encoding [RFC7230]). well as data streaming (using chunked transfer encoding [RFC7230]).
It is also possible to request a part of a resource using an object It is also possible to request a part of a resource using an object
range request [RFC7233]. The protocol provides powerful cache range request [RFC7233]. The protocol provides powerful cache
control signaling defined in [RFC7234]. control signaling defined in [RFC7234].
The persistent connections of HTTP 1.1 and HTTP 2.0 allow multiple The persistent connections of HTTP 1.1 and HTTP 2.0 allow multiple
request- response transactions (streams) during the life-time of a request- response transactions (streams) during the life-time of a
single HTTP connection. HTTP 2.0 connections can multiplex many single HTTP connection. This reduces overhead during connection
request/response pairs in parallel on a single transport connection. establishment and mitigates transport layer slow-start that would
This reduces overhead during connection establishment and mitigates have otherwise been incurred for each transaction. HTTP 2.0
transport layer slow-start that would have otherwise been incurred connections can multiplex many request/response pairs in parallel on
for each transaction. Both are important to reduce latency for a single transport connection. Both are important to reduce latency
HTTP's primary use case. for HTTP's primary use case.
HTTP can be combined with security mechanisms, such as TLS (denoted HTTP can be combined with security mechanisms, such as TLS (denoted
by HTTPS). This adds protocol properties provided by such a by HTTPS). This adds protocol properties provided by such a
mechanism (e.g., authentication, encryption). The TLS Application- mechanism (e.g., authentication, encryption). The TLS Application-
Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) extension [RFC7301] can be used to Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) extension [RFC7301] can be used to
negotiate the HTTP version within the TLS handshake, eliminating the negotiate the HTTP version within the TLS handshake, eliminating the
latency incurred by additional round-trip exchanges. Arbitrary latency incurred by additional round-trip exchanges. Arbitrary
cookie strings, included as part of the MIME headers, are often used cookie strings, included as part of the MIME headers, are often used
as bearer tokens in HTTP. as bearer tokens in HTTP.
3.9.2. Interface Description 3.9.2. Interface Description
There are many HTTP libraries available exposing different APIs. The There are many HTTP libraries available exposing different APIs. The
APIs provide a way to specify a request by providing a URI, a method, APIs provide a way to specify a request by providing a URI, a method,
request modifiers and optionally a request body. For the response, request modifiers and optionally a request body. For the response,
callbacks can be registered that will be invoked when the response is callbacks can be registered that will be invoked when the response is
received. If TLS is used, the API exposes a registration of received. If HTTPS is used, the API exposes a registration of
callbacks for a server that requests client authentication and when callbacks for a server that requests client authentication and when
certificate verification is needed. certificate verification is needed.
The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has standardized the The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has standardized the
XMLHttpRequest API [XHR]. This API can be used for sending HTTP/ XMLHttpRequest API [XHR]. This API can be used for sending HTTP/
HTTPS requests and receiving server responses. Besides the XML data HTTPS requests and receiving server responses. Besides the XML data
format, the request and response data format can also be JSON, HTML, format, the request and response data format can also be JSON, HTML,
and plain text. JavaScript and XMLHttpRequest are ubiquitous and plain text. JavaScript and XMLHttpRequest are ubiquitous
programming models for websites, and more general applications, where programming models for websites, and more general applications, where
native code is less attractive. native code is less attractive.
skipping to change at page 33, line 24 skipping to change at page 33, line 24
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 TCP-
TCP-friendly congestion control. The reliability, congestion control friendly multicast congestion control (TFMCC, [RFC4654]). The
and flow control mechanisms can be separately controlled to meet reliability, congestion control and flow control mechanisms can be
different application needs. separately controlled to meet different application needs.
3.11.1. 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"
skipping to change at page 36, line 27 skipping to change at page 36, line 27
ICMP messages typically relay diagnostic information from an endpoint ICMP messages typically relay diagnostic information from an endpoint
[RFC1122] or network device [RFC1716] addressed to the sender of a [RFC1122] or network device [RFC1716] addressed to the sender of a
flow. This usually contains the network protocol header of a packet flow. This usually contains the network protocol header of a packet
that encountered a reported issue. Some formats of messages can also that encountered a reported issue. Some formats of messages can also
carry other payload data. Each message carries an integrity check carry other payload data. Each message carries an integrity check
calculated in the same way as for UDP, this checksum is not optional. calculated in the same way as for UDP, this checksum is not optional.
The RFC series defines additional IPv6 message formats to support a The RFC series defines additional IPv6 message formats to support a
range of uses. In the case of IPv6 the protocol incorporates range of uses. In the case of IPv6 the protocol incorporates
neighbor discovery [RFC2461] [RFC3971]} (provided by ARP for IPv4) neighbor discovery [RFC2461] [RFC3971] (provided by ARP for IPv4) and
and the Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) [RFC2710] group management the Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) [RFC2710] group management
functions (provided by IGMP for IPv4). functions (provided by IGMP for IPv4).
Reliable transmission can not be assumed. A receiving application Reliable transmission can not be assumed. A receiving application
that is unable to run sufficiently fast, or frequently, may miss that is unable to run sufficiently fast, or frequently, may miss
messages since there is no flow or congestion control. In addition messages since there is no flow or congestion control. In addition
some network devices rate-limit ICMP messages. some network devices rate-limit ICMP messages.
3.12.2. Interface Description 3.12.2. Interface Description
ICMP processing is integrated in many connection-oriented transports, ICMP processing is integrated in many connection-oriented transports,
skipping to change at page 37, line 34 skipping to change at page 37, line 34
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 is an Additive Increase Multiplicative received. One example is an Additive Increase Multiplicative
Decrease (AIMD) scheme, where the window is increased by a certain Decrease (AIMD) scheme, where the window is increased by a certain
number of packets/bytes for each data segment that has been number of packets/bytes for each data segment that has been
successfully transmitted, while the window is multiplicatively successfully transmitted, while the window decreases multiplicatively
decrease on the occurrence of a congestion event. This can lead to a on the occurrence of a congestion event. This can lead to a rather
rather unstable, oscillating sending rate, but will resolve a unstable, oscillating sending rate, but will resolve a congestion
congestion situation quickly. TCP New Reno [RFC5681] which is one of situation quickly. TCP New Reno [RFC5681] which is one of the
the initial proposed schemes for TCP as well as TCP Cubic 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
the maximum acceptable rate. Such methods are used with DCCP CCID-3 the maximum acceptable rate. Such methods are used with DCCP CCID-3
[RFC4342] and CCID-4 [RFC5622], WEBRC [RFC3738], and other [RFC4342] and CCID-4 [RFC5622], WEBRC [RFC3738], and other
applications. applications.
Another class of applications prefer a transport service that yields Another class of applications prefer a transport service that yields
to other (higher-priority) traffic, such as interactive to other (higher-priority) traffic, such as interactive
transmissions. While most traffic in the Internet uses loss-based transmissions. While most traffic in the Internet uses loss-based
congestion control and therefore need to fill the network buffers (to congestion control and therefore tends to fill the network buffers
a certain level if Active Queue Management (AQM) is used), low- (to a certain level if Active Queue Management (AQM) is used), low-
priority congestion control methods often react to changes in delay priority congestion control methods often react to changes in delay
as an earlier indication of congestion. This approach tends to as an earlier indication of congestion. This approach tends to
induce less loss than a loss-based method but does generally not induce less loss than a loss-based method but does generally not
compete well with loss-based traffic across shared bottleneck links. compete well with loss-based traffic across shared bottleneck links.
Therefore, methods such as LEDBAT [RFC6824], are deployed in the Therefore, methods such as LEDBAT [RFC6824], are deployed in the
Internet for scavenger traffic that aim to only utilize otherwise Internet for scavenger traffic that aim to only utilize otherwise
unused capacity. unused capacity.
5. Transport Features 5. Transport Features
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| UDP | UDP | SCTP |DCCP |ICMP | | Feature | TCP | MPTCP| UDP | UDPL | SCTP | DCCP | ICMP |
+---------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ +---------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Datagram | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | | Datagram | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
+---------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ +---------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Conn. Oriented| Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | | Conn. Oriented| Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | No |
+---------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ +---------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Reliability | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | No | | Reliability | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | No |
+---------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ +---------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Partial Rel. | No | No | N/A | N/A | Poss | Yes | N/A | | Partial Rel. | No | No | N/A | N/A | Poss | Yes | N/A |
+---------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ +---------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Corupt. Tol | No | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | | Corupt. Tol | No | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | No |
skipping to change at page 41, line 36 skipping to change at page 41, line 36
+ message-oriented delivery (UDP, UDP-Lite, SCTP, DCCP, DTLS, + message-oriented delivery (UDP, UDP-Lite, SCTP, DCCP, DTLS,
RTP) RTP)
+ object-oriented delivery of discrete data or files and + object-oriented delivery of discrete data or files and
associated metadata (HTTP, FLUTE/ALC, NORM) associated metadata (HTTP, FLUTE/ALC, NORM)
- with partial delivery of object ranges (HTTP) - with partial delivery of object ranges (HTTP)
* Directionality * Directionality
+ unidirectional (TCP, UDP, UDP-Lite, SCTP, DCCP, RTP, FLUTE/ + unidirectional (UDP, UDP-Lite, DCCP, RTP, FLUTE/ALC, NORM)
ALC, NORM)
+ bidirectional (TCP, MPTCP, SCTP, TLS, HTTP) + bidirectional (TCP, MPTCP, SCTP, TLS, HTTP)
o Transmission control o Transmission control
* flow control (TCP, MPTCP, SCTP, DCCP, TLS, RTP, 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., TLS, RTP, HTTP). supporting an upper later transport (e.g., TLS, RTP, HTTP).
skipping to change at page 43, line 5 skipping to change at page 43, line 5
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 3.3 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 3.5 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 3.7 on TLS and DTLS was contributed by Ralph Holz
(ralph.holz@nicta.com.au) and Olivier Mehani
(olivier.mehani@nicta.com.au)
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 HTTP was contributed by Dragana Damjanovic
(ddamjanovic@mozilla.com)
o Section 3.10 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 3.11 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 3.7 on TLS and DTLS was contributed by Ralph Holz
(ralph.holz@nicta.com.au) and Olivier Mehani
(olivier.mehani@nicta.com.au)
o Section 3.9 on HTTP was contributed by Dragana Damjanovic
(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, Spencer Dawkins, and the TAPS
the comments, feedback, and discussion. This work is supported by Working Group for the comments, feedback, and discussion. This work
the European Commission under grant agreement No. 318627 mPlane and is supported by the European Commission under grant agreement No.
from the Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant 318627 mPlane and from the Horizon 2020 research and innovation
agreements No. 644334 (NEAT) and No. 688421 (MAMI). This support program under grant agreements No. 644334 (NEAT) and No. 688421
does not imply endorsement. (MAMI). This support does not imply endorsement.
10. Informative References 10. Informative References
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, DOI [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980, DOI 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, RFC [RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981, RFC 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, DOI 10.17487/ Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
RFC1122, October 1989, DOI 10.17487/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, DOI 10.17487/ Selective Acknowledgment Options", RFC 2018,
RFC2018, October 1996, DOI 10.17487/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, DOI Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461,
10.17487/RFC2461, December 1998, DOI 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, DOI Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710,
10.17487/RFC2710, October 1999, DOI 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, DOI Payload Format Specifications", BCP 36, RFC 2736,
10.17487/RFC2736, December 1999, DOI 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", RFC of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001, RFC 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, DOI 10.17487/ Control (WEBRC) Building Block", RFC 3738,
RFC3738, April 2004, DOI 10.17487/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, DOI 10.17487/ Partial Reliability Extension", RFC 3758,
RFC3758, May 2004, DOI 10.17487/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", RFC "FLUTE - File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport",
3926, DOI 10.17487/RFC3926, October 2004, RFC 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, DOI "SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971,
10.17487/RFC3971, March 2005, DOI 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)", RFC for the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)",
4336, DOI 10.17487/RFC4336, March 2006, RFC 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, DOI Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340,
10.17487/RFC4340, March 2006, DOI 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, DOI Dynamic Home Agent (HA) Assignment", RFC 4433,
10.17487/RFC4433, March 2006, DOI 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", RFC Congestion Control (TFMCC): Protocol Specification",
4654, DOI 10.17487/RFC4654, August 2006, RFC 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, DOI (TFRC): The Small-Packet (SP) Variant", RFC 4828,
10.17487/RFC4828, April 2007, DOI 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, DOI 10.17487/ Dynamic Address Reconfiguration", RFC 5061,
RFC5061, September 2007, DOI 10.17487/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, DOI 10.17487/ (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
RFC5246, August 2008, DOI 10.17487/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)", RFC the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)",
5238, DOI 10.17487/RFC5238, May 2008, RFC 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", RFC Friendly Rate Control (TFRC): Protocol Specification",
5348, DOI 10.17487/RFC5348, September 2008, RFC 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, DOI [RFC5461] Gont, F., "TCP's Reaction to Soft Errors", RFC 5461,
10.17487/RFC5461, February 2009, DOI 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, DOI Control for Small Packets (TFRC-SP)", RFC 5622,
10.17487/RFC5622, August 2009, DOI 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, DOI 10.17487/ Transport (LCT) Building Block", RFC 5651,
RFC5651, October 2009, DOI 10.17487/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, DOI 10.17487/ (DKIM) Signatures -- Update", RFC 5672,
RFC5672, August 2009, DOI 10.17487/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, DOI Protocol Port Randomization", BCP 156, RFC 6056,
10.17487/RFC6056, January 2011, DOI 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, DOI 10.17487/ Transmission Protocol (SCTP)", RFC 6083,
RFC6083, January 2011, DOI 10.17487/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", RFC Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Stream Reconfiguration",
6525, DOI 10.17487/RFC6525, February 2012, RFC 6525, DOI 10.17487/RFC6525, February 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6525>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6525>.
[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", RFC Congestion Control for Multipath Transport Protocols",
6356, DOI 10.17487/RFC6356, October 2011, RFC 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, DOI 10.17487/ Correction (FEC) Framework", RFC 6363,
RFC6363, October 2011, DOI 10.17487/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, DOI 10.17487/ Transmission Protocol (SCTP)", RFC 6458,
RFC6458, December 2011, DOI 10.17487/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, DOI Reliable Multicast (NORM) Protocols", RFC 6584,
10.17487/RFC6584, April 2012, DOI 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", RFC "FLUTE - File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport",
6726, DOI 10.17487/RFC6726, November 2012, RFC 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, DOI UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets", RFC 6935,
10.17487/RFC6935, April 2013, DOI 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, DOI 10.17487/ to End-Host Communication", RFC 6951,
RFC6951, May 2013, DOI 10.17487/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", RFC Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014, RFC 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, DOI Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231,
10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014, DOI 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, DOI Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Conditional Requests", RFC 7232,
10.17487/RFC7232, June 2014, DOI 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, DOI Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication", RFC 7235,
10.17487/RFC7235, June 2014, DOI 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, DOI 10.17487/ (TCP) Specification Documents", RFC 7414,
RFC7414, February 2015, DOI 10.17487/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, DOI Control Transmission Protocol Extension", RFC 7496,
10.17487/RFC7496, April 2015, DOI 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, DOI Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)", RFC 7540,
10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7540>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7540>.
[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-15 (work in
progress), November 2015. progress), June 2016.
[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-05 (work in progress), March 2016.
[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-09 (work in progress),
July 2015. May 2016.
[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-01 (work in progress), January 2016. 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.
 End of changes. 73 change blocks. 
171 lines changed or deleted 170 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/