|
Internet Drafts - Sorted by date
20/11/2009
| |
|
| |
| | IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm |
| |
|
This document specifies an update to the Stateless IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm (SIIT) described in RFC 2765. The algorithm translates between IPv4 and IPv6 packet headers (including ICMP headers). This specification addresses both a stateless and a stateful mode. In the stateless mode, translation information is carried in the address itself, permitting both IPv4->IPv6 and IPv6->IPv4 session establishment without maintaining state in the IP/ICMP translator. In the stateful mode, translation state is maintained between IPv4 address/transport port tuples and IPv6 address/transport port tuples, enabling IPv6 systems to open sessions with IPv4 systems. The choice of operational mode is made by the operator deploying the network and is critical to the operation of the applications using it. Significant issues exist in the stateless and stateful modes that are not addressed in this document, related to the address assignment and the maintenance of the translation tables, respectively. This document confines itself to the actual translation. Acknowledgement of previous work This document is a product of the 2008-2009 effort to define a replacement for NAT-PT. It is an update to and directly derivative from Erik Nordmark's [RFC2765], which similarly provides both stateless and stateful translation between IPv4 [RFC0791] and IPv6 [RFC2460], and between ICMPv4 [RFC0792] and ICMPv6 [RFC4443]. The original document was a product of the NGTRANS working group. The changes in this document reflect five components: 1. Redescribing the network model to map to present and projected usage [I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-framework]. 2. Moving the address format to the address format document [I-D.ietf-behave-address-format], to coordinate with other drafts on the topic. 3. Describing both stateful and stateless operation. 4. Some changes in ICMP. 5. Updating references. Requirements |
| | BGP based Multi-homing in Virtual Private LAN Service |
| |
|
Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) is a Layer 2 Virtual Private Network (VPN) that gives its customers the appearance that their sites are connected via a Local Area Network (LAN). It is often required for the Service Provider (SP) to give the customer redundant connectivity to some sites, often called "multi-homing". This memo shows how BGP-based multi-homing can be offered in the context of LDP and BGP VPLS solutions. |
| | Bundle Security Protocol Specification |
| |
|
This document defines the bundle security protocol, which provides data integrity and confidentiality services for the bundle protocol. Separate capabilities are provided to protect the bundle payload and additional data that may be included within the bundle. We also describe various bundle security considerations including policy options. This document is a product of the Delay Tolerant Networking Research Group and has been reviewed by that group. No objections to its publication as an RFC were raised. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 24, 2010.Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English. |
| | File Transfer Protocol HOST Command |
| |
|
The File Transfer Protocol, as defined in RFC 959 and Section 4 of RFC 1123, is one of the oldest and most widely used protocols on the Internet. This document addresses the subject of creating multi-homed hostname- based FTP servers on a single IP address. This is achieved by extending the FTP specification to add a HOST command that is used to specify individual FTP hosts. |
| | Probabilistic Routing Protocol for Intermittently Connected Networks |
| |
| | draft-irtf-dtnrg-prophet-03.txt |
| | Date: |
20/11/2009 |
| | Authors: |
Anders Lindgren, Avri Doria, Elwyn Davies, Samo Grasic |
| | Working Group: |
Individual Submissions (none) |
| | Formats: |
txt |
|
This document is a product of the Delay Tolerant Networking Research Group and has been reviewed by that group. No objections to its publication as an RFC were raised. This document defines PRoPHET, a Probabilistic Routing Protocol using History of Encounters and Transitivity. PRoPHET is a routing protocol for intermittently connected networks, where there is no guarantee that a fully connected path between source and destination exists at any time, rendering traditional routing protocols unable to deliver messages between hosts. These networks are examples of networks where there is a disparity between the latency requirements of applications and the capabilities of the underlying network (networks often referred to as Delay and Disruption Tolerant). The document presents an architectural overview followed by the protocol specification. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 24, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. |
| | Link Relations for Simple Version Navigation |
| |
|
This specification defines Atom link relations for navigation between a resource and its versions. |
| | Extensions to LDP Signaling for PBB-VPLS |
| |
|
Extensions to VPLS PE model to accommodate PBB components where discussed in [PBB-VPLS Model]. This draft discusses optional extensions to the LDP Signaling procedures in [RFC 4762] required to further enhance the PBB-VPLS solution. |
| | Clarifications to the Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile |
| |
|
This document updates the Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile, which is published in RFC 5280. This document changes the set of acceptable encoding methods for the explicitText field of the user notice policy qualifier and clarifies the rules for converting internationalized domain name labels to ASCII. |
| | Addition to Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) Extension for Emergency Services |
| |
|
Some applications require the ability to provide an elevated probability of session establishment to specific sessions in times of network congestion.When supported over the Internet Protocol suite, this may be facilitated through a network layer admission control solution that supports prioritized access to resources (e.g., bandwidth). These resources may be explicitly set aside for prioritized sessions, or may be shared with other sessions. This document specifies extensions to the Resource reSerVation Protocol (RSVP) that can be used to support such an admission priority capability at the network layer. Based on current security concerns, these extensions are targeting applicability within a single domain. |
| | Multipath Interface in the Socket API |
| |
|
This document specifies a new address family to be used for sockets that are bound to more than one IP address, as motivated by the Multipath TCP work in the IETF. The goal is to use the same set of function calls as traditionally, but by new address family make it possible for them to express multiple addresses to connect or bind to. The document gives a high-level definition of the behavior of the traditional function calls, but a detailed specification of the API syntax is not in the scope of this document. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 24, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. |
| | A Mechanism for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Avalanche Restart Overload Control |
| |
|
When a large number of clients register with a SIP registrar server at approximately the same time, the server may become overloaded. Near-simultaneous floods of SIP SUBSCRIBE and PUBLISH requests may have similar effects. Such request avalanches can occur, for example, after a power failure and recovery in a metropolitan area. This document describes how to avoid such overload situations. Under this mechanism, a server estimates an avalanche restart backoff interval during its normal operation and conveys this interval to its clients through a new Register-Restart header in registration responses. Once an avalanche restart actually occurs, the clients perform backoff based on the previously received Register-Restart header value before sending out the first registration attempt. Thus, the mechanism spreads all the initial client registration requests and prevents them from overloading the registrar server. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 25, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. |
| | Support for RSVP in Layer 3 VPNs |
| |
|
RFC 4364 and RFC 4659 define an approach to building provider- provisioned Layer 3 VPNs for IPv4 and IPv6. It may be desirable to use RSVP to perform admission control on the links between Customer Edge (CE) routers and Provider Edge (PE) routers. This document specifies procedures by which RSVP messages travelling from CE to CE across an L3VPN may be appropriately handled by PE routers so that admission control can be performed on PE-CE links. Optionally, admission control across the provider's backbone may also be supported. |
| | An Incremental Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) for IPv6 Transition |
| |
|
Global IPv6 deployment was slower than originally expected in the last ten years. As IPv4 address exhaustion gets closer, the IPv4/IPv6 transition issues become more critical and complicated. Host-based transition mechanisms are not able to meet the requirements while most end users are not sufficiently expert to configure or maintain these transition mechanisms. Carrier Grade NAT with integrated transition mechanisms can simplify the operation of end users during the IPv4/IPv6 migration or coexistence period. This document proposes an incremental Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) approach for IPv6 transition. It can provide IPv6 access services for IPv6-enabled end hosts and IPv4 access services for IPv4 end hosts while remaining most of legacy IPv4 ISP networks unchanged. It is suitable for the initial stage of IPv4/IPv6 migration. Unlike CGN alone, it also supports and encourages transition towards dual-stack or IPv6-only ISP networks. |
19/11/2009
| |
|
| |
| | IPFIX Export per SCTP Stream |
| |
|
This document specifies an extension to the specifications in RFC5101, IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX), when using the Partial Reliability extension of SCTP (PR-SCTP, Partial Reliability Stream Control Transmission Protocol). When implemented at both the Exporting and Collecting Processes, this method offers several advantages such as the ability to calculate Data Record losses for PR-SCTP, immediate export of Template Withdrawal Messages, immediate reuse of Template IDs within an SCTP stream, reduced likelihood of Data Record loss, and reduced demands on the Collecting Process. When implemented in only the Collecting or Exporting Process then normal IPFIX behavior will be seen without these additional benefits. |
| | IP Flow Anonymisation Support |
| |
|
This document describes anonymisation techniques for IP flow data and the export of anonymised data using the IPFIX protocol. It provides a categorization of common anonymisation schemes and defines the parameters needed to describe them. It provides guidelines for the implementation of anonymised data export and storage over IPFIX, and describes an Options-based method for anonymisation metadata export within the IPFIX protocol, providing the basis for the definition of information models for configuring anonymisation techniques within an IPFIX Metering or Exporting Process, and for reporting the technique in use to an IPFIX Collecting Process. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 23, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. |
| | IANA Guidelines for IPv4 Multicast Address Assignments |
| |
|
This document provides guidance for the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) in assigning IPv4 multicast addresses. It obsoletes RFC 3171 and RFC 3138 and updates RFC 2780. |
| | Collection Synchronization for WebDAV |
| |
|
This specification defines an extension to WebDAV that allows efficient synchronization of the contents of a WebDAV collection. |
| | Using Self-Delimiting Numeric Values in Protocols |
| |
|
Self-Delimiting Numeric Values (SDNVs) have recently been introduced as a field type in proposed Delay-Tolerant Networking protocols. SDNVs encode an arbitrary-length non-negative integer or arbitrary- length bit-string with minimum overhead. They are intended to provide protocol flexibility without sacrificing economy, and to assist in future-proofing protocols under development. This document describes formats and algorithms for SDNV encoding and decoding, along with notes on implementation and usage. This document is a product of the Delay Tolerant Networking Research Group and has been reviewed by that group. No objections to its publication as an RFC were raised. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 23, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. |
| | Defining Well-Known URIs |
| |
|
This memo defines a path prefix for "well-known locations", "/.well- known/" in selected URI schemes. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 24, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. |
| | RFC 2731 ("Encoding Dublin Core Metadata in HTML") is Obsolete |
| |
|
This document obsoletes RFC 2731, on Encoding Dublin Core Metadata in HTML, as further development of this specification has moved to the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. |
| | host-meta: Web Host Metadata |
| |
|
This memo describes a method for locating host metadata for Web-based protocols. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 23, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. |
| | Elliptic Curve Private Key Structure |
| |
|
This document specifies the syntax and semantics for conveying Elliptic Curve (EC) private key information. This syntax and semantics defined herein are based on a similar syntax and semantics defined in Standards for Efficient Cryptography Group (SECG). |
| | Transport Layer Security (TLS) Renegotiation Indication Extension |
| |
|
SSL and TLS renegotiation are vulnerable to an attack in which the attacker forms a TLS connection with the target server, injects content of his choice, and then splices in a new TLS connection from a client. The server treats the client's initial TLS handshake as a renegotiation and thus believes that the initial data transmitted by the attacker is from the same entity as the subsequent client data. This draft defines a TLS extension to cryptographically tie renegotiations to the TLS connections they are being performed over, thus preventing this attack. |
18/11/2009
| |
|
| |
| | Locally-served DNS Zones |
| |
|
Experience with the Domain Name System (DNS) has shown that there are a number of DNS zones all iterative resolvers and recursive nameservers should automatically serve, unless configured otherwise. RFC 4193 specifies that this should occur for D.F.IP6.ARPA. This document extends the practice to cover the IN-ADDR.ARPA zones for RFC 1918 address space and other well known zones with similar characteristics. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 23, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English. |
| | Fast Handovers for Proxy Mobile IPv6 |
| |
| | draft-ietf-mipshop-pfmipv6-10.txt |
| | Date: |
18/11/2009 |
| | Authors: |
Hidetoshi Yokota, Kuntal Chowdhury, Rajeev Koodli, Basavaraj Patil, Frank Xia |
| | Working Group: |
Mobility for IP: Performance, Signaling and Handoff Optimization (mipshop) |
| | Formats: |
txt |
|
Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) [RFC3775] provides a mobile node with IP mobility when it performs a handover from one access router to another and fast handovers for Mobile IPv6 (FMIPv6) [RFC5568] are specified to enhance the handover performance in terms of latency and packet loss. While MIPv6 (and FMIPv6 as well) requires the participation of the mobile node in the mobility-related signaling, Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) [RFC5213] provides IP mobility to mobile nodes that either have or do not have MIPv6 functionality without such involvement. Nevertheless, the basic performance of PMIPv6 in terms of handover latency and packet loss is considered not any different from that of MIPv6. When the fast handover is considered in such an environment, several modifications are needed to FMIPv6 to adapt to the network-based mobility management. This document specifies the usage of Fast Mobile IPv6 (FMIPv6) when Proxy Mobile IPv6 is used as the mobility management protocol. Necessary extensions are specified for FMIPv6 to support the scenario when the mobile node does not have IP mobility functionality and hence is not involved with either MIPv6 or FMIPv6 operations. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 22, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English. |
| | IMAP4 Keyword Registry |
| |
|
The aim of this document is to establishe a new IANA registry for IMAP keywords and to define a procedure for keyword registration, in order to improve interoperability between different IMAP clients. Note A revised version of this draft document will be submitted to the RFC editor as a Proposed Standard for the Internet Community. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested, and should be sent to morg@ietf.org. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 22, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. |
| | Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) Encapsulation for NAT Traversal (DCCP-NAT) |
| |
|
This document specifies an alternative encapsulation of the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP), referred to as DCCP-NAT. This encapsulation will allow DCCP to be carried through the current generation of Network Address Translation (NAT) middleboxes without modification of those middleboxes. |
| | Self-organizing network model |
| |
|
In this paper, a swarm intelligence based self-organizing network model was introduced to network providers. The problems of the existing network as well as the characteristics of the NGI (Next Generation Internet) were described to illustrate the motivation of the proposed self-organizing network model. A network architecture model based on swarm intelligence was introduced, the used technical terms was defined. The network parameters, network behaviors and node stability under the proposed model were described. Especially, some important QoS routing elements under the proposed model, such as the user QoS routing requirements, link satisfaction degree, utility computation, unicast path and multicast tree evaluation, mathematical model of QoS route optimization and small-world behaviors, were introduced. |
| | Adaptive Routing Protocol |
| |
|
This document describes an Adaptive Routing Protocol. It provides a routing protocol of Swarm Intelligence based network model, to a certain extent, this protocol can solve problems accompanied by network expansion and Dynamic network Increasing. This paper presents a routing protocol to adapt the self-organizing network, defines a set of terms and describes the message format and appropriate action sequences. |
| | Authentication Name Mapping extension for AFS-3 Protection Service |
| |
|
This document describes the extension of the format, use and communication of authentication names in the AFS-3 protocol to allow for additional authentication mechanisms to be represented and mapped to AFS IDs, independent of the AFS usernames currently used for management of PRDB entries. The new interface provides mechanisms for adding, removing, and listing mappings, and to allow the fileserver to map an authentication name to a PTS identity. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 22, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. |
| | Sesstion Matching Update for the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP) |
| |
|
This document updates the session matching procedure defined in section 7.3 of RFC 4975, so that an MSRP UA only uses the session-id part of the MSRP URI in order to perform the consistency checks. The update allows intermediate network entities (ALGs) to modify the address information in the MSRP URI of the SDP a=path attribute, without the need for the intermediate to terminate and do the correlating modifications in the associated MSRP messages. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 22, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. |
| | A Hierarchical Multicast Session Directory Service Architecture |
| |
|
This document describes a globally scalable and hierarchical approach to multicast session directory service architecture. This approach allows for sessions to be discovered using keywords as soon as they are registered with the system. It allows session registration to be tagged with geographical data to provide location-based search capability to the end users. It is able to assign URI strings to multicast sessions. This document provides a general overview of the architecture and describes the protocol used. The architecture is able to operate in networks supporting either traditional ASM or the newer SSM. |
| | A Registry for PIM Message Types |
| |
|
This document provides instructions to IANA for the creation of a registry for PIM message types. It specifies initial content of the registry based on existing RFCs specifying PIM message types. It also specifies a procedure for registering new types. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 22, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. |
| | A tool for checking Anycast Group Configuration (AGC) |
| |
|
Anycast is applied in many protocols to provide automatically fault recovery (high availability) and scalability, i.e Anycast RP in PIM, Cooperative Home Agent and Cooperative Foreign Agent in Mobile IP. When the Operator's engineer completing configuring an anycast group, they need a tool to check whether each group member can be reached by the anycast address (instead of by each member's unicast address) When the anycast group members are changed, e.g. there are some new members added on, there are some old members deleted from the group, a tool is needed to check whether the changed group/member can be reached by the anycast address as it should be. When an anycast group have been canceled by configuration, there need a tool to check whether the anycast group configuration have been wiped off from all group members. The existing method is to use existent PING command to ping the anycast address. This existing method can only prove whether one member in the anycast group instead of all members of the anycast group identified by the anycast address can be reached by that anycast address. Hence it cannot satisfy above problems. This document provides a solution to prove that each member of a given anycast group can be arrived by that anycast address. |
| | An Alternative Connection Model for the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP) |
| |
| | draft-ietf-simple-msrp-acm-02.txt |
| | Date: |
18/11/2009 |
| | Authors: |
Christer Holmberg, Staffan Blau |
| | Working Group: |
SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions (simple) |
| | Formats: |
txt |
|
This document defines an alternative connection model for MSRP UAs, which uses COMEDIA in order to create the MSRP transport connection. The model allows MSRP UAs which are located behind NATs to indicate that they want to initiate the establishment of the TCP connection towards the remote MSRP UA, in order for MSRP messages to traverse the NAT. The document also defines how an MSRP UA which is located behind a NAT keeps the NAT binding alive. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 22, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. |
| | Early Retransmit for TCP and SCTP |
| |
| | draft-ietf-tcpm-early-rexmt-03.txt |
| | Date: |
18/11/2009 |
| | Authors: |
Mark Allman, Konstantin Avrachenkov, Urtzi Ayesta, Ethan Blanton, Per Hurtig |
| | Working Group: |
TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions (tcpm) |
| | Formats: |
txt |
|
This document proposes a new mechanism for TCP and SCTP that can be used to recover lost segments when a connection's congestion window is small. The "Early Retransmit" mechanism allows the transport to reduce, in certain special circumstances, the number of duplicate acknowledgments required to trigger a fast retransmission. This allows the transport to use fast retransmit to recover segment losses that would otherwise require a lengthy retransmission timeout. |
17/11/2009
| |
|
| |
| | Component Link Recording and Resource Control for TE Link Bundles |
| |
|
Record Route is a useful administrative tool that has been used extensively by the service providers. However, when TE links are bundled, identification of label resource in Record Route Object (RRO) is not enough for the administrative purpose. Network service A.Zamfir et al. - Expires May 2010 [page 1] Component Link Record. & Resource Control for TE Link Bundles providers would like to know the component link within a TE link that is being used by a given LSP. In other words, when link bundling is used, resource recording requires mechanisms to specify the component link identifier, along with the TE link identifier and Label. As it is not possible to record component link in the RRO, this draft defines the extensions to RSVP-TE [RFC3209] and [RFC3473] to specify component link identifiers for resource recording purposes. This draft also defines the Explicit Route Object (ERO) counterpart of the RRO extension. The ERO extensions are needed to perform explicit label/ resource control over bundled TE link. Hence, this document defines the extensions to RSVP-TE [RFC3209] and [RFC3473] to specify component link identifiers for explicit resource control and recording over TE link bundles. |
| | Multi-hop Ad Hoc Wireless Communication |
| |
|
This document describes some important characteristics of communication between nodes in a multi-hop ad hoc wireless network. These are not requirements in the sense usually understood as applying to formulation of a requirements document. Nevertheless, protocol engineers and system analysts involved with designing solutions for ad hoc networks must maintain awareness of these characteristics. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 21, 2010.Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. |
| | A Description of the ARIA Encryption Algorithm |
| |
| | draft-nsri-aria-03.txt |
| | Date: |
17/11/2009 |
| | Authors: |
Jungkeun Lee, Jooyoung Lee, Jaeheon Kim, Daesung Kwon, Choonsoo Kim |
| | Working Group: |
Individual Submissions (none) |
| | Formats: |
txt |
|
This document describes the ARIA encryption algorithm. ARIA is a 128- bit block cipher with 128-, 192-, and 256-bit keys. The algorithm consists of key scheduling part and data randomizing part. |
| | IANA Considerations for NLPIDs |
| |
|
Some protocols being developed or extended by the IETF make use of the ISO/IEC (International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission) Network Layer Protocol Identifier (NLPID). This document provides NLPID IANA Considerations. |
| | IANA Registration of the SFUACFG Application Service Tag |
| |
|
This document defines an application service tag for use according to RFC 4848 in the automated SIP User Agent configuration process defined by the SIP Forum. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 21, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. |
| | ALTO-Like Activities and Experiments in P2P Network Experiment Council |
| |
|
This document provides some suggestions about ALTO architecture through experiments made by P2P Network Experiment Council in Japan. This document also introduces experiments made by the Council in Japan to harmonize P2P technology with the infrastructure. Specifically, this document describes Hint Server technology, which is similar to ALTO technology. |
| | Transport Layer Security (TLS) Renegotiation Indication Extension |
| |
|
SSL and TLS renegotiation are vulnerable to an attack in which the attacker forms a TLS connection with the target server, injects content of his choice, and then splices in a new TLS connection from a client. The server treats the client's initial TLS handshake as a renegotiation and thus believes that the initial data transmitted by the attacker is from the same entity as the subsequent client data. This draft defines a TLS extension to cryptographically tie renegotiations to the TLS connections they are being performed over, thus preventing this attack. |
| | Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP) Additions to LIST Command |
| |
|
This document defines a set of enhancements to the Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP) that allows a client to request extended information maintained by NNTP servers as for local use and distribution policy. These enhancements are made as new keywords to the existing LIST capability described in RFC 3977. This memo updates and formalizes the LIST DISTRIBUTIONS and LIST SUBSCRIPTIONS commands defined in RFC 2980. It also adds the LIST MODERATORS and LIST MOTD commands, and specifies additional values returned by the existing LIST ACTIVE command for the status of a newsgroup. |
| | SIP Forum - Fax Over IP Task Group Problem Statement |
| |
| | draft-jones-sip-forum-fax-problem-statement-00.txt |
| | Date: |
17/11/2009 |
| | Authors: |
Ximing Chen, Mike Coffee, Kevin Fleming, Gunnar Hellstrom, Paul Jones, John Lunsford, Antonios Papageorgiou, Gonzalo Salgueiro, Ed Schulz, Neil Weldon |
| | Working Group: |
Individual Submissions (none) |
| | Formats: |
txt pdf |
|
This memo is published for informational purposes to document the issues identified by the SIP Forum with respect to the transmission of facsimile signaling messages and fax page data over Internet Protocol (IP) networks. Further, it is the intent of this memo to alert the IETF to the formation of a Fax Over IP Task Group within the SIP Forum chartered to investigate and address identified issues as they relate to the deployment of fax services in Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) networks. |
| | Emergency Text Messaging using SIP MESSAGE |
| |
| | draft-kim-ecrit-text-00.txt |
| | Date: |
17/11/2009 |
| | Authors: |
Jong Yul Kim, Wonsang Song, Henning Schulzrinne, Piotr Boni, Michael Armstrong |
| | Working Group: |
Individual Submissions (none) |
| | Formats: |
txt xml |
|
This memo describes best current practices on how to use the SIP MESSAGE method for emergency text messaging from citizen and visitors to authorities. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 20, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. |
| | IP-based VLAN switching for Network Services Virtualization |
| |
|
The objective of this document is to define and formalize the use of IP-based VLAN switching in the context of virtualization of network services. Networking infrastructure appliances may host multiple virtual instances of network services. IP address inspection on a packet coming from an external network such as the Internet can be used to switch the packet into a VLAN, through use of VLAN tags on Ethernet frames. The tagged frame is subsequently fed to a VLAN-aware networking infrastructure appliance where the packet is directed to a virtualized service instance. This method of IP-based VLAN switching on a packet assists in hosting multiple virtual instances of network services on servers and other appliances. |
| | Support of address families in OSPFv3 |
| |
| | draft-ietf-ospf-af-alt-09.txt |
| | Date: |
17/11/2009 |
| | Authors: |
Acee Lindem, Sina Mirtorabi, Abhay Roy, Michael Barnes, Rahul Aggarwal |
| | Working Group: |
Open Shortest Path First IGP (ospf) |
| | Formats: |
txt |
|
This document describes a mechanism for supporting multiple address families in OSPFv3 using multiple instances. It maps an address family (AF) to an OSPFv3 instance using the Instance ID field in the OSPFv3 packet header. This approach is fairly simple and minimizes extensions to OSPFv3 for supporting multiple AFs. |
| | Making TCP more Robust to Long Connectivity Disruptions (TCP-LCD) |
| |
|
Disruptions in end-to-end path connectivity, which last longer than one retransmission timeout cause suboptimal TCP performance. The reason for the performance degradation is that TCP interprets segment loss induced by long connectivity disruptions as a sign of congestion, resulting in repeated retransmission timer backoffs. This leads in turn to a deferred detection of the re-establishment of the connection since TCP waits until the next retransmission timeout occurs before attempting the retransmission. This document proposes a algorithm for making TCP more robust to long connectivity disruptions (TCP-LCD). The memo describes how standard ICMP messages can be exploited during timeout-based loss recovery to disambiguate true congestion loss from non-congestion loss caused by connectivity disruptions. Moreover, a revert strategy of the retransmission timer is specified that enables a more prompt detection of whether the connectivity to a previously disconnected peer node has been restored or not. TCP-LCD is a TCP sender-only modification that effectively improves TCP performance in presence of connectivity disruptions. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 21, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. |
| | Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Admission Priority |
| |
|
Some applications require the ability to provide an elevated probability of session establishment to specific sessions in times of network congestion. When supported over the Internet Protocol suite, this may be facilitated through a network layer admission control solution that supports prioritized access to resources (e.g., bandwidth). These resources may be explicitly set aside for prioritized sessions, or may be shared with other sessions. This document specifies extensions to the Resource reSerVation Protocol (RSVP) that can be used to support such an admission priority capability at the network layer. Based on current security concerns, these extensions are targeting applicability within a single domain. |
| | Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Core |
| |
|
This document defines the core features of the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP), a technology for streaming Extensible Markup Language (XML) elements for the purpose of exchanging structured information in close to real time between any two or more network-aware entities. XMPP provides a generalized, extensible framework for incrementally exchanging XML data, upon which a variety of applications can be built. The framework includes methods for stream setup and teardown, channel encryption, authentication of a client to a server and of one server to another server, and primitives for push-style messages, publication of network availability information ("presence"), and request-response interactions. This document also specifies the format for XMPP addresses, which are fully internationalizable. This document obsoletes RFC 3920. |
| | Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence |
| |
|
This document defines extensions to core features of the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) that provide basic instant messaging (IM) and presence functionality in conformance with RFC 2779. This document obsoletes RFC 3921. |
16/11/2009
| |
|
| |
| | Unicast-Based Rapid Acquisition of Multicast RTP Sessions |
| |
|
When an RTP receiver joins a primary multicast session, it may need to acquire and parse certain Reference Information before it can process any data sent in the multicast session. Depending on the join time, length of the Reference Information repetition interval, size of the Reference Information as well as the application and transport properties, the time lag before an RTP receiver can usefully consume the multicast data, which we refer to as the Acquisition Delay, varies and may be large. This is an undesirable phenomenon for receivers that frequently switch among different multicast sessions, such as video broadcasts. In this document, we describe a method using the existing RTP and RTCP protocol machinery that reduces the acquisition delay. In this method, an auxiliary unicast RTP session carrying the Reference Information to the receiver precedes/accompanies the primary multicast stream. This unicast RTP flow may be transmitted at a faster than natural rate to further accelerate the acquisition. The motivating use case for this capability is multicast applications that carry real-time compressed audio and video. However, the proposed method can also be used in other types of multicast applications where the acquisition delay is long enough to be a problem. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 20, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English. |
| | Dynamic Symmetric Key Provisioning Protocol (DSKPP) |
| |
| | draft-ietf-keyprov-dskpp-09.txt |
| | Date: |
16/11/2009 |
| | Authors: |
Andrea Doherty, Mingliang Pei, Salah Machani, Magnus Nystrom |
| | Working Group: |
Provisioning of Symmetric Keys (keyprov) |
| | Formats: |
txt xml |
|
DSKPP is a client-server protocol for initialization (and configuration) of symmetric keys to locally and remotely accessible cryptographic modules. The protocol can be run with or without private-key capabilities in the cryptographic modules, and with or without an established public-key infrastructure. Two variations of the protocol support multiple usage scenarios. With the four-pass variant, keys are mutually generated by the provisioning server and cryptographic module; provisioned keys are not transferred over-the-wire or over-the-air. The two-pass variant enables secure and efficient download and installation of pre- generated symmetric keys to a cryptographic module. This document builds on information contained in [RFC4758], adding specific enhancements in response to implementation experience and liaison requests. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 20, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. |
| | MPLS-TP Network Management Framework |
| |
|
This document provides the network management framework for the Transport Profile for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS-TP). This framework relies on the management terminology from the ITU-T to describe the management architecture that could be used for an MPLS-TP management network. The management of the MPLS-TP network could be based on multi-tiered distributed management systems. This document provides a description of the network and element management architectures that could be applied and also describes heuristics associated with fault, configuration, and performance aspects of the management system. This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) / International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport Profile within the IETF MPLS and PWE3 architectures to support the capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network. This Informational Internet-Draft is aimed at achieving IETF Consensus before publication as an RFC and will be subject to an IETF Last Call. [RFC Editor, please remove this note before publication as an RFC and insert the correct Streams Boilerplate to indicate that the published RFC has IETF Consensus.] Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 20, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. |
| | IESG Procedures for Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions |
| |
|
This document describes the procedures used by the IESG for handling documents submitted for RFC publication on the Independent Submission and IRTF streams. This document updates procedures described in RFC 2026 and RFC 3710. |
| | The OAuth Core 1.0 Protocol |
| |
|
This document specifies the OAuth Core 1.0 protocol. OAuth provides a method for clients to access server resources on behalf of another party (such as a different client or an end user). It also provides a redirection-based user agent process for end users to authorize access to another party by substituting their credentials (typically, a username and password pair) with a different set of delegation- specific credentials. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 20, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. |
| | ANSI C12.22,IEEE 1703 and MC1222 Transport Over IP |
| |
|
This RFC provides a framework for transporting ANSI C12.22/IEEE 1703/ MC1222 Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Application-Layer Messages on an IP network. |
| | Definitions for expressing standards requirements in IANA registries. |
| |
|
RFC 2119 defines words that are used in IETF standards documents to indicate standards compliance. These words are fine for defining new protocols, but there are certain deficiencies in using them when it comes to protocol maintainability. Protocols are maintained by either updating the core specifications or via changes in protocol registries. For example, protocols often use external algorithms to to provide security functionality such as cryptography. Cryptographic algorithms frequently have limited life cycles as new algorithms are phased in to replace older algorithms. This document proposes standard terms to use in protocol registries and possibly in standards track documents to indicate the life cycle support of protocol features and operations. |
| | Internet Calendar Scheduling Protocol (iSchedule) |
| |
|
This document defines the Internet Calendar Scheduling Protocol (iSchedule), which is a binding from the iCalendar Transport- independent Interoperability Protocol (iTIP) to the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) to enable interoperability between calendaring and scheduling systems over the Internet. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 19, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. |
| | AFSVol Tag-Length-Value Remote Procedure Call Extensions |
| |
|
AFS-3 heavily leverages Remote Procedure Calls (RPCs). This proposal adds a new mechanism to better manage the addition of new, enhancement-specific RPCs through the use of both capability bits via the GetCapabilities RPC, and via standardization of backwards- compatibility behaviors for enhancement-specific RPCs. These goals are accomplished through standardization of Tag-Length-Value (TLV) get/set/enumerate RPCs with value payloads encoded using an XDR discriminated union. The XDR union decode problem is circumvented by specifying an opaque default leg. Tags are allocated for existing volume and transaction metadata, and implementation-private tags are allocated for metadata related to the OpenAFS Demand Attach File Server. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 20, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. |
| | PKI Resource Query Protocol (PRQP) |
| |
|
One of the most strategic problems still open in PKIX is locating public data and services associated with a Certification Authority (CA). This issue impacts interoperability and usability in PKIX. This draft describes the PKI Resource Query Protocol (PRQP), its design, definition, and its impact in already deployed PKIX protocols. |
| | ASN.1 Translation |
| |
|
Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) is widely used throughout the IETF security area and has been for many years. Some specifications were written using a now deprecated version of ASN.1 and some were written using the current version of ASN.1. Not all ASN.1 compilers support both older and current syntax. This document is intended to provide guidance to specification authors and to implementers converting ASN.1 modules written using one version of ASN.1 to another version without causing changes to the "bits on the wire". This document does not provide a comprehensive tutorial of any version of ASN.1. Instead, it addresses ASN.1 features that are used in IETF security area specifications with focus on items that vary with the ASN.1 version. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 20, 2010.Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. |
15/11/2009
| |
|
| |
| | Security Best Practices Efforts and Documents |
| |
| | draft-ietf-opsec-efforts-11.txt |
| | Date: |
15/11/2009 |
| | Authors: |
Chris Lonvick, David Spak |
| | Working Group: |
Operational Security Capabilities for IP Network Infrastructure (opsec) |
| | Formats: |
txt |
|
This document provides a snapshot of the current efforts to define or apply security requirements in various Standards Developing Organizations (SDO). Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 19, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. |
14/11/2009
| |
|
| |
| | IPv6 Subnet Model: the Relationship between Links and Subnet Prefixes |
| |
|
IPv6 specifies a model of a subnet that is different than the IPv4 subnet model. The subtlety of the differences has resulted in incorrect implementations that do not interoperate. This document spells out the most important difference; that an IPv6 address isn't automatically associated with an IPv6 on-link prefix. This document also updates (partially due to security concerns caused by incorrect implementations) a part of the definition of on-link from [RFC4861]. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 18, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English. |
13/11/2009
| |
|
| |
| | Private Extensions to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for Service Interaction Indicator |
| |
|
In SIP-based networks, a SIP session MAY involve several application servers on the originating and terminating side. In a certain case, an application server needs to set some indications in SIP message to indicate service information (what are invoked, what can be allowed and what should blocked). This kind of information will be also required for composition of SIP applications. There is a need to provide indicators for service interaction between SIP application servers or other SIP endpoints. This document describes a mechanism of service interaction indicator for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) that enhances service interaction between SIP application servers in a trusted network. |
| | Credential Protection Ciphersuites for Transport Layer Security (TLS) |
| |
|
This document defines a set of cipher suites to add client credential protection to the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. By negotiating one of those ciphersuites, the TLS clients will be able to determine for themselves when, how, to what extent and for what purpose information about them is communicated to others. The ciphersuites defined in this document can be used only when public key certificates are used in the client authentication process. |
| | Preliminary Evaluation of RFC5321,Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP),for advancement from Draft Standard to Full Standard by the YAM Working Group |
| |
|
This memo is a preliminary evaluation of RFC 5321, Simple Mail Transfer Protocol for advancement from Draft to Full Standard. It has been prepared by the The Yet Another Mail Working Group. THIS INTERNET DRAFT IS NOT MEANT TO BE PUBLISHED AS AN RFC, BUT IS WRITTEN TO FACILITATE DISCUSSION WITH THE IESG. |
12/11/2009
| |
|
| |
| | Subnet Allocation Option |
| |
|
This document defines a new DHCP option which is passed between the DHCP Client and the DHCP Server to request dynamic allocation of a subnet, give specifications of subnet(s) allocated, and report usage statistics. This memo documents the current usage of the option in agreement with [RFC3942], which declares that any pre-existing usages of option numbers in the range 128 - 223 should be documented and the working group will try to officially assign those numbers to those options. |
| | Update to DNAME Redirection in the DNS |
| |
|
The DNAME record provides redirection for a sub-tree of the domain name tree in the DNS system. That is, all names that end with a particular suffix are redirected to another part of the DNS. This is a revision of the original specification in RFC 2672, also aligning RFC 3363 and RFC 4294 with this revision. |
| | Use of GOST signature algorithms in DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource Records for DNSSEC |
| |
|
This document describes how to produce signature and hash using GOST algorithms for DNSKEY, RRSIG and DS resource records for use in the Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC, RFC 4033, RFC 4034, and RFC 4035). V.Dolmatov Expires May 10, 2010 [page 1] |
| | DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY IANA Registry Algorithm Status Addition |
| |
|
The DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) has an IANA registry to allocate cryptographic algorithm suites for use in generating digital signatures over DNS data. Newly introduced cryptographic algorithms to DNSSEC mean implementors need to know which algorithms need to be implmented, which are optional, and which are obsolete. This document adds a column to the IANA registry table for Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm Numbers to list their status for use. |
| | BGP Persistent Route Oscillation Solutions |
| |
|
In this document we present two sets of paths for an address prefix that can be advertised by a BGP route reflector or confederation ASBR to eliminate the MED-induced route oscillations in a network. The first set involves all the available paths, and would achieve the same routing consistency as the full IBGP mesh. The second set, which is a subset of the first one, involves the neighbor-AS based Group Best Paths, and would be sufficient to eliminate the MED- induced route oscillations (subject to certain commonly adopted topological constrains). |
| | Delay-Tolerant Networking Previous Hop Insertion Block |
| |
|
This document defines an extension block that may be used with the DTN Bundle Protocol. This Previous Hop Insertion Block (PHIB) extension block is designed to be inserted by a forwarding node to provide the endpoint identifier (EID) of an endpoint of which the forwarding node is a member so that this EID may be conveyed to the next-hop receiving node. Knowledge of an EID of an endpoint of which a previous-hop node is a member may be required in some circumstances to support certain routing protocols (e.g., flood routing). If this EID cannot be provided by the convergence layer or other means, the PHIB defines the mechanism whereby the EID can be provided with the bundle. Each PHIB is always removed from the bundle by the receiving node so that its presence within the bundle is limited to exactly one hop. This document defines the format and processing of this PHIB. This document is a product of the Delay Tolerant Networking Research Group and has been reviewed by that group. No objections to its publication as an RFC were raised." Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 16, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. |
| | EAP Method Support for Transporting AAA Payloads |
| |
|
This document defines bindings for existing EAP methods to transport Diameter AVPs, called "AAA payloads". The primary application is to support EAP channel bindings, but this could be used for other applications as well. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 16, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English. |
| | Signaling Cryptographic Algorithm Understanding in DNSSEC |
| |
|
The DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) were developed to provide origin authentication and integrity protection for DNS data by using digital signatures. These digital signatures can be generated using different algorithms. This draft sets out to specify a way for validating end-system resolvers to signal to a server which cryptographic algorithms they support. |
| | Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv6) Option for Dual-Stack Lite |
| |
|
This document describes how Dual-Stack Lite configuration (the Softwire Concentrator (SC)'s address) can be obtained by a Softwire Initiator (SI) via DHCPv6. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 16, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. |
| | Delay-Tolerant Networking Metadata Extension Block |
| |
|
This document defines an extension block that may be used with the DTN Bundle Protocol. This Metadata Extension Block is designed to carry additional information that DTN nodes can use to make processing decisions regarding bundles, such as deciding whether to store a bundle or determining to which nodes to forward a bundle. The metadata that is carried in a metadata block must be formatted according to the metadata type that is identified in the block's metadata type field. One specific metadata type, for carrying URIs as metadata, is defined in this document. Other metadata types may be defined in separate documents. This document is a product of the Delay Tolerant Networking Research Group and has been reviewed by that group. No objections to its publication as an RFC were raised. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 16, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. |
| | Compressed Bundle Header Encoding (CBHE) |
| |
|
This document describes a convention by which Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN) Bundle Protocol (BP) "convergence-layer" adapters may represent endpoint identifiers in a compressed manner within the primary blocks of bundles, provided those endpoint identifiers conform to the structure prescribed by this convention. CBHE compression is a convergence-layer adaptation. It is opaque to bundle processing. It therefore has no impact on the interoperability of different Bundle Protocol implementations, but instead affects only the interoperability of different convergence layer adaptation implementations. This document is a product of the Delay Tolerant Networking Research Group and has been reviewed by that group. No objections to its publication as an RFC were raised. |
| | The Web Socket protocol |
| |
|
The Web Sockets protocol enables two-way communication between a user agent running untrusted code running in a controlled environment to a remote host that has opted-in to communications from that code. The security model used for this is the Origin-based security model commonly used by Web browsers. The protocol consists of an initial handshake followed by basic message framing, layered over TCP. The goal of this technology is to provide a mechanism for browser-based applications that need two-way communication with servers that does not rely on opening multiple HTTP connections (e.g. using XMLHttpRequest or | |