diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc7220.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc7220.txt | 339 |
1 files changed, 339 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc7220.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc7220.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b5db5c3 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc7220.txt @@ -0,0 +1,339 @@ + + + + + + +Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Boucadair +Request for Comments: 7220 France Telecom +Category: Standards Track R. Penno +ISSN: 2070-1721 D. Wing + Cisco + May 2014 + + + Description Option for the Port Control Protocol (PCP) + +Abstract + + This document extends the Port Control Protocol (PCP) with the + ability to associate a description with a PCP-instantiated mapping. + It does this by defining a new DESCRIPTION option. + +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/rfc7220. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (c) 2014 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. + + + + + + + +Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 1] + +RFC 7220 PCP Description Option May 2014 + + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 + 2. Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 3. Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + +1. Introduction + + This document extends the base PCP [RFC6887] with the ability to + associate a human-readable description with a PCP-instantiated + mapping. It does this by defining a new DESCRIPTION option. + + This PCP option can be used in simple scenarios with a PCP client and + PCP server, as well as in more complex scenarios where an + interworking function is used to proxy between a UPnP IGD Control + Point and a PCP server [RFC6970]. + + Querying the PCP server to get the description text of an existing + mapping is out of scope. + + 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]. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 2] + +RFC 7220 PCP Description Option May 2014 + + +2. Format + + The format of the DESCRIPTION option is shown in Figure 1. + + 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + |Option Code=128| Reserved | Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Description | + : : + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + This Option: + + Option Name: DESCRIPTION + Number: 128 + Purpose: Used to associate a text description with a mapping + Valid for Opcodes: MAP, PEER + Length: Variable, maximum 1016 octets. + May appear in: request. May appear in response only if it + appeared in the associated request. + Maximum occurrences: 1 + + Figure 1: DESCRIPTION Option + + The 'Reserved' field is initialized as specified in Section 7.3 of + [RFC6887]. + + The Description field MUST carry UTF-8 encoded [RFC3629] description + text. The description text MUST NOT be null terminated. The length + of the description text is indicated by the Length field. In + particular, the description text is not null terminated, and when a + client or server receives a DESCRIPTION option, it MUST NOT rely on + the presence of a NUL character in the wire format data to identify + the end of the text. + + This option can be used by a user (or an application) to indicate a + description associated with a given mapping, such as "FTP server", + "My remote access to my CP router", "Camera", "Network attached + storage serve", etc. + + + + + + + + + + +Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 3] + +RFC 7220 PCP Description Option May 2014 + + + How the content of the DESCRIPTION option is used is deployment- + specific. For example, the description text can be used by the + entity managing the PCP server for many purposes, such as the + following: + + o The description text can be used as a hint when cleaning a mapping + table by an administrator. + + o In some deployments making use of a portal to instruct PCP + mappings (e.g., Section 5.2 of [PCP-DEPLOY]), the description text + can be used to store a subscriber identifier. + +3. Behavior + + Support for the DESCRIPTION option by PCP servers and PCP clients is + optional. This option (Code 128; see Figure 1) MAY be included in a + PCP MAP/PEER request to associate a description with the requested + mapping. + + A PCP server MAY ignore the DESCRIPTION option sent to it by a PCP + client (e.g., if it does not support the option or if it is + configured to ignore it). To signal that it has not accepted the + option, a PCP server simply does not include the DESCRIPTION option + in the response. If the PCP client does not receive a DESCRIPTION + option in a response to a request enclosing a DESCRIPTION option, + this means the PCP server does not support the option or it is + configured to ignore it. + + If the DESCRIPTION option is not included in the PCP client request, + the PCP server MUST NOT include the DESCRIPTION option in the + associated response. + + A PCP server SHOULD be able to store at least 128 bytes for a + description. When the PCP server receives a DESCRIPTION option, it + first stores the value of the received Description field, truncating + it if it cannot store the entire value. The server MUST then send + the stored value back to the PCP client in the DESCRIPTION option in + the response. + + If the PCP client request contains invalid DESCRIPTION options (e.g., + the content is not a legal UTF-8 string), the PCP server MUST ignore + the request (i.e., MUST NOT return a DESCRIPTION option in the + response). + + To update the description text of a mapping maintained by a PCP + server, the PCP client generates a PCP MAP/PEER renewal request that + includes a DESCRIPTION option carrying the new description text. + Upon receipt of the PCP request, the PCP server proceeds to the same + + + +Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 4] + +RFC 7220 PCP Description Option May 2014 + + + operations to validate a MAP/PEER request refreshing an existing + mapping. If validation checks are successfully passed, the PCP + server replaces the old description text with the new one included in + the DESCRIPTION option, and the PCP server returns the updated + description text in the response, truncated (if necessary) as + described above. + + The PCP client uses an empty DESCRIPTION option (i.e., Length set to + 0) to erase the description text associated with a mapping. To + indicate that the PCP server has successfully cleared the description + text associated with a mapping, the PCP server returns the empty + DESCRIPTION option in the response. + +4. Security Considerations + + PCP-related security considerations are discussed in [RFC6887]. In + addition, administrators of PCP servers SHOULD configure a maximum + description length that does not lead to exhausting storage resources + in the PCP server. + + If the PCP client and the PCP server are not under the same + administrative entity, the DESCRIPTION option has the potential to + leak privacy-related information. PCP clients should not use the + DESCRIPTION option for such leakage. For example, the option should + not be used to include user identifiers, locations, or names. Refer + to Section 3.2 of [RFC6462] for a discussion on information leakage. + +5. IANA Considerations + + IANA has allocated the following value in the "PCP Options" registry + (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcp-parameters) from the optional- + to-process range (see Section 19.4 of [RFC6887]): + + DESCRIPTION set to 128 (see Section 2) + +6. References + +6.1. Normative References + + [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate + Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. + + [RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO + 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003. + [RFC6887] Wing, D., Ed., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and + P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887, April + 2013. + + + + +Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 5] + +RFC 7220 PCP Description Option May 2014 + + +6.2. Informative References + + [PCP-DEPLOY] + Boucadair, M., "Port Control Protocol (PCP) Deployment + Models", Work in Progress, April 2014. + + [RFC6462] Cooper, A., "Report from the Internet Privacy Workshop", + RFC 6462, January 2012. + + [RFC6970] Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and D. Wing, "Universal Plug and + Play (UPnP) Internet Gateway Device - Port Control + Protocol Interworking Function (IGD-PCP IWF)", RFC 6970, + July 2013. + +Authors' Addresses + + Mohamed Boucadair + France Telecom + Rennes 35000 + France + + EMail: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com + + + Reinaldo Penno + Cisco + USA + + EMail: repenno@cisco.com + + + Dan Wing + Cisco Systems, Inc. + 170 West Tasman Drive + San Jose, California 95134 + USA + + EMail: dwing@cisco.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Boucadair, et al. Standards Track [Page 6] + |