Transport Protocol Path Signals
draft-iab-path-signals-02

Document Type Active Internet-Draft
Last updated 2018-11-28 (latest revision 2018-11-19)
Replaces draft-hardie-path-signals
Stream IAB
Intended RFC status Informational
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream IAB state Community Review
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
Network Working Group                                     T. Hardie, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                         November 19, 2018
Intended status: Informational
Expires: May 23, 2019

                    Transport Protocol Path Signals
                       draft-iab-path-signals-02

Abstract

   This document discusses the nature of signals seen by on-path
   elements examining transport protocols, contrasting implicit and
   explicit signals.  For example, TCP's state mechanics uses a series
   of well-known messages that are exchanged in the clear.  Because
   these are visible to network elements on the path between the two
   nodes setting up the transport connection, they are often used as
   signals by those network elements.  In transports that do not
   exchange these messages in the clear, on-path network elements lack
   those signals.  Often, the removal of those signals is intended by
   those moving the messages to confidential channels.  Where the
   endpoints desire that network elements along the path receive these
   signals, this document recommends explicit signals be used.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 23, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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

Hardie                    Expires May 23, 2019                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft       Transport Protocol Path Signals       November 2018

   (https://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 Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Signals Type Inferred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Session Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       3.1.1.  Session Identity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       3.1.2.  Routability and Consent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       3.1.3.  Flow Stability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       3.1.4.  Resource Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Network Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.2.1.  Path Latency  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.2.2.  Path Reliability and Consistency  . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Do Not Restore These Signals  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.2.  Replace These With Network Layer Signals  . . . . . . . .   6
     4.3.  Replace These With Per-Transport Signals  . . . . . . . .   6
     4.4.  Create a Set of Signals Common to Multiple Transports . .   6
   5.  Recommendation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2.  Introduction

   This document discusses the nature of signals seen by on-path
   elements examining transport protocols, contrasting implicit and
   explicit signals.  For example, TCP's state mechanics uses a series
   of well-known messages that are exchanged in the clear.  Because
   these are visible to network elements on the path between the two
Show full document text