doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 563 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc6580.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc6580.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3b9a73b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc6580.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,563 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                             M. Ko
+Request for Comments: 6580                                    Consultant
+Category: Standards Track                                       D. Black
+ISSN: 2070-1721                                                      EMC
+                                                              April 2012
+
+
+ IANA Registries for the Remote Direct Data Placement (RDDP) Protocols
+
+Abstract
+
+   The original RFCs that specified the Remote Direct Data Placement
+   (RDDP) protocol suite did not create IANA registries for RDDP error
+   codes, operation codes, and function codes.  Extensions to the RDDP
+   protocols now require these registries to be created.  This memo
+   creates the RDDP registries, populates them with values defined in
+   the original RDDP RFCs, and provides guidance to IANA for future
+   assignment of code points within these registries.
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+   This is an Internet Standards Track document.
+
+   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
+   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
+   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
+   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
+   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
+
+   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
+   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
+   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6580.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (c) 2012 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.
+
+
+
+
+Ko & Black                   Standards Track                    [Page 1]
+
+RFC 6580              IANA Considerations for RDDP            April 2012
+
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1. Introduction ....................................................2
+   2. Security Considerations .........................................2
+   3. IANA Considerations .............................................2
+      3.1. RDMAP Errors ...............................................3
+      3.2. DDP Errors .................................................5
+      3.3. MPA Errors .................................................6
+      3.4. RDMAP Message Operation Codes ..............................7
+      3.5. SCTP Function Codes for DDP Stream Session Control .........8
+   4. Normative References ............................................9
+   5. Informative References ..........................................9
+   6. Acknowledgments .................................................9
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   The original RFCs that specified the RDDP protocol suite [RFC5040]
+   [RFC5041] [RFC5043] [RFC5044] did not create IANA registries.
+   Extensions to the RDDP protocols [RFC6581] [RMP-EXT] now require
+   creation and use of IANA registries.  This memo creates the RDDP-
+   related IANA registries, specifies their initial contents based on
+   the values defined in the original RDDP RFCs, and provides guidance
+   to IANA for future assignments from these registries.  In addition,
+   this memo allocates operation code and function code points for
+   experimental use [RFC3692].
+
+2.  Security Considerations
+
+   Since this document is only concerned with creation and IANA
+   management of RDDP registries, it raises no new security issues.
+
+   However, a few words are necessary about the use of the experimental
+   code points defined in Sections 3.4 and 3.5.  Potentially harmful
+   side effects from the use of the experimental values need to be
+   carefully evaluated before deploying any experiment across networks
+   that the owner of the experiment does not entirely control.  Guidance
+   given in [RFC3692] about the use of experimental values needs to be
+   followed.
+
+3.  IANA Considerations
+
+   Allocation requests for the registries created by this memo may come
+   with a suggested numerical value or values that should be assigned.
+   Such suggestions are useful when early implementations have already
+   chosen particular code points before the final RFC is published.  If
+   the allocation request in general is accepted, such suggestions may
+   be honored if the suggested value is still free to be assigned.
+
+
+
+
+Ko & Black                   Standards Track                    [Page 2]
+
+RFC 6580              IANA Considerations for RDDP            April 2012
+
+
+   This memo creates the following RDDP registries for IANA to manage:
+
+      o RDMAP Errors (Section 3.1)
+      o DDP Errors (Section 3.2)
+      o MPA Errors (Section 3.3)
+      o RDMAP Message Operation Codes (Section 3.4)
+      o SCTP Function Codes for DDP Stream Session Control (Section 3.5)
+
+   Each of the following sections specifies a registry, its initial
+   contents, and the allocation policy in more detail.
+
+3.1.  RDMAP Errors
+
+   Name of the registry: "RDMAP Errors"
+
+   Namespace details: An RDMAP (Remote Direct Memory Access Protocol)
+   error is a 16-bit field divided into three subfields [RFC5040]:
+
+      o 4-bit Layer, always 0x0 for RDMAP errors
+      o 4-bit Error Type
+      o 8-bit Error Code
+
+   The Error Code field is optional for this registry, as Error Codes
+   are not used with all RDMAP Error Types.  When no numerical Error
+   Code is registered, any 8-bit value may be used as the Error Code, as
+   the Layer and Error Type values are sufficient to specify the error.
+   For this reason, if an RDMAP Error Type is registered without an
+   Error Code, an entry must not be added to this registry with an Error
+   Code for the same Error Type.
+
+   Information that must be provided to assign a new value: An IESG-
+   approved Standards-Track specification defining the semantics and
+   interoperability requirements of the proposed new value and the
+   fields to be recorded in the registry.
+
+   Fields to record in the registry: Layer/Error-Type/Error-Code, Error-
+   Type-Name/Error-Code-Name, RFC Reference.  The Error-Code and Error-
+   Code-Name are omitted for Error-Types that do not have Error-Codes.
+
+   When a specific Error Code is not registered, the registry entry
+   contains the string "ALL" for the Error Code instead of a numerical
+   value, and the Error Code Name is omitted from the registry entry.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Ko & Black                   Standards Track                    [Page 3]
+
+RFC 6580              IANA Considerations for RDDP            April 2012
+
+
+   Initial registry contents:
+
+   0x0/0x0/ALL , Local Catastrophic Error, [RFC5040]
+
+   0x0/0x1/0x00, Remote Protection Error / Invalid Steering Tag,
+   [RFC5040]
+
+   0x0/0x1/0x01, Remote Protection Error / Base or bounds violation,
+   [RFC5040]
+
+   0x0/0x1/0x02, Remote Protection Error / Access rights violation,
+   [RFC5040]
+
+   0x0/0x1/0x03, Remote Protection Error / Steering Tag not associated
+   with RDMAP Stream, [RFC5040]
+
+   0x0/0x1/0x04, Remote Protection Error / Tagged Offset wrap, [RFC5040]
+
+   0x0/0x1/0x09, Remote Protection Error / Steering Tag cannot be
+   invalidated, [RFC5040]
+
+   0x0/0x1/0xff, Remote Protection Error / Unspecified Error, [RFC5040]
+
+   0x0/0x2/0x05, Remote Operation Error / Invalid RDMAP version,
+   [RFC5040]
+
+   0x0/0x2/0x06, Remote Operation Error / Unexpected OpCode, [RFC5040]
+
+   0x0/0x2/0x07, Remote Operation Error / Catastrophic error, localized
+   to RDMAP Stream, [RFC5040]
+
+   0x0/0x2/0x08, Remote Operation Error / Catastrophic error, global,
+   [RFC5040]
+
+   0x0/0x2/0x09, Remote Operation Error / Steering Tag cannot be
+   Invalidated, [RFC5040]
+
+   0x0/0x2/0xff, Remote Operation Error / Unspecified Error, [RFC5040]
+
+   All combinations not listed above that combine 0x0 as the Layer with
+   an Error Type and Error Code are Unassigned and available to IANA for
+   assignment.
+
+   Allocation Policy: Standards Action [RFC5226]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Ko & Black                   Standards Track                    [Page 4]
+
+RFC 6580              IANA Considerations for RDDP            April 2012
+
+
+3.2.  DDP Errors
+
+   Name of the registry: "DDP Errors"
+
+   Namespace details: A DDP (Direct Data Placement) error is a 16-bit
+   field divided into three subfields [RFC5041]:
+
+      o 4-bit Layer, always 0x1 for DDP errors
+      o 4-bit Error Type
+      o 8-bit Error Code
+
+   The Error Code field is required for this registry, except for the
+   registry entry that reserves a set of errors for use by the Lower
+   Layer Protocol.  When no numerical Error Code is registered, any
+   8-bit value may be used as the Error Code, as the Layer and Error
+   Type values are sufficient to specify the error.  For this reason, if
+   a DDP Error Type is registered without an Error Code, an entry must
+   not be added to this registry with an Error Code for the same Error
+   Type.
+
+   Information that must be provided to assign a new value: An IESG-
+   approved Standards-Track specification defining the semantics and
+   interoperability requirements of the proposed new value and the
+   fields to be recorded in the registry.
+
+   Fields to record in the registry: Layer/Error-Type/Error-Code, Error-
+   Type-Name/Error-Code-Name, RFC Reference.
+
+   The last registry entry in the initial registry contents below
+   reserves a set of errors for use by the Lower Layer Protocol.  That
+   entry uses "ALL" for the Error Code and omits the Error Code Name.
+   The use of "ALL" is unique to that entry; all other entries in this
+   registry are required to contain a numeric Error Code and an Error
+   Code Name.
+
+   Initial registry contents:
+
+   0x1/0x0/0x00, Local Catastrophic, [RFC5041]
+
+   0x1/0x1/0x00, Tagged Buffer Error / Invalid Steering Tag, [RFC5041]
+
+   0x1/0x1/0x01, Tagged Buffer Error / Base or bounds violation,
+   [RFC5041]
+
+   0x1/0x1/0x02, Tagged Buffer Error / Steering Tag not associated with
+   DDP Stream, [RFC5041]
+
+   0x1/0x1/0x03, Tagged Buffer Error / Tagged Offset wrap, [RFC5041]
+
+
+
+Ko & Black                   Standards Track                    [Page 5]
+
+RFC 6580              IANA Considerations for RDDP            April 2012
+
+
+   0x1/0x1/0x04, Tagged Buffer Error / Invalid DDP version, [RFC5041]
+
+   0x1/0x2/0x01, Untagged Buffer Error / Invalid Queue Number, [RFC5041]
+
+   0x1/0x2/0x02, Untagged Buffer Error / Invalid Message Sequence Number
+   - no buffer available, [RFC5041]
+
+   0x1/0x2/0x03, Untagged Buffer Error / Invalid Message Sequence Number
+   - Message Sequence Number range is not valid, [RFC5041]
+
+   0x1/0x2/0x04, Untagged Buffer Error / Invalid Message Offset,
+   [RFC5041]
+
+   0x1/0x2/0x05, Untagged Buffer Error / DDP Message too long for
+   available buffer, [RFC5041]
+
+   0x1/0x2/0x06, Untagged Buffer Error / Invalid DDP version, [RFC5041]
+
+   0x1/0x3/ALL , Reserved for use by Lower Layer Protocol, [RFC5041]
+
+   All combinations not listed above that combine 0x1 as the Layer with
+   an Error Type and Error Code are Unassigned and available to IANA for
+   assignment.
+
+   Allocation Policy: Standards Action [RFC5226]
+
+3.3  MPA Errors
+
+   Name of the registry: "MPA Errors"
+
+   Namespace details: An MPA (Marker PDU Aligned Framing) error is a
+   16-bit field divided into three subfields [RFC5044]:
+
+      o 4-bit Layer, always 0x2 for MPA errors
+      o 4-bit Error Type
+      o 8-bit Error Code
+
+   The Error Code field is required for this registry.
+
+   Information that must be provided to assign a new value: An IESG-
+   approved Standards-Track specification defining the semantics and
+   interoperability requirements of the proposed new value and the
+   fields to be recorded in the registry.
+
+   Fields to record in the registry: Layer/Error-Type/Error-Code, Error-
+   Type-Name/Error-Code-Name, RFC Reference.
+
+
+
+
+
+Ko & Black                   Standards Track                    [Page 6]
+
+RFC 6580              IANA Considerations for RDDP            April 2012
+
+
+   The string "ALL" is not used for the Error Code in this registry;
+   every entry is required to contain a numeric Error Code and an Error
+   Code Name.
+
+   Initial registry contents:
+
+   0x2/0x0/0x01, MPA Error / TCP connection closed, terminated, or lost,
+   [RFC5044]
+
+   0x2/0x0/0x02, MPA Error / MPA CRC Error, [RFC5044]
+
+   0x2/0x0/0x03, MPA Error / MPA Marker and ULPDU Length field mismatch,
+   [RFC5044]
+
+   0x2/0x0/0x04, MPA Error / Invalid MPA Request Frame or MPA Response
+   Frame, [RFC5044]
+
+   All combinations not listed above that combine 0x2 as the Layer with
+   an Error Type and Error Code are Unassigned and available to IANA for
+   assignment.
+
+   Allocation Policy: Standards Action [RFC5226]
+
+3.4  RDMAP Message Operation Codes
+
+   Name of the registry: "RDMAP Message Operation Codes"
+
+   Namespace details: RDMAP Operation Codes are 4-bit values [RFC5040].
+
+   Information that must be provided to assign a new value: An IESG-
+   approved Standards-Track specification defining the semantics and
+   interoperability requirements of the proposed new value and the
+   fields to be recorded in the registry.
+
+   Fields to record in the registry: RDMAP Message Operation Code,
+   Message Type, RFC Reference
+
+   Initial registry contents:
+
+   0x0, RDMA Write, [RFC5040]
+
+   0x1, RDMA Read Request, [RFC5040]
+
+   0x2, RDMA Read Response, [RFC5040]
+
+   0x3, Send, [RFC5040]
+
+   0x4, Send with Invalidate, [RFC5040]
+
+
+
+Ko & Black                   Standards Track                    [Page 7]
+
+RFC 6580              IANA Considerations for RDDP            April 2012
+
+
+   0x5, Send with Solicited Event, [RFC5040]
+
+   0x6, Send with Solicited Event and Invalidate, [RFC5040]
+
+   0x7, Terminate, [RFC5040]
+
+   0xF, Reserved (Experimental) [RFC6580]
+
+   All other values are Unassigned and available to IANA for assignment.
+
+   Allocation Policy: Standards Action [RFC5226]
+
+3.5  SCTP Function Codes for DDP Stream Session Control
+
+   Name of the registry: "SCTP Function Codes for DDP Session Control"
+
+   Namespace details: SCTP (Stream Control Transmission Protocol)
+   function codes for DDP session control are 16-bit values [RFC5043].
+
+   Information that must be provided to assign a new value: An IESG-
+   approved Standards-Track specification defining the semantics and
+   interoperability requirements of the proposed new value and the
+   fields to be recorded in the registry.
+
+   Fields to record in the registry: SCTP Function Code, SCTP Function
+   Name, RFC Reference
+
+   Initial registry contents:
+
+   0x0001, DDP Stream Session Initiate, [RFC5043]
+
+   0x0002, DDP Stream Session Accept, [RFC5043]
+
+   0x0003, DDP Stream Session Reject, [RFC5043]
+
+   0x0004, DDP Stream Session Terminate, [RFC5043]
+
+   0xFFFF, Reserved (Experimental) [RFC6580]
+
+   All other values are Unassigned and available to IANA for assignment.
+
+   Allocation Policy: Standards Action [RFC5226]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Ko & Black                   Standards Track                    [Page 8]
+
+RFC 6580              IANA Considerations for RDDP            April 2012
+
+
+4.  Normative References
+
+   [RFC5040] Recio, R., Metzler, B., Culley, P., Hilland, J., and D.
+             Garcia, "A Remote Direct Memory Access Protocol
+             Specification", RFC 5040, October 2007.
+
+   [RFC5041] Shah, H., Pinkerton, J., Recio, R., and P. Culley, "Direct
+             Data Placement over Reliable Transports", RFC 5041, October
+             2007.
+
+   [RFC5043] Bestler, C., Ed., and R. Stewart, Ed., "Stream Control
+             Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Direct Data Placement (DDP)
+             Adaptation", RFC 5043, October 2007.
+
+   [RFC5044] Culley, P., Elzur, U., Recio, R., Bailey, S., and J.
+             Carrier, "Marker PDU Aligned Framing for TCP
+             Specification", RFC 5044, October 2007.
+
+   [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
+             IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May
+             2008.
+
+5.  Informative References
+
+   [RMP-EXT] Shah, H., Marti, F., Noureddine, W., Eiriksson, A., and R.
+             Sharp, "RDMA Protocol Extensions", Work in Progress,
+             January 2012.
+
+   [RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
+             Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004.
+
+   [RFC6581] Kanevsky, A., Ed., Bestler, C., Ed., Sharp, R., and S.
+             Wise, "Enhanced Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA)
+             Connection Establishment", RFC 6581, April 2012.
+
+6.  Acknowledgments
+
+   IANA's review of a draft version of this document indicated the need
+   for some corrections; the authors thank IANA for that review.  The
+   authors would also like to thank Pete Resnick and Jari Arkko for
+   their helpful comments from IESG review.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Ko & Black                   Standards Track                    [Page 9]
+
+RFC 6580              IANA Considerations for RDDP            April 2012
+
+
+Authors' Address
+
+   Michael Ko
+   EMail: mkosjc@gmail.com
+
+   David L. Black
+   EMC Corporation
+   176 South St.
+   Hopkinton, MA 01748, USA
+   Phone: +1-508-293-7953
+   EMail: david.black@emc.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Ko & Black                   Standards Track                   [Page 10]
+