CCNx Messages in TLV Format
draft-irtf-icnrg-ccnxmessages-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 8609.
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Marc Mosko | ||
| Last updated | 2015-12-31 (Latest revision 2015-06-29) | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| IETF conflict review | conflict-review-irtf-icnrg-ccnxmessages, conflict-review-irtf-icnrg-ccnxmessages, conflict-review-irtf-icnrg-ccnxmessages, conflict-review-irtf-icnrg-ccnxmessages, conflict-review-irtf-icnrg-ccnxmessages, conflict-review-irtf-icnrg-ccnxmessages | ||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | IRTF state | (None) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 8609 (Experimental) | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-irtf-icnrg-ccnxmessages-00
ICNRG M. Mosko
Internet-Draft I. Solis
Intended status: Experimental PARC, Inc.
Expires: December 31, 2015 June 29, 2015
CCNx Messages in TLV Format
draft-irtf-icnrg-ccnxmessages-00
Abstract
This document specifies the encoding of CCNx messages using a TLV
Packet specification. CCNx messages follow the CCNx Semantics
specification. This document defines the TLV types used by each
message element and the encoding of each value.
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 http://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 December 31, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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 Simplified BSD License.
Mosko & Solis Expires December 31, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CCNx TLV June 2015
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Type-Length-Value (TLV) Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Overall packet format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Fixed Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.1. Interest Fixed Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.1.1. Interest HopLimit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.2. Content Object Fixed Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.3. InterestReturn Fixed Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.3.1. InterestReturn HopLimit . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.3.2. InterestReturn Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.3.3. Return Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3. Hop-by-hop TLV headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3.1. Interest Lifetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3.2. Recommended Cache Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.4. Top-Level Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.5. Global Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.5.1. Pad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.5.2. Organization Specific TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.5.3. Link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.6. CCNx Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.6.1. Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.6.1.1. Name Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.6.1.2. Interest Payload ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.6.2. Message TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.6.2.1. Interest Message TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.6.2.2. Content Object Message TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.6.3. Payload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.6.4. Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.6.4.1. Validation Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.6.4.2. Validation Payload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Mosko & Solis Expires December 31, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft CCNx TLV June 2015
1. Introduction
This document specifies a Type-Length-Value (TLV) packet format and
the TLV type and value encodings for the CCNx network protocol as
specified in [CCNSemantics]. This draft describes the mandatory and
common optional fields of Interests and Content Objects. Several
additional protocols specified in their own documents are in use that
extend this specification.
A full description of the semantics of CCNx messages, providing an
encoding-free description of CCNx messages and message elements, may
be found in [CCNSemantics]
This document specifies:
o The TLV packet format.
o The overall packet format for CCNx messages.
o The TLV types used by CCNx messages.
o The encoding of values for each type.
o Top level types that exist at the outermost containment.
o Interest TLVs that exist within Interest containment.
o Content Object TLVs that exist within Content Object containment.
This document is supplemented by this document:
o Message semantics: see [CCNSemantics] for the protocol operation
regarding Interest and Content Object, including the Interest
Return protocol.
In the final draft, the type values will be assigned to be compact.
All type values are relative to their parent containers. It is
possible for a TLV to redefine a type value defined by its parent.
For example, each level of a nested TLV structure might define a
"type = 1" with a completely different meaning.
Packets are represented as 32-bit wide words using ASCII art. Due to
the nested levels of TLV encoding and the presence of optional fields
and variable sizes, there is no concise way to represent all
possibilities. We use the convention that ASCII art fields enclosed
by vertical bars "|" represent exact bit widths. Fields with a
forward slash "/" are variable bit widths, which we typically pad out
to word alignment for picture readability.
Mosko & Solis Expires December 31, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft CCNx TLV June 2015
TODO -- we have not adopted the Requirements Language yet.
1.1. Requirements Language
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].
Mosko & Solis Expires December 31, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft CCNx TLV June 2015
2. Definitions
o HSVLI: Hierarchically structured variable length identifier, also
called a Name. It is an ordered list of path segments, which may
be variable length octet strings. In human-readable form, it is
represented in URI format as lci:/path/part. There is no host or
query string.
o Name: see HSVLI
o Interest: A message requesting a Content Object with a matching
Name and other optional selectors to choose from multiple objects
with the same Name. Any Content Object with a Name and optional
selectors that matches the Name and optional selectors of the
Interest is said to satisfy the Interest.
o Content Object: A data object sent in response to an Interest
request. It has an HSVLI Name and a content payload that are
bound together via cryptographic means.
Mosko & Solis Expires December 31, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft CCNx TLV June 2015
3. Type-Length-Value (TLV) Packets
We use 16-bit Type and 16-bit Length fields to encode TLV based
packets. This provides 64K different possible types and value field
lengths of up to 64KiB. With 64K possible types, there should be
sufficient space for basic protocol types, while also allowing ample
room for experimentation, application use, and growth. Specifically,
the TLV types in the range 0x1000 - 0x1FFF are reserved for
experimental use. These type values are reserved in all TLV
container contexts.In the event that more space is needed, either for
types or for length, a new version of the protocol would be needed.
1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Type | Length |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
The Length field contains the length of the Value field in octets.
It does not include the length of the Type and Length fields. A zero
length TLV is permissible.
TLV structures are nestable, allowing the Value field of one TLV
structure to contain additional TLV structures. The enclosing TLV
structure is called the container of the enclosed TLV.
Type values are context-dependent. Within a TLV container, one may
re-use previous type values for new context-dependent purposes.
3.1. Overall packet format
Each packet includes the 8 byte fixed header described below,
followed by a set of TLV fields. These fields are optional hop-by-
hop headers and the Packet Payload.
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Version | PacketType | PacketLength |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| PacketType specific fields | HeaderLength |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
/ Optional Hop-by-hop header TLVs /
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
/ PacketPayload TLVs /
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
The packet payload is a TLV encoding of the CCNx message, followed by
Mosko & Solis Expires December 31, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft CCNx TLV June 2015
optional Validation TLVs.
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| CCNx Message TLV /
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
/ Optional CCNx ValidationAlgorithm TLV /
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
/ Optional CCNx ValidationPayload TLV (ValidationAlg required) /
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
This document describes the Version "1" TLV encoding.
After discarding the fixed and hop-by-hop headers the remaining
PacketPayload should be a valid protocol message. Therefore, the
PacketPayload always begins with a 4 byte TLV defining the protocol
message (whether it is an Interest, Content Object, or other message
type) and its total length. The embedding of a self-sufficient
protocol data unit inside the fixed and hop-by-hop headers allows a
network stack to discard the headers and operate only on the embedded
message.
The range of bytes protected by the Validation includes the CCNx
Message and the ValidationAlgorithm.
The ContentObjectHash begins with the CCNx Message and ends at the
tail of the packet.
3.2. Fixed Headers
CCNx messages begin with an 8 byte fixed header (non-TLV format).
The HeaderLength field represents the combined length of the Fixed
and Hop-by-hop headers. The PacketLength field represents the entire
Packet length.
A specific PacketType may assign meaning to the reserved bytes.
The PacketPayload of a CCNx packet is the protocol message itself.
The Content Object Hash is computed over the PacketPayload only,
excluding the fixed and hop-by-hop headers as those might change from
hop to hop. Signed information or Similarity Hashes should not
include any of the fixed or hop-by-hop headers. The PacketPayload
should be self-sufficient in the event that the fixed and hop-by-hop
headers are removed.
Mosko & Solis Expires December 31, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft CCNx TLV June 2015
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Version | PacketType | PacketLength |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| PacketType specific fields | HeaderLength |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
o Version: defines the version of the packet.
o HeaderLength: The length of the fixed header (8 bytes) and hop-by-
hop headers. The minimum value is "8".
o PacketType: describes forwarder actions to take on the packet.
o PacketLength: Total octets of packet including all headers (fixed
header plus hop-by-hop headers) and protocol message.
o PacketType Specific Fields: specific PacketTypes define the use of
these bits.
The PacketType field indicates how the forwarder should process the
packet. A Request Packet (Interest) has PacketType 0, a Response
(Content Object) has PacketType 1, and an InterestReturn Packet has
PacketType 2.
HeaderLength is the number of octets from the start of the packet
(Version) to the end of the hop-by-hop headers. PacketLength is the
number of octets from the start of the packet to the end of the
packet.
The PacketType specific fields are reserved bits whose use depends on
the PacketType. They are used for network-level signaling.
3.2.1. Interest Fixed Header
If the PacketType in the Fixed Header is "0", it indicates that the
PacketPayload should be processed as an Interest message. For this
type of packet, the Fixed Header includes a field for a HopLimit as
well as Reserved and Flags fields. The Reserved field must be set to
0 in an Interest - this field will be set to a return code in the
case of an Interest Return. There are currently no Flags defined, so
this field must also be set to 0.
Mosko & Solis Expires December 31, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft CCNx TLV June 2015
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Version | 0 | PacketLength |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| HopLimit | Reserved | Flags | HeaderLength |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
3.2.1.1. Interest HopLimit
For an Interest message, the HopLimit is a counter that is
decremented with each hop. It limits the distance an Interest may
travel on the network. The node originating the Interest may put in
any value - up to the maximum of 255. Each node that receives an
Interest with a HopLimit decrements the value upon reception. If the
value is 0 after the decrement, the Interest cannot be forwarded off
the node.
It is an error to receive an Interest with a 0 hop-limit from a
remote node.
3.2.2. Content Object Fixed Header
If the PacketType in the Fixed Header is "1", it indicates that the
PacketPayload should be processed as a Content Object message. A
Content Object defines a Flags field, however there are currently no
flags defined, so the Flags field must be set to 0.
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Version | 1 | PacketLength |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Reserved | Flags | HeaderLength |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
3.2.3. InterestReturn Fixed Header
If the PacketType in the Fixed Header is "2", it indicates that the
PacketPayload should be processed as a returned Interest message.
The only difference between this InterestReturn message and the
original Interest is that the PacketType is changed to "2" and a
ReturnCode is is put into the Reserved octet. All other fields are
unchanged. The purpose of this encoding is to prevent packet length
changes so no additional bytes are needed to return an Interest to
the previous hop. See [CCNSemantics] for a protocol description of
this packet type.
Mosko & Solis Expires December 31, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft CCNx TLV June 2015
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Version | 2 | PacketLength |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| HopLimit | ReturnCode | Flags | HeaderLength |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
3.2.3.1. InterestReturn HopLimit
This is the original Interest's HopLimit, as received. It is the
value before being decremented at the current node.
3.2.3.2. InterestReturn Flags
These are the original Flags as set in the Interest.
3.2.3.3. Return Code
The numeric value assigned to the return types is defined below.
This value is set by the node creating the Interest Return.
A return code of "0" is not allowed, as it indicates that the
returning system did not modify the Return Code field.
+-------+--------------------+
| Value | Return Type |
+-------+--------------------+
| 1 | No Route |
| | |
| 2 | Hop Limit Exceeded |
| | |
| 3 | No Resources |
| | |
| 4 | Path Error |
| | |
| 5 | Prohibited |
| | |
| 6 | Congested |
| | |
| 7 | MTU too large |
+-------+--------------------+
Table 1: Return Codes
Mosko & Solis Expires December 31, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft CCNx TLV June 2015
3.3. Hop-by-hop TLV headers
Hop-by-hop TLV headers are unordered and no meaning should be
attached to their ordering. Four hop-by-hop headers are described in
this document:
+--------+-------------+-----------------+--------------------------+
| Type | Abbrev | Name | Description |
+--------+-------------+-----------------+--------------------------+
| %x0001 | T_INTLIFE | Interest | The time an Interest |
| | | Lifetime | should stay pending at |
| | | (Section 3.3.1) | an intermediate node. |
| | | | |
| %x0002 | T_CACHETIME | Recommended | The Recommended Cache |
| | | Cache Time | Time for Content |
| | | (Section 3.3.2) | Objects. |
+--------+-------------+-----------------+--------------------------+
Table 2: Hop-by-hop Header Types
Additional hop-by-hop headers are defined in higher level
specifications such as the fragmentation specification.
3.3.1. Interest Lifetime
The Interest Lifetime is the time that an Interest should stay
pending at an intermediate node. It is expressed in milliseconds as
an unsigned, network byte order integer.
A value of 0 (encoded as 1 byte %x00) indicates the Interest does not
elicit a Content Object response. It should still be forwarded, but
no reply is expected.
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| T_INTLIFE | Length |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
/ /
/ Lifetime (length octets) /
/ /
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
3.3.2. Recommended Cache Time
The Recommended Cache Time (RCT) is a measure of the useful lifetime
of a Content Object as assigned by a content producer or upstream
node. It serves as a guideline to the Content Store cache in
Mosko & Solis Expires December 31, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft CCNx TLV June 2015
determining how long to keep the Content Object. It is a
recommendation only and may be ignored by the cache. This is in
contrast to the ExpiryTime (described in Section 3.6.2.2.2)which
takes precedence over the RCT and must be obeyed.
Because the Recommended Cache Time is an optional hop-by-hop header
and not a part of the signed message, a content producer may re-issue
a previously signed Content Object with an updated RCT without
needing to re-sign the message. There is little ill effect from an
attacker changing the RCT as the RCT serves as a guideline only.
The Recommended Cache Time (a millisecond timestamp) is a network
byte ordered unsigned integer of the number of milliseconds since the
epoch in UTC of when the payload expires. It is a 64-bit field.
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| T_CACHETIME | 8 |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
/ /
/ Recommended Cache Time /
/ /
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
3.4. Top-Level Types
The top-level TLV types listed below exist at the outermost level of
a CCNx protocol message.
+-------+----------------------+-------------------+----------------+
| Type | Abbrev | Name | Description |
+-------+----------------------+-------------------+----------------+
| %x000 | T_INTEREST | Interest | An Interest |
| 1 | | (Section 3.6) | MessageType. |
| | | | |
| %x000 | T_OBJECT | Content Object | A Content |
| 2 | | (Section 3.6) | Object |
| | | | MessageType |
| | | | |
Mosko & Solis Expires December 31, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft CCNx TLV June 2015
| %x000 | T_VALIDATION_ALG | Validation | The method of |
| 3 | | Algorithm | message |
| | | (Section 3.6.4.1) | verification |
| | | | such as |
| | | | Message |
| | | | Integrity |
| | | | Check (MIC), a |
| | | | Message |
| | | | Authentication |
| | | | Code (MAC), or |
| | | | a |
| | | | cryptographic |
| | | | signature. |
| | | | |
| %x000 | T_VALIDATION_PAYLOAD | Validation | The validation |
| 4 | | Payload | output, such |
| | | (Section 3.6.4.2) | as the CRC32C |
| | | | code or the |
| | | | RSA signature. |
+-------+----------------------+-------------------+----------------+
Table 3: CCNx Top Level Types
3.5. Global Formats
3.5.1. Pad
The pad type may be used by protocols that prefer word-aligned data.
The size of the word may be defined by the protocol. Padding 4-byte
words, for example, would use a 1-byte, 2-byte, and 3-byte Length.
Padding 8-byte words would use a (0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7)-byte Length.
A pad may be inserted after any TLV except within a Name TLV. In the
remainder of this document, we will not show optional pad TLVs.
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| T_PAD | Length |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
/ variable length pad MUST be zeros /
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
3.5.2. Organization Specific TLVs
Organizations may request proprietary TLV types in the Hop-By-Hop
headers section or other TLV containers. The organization then has
control of the contents of the Value, which may be its own binary
Mosko & Solis Expires December 31, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft CCNx TLV June 2015
field or an encapsulated set of TLVs. The inner TLVs, because we use
a context-dependent TLV scheme, may be fully defined by the
organization.
Organization specific TLVs MUST use the T_ORG type. The Length field
is the length of the organization specific information plus 3. The
Value begins with the 3 byte organization number derived from the
last three digits of the IANA Private Enterprise
Numbers([CCNSemantics]), followed by the organization specific
information.
+--------+--------+------------------+------------------------------+
| Type | Abbrev | Name | Description |
+--------+--------+------------------+------------------------------+
| %x0FFF | T_ORG | Vendor Specific | Information specific to a |
| | | Information | vendor implementation. |
+--------+--------+------------------+------------------------------+
Table 4: Additional CCNx Message Types
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| (T_ORG) | Length (3+value length) |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| PEN[0] | PEN[1] | PEN[2] | /
+---------------+---------------+---------------+ +
/ Vendor Specific Value /
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
3.5.3. Link
A Link is the tuple: {CCNx Name, KeyId, ContentObjectHash}. It is a
general encoding that is used in both the payload of a Content Object
with PayloadType = "Link" and in the KeyName field in a KeyLocator.
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
/ Mandatory CCNx Name /
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
/ Optional KeyId /
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
/ Optional ContentObjectHash /
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Mosko & Solis Expires December 31, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft CCNx TLV June 2015
3.6. CCNx Message
This is the format for the CCNx protocol message itself. The CCNx
message is the portion of the packet between the hop-by-hop headers
and the Validation TLVs. The figure below is an expansion of the
"CCNx Message TLV" depicted in the beginning of Section 3. The CCNx
message begins with MessageType and runs through the optional
Payload. The same general format is used for both Interest and
Content Object messages which are differentiated by the MessageType
field. The first enclosed TLV of a CCNx Message is always the Name
TLV. This is followed by an optional Message TLVs and an optional
Payload TLV.
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| MessageType | MessageLength |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Name TLV (Type = T_NAME) |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
/ Optional Message TLVs (Various Types) /
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
/ Optional Payload TLV (Type = T_PAYLOAD) /
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
+--------+-----------+-----------------+----------------------------+
| Type | Abbrev | Name | Description |
+--------+-----------+-----------------+----------------------------+
| %x0000 | T_NAME | Name | The CCNx Name requested in |
| | | (Section 3.6.1) | an Interest or published |
| | | | in a Content Object. |
| | | | |
| %x0001 | T_PAYLOAD | Payload | The message payload. |
| | | (Section 3.6.3) | |
+--------+-----------+-----------------+----------------------------+
Table 5: CCNx Message Types
3.6.1. Name
A Name is a TLV encoded sequence of segments. The table below lists
the type values appropriate for these Name segments. A Name MUST NOT
include PAD TLVs.
Mosko & Solis Expires December 31, 2015 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft CCNx TLV June 2015
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| T_NAME | Length |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
/ Name segment TLVs /
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
+--------+---------------+-------------------+----------------------+
| Type | Symbolic Name | Name | Description |
+--------+---------------+-------------------+----------------------+
| %x0001 | T_NAMESEGMENT | Name segment | A generic name |
| | | (Section 3.6.1.1) | Segment. |
| | | | |
| %x0002 | T_IPID | Interest Payload | An identifier that |
| | | ID | represents the |
| | | (Section 3.6.1.2) | Interest Payload |
| | | | field. As an |
| | | | example, the Payload |
| | | | ID might be a hash |
| | | | of the Interest |
| | | | Payload. This |
| | | | provides a way to |
| | | | differentiate |
| | | | between Interests |
| | | | based on their |
| | | | payloads without |
| | | | having to parse all |
| | | | the bytes of the |
| | | | payload itself; |
| | | | instead using only |
| | | | this Payload ID Name |
| | | | segment |
| | | | |
| %x1000 | T_APP:00 - | Application | Application-specific |
| - | T_APP:4096 | Components | payload in a name |
| %x1FFF | | (Section 3.6.1.1) | segment. An |
| | | | application may |
| | | | apply its own |
| | | | semantics to the |
| | | | 4096 reserved types. |
+--------+---------------+-------------------+----------------------+
Table 6: CCNx Name Types
Mosko & Solis Expires December 31, 2015 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft CCNx TLV June 2015
3.6.1.1. Name Segments
Special application payload name segments are in the range %x1000 -
%1FFF. These have application semantics applied to them. A good
convention is to put the application's identity in the name prior to
using these name segments.
For example, a name like "lci:/foo/bar/yo" would be encoded as:
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| (T_NAME) | %x14 (20) |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| (T_NAME_SEGMENT) | %x03 (3) |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| f o o |(T_NAME_SEGMENT)
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| | %x03 (3) | b |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| a r | (T_NAME_SEGMENT) |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| %x02 (2) | y | o |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
3.6.1.2. Interest Payload ID
The InterestPayloadID is a name segment created by the origin of an
Interest to represent the Interest Payload. This allows the proper
multiplexing of Interests based on their name if they have different
payloads. A common representation is to use a hash of the Interest
Payload as the InterestPayloadID.
As part of the TLV 'value', the InterestPayloadID contains a one
identifier of method used to create the InterestPayloadID followed by
a variable length octet string. An implementation is not required to
implement any of the methods to receive an Interest; the
InterestPayloadID may be treated only as an opaque octet string for
purposes of multiplexing Interests with different payloads. Only a
device creating an InterestPayloadID name segment or a device
verifying such a segment need to implement the algorithms. Because
we allow application-specific algorithms and nonces, a device may not
be able to verify the name segment. We use the same encoding as RFC
6920 [RFC6920] Binary Format. If the InterestPayloadID is created
via a hash, it is encoded exactly as in RFC 6920 Section 6 Binary
Format. If the ID is created via application specific means, then we
set the high-order Reserved bit (0x80) and use the following table
for methods, which are not part of the RFC6920 suite.
Mosko & Solis Expires December 31, 2015 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft CCNx TLV June 2015
0: Application Specific (0x80)
1: Nonce (0x81)
In normal operations, we recommend displaying the InterestPayloadID
as an opaque octet string in an LCI scheme, as this is the common
denominator for implementation parsing. The InterestPayloadID name
segment may be displayed using the RFC6920 format NI scheme, for
example as "lci:/name=foo/name=bar/ipid=sha-256-32;f4OxZQ".
The InterestPayloadID, even if it is a hash, should not convey any
security context. If a system requires confirmation that a specific
entity created the InterestPayload, it should use a cryptographic
signature on the Interest via the ValidationAlgorithm and
ValidationPayload or use its own methods inside the Interest Payload.
3.6.2. Message TLVs
Each message type (Interest or Content Object) is associated with a
set of optional Message TLVs. Additional specification documents may
extend the types associated with each.
3.6.2.1. Interest Message TLVs
There are two Message TLVs currently associated with an Interest
message: the KeyIdRestriction selector and the
ContentObjectHashRestriction selector are used to narrow the universe
of acceptable Content Objects that would satisfy the Interest.
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| MessageType | MessageLength |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Name TLV |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
/ Optional KeyIdRestriction TLV /
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
/ Optional ContentObjectHashRestriction TLV /
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Mosko & Solis Expires December 31, 2015 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft CCNx TLV June 2015
+-------+---------------+-----------------------------+-------------+
| Type | Abbrev | Name | Description |
+-------+---------------+-----------------------------+-------------+
| %x000 | T_KEYIDRESTR | KeyIdRestriction | An octet |
| 2 | | (Section 3.6.2.1.1) | string |
| | | | identifying |
| | | | the |
| | | | specific |
| | | | publisher |
| | | | signing key |
| | | | that would |
| | | | satisfy the |
| | | | Interest. |
| | | | |
| %x000 | T_OBJHASHREST | ContentObjectHashRestrictio | The SHA-256 |
| 3 | R | n (Section 3.6.2.1.2) | hash of the |
| | | | specific |
| | | | Content |
| | | | Object that |
| | | | would |
| | | | satisfy the |
| | | | Interest. |
+-------+---------------+-----------------------------+-------------+
Table 7: CCNx Interest Message TLV Types
3.6.2.1.1. KeyIdRestriction
An Interest may include a KeyIdRestriction selector. This ensures
that only Content Objects with matching KeyIds will satisfy the
Interest. See Section 3.6.4.1.4.1 for the format of a KeyId.
3.6.2.1.2. ContentObjectHashRestriction
An Interest may also contain a ContentObjectHashRestriction selector.
This is the SHA-256 hash of the Content Object - the self-certifying
name restriction that must be verified in the network, if present.
The only acceptable length is 32.
Mosko & Solis Expires December 31, 2015 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft CCNx TLV June 2015
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| T_OBJHASHRESTR | Length |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
/ /
/ SHA-256 digest (32 bytes) /
/ /
/ /
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
3.6.2.2. Content Object Message TLVs
The following message TLVs are currently defined for Content Objects:
PayloadType (optional) and ExpiryTime (optional).
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| MessageType | MessageLength |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Name TLV |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
/ Optional PayloadType TLV /
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
/ Optional ExpiryTime TLV /
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------+-------------+---------------------+----------------------+
| Type | Abbrev | Name | Description |
+--------+-------------+---------------------+----------------------+
| %x0005 | T_PAYLDTYPE | PayloadType | Indicates the type |
| | | (Section 3.6.2.2.1) | of Payload contents. |
| | | | |
| %x0006 | T_EXPIRY | ExpiryTime | The time at which |
| | | (Section 3.6.2.2.2) | the Payload expires, |
| | | | as expressed in the |
| | | | number of |
| | | | milliseconds since |
| | | | the epoch in UTC. |
| | | | If missing, Content |
| | | | Object may be used |
| | | | as long as desired. |
+--------+-------------+---------------------+----------------------+
Table 8: CCNx Content Object Message TLV Types
Mosko & Solis Expires December 31, 2015 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft CCNx TLV June 2015
3.6.2.2.1. PayloadType
The PayloadType is a network byte order integer representing the
general type of the Payload TLV.
o 0: Data (possibly encrypted)
o 1: Key
o 2: Link
o 3: Manifest
The Data type indicate that the Payload of the ContentObject is
opaque application bytes. The Key type indicates that the Payload is
a DER encoded public key. The Link type indicates that the Payload
is a Link (Section 3.5.3). If this field is missing, a "Data" type
is assumed. A Manifest type indicates that the Payload is a Manifest
(format TBD).
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| T_PAYLDTYPE | Length |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| PayloadType /
+---------------+
3.6.2.2.2. ExpiryTime
The ExpiryTime is the time at which the Payload expires, as expressed
by a timestamp containing the number of milliseconds since the epoch
in UTC. It is a network byte order unsigned integer in a 64-bit
field. A cache or end system should not respond with a Content
Object past its ExpiryTime. Routers forwarding a Content Object do
not need to check the ExpiryTime. If the ExpiryTime field is
missing, the Content Object has no expressed expiration and a cache
or end system may use the Content Object for as long as desired.
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| T_EXPIRY | 8 |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
/ ExpiryTime /
/ /
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
Mosko & Solis Expires December 31, 2015 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft CCNx TLV June 2015
3.6.3. Payload
The Payload TLV contains the content of the packet. It is
permissible to have a "0" length. If a packet does not have any
payload, this field may be omitted, rather than carrying a "0"
length.
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| T_PAYLOAD | Length |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
/ Payload Contents /
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
3.6.4. Validation
Both Interests and Content Objects have the option to include
information about how to validate the CCNx message. This information
is contained in two TLVs: the ValidationAlgorithm TLV and the
ValidationPayload TLV. The ValidationAlgorithm TLV specifies the
mechanism to be used to verify the CCNx message. Examples include
verification with a Message Integrity Check (MIC), a Message
Authentication Code (MAC), or a cryptographic signature. The
ValidationPayload TLV contains the validation output, such as the
CRC32C code or the RSA signature.
An Interest would most likely only use a MIC type of validation - a
crc, checksum, or digest.
3.6.4.1. Validation Algorithm
The ValidationAlgorithm is a set of nested TLVs containing all of the
information needed to verify the message. The outermost container
has type = T_VALIDATION_ALG. The first nested TLV defines the
specific type of validation to be performed on the message. The type
is identified with the "ValidationType" as shown in the figure below
and elaborated in the table below. Nested within that container are
the TLVs for any ValidationType dependent data, for example a Key Id,
Key Locator etc.
Complete examples of several types may be found in Section 3.6.4.1.5
Mosko & Solis Expires December 31, 2015 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft CCNx TLV June 2015
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| T_VALIDATION_ALG | ValidationAlgLength |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| ValidationType | Length |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
/ ValidationType dependent data /
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
+--------+---------------+---------------------+--------------------+
| Type | Abbrev | Name | Description |
+--------+---------------+---------------------+--------------------+
| %x0002 | T_CRC32C | CRC32C | Castagnoli CRC32 |
| | | (Section 3.6.4.1.1) | (iSCSI, ext4, |
| | | | etc.), with normal |
| | | | form polynomial |
| | | | 0x1EDC6F41. |
| | | | |
| %x0004 | T_HMAC-SHA256 | HMAC-SHA256 | HMAC (RFC 2104) |
| | | (Section 3.6.4.1.2) | using SHA256 hash. |
| | | | |
| %x0005 | T_VMAC-128 | VMAC-128 | VMAC with 128bit |
| | | (Section 3.6.4.1.2) | tags [VMAC] |
| | | | |
| %x0006 | T_RSA-SHA256 | RSA-SHA256 | RSA public key |
| | | (Section 3.6.4.1.3) | signature using |
| | | | SHA256 digest. |
| | | | |
| %x0007 | EC-SECP-256K1 | SECP-256K1 | Elliptic Curve |
| | | (Section 3.6.4.1.3) | signature with |
| | | | SECP-256K1 |
| | | | parameters (see |
| | | | [ECC]). |
| | | | |
| %x0008 | EC-SECP-384R1 | SECP-384R1 | Elliptic Curve |
| | | (Section 3.6.4.1.3) | signature with |
| | | | SECP-384R1 |
| | | | parameters (see |
| | | | [ECC]). |
+--------+---------------+---------------------+--------------------+
Table 9: CCNx Validation Types
Mosko & Solis Expires December 31, 2015 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft CCNx TLV June 2015
3.6.4.1.1. Message Integrity Checks
MICs do not require additional data in order to perform the
verification. An example is CRC32C that has a "0" length value.
3.6.4.1.2. Message Authentication Checks
MACs are useful for communication between two trusting parties who
have already shared private keys. Examples include an RSA signature
of a SHA256 digest or others. They rely on a KeyId. Some MACs might
use more than a KeyId, but those would be defined in the future.
3.6.4.1.3. Signature
Signature type Validators specify a digest mechanism and a signing
algorithm to verify the message. Examples include RSA signature og a
SHA256 digest, an Elliptic Curve signature with SECP-256K1
parameters, etc. These Validators require a KeyId and a mechanism
for locating the publishers public key (a KeyLocator) - optionally a
PublicKey or Certificate or KeyName.
3.6.4.1.4. Validation Dependent Data
Different Validation Algorithms require access to different pieces of
data contained in the ValidationAlgorithm TLV. As described above,
Key Ids, Key Locators, Public Keys, Certificates, Links and Key Names
all play a role in different Validation Algorithms.
Following is a table of CCNx ValidationType dependent data types:
+--------+-------------+-----------------------+--------------------+
| Type | Abbrev | Name | Description |
+--------+-------------+-----------------------+--------------------+
| %x0009 | T_KEYID | SignerKeyId | An identifier of |
| | | (Section 3.6.4.1.4.1) | the shared secret |
| | | | or public key |
| | | | associated with a |
| | | | MAC or Signature. |
| | | | Typically the |
| | | | SHA256 hash of the |
| | | | key. |
| | | | |
| %x000B | T_PUBLICKEY | Public Key | DER encoded public |
| | | (Section 3.6.4.1.4.2) | key. |
| | | | |
| %x000C | T_CERT | Certificate | DER encoded X509 |
| | | (Section 3.6.4.1.4.3) | certificate. |
| | | | |
Mosko & Solis Expires December 31, 2015 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft CCNx TLV June 2015
| %x000E | T_KEYNAME | KeyName | A CCNx Link |
| | | (Section 3.6.4.1.4.4) | object. |
| | | | |
| %x000F | T_SIGTIME | SignatureTime | A millsecond |
| | | (Section 3.6.4.1.4.5) | timestamp |
| | | | indicating the |
| | | | time when the |
| | | | signature was |
| | | | created. |
+--------+-------------+-----------------------+--------------------+
Table 10: CCNx Validation Dependent Data Types
3.6.4.1.4.1. KeyId
The KeyId is the publisher key identifier. It is similar to a
Subject Key Identifier from X509 [RFC 5280, Section 4.2.1.2]. It
should be derived from the key used to sign, such as from the SHA-256
hash of the key. It applies to both public/private key systems and
to symmetric key systems.
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| T_KEYID | Length |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
/ KeyId /
/---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
3.6.4.1.4.2. Public Key
A Public Key is a DER encoded Subject Public Key Info block, as in an
X509 certificate.
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| T_PUBLICKEY | Length |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
/ Public Key (DER encoded SPKI) /
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
Mosko & Solis Expires December 31, 2015 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft CCNx TLV June 2015
3.6.4.1.4.3. Certificate
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| T_CERT | Length |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
/ Certificate (DER encoded X509) /
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
3.6.4.1.4.4. KeyName
A KeyName type KeyLocator is a Link.
The KeyName digest is the publisher digest of the Content Object
identified by KeyName. It may be included on an Interest's digest
restriction. A KeyName is a mandatory Name and an optional KeyId.
The KeyId inside the KeyLocator may be included in an Interest's
KeyId to retrieve only the specified key.
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
| T_KEYNAME | Length |
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
/ Link /
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
3.6.4.1.4.5. SignatureTime
The SignatureTime is a millisecond timestamp indicating the time at
which a signature was created. The signer sets this field to the
current time when creating a signature. A verifier may use this time
to determine whether or not the signature was created during the
validity period of a key, or if it occurred in a reasonable sequence
with other associated signatures. The SignatureTime is unrelated to
any time associated with the actual CCNx Message, which could have
been created long before the signature. The default behavior is to
always include a SignatureTime when creating an authenticated message
(e.g. HMAC or RSA).
SignatureTime is a network byte ordered unsigned integer of the
number of milliseconds since the epoch in UTC of when the signature
was created. It is a fixed 64-bit field.
Mosko & Solis Expires December 31, 2015 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft CCNx TLV June 2015
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
| T_SIGTIME | 8 |
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
/ SignatureTime /
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
3.6.4.1.5. Validation Examples
As an example of a MIC type validation, the encoding for CRC32
validation would be:
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| T_VALIDATION_ALG | 4 |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| T_CRC32 | 0 |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
As an example of a MAC type validation, the encoding for an HMAC
using a SHA256 hash would be:
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| T_VALIDATION_ALG | 40 |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| T_HMAC-SHA256 | 36 |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| T_KEYID | 32 |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
/ KeyId /
/---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
As an example of a Signature type validation, the encoding for an RSA
public key signing using a SHA256 digest and Public Key would be:
Mosko & Solis Expires December 31, 2015 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft CCNx TLV June 2015
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| T_VALIDATION_ALG | 44 + Variable Length |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| T_RSA-SHA256 | 40 + Variable Length |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| T_KEYID | 32 |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
/ KeyId /
/---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
| T_PUBLICKEY | Variable Length (~ 160) |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
/ Public Key (DER encoded SPKI) /
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
3.6.4.2. Validation Payload
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| T_VALIDATION_PAYLOAD | ValidationPayloadLength |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
/ Type-dependent data /
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
The ValidationPayload contains the validation output, such as the
CRC32C code or the RSA signature.
Mosko & Solis Expires December 31, 2015 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft CCNx TLV June 2015
4. Acknowledgements
Mosko & Solis Expires December 31, 2015 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft CCNx TLV June 2015
5. IANA Considerations
TODO: Work with IANA to define the type space for: Top level types,
Hop-by-hop header types, Name segment types, CCNx messages types,
Interest message TLV types, Content Object TLV message types,
Validation types, and Validation dependent data types.
All drafts are required to have an IANA considerations section (see
Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs
[RFC5226] for a guide). If the draft does not require IANA to do
anything, the section contains an explicit statement that this is the
case (as above). If there are no requirements for IANA, the section
will be removed during conversion into an RFC by the RFC Editor.
Mosko & Solis Expires December 31, 2015 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft CCNx TLV June 2015
6. Security Considerations
All drafts are required to have a security considerations section.
See RFC 3552 [RFC3552] for a guide.
Mosko & Solis Expires December 31, 2015 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft CCNx TLV June 2015
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
7.2. Informative References
[CCN] PARC, Inc., "CCNx Open Source", 2007,
<http://www.CCNx.org>.
[CCNSemantics]
Mosko, M., Solis, I., and M. Stapp, "CCNx Semantics
(Internet draft)", 2015, <http://tools.ietf.org/html/
draft-mosko-icnrg-ccnxsemantics-00>.
[ECC] Certicom Research, "SEC 2: Recommended Elliptic Curve
Domain Parameters", 2010,
<http://www.secg.org/sec2-v2.pdf>.
[EpriseNumbers]
IANA, "IANA Private Enterprise Numbers", 2015, <http://
www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers/
enterprise-numbers>.
[RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
July 2003.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
(CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, May 2008.
[RFC6920] Farrell, S., Kutscher, D., Dannewitz, C., Ohlman, B.,
Keranen, A., and P. Hallam-Baker, "Naming Things with
Hashes", RFC 6920, April 2013.
[VMAC] Krovertz, T. and W. Dai, "VMAC: Message Authentication
Code using Universal Hashing", 2007,
<http://www.fastcrypto.org/vmac/
draft-krovetz-vmac-01.txt>.
Mosko & Solis Expires December 31, 2015 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft CCNx TLV June 2015
Authors' Addresses
Marc Mosko
PARC, Inc.
Palo Alto, California 94304
USA
Phone: +01 650-812-4405
Email: marc.mosko@parc.com
Ignacio Solis
PARC, Inc.
Palo Alto, California 94304
USA
Phone: +01 650-812-4405
Email: marc.mosko@parc.com
Mosko & Solis Expires December 31, 2015 [Page 33]