draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-prpolicies-07.txt   rfc7496.txt 
Network Working Group M. Tuexen Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Tuexen
Internet-Draft Muenster Univ. of Appl. Sciences Request for Comments: 7496 Muenster Univ. of Appl. Sciences
Intended status: Standards Track R. Seggelmann Category: Standards Track R. Seggelmann
Expires: August 11, 2015 T-Systems International GmbH ISSN: 2070-1721 Metafinanz Informationssysteme GmbH
R. Stewart R. Stewart
Netflix, Inc. Netflix, Inc.
S. Loreto S. Loreto
Ericsson Ericsson
February 7, 2015 April 2015
Additional Policies for the Partial Reliability Extension of the Stream Additional Policies for the Partially Reliable
Control Transmission Protocol Stream Control Transmission Protocol Extension
draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-prpolicies-07.txt
Abstract Abstract
This document defines two additional policies for the Partial This document defines two additional policies for the Partially
Reliability Extension of the Stream Control Transmission Protocol Reliable Stream Control Transmission Protocol (PR-SCTP) extension.
(PR-SCTP) allowing to limit the number of retransmissions or to These policies allow limitation of the number of retransmissions and
prioritize user messages for more efficient send buffer usage. prioritization of user messages for more efficient usage of the send
buffer.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 11, 2015. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7496.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Additional PR-SCTP Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Additional PR-SCTP Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Limited Retransmissions Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. Limited Retransmissions Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Priority Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.2. Priority Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Socket API Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Socket API Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Data Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1. Data Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Support for Added PR-SCTP Policies . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.2. Support for Added PR-SCTP Policies . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. Socket Option for Getting the Stream Specific PR-SCTP 4.3. Socket Option for Getting the Stream-Specific PR-SCTP
Status (SCTP_PR_STREAM_STATUS) . . . . . 5 Status (SCTP_PR_STREAM_STATUS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.4. Socket Option for Getting the Association Specific PR- 4.4. Socket Option for Getting the Association-Specific
SCTP Status (SCTP_PR_ASSOC_STATUS) . . . 6 PR-SCTP Status (SCTP_PR_ASSOC_STATUS) . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.5. Socket Option for Getting and Setting the PR-SCTP Support 4.5. Socket Option for Getting and Setting the PR-SCTP Support
(SCTP_PR_SUPPORTED) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 (SCTP_PR_SUPPORTED) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The SCTP Partial Reliability Extension (PR-SCTP) defined in [RFC3758] The Partially Reliable SCTP (PR-SCTP) extension defined in [RFC3758]
provides a generic method for senders to abandon user messages. The provides a generic method for senders to abandon user messages. The
decision to abandon a user message is sender side only and the exact decision to abandon a user message is sender side only, and the exact
condition is called a PR-SCTP policy ([RFC3758] refers to them as condition is called a "PR-SCTP policy" ([RFC3758] refers to them as
'PR-SCTP Services'). [RFC3758] also defines one particular PR-SCTP "PR-SCTP Services"). [RFC3758] also defines one particular PR-SCTP
policy, called Timed Reliability. This allows the sender to specify policy, called "Timed Reliability". This allows the sender to
a timeout for a user message after which the SCTP stack abandons the specify a timeout for a user message after which the SCTP stack
user message. abandons the user message.
This document specifies the following two additional PR-SCTP This document specifies the following two additional PR-SCTP
policies: policies:
Limited Retransmission Policy: Allows to limit the number of Limited Retransmission Policy: Allows limitation of the number of
retransmissions. retransmissions.
Priority Policy: Allows to discard lower priority messages if space Priority Policy: Allows removal of lower-priority messages if space
for higher priority messages is needed in the send buffer. for higher-priority messages is needed in the send buffer.
2. Conventions 2. Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. Additional PR-SCTP Policies 3. Additional PR-SCTP Policies
This section defines two new PR-SCTP policies, one in each This section defines two new PR-SCTP policies, one in each
skipping to change at page 3, line 44 skipping to change at page 4, line 14
The sender MAY limit the number of retransmissions to 0. This will The sender MAY limit the number of retransmissions to 0. This will
result in abandoning the message when it would get retransmitted for result in abandoning the message when it would get retransmitted for
the first time. The use of this setting provides a service similar the first time. The use of this setting provides a service similar
to UDP, which also does not perform any retransmissions. to UDP, which also does not perform any retransmissions.
Please note that using this policy does not affect the handling of Please note that using this policy does not affect the handling of
the thresholds 'Association.Max.Retrans' and 'Path.Max.Retrans' as the thresholds 'Association.Max.Retrans' and 'Path.Max.Retrans' as
specified in Section 8 of [RFC4960]. specified in Section 8 of [RFC4960].
The WebRTC protocol stack (see [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel]), is an The WebRTC protocol stack (see [DATA-CHAN]) is an example of where
example of where the Limited Retransmissions Policy is used. the Limited Retransmissions Policy is used.
3.2. Priority Policy 3.2. Priority Policy
Using the Priority Policy allows the sender of a user message to Using the Priority Policy allows the sender of a user message to
specify a priority. When storing a user message in the send buffer specify a priority. When storing a user message in the send buffer
while there is not enough available space, the SCTP stack at the while there is not enough available space, the SCTP stack at the
sender side MAY abandon other user message(s) of the same SCTP sender side MAY abandon other user message(s) of the same SCTP
association (with the same or a different stream) with a priority association (with the same or a different stream) with a priority
lower than the provided one. User messages sent reliable are lower than the provided one. User messages sent reliably are
considered having a priority higher than all messages sent with the considered to have a priority higher than all messages sent with the
Priority Policy. The algorithm for selecting the message(s) being Priority Policy. The algorithm for selecting the message(s) being
abandoned is implementation specific. abandoned is implementation specific.
After lower priority messages have been abandoned high priority After lower-priority messages have been abandoned, high-priority
messages can be transferred without the send call blocking (if used messages can be transferred without the send call blocking (if used
in blocking mode) or the send call failing (if used in non-blocking in blocking mode) or the send call failing (if used in non-blocking
mode). mode).
The IPFIX protocol stack (see [RFC7011]) is an example of where the The IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) protocol stack (see [RFC7011])
Priority Policy can be used. Template records would be sent with is an example of where the Priority Policy can be used. Template
full reliability, while billing, security-related, and other records would be sent with full reliability, while flow records
monitoring flow records would be sent using the Priority Policy with related to billing, security, and other monitoring would be sent
varying priority. The priority of security related flow-records using the Priority Policy with varying priority. The priority of
would be chosen higher than the the priority of monitoring flow security-related flow records would be set higher than the priority
records. of monitoring-related flow records.
4. Socket API Considerations 4. Socket API Considerations
This section describes how the socket API defined in [RFC6458] is This section describes how the socket API defined in [RFC6458] is
extended to support the newly defined PR-SCTP policies, to provide extended to support the newly defined PR-SCTP policies, to provide
some statistical information and to control the negotiation of the some statistical information, and to control the negotiation of the
PR-SCTP extension during the SCTP association setup. PR-SCTP extension during the SCTP association setup.
Please note that this section is informational only. Please note that this section is informational only.
4.1. Data Types 4.1. Data Types
This section uses data types from [IEEE.1003-1G.1997]: uintN_t means This section uses data types from [IEEE.1003-1G.1997]: uintN_t means
an unsigned integer of exactly N bits (e.g. uint16_t). This is the an unsigned integer of exactly N bits (e.g., uint16_t). This is the
same as in [RFC6458]. same as in [RFC6458].
4.2. Support for Added PR-SCTP Policies 4.2. Support for Added PR-SCTP Policies
As defined in [RFC6458], the PR-SCTP policy is specified and As defined in [RFC6458], the PR-SCTP policy is specified and
configured by using the following sctp_prinfo structure: configured by using the following sctp_prinfo structure:
struct sctp_prinfo { struct sctp_prinfo {
uint16_t pr_policy; uint16_t pr_policy;
uint32_t pr_value; uint32_t pr_value;
}; };
When the Limited Retransmission Policy described in Section 3.1 is When the Limited Retransmission Policy described in Section 3.1 is
used, pr_policy has the value SCTP_PR_SCTP_RTX and the number of used, pr_policy has the value SCTP_PR_SCTP_RTX and the number of
retransmissions is given in pr_value. retransmissions is given in pr_value.
When using the Priority Policy described in Section 3.2, pr_policy When using the Priority Policy described in Section 3.2, pr_policy
has the value SCTP_PR_SCTP_PRIO. The priority is given in pr_value. has the value SCTP_PR_SCTP_PRIO. The priority is given in pr_value.
The value of zero is the highest priority and larger numbers in The value of zero is the highest priority, and larger numbers in
pr_value denote lower priorities. pr_value denote lower priorities.
The following table summarizes the possible parameter settings The following table summarizes the possible parameter settings
defined in [RFC6458] and this document: defined in [RFC6458] and this document:
+-------------------+---------------------------+---------------+ +-------------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| pr_policy | pr_value | Specification | | pr_policy | pr_value | Specification |
+-------------------+---------------------------+---------------+ +-------------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| SCTP_PR_SCTP_NONE | Ignored | [RFC6458] | | SCTP_PR_SCTP_NONE | Ignored | [RFC6458] |
| SCTP_PR_SCTP_TTL | Lifetime in ms | [RFC6458] | | SCTP_PR_SCTP_TTL | Lifetime in ms | [RFC6458] |
| SCTP_PR_SCTP_RTX | Number of retransmissions | Section 3.1 | | SCTP_PR_SCTP_RTX | Number of retransmissions | Section 3.1 |
| SCTP_PR_SCTP_PRIO | Priority | Section 3.2 | | SCTP_PR_SCTP_PRIO | Priority | Section 3.2 |
+-------------------+---------------------------+---------------+ +-------------------+---------------------------+---------------+
4.3. Socket Option for Getting the Stream Specific PR-SCTP Status 4.3. Socket Option for Getting the Stream-Specific PR-SCTP Status
(SCTP_PR_STREAM_STATUS) (SCTP_PR_STREAM_STATUS)
This socket option uses IPPROTO_SCTP as its level and This socket option uses IPPROTO_SCTP as its level and
SCTP_PR_STREAM_STATUS as its name. It can only be used with SCTP_PR_STREAM_STATUS as its name. It can only be used with
getsockopt(), but not with setsockopt(). The socket option value getsockopt() but not with setsockopt(). The socket option value uses
uses the following structure: the following structure:
struct sctp_prstatus { struct sctp_prstatus {
sctp_assoc_t sprstat_assoc_id; sctp_assoc_t sprstat_assoc_id;
uint16_t sprstat_sid; uint16_t sprstat_sid;
uint16_t sprstat_policy; uint16_t sprstat_policy;
uint64_t sprstat_abandoned_unsent; uint64_t sprstat_abandoned_unsent;
uint64_t sprstat_abandoned_sent; uint64_t sprstat_abandoned_sent;
}; };
sprstat_assoc_id: This parameter is ignored for one-to-one style sprstat_assoc_id: This parameter is ignored for one-to-one style
sockets. For one-to-many style sockets this parameter indicates sockets. For one-to-many style sockets, this parameter indicates
for which association the user wants the information. It is an for which association the user wants the information. It is an
error to use SCTP_{CURRENT|ALL|FUTURE}_ASSOC in sprstat_assoc_id. error to use SCTP_{CURRENT|ALL|FUTURE}_ASSOC in sprstat_assoc_id.
sprstat_sid: This parameter indicates for which outgoing SCTP stream sprstat_sid: This parameter indicates for which outgoing SCTP stream
the user wants the information. the user wants the information.
sprstat_policy: This parameter indicates for which PR-SCTP policy sprstat_policy: This parameter indicates for which PR-SCTP policy
the user wants the information. It is an error to use the user wants the information. It is an error to use
SCTP_PR_SCTP_NONE in sprstat_policy. If SCTP_PR_SCTP_ALL is used, SCTP_PR_SCTP_NONE in sprstat_policy. If SCTP_PR_SCTP_ALL is used,
the counters provided are aggregated over all supported policies. the counters provided are aggregated over all supported policies.
sprstat_abandoned_unsent: The number of user messages which have sprstat_abandoned_unsent: The number of user messages that have been
been abandoned using the policy specified in sprstat_policy on the abandoned using the policy specified in sprstat_policy on the
stream specified in sprstat_sid for the association specified by stream specified in sprstat_sid for the association specified by
sprstat_assoc_id, before any part of the user message could be sprstat_assoc_id, before any part of the user message could be
sent. sent.
sprstat_abandoned_sent: The number of user messages which have been sprstat_abandoned_sent: The number of user messages that have been
abandoned using the policy specified in sprstat_policy on the abandoned using the policy specified in sprstat_policy on the
stream specified in sprstat_sid for the association specified by stream specified in sprstat_sid for the association specified by
sprstat_assoc_id, after a part of the user message has been sent. sprstat_assoc_id, after a part of the user message has been sent.
There are separate counters for unsent and sent user messages because There are separate counters for unsent and sent user messages because
the SCTP_SEND_FAILED_EVENT supports a similar differentiation. the SCTP_SEND_FAILED_EVENT supports a similar differentiation.
Please note that an abandoned large user message requiring an SCTP Please note that an abandoned large user message requiring SCTP-level
level fragmentation is reported in the sprstat_abandoned_sent counter fragmentation is reported in the sprstat_abandoned_sent counter as
as soon as at least one fragment of it has been sent. Therefore each soon as at least one fragment of it has been sent. Therefore, each
abandoned user message is either counted in sprstat_abandoned_unsent abandoned user message is counted in either sprstat_abandoned_unsent
or sprstat_abandoned_sent. or sprstat_abandoned_sent.
If more detailed information about abandoned user messages is If more detailed information about abandoned user messages is
required, the subscription to the SCTP_SEND_FAILED_EVENT is required, the subscription to the SCTP_SEND_FAILED_EVENT is
recommended. Please note that some implementations might choose not recommended. Please note that some implementations might choose not
to support this option, since it increases the resources needed for to support this option, since it increases the resources needed for
an outgoing SCTP stream. For the same reasons, some implementations an outgoing SCTP stream. For the same reasons, some implementations
might only support using SCTP_PR_SCTP_ALL in sprstat_policy. might only support using SCTP_PR_SCTP_ALL in sprstat_policy.
sctp_opt_info() needs to be extended to support sctp_opt_info() needs to be extended to support
SCTP_PR_STREAM_STATUS. SCTP_PR_STREAM_STATUS.
4.4. Socket Option for Getting the Association Specific PR-SCTP Status 4.4. Socket Option for Getting the Association-Specific PR-SCTP Status
(SCTP_PR_ASSOC_STATUS) (SCTP_PR_ASSOC_STATUS)
This socket option uses IPPROTO_SCTP as its level and This socket option uses IPPROTO_SCTP as its level and
SCTP_PR_ASSOC_STATUS as its name. It can only be used with SCTP_PR_ASSOC_STATUS as its name. It can only be used with
getsockopt(), but not with setsockopt(). The socket option value getsockopt(), but not with setsockopt(). The socket option value
uses the same structure as described in Section 4.3: uses the same structure as described in Section 4.3:
struct sctp_prstatus { struct sctp_prstatus {
sctp_assoc_t sprstat_assoc_id; sctp_assoc_t sprstat_assoc_id;
uint16_t sprstat_sid; uint16_t sprstat_sid;
uint16_t sprstat_policy; uint16_t sprstat_policy;
uint64_t sprstat_abandoned_unsent; uint64_t sprstat_abandoned_unsent;
uint64_t sprstat_abandoned_sent; uint64_t sprstat_abandoned_sent;
}; };
sprstat_assoc_id: This parameter is ignored for one-to-one style sprstat_assoc_id: This parameter is ignored for one-to-one style
sockets. For one-to-many style sockets this parameter indicates sockets. For one-to-many style sockets, this parameter indicates
for which association the user wants the information. It is an for which association the user wants the information. It is an
error to use SCTP_{CURRENT|ALL|FUTURE}_ASSOC in sprstat_assoc_id. error to use SCTP_{CURRENT|ALL|FUTURE}_ASSOC in sprstat_assoc_id.
sprstat_sid: This parameter is ignored. sprstat_sid: This parameter is ignored.
sprstat_policy: This parameter indicates for which PR-SCTP policy sprstat_policy: This parameter indicates for which PR-SCTP policy
the user wants the information. It is an error to use the user wants the information. It is an error to use
SCTP_PR_SCTP_NONE in sprstat_policy. If SCTP_PR_SCTP_ALL is used, SCTP_PR_SCTP_NONE in sprstat_policy. If SCTP_PR_SCTP_ALL is used,
the counters provided are aggregated over all supported policies. the counters provided are aggregated over all supported policies.
sprstat_abandoned_unsent: The number of user messages which have sprstat_abandoned_unsent: The number of user messages that have been
been abandoned using the policy specified in sprstat_policy for abandoned using the policy specified in sprstat_policy for the
the association specified by sprstat_assoc_id, before any part of association specified by sprstat_assoc_id, before any part of the
the user message could be sent. user message could be sent.
sprstat_abandoned_sent: The number of user messages which have been sprstat_abandoned_sent: The number of user messages that have been
abandoned using the policy specified in sprstat_policy for the abandoned using the policy specified in sprstat_policy for the
association specified by sprstat_assoc_id, after a part of the association specified by sprstat_assoc_id, after a part of the
user message has been sent. user message has been sent.
There are separate counters for unsent and sent user messages because There are separate counters for unsent and sent user messages because
the SCTP_SEND_FAILED_EVENT supports a similar differentiation. the SCTP_SEND_FAILED_EVENT supports a similar differentiation.
Please note that an abandoned large user message requiring an SCTP Please note that an abandoned large user message requiring SCTP-level
level fragmentation is reported in the sprstat_abandoned_sent counter fragmentation is reported in the sprstat_abandoned_sent counter as
as soon as at least one fragment of it has been sent. Therefore each soon as at least one fragment of it has been sent. Therefore, each
abandoned user message is either counted in sprstat_abandoned_unsent abandoned user message is counted in either sprstat_abandoned_unsent
or sprstat_abandoned_sent. or sprstat_abandoned_sent.
If more detailed information about abandoned user messages is If more detailed information about abandoned user messages is
required, the usage of the option described in Section 4.3 or the required, the usage of the option described in Section 4.3 or the
subscription to the SCTP_SEND_FAILED_EVENT is recommended. subscription to the SCTP_SEND_FAILED_EVENT is recommended.
sctp_opt_info() needs to be extended to support SCTP_PR_ASSOC_STATUS. sctp_opt_info() needs to be extended to support SCTP_PR_ASSOC_STATUS.
4.5. Socket Option for Getting and Setting the PR-SCTP Support 4.5. Socket Option for Getting and Setting the PR-SCTP Support
(SCTP_PR_SUPPORTED) (SCTP_PR_SUPPORTED)
This socket option allows the enabling or disabling of the This socket option allows the enabling or disabling of the
negotiation of PR-SCTP support for future associations. For existing negotiation of PR-SCTP support for future associations. For existing
associations it allows to query whether PR-SCTP support was associations, it allows one to query whether or not PR-SCTP support
negotiated or not on a particular association. was negotiated on a particular association.
Whether PR-SCTP is enabled or not per default is implementation Whether or not PR-SCTP is enabled by default is implementation
specific. specific.
This socket option uses IPPROTO_SCTP as its level and This socket option uses IPPROTO_SCTP as its level and
SCTP_PR_SUPPORTED as its name. It can be used with getsockopt() and SCTP_PR_SUPPORTED as its name. It can be used with getsockopt() and
setsockopt(). The socket option value uses the following structure setsockopt(). The socket option value uses the following structure
defined in [RFC6458]: defined in [RFC6458]:
struct sctp_assoc_value { struct sctp_assoc_value {
sctp_assoc_t assoc_id; sctp_assoc_t assoc_id;
uint32_t assoc_value; uint32_t assoc_value;
}; };
assoc_id: This parameter is ignored for one-to-one style sockets. assoc_id: This parameter is ignored for one-to-one style sockets.
For one-to-many style sockets, this parameter indicates upon which For one-to-many style sockets, this parameter indicates upon which
association the user is performing an action. The special association the user is performing an action. The special
sctp_assoc_t SCTP_FUTURE_ASSOC can also be used, it is an error to sctp_assoc_t SCTP_FUTURE_ASSOC can also be used; it is an error to
use SCTP_{CURRENT|ALL}_ASSOC in assoc_id. use SCTP_{CURRENT|ALL}_ASSOC in assoc_id.
assoc_value: A non-zero value encodes the enabling of PR-SCTP assoc_value: A non-zero value encodes the enabling of PR-SCTP,
whereas a value of 0 encodes the disabling of PR-SCTP. whereas a value of 0 encodes the disabling of PR-SCTP.
sctp_opt_info() needs to be extended to support SCTP_PR_SUPPORTED. sctp_opt_info() needs to be extended to support SCTP_PR_SUPPORTED.
5. IANA Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This document requires no actions from IANA.
6. Security Considerations
This document does not add any additional security considerations in
addition to the ones given in [RFC4960], [RFC3758], and [RFC6458].
As indicated in the Security Section of [RFC3758], transport layer
security in the form of TLS over SCTP (see [RFC3436]) can't be used
for PR-SCTP. However, DTLS over SCTP (see [RFC6083]) could be used
instead. If DTLS over SCTP as specified in [RFC6083] is used, the
security considerations of [RFC6083] do apply. It should also be
noted that using PR-SCTP for an SCTP association doesn't allow that
association to behave more aggressively than an SCTP association not
using PR-SCTP.
7. Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Benoit Claise, Spencer Dawkins, Stephen This document does not add any security considerations to those given
Farrell, Gorry Fairhurst, Barry Leiba, Karen Egede Nielsen, Ka-Cheong in [RFC4960], [RFC3758], and [RFC6458]. As indicated in the Security
Poon, Dan Romascanu, Irene Ruengeler, Jamal Hadi Salim, Joseph Considerations of [RFC3758], transport-layer security in the form of
Salowey, Brian Trammell, and Vlad Yasevich for their invaluable TLS over SCTP (see [RFC3436]) can't be used for PR-SCTP. However,
comments. DTLS over SCTP (see [RFC6083]) could be used instead. If DTLS over
SCTP as specified in [RFC6083] is used, the Security Considerations
of [RFC6083] do apply. It should also be noted that using PR-SCTP
for an SCTP association doesn't allow that association to behave more
aggressively than an SCTP association not using PR-SCTP.
8. References 6. References
8.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3758] Stewart, R., Ramalho, M., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., and P. [RFC3758] Stewart, R., Ramalho, M., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., and P.
Conrad, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Conrad, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
Partial Reliability Extension", RFC 3758, May 2004. Partial Reliability Extension", RFC 3758, May 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3758>.
[RFC4960] Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC [RFC4960] Stewart, R., Ed., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
4960, September 2007. RFC 4960, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4960>.
8.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[RFC3436] Jungmaier, A., Rescorla, E., and M. Tuexen, "Transport [RFC3436] Jungmaier, A., Rescorla, E., and M. Tuexen, "Transport
Layer Security over Stream Control Transmission Protocol", Layer Security over Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
RFC 3436, December 2002. RFC 3436, December 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3436>.
[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, January 2011. Transmission Protocol (SCTP)", RFC 6083, January 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6083>.
[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, December 2011. Transmission Protocol (SCTP)", RFC 6458, December 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6458>.
[RFC7011] Claise, B., Trammell, B., and P. Aitken, "Specification of [RFC7011] Claise, B., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and P. Aitken,
the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the "Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77, RFC 7011, September Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77,
2013. RFC 7011, September 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7011>.
[I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel] [DATA-CHAN]
Jesup, R., Loreto, S., and M. Tuexen, "WebRTC Data Jesup, R., Loreto, S., and M. Tuexen, "WebRTC Data
Channels", draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-13 (work in Channels", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-
progress), January 2015. channel-13, January 2015.
[IEEE.1003-1G.1997] [IEEE.1003-1G.1997]
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE, "Protocol Independent Interfaces", IEEE Standard
"Protocol Independent Interfaces", IEEE Standard 1003.1G, 1003.1G, March 1997.
March 1997.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Benoit Claise, Spencer Dawkins, Gorry
Fairhurst, Stephen Farrell, Barry Leiba, Karen Egede Nielsen,
Ka-Cheong Poon, Dan Romascanu, Irene Ruengeler, Jamal Hadi Salim,
Joseph Salowey, Brian Trammell, and Vlad Yasevich for their
invaluable comments.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Michael Tuexen Michael Tuexen
Muenster University of Applied Sciences Muenster University of Applied Sciences
Stegerwaldstrasse 39 Stegerwaldstrasse 39
48565 Steinfurt 48565 Steinfurt
DE Germany
EMail: tuexen@fh-muenster.de
Email: tuexen@fh-muenster.de
Robin Seggelmann Robin Seggelmann
T-Systems International GmbH Metafinanz Informationssysteme GmbH
Fasanenweg 5 Leopoldstrasse 146
70771 Leinfelden-Echterdingen 80804 Muenchen
DE Germany
Email: rfc@robin-seggelmann.com EMail: rfc@robin-seggelmann.com
Randall R. Stewart Randall R. Stewart
Netflix, Inc. Netflix, Inc.
Chapin, SC 29036 Chapin, SC 29036
US United States
Email: randall@lakerest.net EMail: randall@lakerest.net
Salvatore Loreto Salvatore Loreto
Ericsson Ericsson
Hirsalantie 11 Hirsalantie 11
Jorvas 02420 Jorvas 02420
FI Finland
Email: Salvatore.Loreto@ericsson.com EMail: Salvatore.Loreto@ericsson.com
 End of changes. 60 change blocks. 
145 lines changed or deleted 143 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/