From 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 20:54:24 +0100
Subject: doc: Add RFC documents

---
 doc/rfc/rfc9441.txt | 1120 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 1120 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc9441.txt

(limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc9441.txt')

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc9441.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc9441.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..11ee2f3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc9441.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,1120 @@
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        JC. Zúñiga
+Request for Comments: 9441                                         Cisco
+Updates: 8724, 9363                                             C. Gomez
+Category: Standards Track                                     S. Aguilar
+ISSN: 2070-1721                     Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya
+                                                              L. Toutain
+                                                          IMT-Atlantique
+                                                             S. Céspedes
+                                                    Concordia University
+                                                              D. Wistuba
+                                          NIC Labs, Universidad de Chile
+                                                               July 2023
+
+
+Static Context Header Compression (SCHC) Compound Acknowledgement (ACK)
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document updates the Static Context Header Compression (SCHC)
+   and fragmentation protocol (RFC 8724) and the corresponding YANG
+   module (RFC 9363).  It defines a SCHC Compound Acknowledgement (ACK)
+   message format and procedure, which are intended to reduce the number
+   of response transmissions (i.e., SCHC ACKs) in the ACK-on-Error Mode,
+   by accumulating bitmaps of several windows in a single SCHC message
+   (i.e., the SCHC Compound ACK).
+
+   Both the message format and procedure are generic, so they can be
+   used, for instance, by any of the four Low-Power Wide Area Network
+   (LPWAN) technologies defined in RFC 8376, which are Sigfox, Long
+   Range Wide Area Network (LoRaWAN), Narrowband Internet of Things (NB-
+   IoT), and IEEE 802.15.4w.
+
+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 7841.
+
+   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
+   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
+   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9441.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (c) 2023 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
+   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
+   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
+   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
+   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
+   include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
+   Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
+   in the Revised BSD License.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1.  Introduction
+   2.  Terminology
+   3.  SCHC Compound ACK
+     3.1.  SCHC Compound ACK Message Format
+     3.2.  SCHC Compound ACK Behavior
+       3.2.1.  ACK-on-Error Mode (Replaces Section 8.4.3, RFC 8724)
+   4.  SCHC Compound ACK Example
+   5.  SCHC Compound ACK YANG Data Model
+     5.1.  SCHC YANG Data Model Extension
+     5.2.  SCHC YANG Tree Extension
+   6.  SCHC Compound ACK Parameters
+   7.  Security Considerations
+   8.  IANA Considerations
+     8.1.  URI Registration
+     8.2.  YANG Module Name Registration
+   9.  References
+     9.1.  Normative References
+     9.2.  Informative References
+   Acknowledgements
+   Authors' Addresses
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   The Generic Framework for Static Context Header Compression (SCHC)
+   and Fragmentation specification [RFC8724] describes two mechanisms:
+   i) a protocol header compression scheme and ii) a frame fragmentation
+   and loss recovery functionality.  Either can be used on top of radio
+   technologies, such as the four Low-Power Wide Area Networks (LPWANs)
+   listed in [RFC8376], which are Sigfox, LoRaWAN, NB-IoT, and IEEE
+   802.15.4w.  These LPWANs have similar characteristics, such as star-
+   oriented topologies, network architecture, and connected devices with
+   built-in applications.
+
+   SCHC offers a great level of flexibility to accommodate all these
+   LPWAN technologies.  Even though there are a number of similarities
+   between them, some differences exist with respect to the transmission
+   characteristics, payload sizes, etc.  Hence, there are optimal
+   parameters and modes of operation that can be used when SCHC is used
+   on top of a specific LPWAN technology.
+
+   In ACK-on-Error mode in [RFC8724], the SCHC Packet is fragmented into
+   pieces called tiles, where all tiles are the same size except for the
+   last one, which can be smaller.  Successive tiles are grouped in
+   windows of fixed size.  A SCHC Fragment carries one or several
+   contiguous tiles, which may span multiple windows.  When sending all
+   tiles from all windows, the last tile is sent in an All-1 SCHC
+   Fragment.  The SCHC receiver will send a SCHC ACK reporting on the
+   reception of exactly one window of tiles after receiving the All-1
+   SCHC Fragment.  In case of SCHC Fragment losses, a bitmap is added to
+   the failure SCHC ACK, where each bit in the bitmap corresponds to a
+   tile in the window.  If SCHC Fragment losses span multiple windows,
+   the SCHC receiver will send one failure SCHC ACK per window with
+   losses.
+
+   This document updates the SCHC protocol for frame fragmentation and
+   loss recovery.  It defines a SCHC Compound ACK format and procedure,
+   which are intended to reduce the number of response transmissions
+   (i.e., SCHC ACKs) in the ACK-on-Error mode of SCHC.  The SCHC
+   Compound ACK extends the failure SCHC ACK message format so that it
+   can contain several bitmaps, with each bitmap being identified by its
+   corresponding window number.  The SCHC Compound ACK is backwards
+   compatible with the SCHC ACK as defined in [RFC8724], and introduces
+   flexibility, as the receiver has the capability to respond to the
+   All-0 SCHC Fragment, providing more Downlink opportunities and
+   therefore adjusting to the delay requirements of the application.
+
+2.  Terminology
+
+   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
+   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
+   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
+   capitals, as shown here.
+
+   It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the terms and
+   mechanisms defined in [RFC8376] and [RFC8724].
+
+3.  SCHC Compound ACK
+
+   The SCHC Compound ACK is a failure SCHC ACK message that can contain
+   several bitmaps, with each bitmap being identified by its
+   corresponding window number.  In [RFC8724], the failure SCHC ACK
+   message only contains one bitmap corresponding to one window.  The
+   SCHC Compound ACK extends this format, allowing more windows to be
+   acknowledged in a single ACK and reducing the total number of failure
+   SCHC ACK messages, especially when fragment losses are present in
+   intermediate windows.
+
+   The SCHC Compound ACK MAY be used in fragmentation modes that use
+   windows and that allow reporting the bitmaps of multiple windows at
+   the same time; otherwise, the SCHC Compound ACK MUST NOT be used.
+
+   The SCHC Compound ACK:
+
+   *  provides feedback only for windows with fragment losses,
+
+   *  has a variable size that depends on the number of windows with
+      fragment losses being reported in the single SCHC Compound ACK,
+
+   *  includes the window number (i.e., W) of each bitmap,
+
+   *  might not cover all windows with fragment losses of a SCHC Packet,
+      and
+
+   *  is distinguishable from the SCHC Receiver-Abort.
+
+3.1.  SCHC Compound ACK Message Format
+
+   Figure 1 shows the success SCHC ACK format, i.e., when all fragments
+   have been correctly received (C=1), as defined in [RFC8724].
+
+                  |--- SCHC ACK Header ---|
+                  |        |--T-|--M--| 1 |
+                  +--------+----+-----+---+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+                  | RuleID |DTag|  W  |C=1| padding as needed
+                  +--------+----+-----+---+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+     Figure 1: SCHC Success ACK Message Format, as Defined in RFC 8724
+
+   In case SCHC Fragment losses are found in any of the windows of the
+   SCHC Packet, the SCHC Compound ACK MAY be used.  The SCHC Compound
+   ACK message format is shown in Figures 2 and 3.
+
+     |--- SCHC ACK Header --|- W=w1 -|...|---- W=wi -----|
+            |--T-|---M--|-1-|        |...|---M--|        |---M--|
+     +------+----+------+---+--------+...+------+--------+------+~~~~~+
+     |RuleID|DTag| W=w1 |C=0| Bitmap |...| W=wi | Bitmap |00..00| pad |
+     +------+----+------+---+--------+...+------+--------+------+~~~~~+
+                               next L2 Word boundary ->|<-- L2 Word ->|
+
+      Figure 2: SCHC Compound ACK Message Format.  Losses are found in
+               windows W = w1,...,wi, where w1 < w2 <...< wi.
+
+   The SCHC Compound ACK groups the window number (W) with its
+   corresponding bitmap.  Window numbers do not need to be contiguous.
+   However, the window numbers and their corresponding bitmaps included
+   in the SCHC Compound ACK message MUST be ordered from the lowest-
+   numbered to the highest-numbered window.  Hence, if the bitmap of
+   window number zero is present in the SCHC Compound ACK message, it
+   MUST always be the first one in order and its window number MUST be
+   placed in the SCHC ACK Header.
+
+   If M or more padding bits would be needed after the last bitmap in
+   the message to fill the last layer two (L2) Word, M bits at 0 MUST be
+   appended after the last bitmap, and then padding is applied as needed
+   (see Figure 2).  Since window number 0 (if present in the message) is
+   placed as w1, the M bits set to zero can't be confused with window
+   number 0; therefore, they signal the end of the SCHC Compound ACK
+   message.
+
+   Figure 3 shows the case when the required padding bits are strictly
+   less than M bits.  In this case, the L2 Maximum Transmission Unit
+   (MTU) does not leave room for any extra window value, let alone any
+   bitmap, thereby signaling the end of the SCHC Compound ACK message.
+
+     |--- SCHC ACK Header --|- W=w1 -|...|---- W=wi -----|
+            |--T-|---M--|-1-|        |...|---M--|        |---M--|
+     +------+----+------+---+--------+...+------+--------+~~~+
+     |RuleID|DTag| W=w1 |C=0| Bitmap |...| W=wi | Bitmap |pad|
+     +------+----+------+---+--------+...+------+--------+~~~+
+                                     next L2 Word boundary ->|
+
+        Figure 3: SCHC Compound ACK Message Format with Less than M
+      Padding Bits.  Losses are found in windows W = w1,...,wi, where
+                             w1 < w2 <...< wi.
+
+   The SCHC Compound ACK MUST NOT use the Compressed Bitmap format for
+   intermediate windows/bitmaps (i.e., bitmaps that are not the last one
+   of the SCHC Compound ACK message); therefore, intermediate bitmap
+   fields MUST be of size WINDOW_SIZE.  Hence, the SCHC Compound ACK MAY
+   use a Compressed Bitmap format only for the last bitmap in the
+   message.  The optional usage of this Compressed Bitmap for the last
+   bitmap MUST be specified by the technology-specific SCHC Profile.
+
+   The case where the last bitmap is effectively compressed corresponds
+   to Figure 3, with the last bitmap ending (by construction) on an L2
+   Word boundary, therefore resulting in no padding at all.
+
+   Figure 4 illustrates a bitmap compression example of a SCHC Compound
+   ACK, where the bitmap of the last window (wi) indicates that the
+   first tile has not been correctly received.  Because the compression
+   algorithm resulted in effective compression, no padding is needed.
+
+     |--- SCHC ACK Header --|- W=w1 -|...|-------- W=wi -------|
+            |--T-|---M--|-1-|        |...|---M--|
+     +------+----+------+---+--------+...+------+--------------+
+     |RuleID|DTag| W=w1 |C=0| Bitmap |...| W=wi |0 1 1 1 1 1 1 |
+     +------+----+------+---+--------+...+------+--------------+
+                            next L2 Word boundary ->|
+
+                    SCHC Compound ACK with Uncompressed Bitmap
+
+     |--- SCHC ACK Header --|- W=w1 -|...|-- W=wi --|
+            |--T-|---M--|-1-|        |...|---M--|
+     +------+----+------+---+--------+...+------+---+
+     |RuleID|DTag| W=w1 |C=0| Bitmap |...| W=wi |0 1|
+     +------+----+------+---+--------+...+------+---+
+                            next L2 Word boundary ->|
+
+           Transmitted SCHC Compound ACK with Compressed Bitmap
+
+     Figure 4: SCHC Compound ACK Message Format with Compressed Bitmap
+     and No Padding Added.  Losses are found in windows W = w1,...,wi,
+                          where w1 < w2 <...< wi.
+
+   Figure 5 illustrates another bitmap compression example of a SCHC
+   Compound ACK, where the bitmap of the last window (wi) indicates that
+   the second and the fourth tiles have not been correctly received.  In
+   this example, the compression algorithm does not result in effective
+   compression of the last bitmap.  Besides, because more than M bits of
+   padding would be needed to fill the last L2 Word, M bits at 0 are
+   appended to the message before padding is applied.
+
+    |--- SCHC ACK Header --|-W=w1-|...|-------- W=wi -------|
+           |--T-|---M--|-1-|      |...|---M--|
+    +------+----+------+---+------+...+------+--------------+
+    |RuleID|DTag| W=w1 |C=0|Bitmap|...| W=wi |1 0 1 0 1 1 1 |
+    +------+----+------+---+------+...+------+--------------+
+                       next L2 Word boundary ->|
+
+                    SCHC Compound ACK with Uncompressed Bitmap
+
+    |--- SCHC ACK Header --|-W=w1-|...|-------- W=wi -------|
+           |--T-|---M--|-1-|      |...|---M--|              |---M--|
+    +------+----+------+---+------+...+------+--------------+------+~~~+
+    |RuleID|DTag| W=w1 |C=0|Bitmap|...| W=wi |1 0 1 0 1 1 1 |00..00|pad|
+    +------+----+------+---+------+...+------+--------------+------+~~~+
+                       next L2 Word boundary ->|<------ L2 Word ------>|
+
+                     Transmitted SCHC Compound ACK
+
+     Figure 5: SCHC Compound ACK Message Format with Compressed Bitmap
+      and Padding Added to Reach the L2 Boundary.  Losses are found in
+               windows W = w1,...,wi, where w1 < w2 <...<wi.
+
+   If a SCHC sender gets a SCHC Compound ACK with invalid window
+   numbers, such as duplicate W values or W values not sent yet, it MUST
+   discard the whole SCHC Compound ACK message.
+
+      |  Note that SCHC Compound ACKs are distinguishable from the
+      |  Receiver-Abort message in the same way that regular SCHC ACKs
+      |  are distinguishable, since the Receiver-Abort pattern never
+      |  occurs in a legitimate SCHC Compound ACK [RFC8724].
+
+3.2.  SCHC Compound ACK Behavior
+
+   The SCHC ACK-on-Error behavior is described in Section 8.4.3 of
+   [RFC8724].  The present document slightly modifies this behavior.  In
+   the baseline SCHC specification, a SCHC ACK reports only one bitmap
+   for the reception of exactly one window of tiles.  The present SCHC
+   Compound ACK specification extends the SCHC ACK message format so
+   that it can contain several bitmaps, with each bitmap being
+   identified by its corresponding window number.
+
+   As presented in [RFC8724], the SCHC ACK format can be considered a
+   special SCHC Compound ACK case in which it reports only the tiles of
+   one window.  Therefore, the SCHC Compound ACK is backwards compatible
+   with the SCHC ACK format presented in [RFC8724].  The receiver can
+   assume that the sender does not support the SCHC Compound ACK if,
+   although the SCHC Compound ACK sent by the receiver reports losses in
+   more than one window, the sender does not resend any tiles from
+   windows other than the first window reported in the SCHC Compound
+   ACK.  In that case, the receiver can send SCHC Compound ACKs with
+   only one window of tiles.
+
+   Also, some flexibility is introduced with respect to [RFC8724] in
+   that the receiver has the capability to respond (or not) to the All-0
+   with a SCHC Compound ACK, depending on certain parameters, like
+   network conditions, sender buffer/cache size, and supported
+   application delay.  Note that even though the protocol allows for
+   such flexibility, the actual decision criteria is not specified in
+   this document.  The application MUST set expiration timer values
+   according to when the feedback is expected to be received, e.g.,
+   after the All-0 or after the All-1.
+
+   Section 3.2.1 (and its subsections) replaces the complete
+   Section 8.4.3 (and its subsections) of [RFC8724].
+
+3.2.1.  ACK-on-Error Mode (Replaces Section 8.4.3, RFC 8724)
+
+   The ACK-on-Error mode supports L2 technologies that have variable MTU
+   and out-of-order delivery.  It requires an L2 that provides a
+   feedback path from the reassembler to the fragmenter.  See Appendix F
+   for a discussion on using ACK-on-Error mode on quasi-bidirectional
+   links.
+
+   In ACK-on-Error mode, windows are used.
+
+   All tiles except the last one and the penultimate one MUST be of
+   equal size, hereafter called "regular".  The size of the last tile
+   MUST be smaller than or equal to the regular tile size.  Regarding
+   the penultimate tile, a Profile MUST pick one of the following two
+   options:
+
+   *  The penultimate tile size MUST be the regular tile size, or
+
+   *  the penultimate tile size MUST be either the regular tile size or
+      the regular tile size minus one L2 Word.
+
+   A SCHC Fragment message carries one or several contiguous tiles,
+   which may span multiple windows.  A SCHC Compound ACK reports on the
+   reception of one window of tiles or several windows of tiles, each
+   one identified by its window number.
+
+   See Figure 6 (see Figure 23 of RFC 8724 (https://www.rfc-
+   editor.org/rfc/rfc8724.html#figure-23)) for an example.
+
+           +---------------------------------------------...-----------+
+           |                       SCHC Packet                         |
+           +---------------------------------------------...-----------+
+
+   Tile#   | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 4 |     | 0 | 4 |3|
+   Window# |-------- 0 --------|-------- 1 --------|- 2  ... 27 -|- 28-|
+
+
+   SCHC Fragment msg   |-----------|
+
+        Figure 6: SCHC Packet Fragmented in Tiles, ACK-on-Error Mode
+                          (Figure 23 in RFC 8724)
+
+   The W field is wide enough that it unambiguously represents an
+   absolute window number.  The fragment receiver sends SCHC Compound
+   ACKs to the fragment sender about windows for which tiles are
+   missing.  No SCHC Compound ACK is sent by the fragment receiver for
+   windows that it knows have been fully received.
+
+   The fragment sender retransmits SCHC Fragments for tiles that are
+   reported missing.  It can advance to next windows even before it has
+   ascertained that all tiles belonging to previous windows have been
+   correctly received, and it can still later retransmit SCHC Fragments
+   with tiles belonging to previous windows.  Therefore, the sender and
+   the receiver may operate in a decoupled fashion.  The fragmented SCHC
+   Packet transmission concludes when:
+
+   *  integrity checking shows that the fragmented SCHC Packet has been
+      correctly reassembled at the receive end, and this information has
+      been conveyed back to the sender,
+
+   *  too many retransmission attempts have been made, or
+
+   *  the receiver determines that the transmission of this fragmented
+      SCHC Packet has been inactive for too long.
+
+   Each Profile MUST specify which RuleID value(s) corresponds to SCHC
+   F/R messages operating in this mode.
+
+   The W field MUST be present in the SCHC F/R messages.
+
+   Each Profile, for each RuleID value, MUST define:
+
+   *  the tile size (a tile does not need to be a duplicate of an L2
+      Word, but it MUST be at least the size of an L2 Word),
+
+   *  the value of M,
+
+   *  the value of N,
+
+   *  the value of WINDOW_SIZE, which MUST be strictly less than 2^N,
+
+   *  the size and algorithm for the RCS field,
+
+   *  the value of T,
+
+   *  the value of MAX_ACK_REQUESTS,
+
+   *  the expiration time of the Retransmission Timer,
+
+   *  the expiration time of the Inactivity Timer,
+
+   *  if the last tile is carried in a Regular SCHC Fragment or an All-1
+      SCHC Fragment (see Section 3.2.1.1 (Section 8.4.3.1 in [RFC8724]),
+
+   *  if the penultimate tile MAY be one L2 Word smaller than the
+      regular tile size (in this case, the regular tile size MUST be at
+      least twice the L2 Word size),
+
+   *  usage or not of the SCHC Compound ACK message, and
+
+   *  usage or not of the Compressed Bitmap format in the last window of
+      the SCHC Compound ACK message.
+
+   For each active pair of RuleID and DTag values, the sender MUST
+   maintain:
+
+   *  one Attempts counter and
+
+   *  one Retransmission Timer.
+
+   For each active pair of RuleID and DTag values, the receiver MUST
+   maintain:
+
+   *  one Attempts counter and
+
+   *  one Inactivity Timer.
+
+3.2.1.1.  Sender Behavior (Replaces Section 8.4.3.1, RFC 8724)
+
+   At the beginning of the fragmentation of a new SCHC Packet:
+
+   *  the fragment sender MUST select a RuleID and DTag value pair for
+      this SCHC Packet.  A Rule MUST NOT be selected if the values of M
+      and WINDOW_SIZE for that Rule are such that the SCHC Packet cannot
+      be fragmented in (2^M) * WINDOW_SIZE tiles or less.
+
+   *  the fragment sender MUST initialize the Attempts counter to 0 for
+      that RuleID and DTag value pair.
+
+   A Regular SCHC Fragment message carries in its payload one or more
+   tiles.  If more than one tile is carried in one Regular SCHC
+   Fragment:
+
+   *  the selected tiles MUST be contiguous in the original SCHC Packet,
+      and
+
+   *  they MUST be placed in the SCHC Fragment Payload adjacent to one
+      another, in the order they appear in the SCHC Packet, from the
+      start of the SCHC Packet toward its end.
+
+   Tiles that are not the last one MUST be sent in Regular SCHC
+   Fragments as specified in Section 8.3.1.1.  The FCN field MUST
+   contain the tile index of the first tile sent in that SCHC Fragment.
+
+   In a Regular SCHC Fragment message, the sender MUST fill the W field
+   with the window number of the first tile sent in that SCHC Fragment.
+
+   A Profile MUST define if the last tile of a SCHC Packet is sent:
+
+   *  in a Regular SCHC Fragment, alone or as part of a multi-tiles
+      Payload,
+
+   *  alone in an All-1 SCHC Fragment, or
+
+   *  with either one of the above two methods.
+
+   In an All-1 SCHC Fragment message, the sender MUST fill the W field
+   with the window number of the last tile of the SCHC Packet.
+
+   The fragment sender MUST send SCHC Fragments such that, all together,
+   they contain all the tiles of the fragmented SCHC Packet.
+
+   The fragment sender MUST send at least one All-1 SCHC Fragment.
+
+   In doing the two items above, the sender MUST ascertain that the
+   receiver will not receive the last tile through both a Regular SCHC
+   Fragment and an All-1 SCHC Fragment.
+
+   The fragment sender MUST listen for SCHC Compound ACK messages after
+   having sent:
+
+   *  an All-1 SCHC Fragment or
+
+   *  a SCHC ACK REQ.
+
+   A Profile MAY specify other times at which the fragment sender MUST
+   listen for SCHC Compound ACK messages.  For example, this could be
+   after sending a complete window of tiles.
+
+   Each time a fragment sender sends an All-1 SCHC Fragment or a SCHC
+   ACK REQ:
+
+   *  it MUST increment the Attempts counter, and
+
+   *  it MUST reset the Retransmission Timer.
+
+   On Retransmission Timer expiration:
+
+   *  if the Attempts counter is strictly less than MAX_ACK_REQUESTS,
+      the fragment sender MUST send either the All-1 SCHC Fragment or a
+      SCHC ACK REQ with the W field corresponding to the last window,
+
+   *  otherwise, the fragment sender MUST send a SCHC Sender-Abort, and
+      it MAY exit with an error condition.
+
+   All message receptions being discussed in the rest of this section
+   are to be understood as "matching the RuleID and DTag pair being
+   processed", even if not spelled out, for brevity.
+
+   On receiving a SCHC Compound ACK:
+
+   *  if one of the W fields in the SCHC Compound ACK corresponds to the
+      last window of the SCHC Packet:
+
+      -  if the C bit is set, the sender MAY exit successfully.
+
+      -  otherwise:
+
+         o  if the Profile mandates that the last tile be sent in an
+            All-1 SCHC Fragment:
+
+            +  if the SCHC Compound ACK shows no missing tile at the
+               receiver, the sender:
+
+               *  MUST send a SCHC Sender-Abort and
+
+               *  MAY exit with an error condition.
+
+            +  otherwise:
+
+               *  the fragment sender MUST send SCHC Fragment messages
+                  containing all the tiles of all the windows that are
+                  reported missing in the SCHC Compound ACK.
+
+               *  if the last of these SCHC Fragment messages is not an
+                  All-1 SCHC Fragment, then the fragment sender MAY
+                  either send, in addition, a SCHC ACK REQ with the W
+                  field corresponding to the last window or repeat the
+                  All-1 SCHC Fragment to ask the receiver to confirm
+                  that all tiles have been correctly received.
+
+               *  in doing the two items above, the sender MUST
+                  ascertain that the receiver will not receive the last
+                  tile through both a Regular SCHC Fragment and an All-1
+                  SCHC Fragment.
+
+         o  otherwise:
+
+            +  if the SCHC Compound ACK shows no missing tile at the
+               receiver, the sender MUST send the All-1 SCHC Fragment
+
+            +  otherwise:
+
+               *  the fragment sender MUST send SCHC Fragment messages
+                  containing all the tiles that are reported missing in
+                  the SCHC Compound ACK.
+
+               *  the fragment sender MUST then send either the All-1
+                  SCHC Fragment or a SCHC ACK REQ with the W field
+                  corresponding to the last window.
+
+   *  otherwise, the fragment sender:
+
+      -  MUST send SCHC Fragment messages containing the tiles that are
+         reported missing in the SCHC Compound ACK.
+
+      -  then, it MAY send a SCHC ACK REQ with the W field corresponding
+         to the last window.
+
+   See Figure 43 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8724.html#figure-43)
+   for one among several possible examples of a Finite State Machine
+   implementing a sender behavior obeying this specification.
+
+3.2.1.2.  Receiver Behavior (Replaces Section 8.4.3.2, RFC 8724)
+
+   On receiving a SCHC Fragment with a RuleID and DTag pair not being
+   processed at that time:
+
+   *  the receiver SHOULD check that the DTag value has not recently
+      been used for that RuleID value, thereby ensuring that the
+      received SCHC Fragment is not a remnant of a prior fragmented SCHC
+      Packet transmission.  The initial value of the Inactivity Timer is
+      the RECOMMENDED lifetime for the DTag value at the receiver.  If
+      the SCHC Fragment is determined to be such a remnant, the receiver
+      MAY silently ignore it and discard it.
+
+   *  the receiver MUST start a process to assemble a new SCHC Packet
+      with that RuleID and DTag value pair.  The receiver MUST start an
+      Inactivity Timer for that RuleID and DTag value pair.  It MUST
+      initialize an Attempts counter to 0 for that RuleID and DTag value
+      pair.  If the receiver is under-resourced to do this, it MUST
+      respond to the sender with a SCHC Receiver-Abort.
+
+   On reception of any SCHC F/R message for the RuleID and DTag pair
+   being processed, the receiver MUST reset the Inactivity Timer
+   pertaining to that RuleID and DTag pair.
+
+   All message receptions being discussed in the rest of this section
+   are to be understood as "matching the RuleID and DTag pair being
+   processed", even if not spelled out, for brevity.
+
+   On receiving a SCHC Fragment message, the receiver determines what
+   tiles were received, based on the payload length and on the W and FCN
+   fields of the SCHC Fragment.
+
+   *  if the FCN is All-1 and if a Payload is present, the full SCHC
+      Fragment Payload MUST be assembled including the padding bits.
+      This is because the size of the last tile is not known by the
+      receiver; therefore, padding bits are indistinguishable from the
+      tile data bits, at this stage.  They will be removed by the SCHC
+      C/D sublayer.  If the size of the SCHC Fragment Payload exceeds or
+      equals the size of one regular tile plus the size of an L2 Word,
+      this SHOULD raise an error flag.
+
+   *  otherwise, tiles MUST be assembled based on the a priori known
+      tile size.
+
+      -  If allowed by the Profile, the end of the payload MAY contain
+         the last tile, which may be shorter.  Padding bits are
+         indistinguishable from the tile data bits, at this stage.
+
+      -  The payload may contain the penultimate tile that, if allowed
+         by the Profile, MAY be exactly one L2 Word shorter than the
+         regular tile size.
+
+      -  Otherwise, padding bits MUST be discarded.  This is possible
+         because:
+
+         o  the size of the tiles is known a priori,
+
+         o  tiles are larger than an L2 Word, and
+
+         o  padding bits are always strictly less than an L2 Word.
+
+   On receiving a SCHC All-0 SCHC Fragment:
+
+   *  if the receiver knows of any windows with missing tiles for the
+      packet being reassembled (and depending on certain parameters,
+      like network conditions, sender buffer/cache size, and supported
+      application delay, among others), it MAY return a SCHC Compound
+      ACK for the missing tiles, starting from the lowest-numbered
+      window.
+
+   On receiving a SCHC ACK REQ or an All-1 SCHC Fragment:
+
+   *  if the receiver knows of any windows with missing tiles for the
+      packet being reassembled, it MUST return a SCHC Compound ACK for
+      the missing tiles, starting from the lowest-numbered window.
+
+   *  otherwise:
+
+      -  if it has received at least one tile, it MUST return a SCHC
+         Compound ACK for the highest-numbered window it currently has
+         tiles for,
+
+      -  otherwise, it MUST return a SCHC Compound ACK for window number
+         0.
+
+   A Profile MAY specify other times and circumstances at which a
+   receiver sends a SCHC Compound ACK and which window the SCHC Compound
+   ACK reports about in these circumstances.
+
+   Upon sending a SCHC Compound ACK, the receiver MUST increase the
+   Attempts counter.
+
+   After receiving an All-1 SCHC Fragment, a receiver MUST check the
+   integrity of the reassembled SCHC Packet at least every time it
+   prepares to send a SCHC Compound ACK for the last window.
+
+   Upon receiving a SCHC Sender-Abort, the receiver MAY exit with an
+   error condition.
+
+   Upon expiration of the Inactivity Timer, the receiver MUST send a
+   SCHC Receiver-Abort, and it MAY exit with an error condition.
+
+   On the Attempts counter exceeding MAX_ACK_REQUESTS, the receiver MUST
+   send a SCHC Receiver-Abort, and it MAY exit with an error condition.
+
+   Reassembly of the SCHC Packet concludes when:
+
+   *  a Sender-Abort has been received,
+
+   *  the Inactivity Timer has expired,
+
+   *  the Attempts counter has exceeded MAX_ACK_REQUESTS, or
+
+   *  at least an All-1 SCHC Fragment has been received and integrity
+      checking of the reassembled SCHC Packet is successful.
+
+   See Figure 44 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8724.html#figure-44)
+   for one among several possible examples of a Finite State Machine
+   implementing a receiver behavior obeying this specification.  The
+   example provided is meant to match the sender Finite State Machine of
+   Figure 43 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8724.html#figure-43).
+
+4.  SCHC Compound ACK Example
+
+   Figure 7 shows an example transmission of a SCHC Packet in ACK-on-
+   Error mode using the SCHC Compound ACK.  In the example, the SCHC
+   Packet is fragmented in 14 tiles, with N=3, WINDOW_SIZE=7, M=2, and
+   two lost SCHC fragments.  Only 1 SCHC Compound ACK is generated.
+
+           Sender                Receiver
+             |-----W=0, FCN=6 ----->|
+             |-----W=0, FCN=5 ----->|
+             |-----W=0, FCN=4 ----->|
+             |-----W=0, FCN=3 ----->|
+             |-----W=0, FCN=2 --X   |
+             |-----W=0, FCN=1 ----->|
+             |-----W=0, FCN=0 ----->| Bitmap: 1111011
+         (no ACK)
+             |-----W=1, FCN=6 ----->|
+             |-----W=1, FCN=5 ----->|
+             |-----W=1, FCN=4 ----->|
+             |-----W=1, FCN=3 ----->|
+             |-----W=1, FCN=2 ----->|
+             |-----W=1, FCN=1 --X   |
+             |-- W=1, FCN=7 + RCS ->| Integrity check: failure
+             |<--- Compound ACK ----| [C=0, W=0 - Bitmap:1111011,
+             |-----W=0, FCN=2 ----->|        W=1 - Bitmap:1111101]
+             |-----W=1, FCN=1 ----->| Integrity check: success
+             |<--- ACK, W=1, C=1 ---| C=1
+           (End)
+
+            Figure 7: SCHC Compound ACK Message Sequence Example
+
+    |--- SCHC ACK Header --|- W=00 --|----- W=01 -----|
+           |--T-|---M--|-1-|         |---M--|         |---M--|
+    +------+----+------+---+---------+------+---------+------+-----+
+    |RuleID|DTag| W=00 |C=0| 1111011 | W=01 | 1111101 |  00  | pad |
+    +------+----+------+---+---------+------+---------+------+-----+
+                            next L2 Word boundary ->|<-- L2 Word ->|
+
+       Figure 8: SCHC Compound ACK Message Format Example: Losses are
+                         Found in Windows 00 and 01
+
+5.  SCHC Compound ACK YANG Data Model
+
+   This document also extends the SCHC YANG data model defined in
+   [RFC9363] by including a new leaf in the Ack-on-Error fragmentation
+   mode to describe both the option to use the SCHC Compound ACK, as
+   well as its bitmap format.
+
+5.1.  SCHC YANG Data Model Extension
+
+   <CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-schc-compound-ack@2023-07-26.yang"
+   module ietf-schc-compound-ack {
+     yang-version 1.1;
+     namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-schc-compound-ack";
+     prefix schc-compound-ack;
+
+     import ietf-schc {
+       prefix schc;
+     }
+
+     organization
+       "IETF IPv6 over Low Power Wide-Area Networks (lpwan)
+        Working Group";
+     contact
+       "WG Web:   <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lpwan/about/>
+        WG List:  <mailto:lp-wan@ietf.org>
+        Editor:   Laurent Toutain
+          <mailto:laurent.toutain@imt-atlantique.fr>
+        Editor:   Juan Carlos Zuniga
+          <mailto:j.c.zuniga@ieee.org>
+        Editor:   Sergio Aguilar
+          <mailto:sergio.aguilar.romero@upc.edu>";
+     description
+       "Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
+        authors of the code.  All rights reserved.
+        Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
+        without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject to
+        the license terms contained in, the Revised BSD License set
+        forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
+        Relating to IETF Documents
+        (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
+        This version of this YANG module is part of RFC 9363
+        (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9363); see the RFC itself
+        for full legal notices.
+        ***************************************************************
+        Generic data model for the Static Context Header Compression
+        Rule for SCHC, based on RFCs 8724 and 8824.  Including
+        compression, no-compression, and fragmentation Rules.";
+
+     revision 2023-07-26 {
+       description
+         "Initial version for RFC 9441.";
+       reference
+         "RFC 9441 Static Context Header Compression (SCHC) Compound
+                   Acknowledgement (ACK)";
+     }
+
+     identity bitmap-format-base-type {
+       description
+         "Define how the bitmap is formed in ACK messages.";
+     }
+
+     identity bitmap-RFC8724 {
+       base bitmap-format-base-type;
+       description
+         "Bitmap by default as defined in RFC 8724.";
+       reference
+         "RFC 8724 SCHC: Generic Framework for Static Context Header
+                   Compression and Fragmentation";
+     }
+
+     identity bitmap-compound-ack {
+       base bitmap-format-base-type;
+       description
+         "Compound ACK allows several bitmaps in an ACK message.";
+     }
+
+     typedef bitmap-format-type {
+       type identityref {
+         base bitmap-format-base-type;
+       }
+       description
+         "Type of bitmap used in Rules.";
+     }
+
+     augment "/schc:schc/schc:rule/schc:nature/"
+           + "schc:fragmentation/schc:mode/schc:ack-on-error" {
+       leaf bitmap-format {
+         when "derived-from-or-self(../schc:fragmentation-mode,
+                           'schc:fragmentation-mode-ack-on-error')";
+         type schc-compound-ack:bitmap-format-type;
+         default "schc-compound-ack:bitmap-RFC8724";
+         description
+           "How the bitmaps are included in the SCHC ACK message.";
+       }
+       leaf last-bitmap-compression {
+         when "derived-from-or-self(../schc:fragmentation-mode,
+                           'schc:fragmentation-mode-ack-on-error')";
+         type boolean;
+         default "true";
+         description
+           "When true, the ultimate bitmap in the SCHC ACK message
+            can be compressed.  Default behavior from RFC 8724.";
+         reference
+           "RFC 8724 SCHC: Generic Framework for Static Context Header
+                     Compression and Fragmentation";
+       }
+       description
+         "Augment the SCHC Rules to manage Compound ACK.";
+     }
+   }
+   <CODE ENDS>
+
+          Figure 9: SCHC YANG Data Model - Compound ACK Extension
+
+5.2.  SCHC YANG Tree Extension
+
+   module: ietf-schc-compound-ack
+     augment /schc:schc/schc:rule/schc:nature/schc:fragmentation/
+           schc:mode/schc:ack-on-error:
+       +--rw bitmap-format?        schc-compound-ack:bitmap-format-type
+       +--rw last-bitmap-compression?   boolean
+
+              Figure 10: Tree Diagram - Compound ACK Extension
+
+6.  SCHC Compound ACK Parameters
+
+   This section lists the parameters related to the SCHC Compound ACK
+   usage that need to be defined in the Profile.  This list MUST be
+   appended to the list of SCHC parameters under "Decision to use SCHC
+   fragmentation mechanism or not.  If yes, the document must describe:"
+   as defined in Appendix D of [RFC8724].
+
+   *  whether the SCHC Compound ACK message is used or not, and
+
+   *  whether the compressed bitmap format in the last window of the
+      SCHC Compound ACK message is used or not.
+
+7.  Security Considerations
+
+   This document specifies a message format extension for SCHC.  Hence,
+   the same security considerations defined in [RFC8724] and [RFC9363]
+   apply.
+
+   The YANG module specified in this document defines a schema for data
+   that is designed to be accessed via network management protocols such
+   as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040].  The lowest NETCONF layer
+   is the secure transport layer, and the mandatory-to-implement secure
+   transport is Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC6242].  The lowest RESTCONF layer
+   is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS
+   [RFC8446].
+
+   The Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341]
+   provides the means to restrict access for particular NETCONF or
+   RESTCONF users to a preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or
+   RESTCONF protocol operations and content.
+
+   There are a number of data nodes defined in this YANG module that are
+   writable/creatable/deletable (i.e., config true, which is the
+   default).  These data nodes may be considered sensitive or vulnerable
+   in some network environments.  Write operations (e.g., edit-config)
+   to these data nodes without proper protection can have a negative
+   effect on network operations.  These are the subtrees and data nodes
+   and their sensitivity/vulnerability:
+
+   /schc:schc/schc:rule/schc:nature/schc:fragmentation/schc:mode/
+   schc:ack-on-error:
+      All the data nodes may be modified.  The Rule contains sensitive
+      information, such as the SCHC F/R mode configuration and usage and
+      SCHC Compound ACK configuration.  An attacker may try to modify
+      other devices' Rules by changing the F/R mode or the usage of the
+      SCHC Compound ACK and may block communication or create extra
+      ACKs.  Therefore, a device must be allowed to modify only its own
+      Rules on the remote SCHC instance.  The identity of the requester
+      must be validated.  This can be done through certificates or
+      access lists.
+
+   Some of the readable data nodes in this YANG module may be considered
+   sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments.  It is thus
+   important to control read access (e.g., via get, get-config, or
+   notification) to these data nodes.  These are the subtrees and data
+   nodes and their sensitivity/vulnerability:
+
+   /schc:schc/schc:rule/schc:nature/schc:fragmentation/schc:mode/
+   schc:ack-on-error:
+      By reading this module, an attacker may learn the F/R mode used by
+      the device, how the device manages the bitmap creation, the buffer
+      sizes, and when the device will request an ACK.
+
+8.  IANA Considerations
+
+   This document registers one URI and one YANG data model.
+
+8.1.  URI Registration
+
+   IANA registered the following URI in the "IETF XML Registry"
+   [RFC3688]:
+
+   URI:  urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-schc-compound-ack
+
+   Registrant Contact:  The IESG.
+
+   XML:  N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.
+
+8.2.  YANG Module Name Registration
+
+   IANA has registered the following YANG data model in the "YANG Module
+   Names" registry [RFC6020].
+
+   name:  ietf-schc-compound-ack
+
+   namespace:  urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-schc-compound-ack
+
+   prefix:  schc-compound-ack
+
+   reference:  RFC 9441
+
+9.  References
+
+9.1.  Normative References
+
+   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
+              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
+
+   [RFC3688]  Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
+              DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
+
+   [RFC6020]  Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
+              the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
+              DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.
+
+   [RFC6241]  Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
+              and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
+              (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
+
+   [RFC6242]  Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure
+              Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6242>.
+
+   [RFC8040]  Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
+              Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
+
+   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
+              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
+              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
+
+   [RFC8341]  Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration
+              Access Control Model", STD 91, RFC 8341,
+              DOI 10.17487/RFC8341, March 2018,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8341>.
+
+   [RFC8446]  Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
+              Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
+
+   [RFC8724]  Minaburo, A., Toutain, L., Gomez, C., Barthel, D., and JC.
+              Zuniga, "SCHC: Generic Framework for Static Context Header
+              Compression and Fragmentation", RFC 8724,
+              DOI 10.17487/RFC8724, April 2020,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8724>.
+
+   [RFC9363]  Minaburo, A. and L. Toutain, "A YANG Data Model for Static
+              Context Header Compression (SCHC)", RFC 9363,
+              DOI 10.17487/RFC9363, March 2023,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9363>.
+
+9.2.  Informative References
+
+   [RFC8376]  Farrell, S., Ed., "Low-Power Wide Area Network (LPWAN)
+              Overview", RFC 8376, DOI 10.17487/RFC8376, May 2018,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8376>.
+
+Acknowledgements
+
+   Carles Gomez has been funded in part by the Spanish Government
+   through the TEC2016-79988-P grant and the PID2019-106808RA-I00 grant
+   (funded by MCIN / AEI / 10.13039/501100011033) and by Secretaria
+   d'Universitats i Recerca del Departament d'Empresa i Coneixement de
+   la Generalitat de Catalunya through 2017 grant SGR 376 and 2021 grant
+   SGR 00330.
+
+   Sergio Aguilar has been funded by the ERDF and the Spanish Government
+   through project TEC2016-79988-P and project PID2019-106808RA-I00,
+   AEI/FEDER, EU (funded by MCIN / AEI / 10.13039/501100011033).
+
+   Sandra Cespedes has been funded in part by the ANID Chile Project
+   FONDECYT Regular 1201893 and Basal Project FB0008.
+
+   Diego Wistuba has been funded by the ANID Chile Project FONDECYT
+   Regular 1201893.
+
+   The authors would like to thank Rafael Vidal, Julien Boite, Renaud
+   Marty, Antonis Platis, Dominique Barthel, and Pascal Thubert for
+   their very useful comments, reviews, and implementation design
+   considerations.
+
+Authors' Addresses
+
+   Juan Carlos Zúñiga
+   Cisco
+   Montreal  QC
+   Canada
+   Email: juzuniga@cisco.com
+
+
+   Carles Gomez
+   Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya
+   C/Esteve Terradas, 7
+   08860 Castelldefels
+   Spain
+   Email: carles.gomez@upc.edu
+
+
+   Sergio Aguilar
+   Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya
+   C/Esteve Terradas, 7
+   08860 Castelldefels
+   Spain
+   Email: sergio.aguilar.romero@upc.edu
+
+
+   Laurent Toutain
+   IMT-Atlantique
+   2 rue de la Chataigneraie
+   CS 17607
+   35576 Cesson-Sevigne Cedex
+   France
+   Email: Laurent.Toutain@imt-atlantique.fr
+
+
+   Sandra Céspedes
+   Concordia University
+   1455 De Maisonneuve Blvd. W.
+   Montreal QC, H3G 1M8
+   Canada
+   Email: sandra.cespedes@concordia.ca
+
+
+   Diego Wistuba
+   NIC Labs, Universidad de Chile
+   Av. Almte. Blanco Encalada 1975
+   Santiago
+   Chile
+   Email: research@witu.cl
-- 
cgit v1.2.3