doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 619 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc3822.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc3822.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c7d292e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc3822.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,619 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                        D. Peterson
+Request for Comments: 3822             Computer Network Technology (CNT)
+Category: Standards Track                                      July 2004
+
+
+           Finding Fibre Channel over TCP/IP (FCIP) Entities
+           Using Service Location Protocol version 2 (SLPv2)
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
+   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
+   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
+   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
+   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document defines the use of Service Location Protocol version 2
+   (SLPv2) by Fibre Channel over TCP/IP (FCIP) Entities.
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   This document describes the use of the Service Location Protocol
+   version 2 in performing dynamic discovery of participating Fibre
+   Channel over TCP/IP (FCIP) Entities.  Implementation guidelines,
+   service type templates, and security considerations are specified.
+
+2.  Notation Conventions
+
+   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 [RFC2119].
+
+3.  Terminology
+
+   Here are some definitions that may aid readers that are unfamiliar
+   with either SLP or FCIP.  Some of these definitions have been
+   reproduced from [RFC2608] and [RFC3105].
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Peterson                    Standards Track                     [Page 1]
+
+RFC 3822           Finding FCIP Entities Using SLPv2           July 2004
+
+
+   User Agent (UA)            A process working on the client's behalf
+                              to establish contact with some service.
+                              The UA retrieves service information from
+                              the Service Agents or Directory Agents.
+
+   Service Agent (SA)         A process working on behalf of one or more
+                              services to advertise the services and
+                              their capabilities.
+
+   Directory Agent (DA)       A process which collects service
+                              advertisements.  There can only be one DA
+                              present per given host.
+
+   Scope                      A named set of services, typically making
+                              up a logical administrative group.
+
+   Service Advertisement      A URL, attributes, and a lifetime
+                              (indicating how long the advertisement is
+                              valid), providing service access
+                              information and capabilities description
+                              for a particular service.
+
+   FCIP Entity                The principle FCIP interface point to the
+                              IP network.
+
+   FCIP Entity Name           The world wide name of the switch if the
+                              FCIP Entity resides in a switch or the
+                              world wide node name of the associated
+                              Nx_Port.
+
+   FCIP Discovery Domain      The FCIP Discovery Domain specifies which
+                              FCIP Entities are allowed to discover each
+                              other within the bounds of the scope.
+
+4.  Using SLPv2 for FCIP Service Discovery
+
+   At least two FCIP Entities must be involved in the entity discovery
+   process.  The end result is that an FCIP Entity will discover one or
+   more peer FCIP Entities.
+
+4.1.  Discovering FCIP Entities using SLPv2
+
+   Figure 1 shows the relationship between FCIP Entities and their
+   associated SLPv2 agents.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Peterson                    Standards Track                     [Page 2]
+
+RFC 3822           Finding FCIP Entities Using SLPv2           July 2004
+
+
+            +--------------------------------------+
+            |           FCIP Entity                |
+            +----------------------------------+   |
+            | FCIP Control and Services Module |   |
+            +----------------+                 |   |
+            |   SA  |   UA   |                 |   |
+            +----------------+-----------------+   |
+            |            TCP/UDP/IP            |   |
+            +----------------+-----------------+   |
+            |            Interface             |   |
+            |           192.0.2.10             |   |
+            +----------------+-----------------+---|
+                             |
+   +------------+            |
+   |  SLPv2 DA  |----+  IP Network
+   +------------+            |
+                             |
+            +----------------+-----------------+---|
+            |            Interface             |   |
+            |           192.0.2.20             |   |
+            +----------------+-----------------+   |
+            |            TCP/UDP/IP            |   |
+            +----------------+-----------------+   |
+            |   SA  |  UA    |                 |   |
+            +----------------+                 |   |
+            | FCIP Control and Services Module |   |
+            +--------------------------------- +   |
+            |           FCIP Entity                |
+            +--------------------------------------+
+
+   Figure 1: FCIP Entity and SLPv2 Agent Relationship.
+
+   As indicated in Figure 1, each FCIP Entity contains an FCIP Control
+   and Services Module that interfaces to an SLPv2 SA and UA.
+
+   The SA constructs a service advertisement of the type
+   "service:fcip:entity" for each of the service URLs it wishes to
+   register.  The service advertisement contains a lifetime, along with
+   other attributes defined in the service template.
+
+   The remainder of the discovery process is identical to that used by
+   any client/server pair implementing SLPv2:
+
+   1. If an SLPv2 DA is found [RFC2608], the SA contacts the DA and
+      registers the service advertisement.  Whether or not one or more
+      SLPv2 DAs are discovered, the SA maintains the service
+      advertisement itself and answers multicast UA queries directly.
+
+
+
+
+Peterson                    Standards Track                     [Page 3]
+
+RFC 3822           Finding FCIP Entities Using SLPv2           July 2004
+
+
+   2. When the FCIP Entity requires contact information for a peer FCIP
+      Entity, the UA either contacts the DA using unicast or the SA
+      using multicast using an SLPv2 service request.  The UA service
+      request includes a query, based on the attributes, to indicate the
+      characteristics of the peer FCIP Entities it requires.
+
+   3. Once the UA has the IP address and port number of a peer FCIP
+      Entity, it may begin the normal connection procedure, as described
+      in [RFC3821], to a peer FCIP Entity.
+
+   The use of a DA is RECOMMENDED for SLPv2 operations in an FCIP
+   environment.
+
+4.1.1.  FCIP Discovery Domains
+
+   The concept of a discovery domain provides further granularity of
+   control of allowed discovery between FCIP Entities within a specific
+   SLPv2 scope.
+
+   Figure 2 shows an example relationship between FCIP Entities and
+   their associated discovery domains within a specified SLPv2 scope.
+
+   =================fcip=======================================
+   =                                                          =
+   =  *************************purple***********************  =
+   =  *                                                    *  =
+   =  *  #####orange######################                 *  =
+   =  *  # ------------  //////blue//////+///////////////  *  =
+   =  *  # | FCIP     |  /               #              /  *  =
+   =  *  # | Entity A |  /               #              /  *  =
+   =  *  # ------------  /               # ------------ /  *  =
+   =  *  #               /               # | FCIP     | /  *  =
+   =  *  #               /               # | Entity C | /  *  =
+   =  *  #               /  ------------ # ------------ /  *  =
+   =  *  #               /  | FCIP     | #              /  *  =
+   =  *  #               /  | Entity B | #              /  *  =
+   =  *  #               /  ------------ #              /  *  =
+   =  *  ################+################              /  *  =
+   =  *                  ////////////////////////////////  *  =
+   =  *                                                    *  =
+   =  ******************************************************  =
+   =                                                          =
+   ============================================================
+
+   Figure 2: FCIP Entity and Discovery Domain Example.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Peterson                    Standards Track                     [Page 4]
+
+RFC 3822           Finding FCIP Entities Using SLPv2           July 2004
+
+
+   Within the specified scope "fcip", the administrator has defined a
+   discovery domain "purple", allowing FCIP Entities A, B, and C to
+   discover each other.  This discovery domain is illustrated using the
+   "*" character.
+
+   Within the specified scope "fcip", the administrator has defined a
+   discovery domain "orange", allowing FCIP Entity A to discover FCIP
+   Entity B, but not FCIP Entity  C.  This discovery domain is
+   illustrated using the "#" character.
+
+   Within the specified scope "fcip", the administrator has defined a
+   discovery domain "blue", allowing FCIP Entity C to discover FCIP
+   Entity B, but not FCIP Entity A.  This discovery domain is
+   illustrated using the "/" character.
+
+   For the example relationship shown in Figure 2, the value of the
+   fcip-discovery-domain attribute for each FCIP Entity is as follows:
+
+   FCIP Entity A = orange,purple
+
+   FCIP Entity B = orange,blue,purple
+
+   FCIP Entity C = blue,purple
+
+5.  FCIP SLPv2 Templates
+
+   Two templates are provided: an FCIP Entity template, and an abstract
+   template to provide a means of adding other FCIP related templates in
+   the future.
+
+5.1.  The FCIP Abstract Service Type Template
+
+   This template defines the abstract service "service:fcip".  It is
+   used as a top-level service to encapsulate all other FCIP related
+   services.
+
+   Name of submitter: David Peterson
+   Language of service template: en
+   Security Considerations: see section 6.
+
+   Template Text:
+   -------------------------template begins here-----------------------
+   template-type=fcip
+
+   template-version=0.1
+
+   template-description=
+      This is an abstract service type.  The purpose of the fcip service
+
+
+
+Peterson                    Standards Track                     [Page 5]
+
+RFC 3822           Finding FCIP Entities Using SLPv2           July 2004
+
+
+      type is to encompass all of the services used to support the FCIP
+      protocol.
+
+   template-url-syntax =
+
+      url-path=  ; Depends on the concrete service type.
+
+   --------------------------template ends here------------------------
+
+5.2.  The FCIP Entity Concrete Service Type Template
+
+   This template defines the service "service:fcip:entity".  A device
+   containing FCIP Entities that wishes to have them discovered via
+   SLPv2 would register each of them with each of their addresses, as
+   this service type.
+
+   FCIP Entities wishing to discover other FCIP Entities in this manner
+   will generally use one of the following example query strings:
+
+   1. Find a specific FCIP Entity, given its FCIP Entity Name:
+
+      Service:  service:fcip:entity
+      Scope:    fcip-entity-scope-list
+      Query:    (fcip-entity-name=\ff\10\00\00\60\69\20\34\0C)
+
+   2. Find all of the FCIP Entities within a specified FCIP Discovery
+      Domain:
+
+      Service:  service:fcip:entity
+      Scope:    fcip-entity-scope-list
+      Query:    (fcip-discovery-domain=fcip-discovery-domain-name)
+
+   3. In addition, a management application may wish to discover all
+      FCIP Entities:
+
+      Service:  service:fcip:entity
+      Scope:    management-service-scope-list
+      Query:    none
+
+   Name of submitter: David Peterson
+   Language of service template: en
+   Security Considerations: see section 6.
+
+   Template Text:
+   -------------------------template begins here-----------------------
+   template-type=fcip:entity
+
+   template-version=0.1
+
+
+
+Peterson                    Standards Track                     [Page 6]
+
+RFC 3822           Finding FCIP Entities Using SLPv2           July 2004
+
+
+   template-description=
+     This is a concrete service type.  The fcip:entity service type is
+     used to register individual FCIP Entity addresses to be discovered
+     by others.  UAs will generally search for these by including one of
+     the following:
+     - the FCIP Entity Name for which an address is needed
+     - the FCIP Discovery Domain Name for which addresses are requested
+     - the service URL
+
+   template-url-syntax =
+     url-path = hostport
+     hostport = host [ ":" port ]
+     host = hostname / hostnumber
+     hostname = *( domainlabel "." ) toplabel
+     alphanum = ALPHA / DIGIT
+     domainlabel = alphanum / alphanum * [alphanum / "-"] alphanum
+     toplabel = ALPHA / ALPHA * [ alphanum / "-" ] alphanum
+     hostnumber = ipv4-number
+     ipv4-number = 1*3DIGIT 3("." 1*3DIGIT)
+     port = 1*DIGIT
+
+     ;
+     ; A DNS host name should be used along with the well-known
+     ; IANA FCIP port number for operation with NAT/NAPT devices.
+     ;
+     ; Examples:
+     ; service:fcip:entity://host.example.com
+     ; service:fcip:entity://192.0.2.0:4000
+     ;
+
+   fcip-entity-name = opaque L
+   # If the FCIP Entity is a VE_Port/B_Access implementation [FC-BB-2]
+   # residing in a switch, the fcip-entity-name is the Fibre Channel
+   # Switch Name [FC-SW-3].  Otherwise, the fcip-entity-name is the
+   # Fibre Channel Node Name [FC-FS] of the port (e.g., an Nx_Port)
+   # associated with the FCIP Entity.
+   # An entity representing multiple endpoints must register each of
+   # the endpoints using SLPv2.
+
+   transports = string M L
+   tcp
+   # This is a list of transport protocols that the registered entity
+   # supports.  FCIP is currently supported over TCP only.
+   tcp
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Peterson                    Standards Track                     [Page 7]
+
+RFC 3822           Finding FCIP Entities Using SLPv2           July 2004
+
+
+   mgmt-entity = string M O L
+   # The URL's of the management interface(s) are appropriate for SNMP,
+   # web-based, or telnet management of the FCIP Entity.
+   # Examples:
+   #  http://fcipentity.example.com:1080/
+   #  telnet://fcipentity.example.com
+
+   fcip-discovery-domain = string M L
+   fcip
+   # The fcip-discovery-domain string contains the name(s) of the FCIP
+   # discovery domain(s) to which this FCIP Entity belongs.
+
+   --------------------------template ends here------------------------
+
+6.  Security Considerations
+
+   The SLPv2 security model as specified in [RFC2608] does not provide
+   confidentiality, but does provide an authentication mechanism for UAs
+   to assure that service advertisements only come from trusted SAs with
+   the exception that it does not provide a mechanism for authenticating
+   "zero-result responses".  See [RFC3723] for a discussion of the SLPv2
+   [RFC2608] security model.
+
+   Once an FCIP Entity is discovered, authentication and authorization
+   are handled by the FCIP protocol.  It is the responsibility of the
+   providers of these services to ensure that an inappropriately
+   advertised or discovered service does not compromise their security.
+
+   When no security is used for SLPv2, there is a risk of distribution
+   of false discovery information.  The primary countermeasure for this
+   risk is authentication.  When this risk is a significant concern,
+   IPsec SAs SHOULD be used for FCIP traffic subject to this risk to
+   ensure that FCIP traffic only flows between endpoints that have
+   participated in IKE authentication.  For example, if an attacker
+   distributes discovery information falsely claiming that it is an FCIP
+   endpoint, it will lack the secret information necessary to
+   successfully complete IKE authentication, and hence will be prevented
+   from falsely sending or receiving FCIP traffic.
+
+   There remains a risk of a denial of service attack based on repeated
+   use of false discovery information that will cause the initiation of
+   IKE negotiation.  The countermeasures for this are administrative
+   configuration of each FCIP Entity to limit the peers that it is
+   willing to communicate with (i.e., by IP address range and/or DNS
+   domain), and maintenance of a negative authentication cache to avoid
+   repeatedly contacting an FCIP Entity that fails to authenticate.
+   These three measures (i.e., IP address range limits, DNS domain
+   limits, negative authentication cache) MUST be implemented.
+
+
+
+Peterson                    Standards Track                     [Page 8]
+
+RFC 3822           Finding FCIP Entities Using SLPv2           July 2004
+
+
+6.1.  Security Implementation
+
+   Security for SLPv2 in an IP storage environment is specified in
+   [RFC3723].  IPsec is mandatory-to-implement for IPS clients and
+   servers.  Thus, all IP storage clients, including those invoking SLP,
+   can be assumed to support IPsec.  SLP servers, however, cannot be
+   assumed to implement IPsec, since there is no such requirement in
+   standard SLP.  In particular, SLP Directory Agents (DA) may be
+   running on machines other than those running the IPS protocols.
+
+   IPsec SHOULD be implemented for SLPv2 as specified in [RFC3723]; this
+   includes ESP with a non-null transform to provide both authentication
+   and confidentiality.
+
+   Because the IP storage services have their own authentication
+   capabilities when located, SLPv2 authentication is OPTIONAL to
+   implement and use (as discussed in more detail in [RFC3723]).
+
+7.  IANA Considerations
+
+   This document describes two SLP Templates in Section 5.  They should
+   be registered in the IANA "SVRLOC Templates" registry.  This process
+   is described in the IANA Considerations section of [RFC2609].
+
+8.  Internationalization Considerations
+
+   SLP allows internationalized strings to be registered and retrieved.
+   Attributes in the template that are not marked with an 'L' (literal)
+   will be registered in a localized manner.  An "en" (English)
+   localization MUST be registered, and others MAY be registered.
+
+9.  Summary
+
+   This document describes how SLPv2 can be used by FCIP Entities to
+   find other FCIP Entities.  Service type templates for FCIP Entities
+   are presented.
+
+10.  Acknowledgements
+
+   This document was produced by the FCIP discovery team, including Todd
+   Sperry (Adaptec), Larry Lamars (SanValley), Robert Snively (Brocade),
+   Ravi Natarajan (Lightsand), Anil Rijhsinghani (McData), and Venkat
+   Rangan (Rhapsody Networks).  Thanks also to Mark Bakke (Cisco) for
+   initial help and consultation, and David Black, Erik Guttman, and
+   James Kempf for assistance during expert review.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Peterson                    Standards Track                     [Page 9]
+
+RFC 3822           Finding FCIP Entities Using SLPv2           July 2004
+
+
+11.  References
+
+11.1.  Normative References
+
+   [RFC2608]   Guttman, E., Perkins, C., Veizades, J. and M. Day,
+               "Service Location Protocol, Version 2", RFC 2608, June
+               1999.
+
+   [RFC2609]   Guttman, E., Perkins, C. and J. Kempf, "Service Templates
+               and Service: Schemes", RFC 2609, June 1999.
+
+   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key Words for Use in RFCs to Indicate
+               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+   [RFC3821]   Rajagopal, M., Bhagwat, R. and R. Weber, "Fibre Channel
+               Over TCP/IP (FCIP)", RFC 3821, July 2004.
+
+   [FC-SW-3]   Fibre Channel Switch Fabric - 3, ANSI INCITS 384-2004.
+
+   [FC-BB-2]   Fibre Channel Backbone - 2, ANSI INCITS 372-2003.
+
+   [FC-FS]     Fibre Channel Framing and Signaling, T11 Project 1331-D,
+               Rev 1.90, April 9, 2003.
+
+   [RFC3723]   Aboba, B., Tseng, J., Walker, J., Rangan, V. and F.
+               Travostino, "Securing Block Storage Protocols over IP",
+               RFC 3723, April 2004.
+
+11.2.  Informative References
+
+   [RFC3105]   Kempf, J. and G. Montenegro, "Finding an RSIP Server with
+               SLP", RFC 3105, October 2001.
+
+12.  Author's  Address
+
+   David Peterson
+   Computer Network Technology (CNT)
+   6000 Nathan Lane North
+   Minneapolis, MN 55442
+
+   Phone: 763-268-6139
+   EMail: dap@cnt.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Peterson                    Standards Track                    [Page 10]
+
+RFC 3822           Finding FCIP Entities Using SLPv2           July 2004
+
+
+13.  Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  This document is subject
+   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
+   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
+
+   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
+   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
+   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
+   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
+   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
+   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
+   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Intellectual Property
+
+   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
+   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
+   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
+   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
+   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
+   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
+   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
+   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
+
+   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
+   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
+   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
+   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
+   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
+   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
+
+   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
+   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
+   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
+   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
+   ipr@ietf.org.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
+   Internet Society.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Peterson                    Standards Track                    [Page 11]
+