path: root/doc/rfc/rfc3224.txt

Network Working Group                                         E. Guttman
Request for Comments: 3224                              Sun Microsystems
Updates: 2608                                               January 2002
Category: Standards Track


       Vendor Extensions for Service Location Protocol, Version 2

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 (2002).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document specifies how the features of the Service Location
   Protocol, Version 2 allow for vendor extensibility safely, with no
   possibility of collisions.  The specification introduces a new SLPv2
   extension:  The Vendor Opaque Extension.  While proprietary protocol
   extensions are not encouraged by IETF standards, it is important that
   they not hinder interoperability of compliant implementations when
   they are undertaken.  This document udpates RFC 2608, "The Service
   Location Protocol."

Table of Contents

   1.0   Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
      1.1   Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . .  2
   2.0   Enterprise Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.0   Naming Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   4.0   Vendor Defined Attributes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   5.0   Vendor Opaque Extension  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
      5.1 Vendor Opaque Extension Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
      5.2 Example: Acme Extension for UA Authentication . . . . . . .  6
   6.0   Extensions Requiring IETF Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   7.0   IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   8.0   Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10



Guttman                     Standards Track                     [Page 1]
^L
RFC 3224             Vendor Extensions for Service          January 2002


1.0 Introduction

   The Service Location Protocol, Version 2 [1] defines a number of
   features which are extensible.  This document clarifies exactly which
   mechanisms can be used to that end (Sections 3-5) and which cannot
   (Section 6).  This document updates [1], specifying conventions that
   ensure the protocol extension mechanisms in the SLPv2 specification
   will not possibly have ambiguous interpretations.

   This specification introduces only one new protocol element, the
   Vendor Opaque Extension.  This Extension makes it possible for a
   vendor to extend SLP independently, once the vendor has registered
   itself with IANA and obtained an Enterprise Number.  This is useful
   for vendor-specific applications.

   Vendor extensions to standard protocols come at a cost.

      -  Vendor extensions occur without review from the community.
         They may not make good engineering sense in the context of the
         protocol they extend, and the engineers responsible may
         discover this too late.

      -  Vendor extensions preclude interoperation with compliant but
         non-extended implementations.  There is a real danger of
         incompatibility if different implementations support different
         feature sets.

      -  By extending SLPv2 privately, ubiquitous automatic
         configuration is impossible, which is the primary benefit of a
         standard service discovery framework.

   For these reasons, registration of service templates with IANA is
   strongly encouraged!  This process is easy and has proved to be rapid
   (taking less than 2 weeks in most cases).

1.1 Terminology

   In this document, the key words "MAY", "MUST", "MUST NOT",
   "optional", "recommended", "SHOULD", and "SHOULD NOT", are to be
   interpreted as described in [2].

   Service Location Protocol terminology is defined in [1].  IANA
   registration terminology is defined in [5].








Guttman                     Standards Track                     [Page 2]
^L
RFC 3224             Vendor Extensions for Service          January 2002


2.0 Enterprise Number

   Enterprise Numbers are used to distinguish different vendors in IETF
   protocols.  Vendor Extensions to SLPv2 SHOULD use these values to
   avoid any possibility of a name space collision.  Each vendor is
   responsible for ensuring that vendor extensions under their own
   authority are non-conflicting.

   IANA maintains a repository of all 'SMI Network Management Private
   Enterprise Codes,' whose prefix is
   iso.org.dod.internet.private.enterprise (1.3.6.1.4.1).  The number
   which follows is unique and may be registered by an on-line form [3].

   The complete up-to-date list of Enterprise Numbers is maintained by
   IANA [3].

3.0 Naming Authorities

   Naming Authorities are defined by SLPv2 [1] as an agency or group
   which catalogues Service Types and attributes.

   A Service Type is a string representing a service which can be
   discovered by SLPv2.  Attributes may be associated with a particular
   Service Type which is advertised by SLPv2.

   Service Type strings and service attributes may be registered with
   IANA by creating a Service Template [4].  The template is included in
   an internet draft and an email message is sent to srvloc-
   list@iana.org requesting that the template be included in the Service
   Template registry.  In this case, the naming authority for the
   service type is IANA.

   It is also possible for a Vendor to create their own naming
   authority.  In this case, any service type or attribute may be used.
   SLPv2 allows arbitrary naming authorities to coexist.  To use an
   explicit naming authority, a vendor simply employs their Enterprise
   Number as a naming authority.  For example, for the following
   (fictitious) Enterprise Number

      9999  Acme, Inc.              Erik Guttman  femur@example.com

   the Naming Authority string to use would be "9999".  A service: URL
   which used this Naming Authority to advertise a Roadrunner Detector
   service could look like

      service:roadrunner-detector.9999://example.com:9341





Guttman                     Standards Track                     [Page 3]
^L
RFC 3224             Vendor Extensions for Service          January 2002


   Service types which are defined under a naming authority based on an
   Enterprise Number are guaranteed not to conflict with other service
   type strings which mean something entirely different.  That is also
   true of attributes defined for service types defined under a naming
   authority.

   To create a safe naming authority with no possibility of name
   collisions, a vendor SHOULD use their Enterprise Number as a naming
   authority.

4.0 Vendor Defined Attributes

   SLPv2 [1] suggests that

      Non-standard attribute names SHOULD begin with "x-", because no
      standard attribute name will ever have those initial characters.

   It is possible that two non-standard attributes will conflict that
   both use the "x-" prefix notation.  For that reason, vendors SHOULD
   use "x-" followed by their Enterprise Number followed by a "-" to
   guarantee that the non-standard attribute name's interpretation is
   not ambiguous.

   For example, Acme, Inc.'s Enterprise Number is 9999.  Say the Service
   Template for NetHive (a fictitious game) was:

     ------------------------------------------------------------
     template-type=NetHive

     template-version=1.0

     template-description=
       The popular NetHive game.

     template-url-syntax=
       url-path = ; There is no path for a NetHive service URL.

     features= string M O
     # The list of optional features the NetHive server supports.
     secure session, fast mode

     current-users= string M
     # The list of users currently playing
     ------------------------------------------------------------

   Acme's server advertises a feature which is not on the list of
   standard features, "x-9999-cheat-mode".  Only an Acme client would
   request this attribute to discover servers, since it is not standard.



Guttman                     Standards Track                     [Page 4]
^L
RFC 3224             Vendor Extensions for Service          January 2002


5.0 Vendor Opaque Extension

   SLPv2 [1] defines a protocol extensibility mechanism.  SLPv2
   Extensions are added at the end of a message and have the following
   format:

      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |         Extension ID          |       Next Extension Offset   |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | Offset, contd.|                Extension Data                 /
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The format of the Extension Data depends on the Extension ID.  Refer
   to [4] for a full description of different mechanisms available for
   registration of values with IANA.

   SLPv2 may be extended in any of three ways.

   (1)   Anyone may request the designated expert for SLP to register a
         new extension ID with IANA.  Send requests to the
         svrloc-list@iana.org.

         It is recommended that an internet draft specifying this
         extension be published, with the intention of publishing the
         document as an Informational RFC.  This way others can use the
         extension as well.  This is not a 'vendor extension' - rather
         this is the preferred way of extending the protocol in a vendor
         neutral manner.

         If no specification is published and the extension is intended
         for vendor specific use only - the 'Vendor Extension' option
         below probably makes more sense than assigning an extension ID.

   (2)   An experimental extension may be done using the range 0x8000 to
         0x8FFF.  There is always the risk, however, that another vendor
         will use the same ID, since these IDs are not registered.

   (3)   A Vendor Extension may be used.  This extension allows a Vendor
         to define their own extensions which are guaranteed to have a
         unique interpretation.  It is OPTIONAL to implement.









Guttman                     Standards Track                     [Page 5]
^L
RFC 3224             Vendor Extensions for Service          January 2002


5.1. Vendor Opaque Extension Format

      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |     Extension ID = 0x0003     |       Next Extension Offset   |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | Offset, contd.|               Enterprise Number               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | Ent. #, contd.|                Extension Data                 /
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Enterprise Number is included in the Extension as a 4 byte
   unsigned integer value.  The Extension Data following is guaranteed
   to have an unambiguous interpretation determined by the vendor.

5.2 Example: Acme Extension for UA Authentication

   The Acme Corporation, whose Enterprise Number is 9999, can define an
   extension to SLP.  In this example, Acme creates one such extension
   to create an application level access control to service information.
   This would allow replies to be sent only to clients who could
   authenticate themselves.

   The engineers at Acme give the Extension Data the following form:

      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |ACME Ext ID = 1|       Client ID  Length       |   Client ID ...
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                           Timestamp                           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                         Authenticator                        ...
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   ACME Ext ID:  The ACME engineers decided to define the first byte of
   their extension data as an extension ID field.  In the future, ACME
   may decide to define more than this extension.  Since there is 8 bits
   in the ID field, ACME can define up to 256 different extensions.  If
   ACME were to omit this field and begin directly with their 'Extension
   for UA Authentication', they would only be able to define one ACME
   specific SLP extension.  For the 'Extension for UA Authentication,'
   the ACME Extension ID is set to 1.  This ID has to be managed within
   ACME, to make sure that each new extension they invent has a unique
   ID assigned to it.





Guttman                     Standards Track                     [Page 6]
^L
RFC 3224             Vendor Extensions for Service          January 2002


   Client ID Length:  This declares how many bytes of Client ID data
   follow.

   Client ID: The Acme application user ID.

   Timestamp: # of seconds since January 1, 2000, 0:00 GMT.

   Authenticator: a 16 byte MD5 digest [6] calculated on the following
   data fields, concatenated together

      -  UA request bytes, including the header, but not any extensions.
      -  UA SECRET PASS PHRASE
      -  Acme UA Authentication Extension - Client ID
      -  Acme UA Authentication Extension - Timestamp

   The SA or DA which receives this extension and supports this
   extension will check if it (1) recognizes the Client ID, (2) has an
   associated SECRET PASS PHRASE for it, (3) whether upon calculating an
   MD5 digest over the same data as listed above it arrives at the same
   Authenticator value as included in the extension.  If all 3 of these
   steps succeed, the UA has been authenticated.

   Note this example is for explanatory purposes only.  It would not
   work well in practice.  It requires a shared secret be configured in
   SAs and DAs, for every UA.  Furthermore, the UA secret pass phrase
   would be susceptible to a dictionary attack.

6.0 Extensions Requiring IETF Action

   Modification or extension of any feature of SLPv2 whatsoever, aside
   from those listed in Sections 3-5 of this document, requires a
   standards action as defined in [1].

   Terminology and procedures for IETF Actions related to registration
   of IDs with IANA are defined in [5].  Existing SLPv2 extensions
   assignments are registered with IANA [3].

7.0 IANA Considerations

   This document clarifies procedures described in other documents [1]
   [4].  The Vendor Opaque Extension ID has already been registered [3].
   No additional IANA action is required for publication of this
   document.








Guttman                     Standards Track                     [Page 7]
^L
RFC 3224             Vendor Extensions for Service          January 2002


8.0 Security Considerations

   Vendor extensions may introduce additional security considerations
   into SLP.

   This memo describes mechanisms which are standardized elsewhere [1]
   [4].  The only protocol mechanism described in this document (see
   Section 5 above) is no less secure than 'private use' extensions
   defined in SLPv2 [1].

   The example in Section 5.2 above shows how Vendor Opaque Extensions
   can be used to include an access control mechanism to SLP so that SAs
   can enforce an access control policy using an authentication
   mechanism.  This is merely an example and protocol details were
   intentionally not provided.  A vendor could, however, create a
   mechanism similar to this one and provide additional security
   services to SLPv2 in the manner indicated in the example.

Acknowledgements

   I thank the IESG, for their usual persistence and attention to
   detail.

References

   [1]   Guttman, E., Perkins, C., Veizades, J. and M. Day, "Service
         Location Protocol, Version 2", RFC 2608, July 1999.

   [2]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
         Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [3]   http://www.iana.org/numbers.html

   [4]   Guttman, E., Perkins, C. and J. Kempf, "Service Templates and
         URLs", RFC 2609, July 1999.

   [5]   Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
         Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October
         1998.

   [6]   Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC 1321, April
         1992.









Guttman                     Standards Track                     [Page 8]
^L
RFC 3224             Vendor Extensions for Service          January 2002


Author's Address

   Erik Guttman
   Sun Microsystems
   Eichhoelzelstr. 7
   74915 Waibstadt
   Germany

   Phone:     +49 7263 911 701
   Messages:  +49 6221 356 202
   EMail:    erik.guttman@sun.com








































Guttman                     Standards Track                     [Page 9]
^L
RFC 3224             Vendor Extensions for Service          January 2002


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.



















Guttman                     Standards Track                    [Page 10]
^L