|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 6255
Delay-Tolerant Networking Bundle Protocol IANA Registries
Last modified on Thursday, May 26th, 2011
 Permanent link to RFC 6255
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 6255
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 6255
Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) M. Blanchet
Request for Comments: 6255 Viagenie
Category: Informational May 2011
ISSN: 2070-1721
Delay-Tolerant Networking Bundle Protocol IANA Registries
 Abstract
The Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN) Research Group research group has
defined many protocols such as the Bundle Protocol and Licklider
Transmission Protocol. The specifications of these protocols contain
fields that are subject to a registry. For the purpose of its
research work, the group created ad hoc registries. As the
specifications are stable and have multiple interoperable
implementations, the group would like to hand off the registries to
IANA for official custody. This document describes the actions
executed by IANA.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Research Task Force
(IRTF). The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-related research
and development activities. These results might not be suitable for
deployment. This RFC represents the consensus of the Delay-Tolerant
Network Research Group of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF).
Documents approved for publication by the IRSG are not a candidate
for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
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/RFC 6255.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document.
Blanchet Informational PAGE 1 
RFC 6255 DTN IANA Registries May 2011
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Treatment of Flag Fields Encoded Using SDNVs ....................2
3. Bundle Protocol .................................................3
3.1. Bundle Block Types .........................................3
3.2. Primary Bundle Protocol Version ............................3
3.3. Bundle Processing Control Flags ............................4
3.4. Block Processing Control Flags .............................5
3.5. Bundle Status Report Flags .................................6
3.6. Bundle Status Report Reason Codes ..........................7
3.7. Bundle Custody Signal Reason Codes .........................7
4. Security Considerations .........................................8
5. IANA Considerations .............................................8
6. Acknowledgements ................................................8
7. References ......................................................9
7.1. Normative References .......................................9
7.2. Informative References .....................................9
1. Introduction
The DTNRG research group has defined many protocols relevant to the
DTN architecture [RFC 4838] such as the Bundle Protocol [RFC 5050] and
Licklider Transmission Protocol [RFC 5326]. The specifications of
these protocols contain fields that are subject to a registry. For
the purpose of its research work, the group created ad hoc registries
(http://www.dtnrg.org/wiki/AssignedNamesAndNumbers). As the
specifications are stable and have multiple interoperable
implementations, the group would like to hand off the registries to
IANA for official custody. This document describes the actions
executed by IANA.
2. Treatment of Flag Fields Encoded Using SDNVs
The DTN protocols use several extensible bit flag fields that are
encoded as Self-Delimiting Numeric Values (SDNVs) as defined in
Section 4.1 of [RFC 5050]. For these fields, the registry specifies
the allocation and usage of bit positions within the unencoded field.
The SDNV encoding treats the ensemble of bits in the unencoded value
as a numeric value to be encoded on transmission and decoded on
reception as described in [RFC 5050].
Processing of SDNV-encoded flags is discussed in [RFC 6256].
Section 4.1 of [RFC 5050] specifies that implementations are not
required to handle SDNVs with more than 64 bits in their unencoded
value. Accordingly, SDNV-encoded flag fields should be limited to 64
bit positions.
Blanchet Informational PAGE 2
RFC 6255 DTN IANA Registries May 2011
IANA registry policies and wording used in this document are
described in [RFC 5226].
3. Bundle Protocol
The Bundle Protocol (BP) [RFC 5050] has fields requiring a registry
managed by IANA.
3.1. Bundle Block Types
The Bundle Protocol has a Bundle Block Type code field (Section
4.5.2) [RFC 5050]. An IANA registry has been set up as follows.
The registration policy for this registry is:
0-191: Specification Required
192-255: Private or experimental use. No assignment by IANA.
The Value range is: unsigned 8-bit integer.
Bundle Block Type Registry
+--------------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+--------------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| 0 | Reserved | This document |
| 1 | Bundle Payload Block | [RFC 5050] |
| 2-191 | Unassigned | |
| 192-255 | Private and/or Experimental Use | [RFC 5050] |
+--------------+---------------------------------+---------------+
The value "0" was not defined in any document or in the ad hoc
registry. As per consensus by the DTNRG research group, it is
reserved per this document.
3.2. Primary Bundle Protocol Version
The Bundle Protocol has a version field (see Section 4.5.1 of
[RFC 5050]). An IANA registry has been set up as follows.
The registration policy for this registry is: RFC Required
The Value range is: unsigned 8-bit integer.
Blanchet Informational PAGE 3
RFC 6255 DTN IANA Registries May 2011
Primary Bundle Protocol Version Registry
+-------+-------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+-------------+---------------+
| 0-5 | Reserved | This document |
| 6 | Assigned | [RFC 5050] |
| 7-255 | Unassigned | |
+-------+-------------+---------------+
The value "0-5" was not defined in any document or in the ad hoc
registry. As per consensus by the DTNRG research group, it is
reserved per this document.
3.3. Bundle Processing Control Flags
The Bundle Protocol has a Bundle Processing Control Flags field (see
Section 4.2 of [RFC 5050]) encoded as an SDNV (see Section 2). An
IANA registry has been set up as follows.
The registration policy for this registry is: Specification Required
The Value range is: Variable length. Maximum number of flag bit
positions: 64
Blanchet Informational PAGE 4
RFC 6255 DTN IANA Registries May 2011
Bundle Processing Control Flags Registry
+--------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+
| Bit Position | Description | Reference |
| (right to left) | | |
+--------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+
| 0 | Bundle is a fragment | [RFC 5050] |
| 1 | Application data unit is an | [RFC 5050] |
| | administrative record | |
| 2 | Bundle must not be fragmented | [RFC 5050] |
| 3 | Custody transfer is requested | [RFC 5050] |
| 4 | Destination endpoint is a | [RFC 5050] |
| | singleton | |
| 5 | Acknowledgement by application | [RFC 5050] |
| | is requested | |
| 6 | Reserved | [RFC 5050] |
| 7-8 | Class of service: priority | [RFC 5050] |
| 9-13 | Class of service: reserved | [RFC 5050] |
| 14 | Request reporting of bundle | [RFC 5050] |
| | reception | |
| 15 | Request reporting of custody | [RFC 5050] |
| | acceptance | |
| 16 | Request reporting of bundle | [RFC 5050] |
| | forwarding | |
| 17 | Request reporting of bundle | [RFC 5050] |
| | delivery | |
| 18 | Request reporting of bundle | [RFC 5050] |
| | deletion | |
| 19 | Reserved | [RFC 5050] |
| 20 | Reserved | [RFC 5050] |
| 21-63 | Unassigned | |
+--------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+
3.4. Block Processing Control Flags
The Bundle Protocol has a Block Processing Control Flags field (see
Section 4.3 of [RFC 5050]). An IANA registry has been set up as
follows.
The registration policy for this registry is: Specification Required
The Value range is: Variable length. Maximum number of flag bit
positions: 64
Blanchet Informational PAGE 5
RFC 6255 DTN IANA Registries May 2011
Block Processing Control Flags Registry
+--------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+
| Bit Position | Description | Reference |
| (right to left) | | |
+--------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+
| 0 | Block must be replicated in | [RFC 5050] |
| | every fragment | |
| 1 | Transmit status report if block | [RFC 5050] |
| | can't be processed | |
| 2 | Delete bundle if block can't be | [RFC 5050] |
| | processed | |
| 3 | Last block | [RFC 5050] |
| 4 | Discard block if it can't be | [RFC 5050] |
| | processed | |
| 5 | Block was forwarded without | [RFC 5050] |
| | being processed | |
| 6 | Block contains an EID-reference | [RFC 5050] |
| | field | |
| 7-63 | Unassigned | |
+--------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+
3.5. Bundle Status Report Flags
The Bundle Protocol has a Status Report Status Flag field (see
Section 6.1.1 of [RFC 5050]). An IANA registry has been set up as
follows.
The registration policy for this registry is: RFC Required
The Value range is: 8 bits.
Bundle Status Report Flags Registry
+----------+----------------------------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+----------+----------------------------------------+---------------+
| 00000000 | Reserved | This document |
| 00000001 | Reporting node received bundle | [RFC 5050] |
| 00000010 | Reporting node accepted custody of | [RFC 5050] |
| | bundle | |
| 00000100 | Reporting node forwarded the bundle | [RFC 5050] |
| 00001000 | Reporting node delivered the bundle | [RFC 5050] |
| 00010000 | Reporting node deleted the bundle | [RFC 5050] |
| 00100000 | Unassigned | |
| 01000000 | Unassigned | |
| 10000000 | Unassigned | |
+----------+----------------------------------------+---------------+
Blanchet Informational PAGE 6
RFC 6255 DTN IANA Registries May 2011
The value "00000000" was not defined in any document or in the ad hoc
registry. As per consensus by the DTNRG research group, it is
reserved per this document.
3.6. Bundle Status Report Reason Codes
The Bundle Protocol has a Bundle Status Report Reason Codes field
(see Section 6.1.1 of [RFC 5050]). An IANA registry has been set up
as follows.
The registration policy for this registry is: Specification Required
The Value range is: unsigned 8-bit integer.
Bundle Status Report Reason Codes Registry
+-------+-------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+-------------------------------------------+---------------+
| 0 | No additional information | [RFC 5050] |
| 1 | Lifetime expired | [RFC 5050] |
| 2 | Forwarded over unidirectional link | [RFC 5050] |
| 3 | Transmission canceled | [RFC 5050] |
| 4 | Depleted storage | [RFC 5050] |
| 5 | Destination endpoint ID unintelligible | [RFC 5050] |
| 6 | No known route to destination from here | [RFC 5050] |
| 7 | No timely contact with next node on route | [RFC 5050] |
| 8 | Block unintelligible | [RFC 5050] |
| 9-254 | Unassigned | |
| 255 | Reserved | This document |
+-------+-------------------------------------------+---------------+
The value "255" was not defined in any document or in the ad hoc
registry. As per consensus by the DTNRG research group, it is
reserved per this document.
3.7. Bundle Custody Signal Reason Codes
The Bundle Protocol has a Bundle Custody Signal Reason Codes field
(see Section 6.1.2 of [RFC 5050]). An IANA registry has been set up
as follows.
The registration policy for this registry is: Specification Required
The Value range is: unsigned 7-bit integer.
Blanchet Informational PAGE 7
RFC 6255 DTN IANA Registries May 2011
Bundle Custody Signal Reason Codes Registry
+--------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+--------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| 0 | No additional information | [RFC 5050] |
| 1-2 | Unassigned | |
| 3 | Redundant reception (reception by a | [RFC 5050] |
| | node that is a custodial node for | |
| | this bundle) | |
| 4 | Depleted storage | [RFC 5050] |
| 5 | Destination endpoint ID | [RFC 5050] |
| | unintelligible | |
| 6 | No known route to destination from | [RFC 5050] |
| | here | |
| 7 | No timely contact with next node on | [RFC 5050] |
| | route | |
| 8 | Block unintelligible | [RFC 5050] |
| 9-126 | Unassigned | |
| 127 | Reserved | This |
| | | document |
+--------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
The value "127" was not defined in any document or in the ad hoc
registry. As per consensus by the DTNRG research group, it is
reserved per this document.
4. Security Considerations
This document requests the creation of registries managed by IANA.
There are no security issues involved. Refer to the Security
Considerations section of the referenced protocols.
5. IANA Considerations
IANA has created the registries as described in the previous
sections.
6. Acknowledgements
The editor would like to thank the following people who have provided
comments and suggestions to this document, in no specific order:
Stephen Farrell, Daniel Ellard, Scott Burleigh, Keith Scott, and
Elwyn Davies.
Blanchet Informational PAGE 8
RFC 6255 DTN IANA Registries May 2011
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC 5050] Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, "Bundle Protocol
Specification", RFC 5050, November 2007.
[RFC 5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC 4838] Cerf, V., Burleigh, S., Hooke, A., Torgerson, L., Durst,
R., Scott, K., Fall, K., and H. Weiss, "Delay-Tolerant
Networking Architecture", RFC 4838, April 2007.
[RFC 5326] Ramadas, M., Burleigh, S., and S. Farrell, "Licklider
Transmission Protocol - Specification", RFC 5326,
September 2008.
[RFC 6256] Eddy, W. and E. Davies, "Using Self-Delimiting Numeric
Values in Protocols", RFC 6256, May 2011.
Author's Address
Marc Blanchet
Viagenie
2875 boul. Laurier, suite D2-630
Quebec, QC G1V 2M2
Canada
EMail: Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.ca
URI: http://viagenie.ca
Blanchet Informational PAGE 9
Delay-Tolerant Networking Bundle Protocol IANA Registries
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 19606 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Thursday, May 26th, 2011
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
