1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
|
Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) M. Blanchet
Request for Comments: 6255 Viagenie
Category: Informational May 2011
ISSN: 2070-1721
Delay-Tolerant Networking Bundle Protocol IANA Registries
Abstract
The Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN) Research Group research group has
defined many protocols such as the Bundle Protocol and Licklider
Transmission Protocol. The specifications of these protocols contain
fields that are subject to a registry. For the purpose of its
research work, the group created ad hoc registries. As the
specifications are stable and have multiple interoperable
implementations, the group would like to hand off the registries to
IANA for official custody. This document describes the actions
executed by IANA.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Research Task Force
(IRTF). The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-related research
and development activities. These results might not be suitable for
deployment. This RFC represents the consensus of the Delay-Tolerant
Network Research Group of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF).
Documents approved for publication by the IRSG are not a candidate
for any level of Internet Standard; see 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/rfc6255.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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.
Blanchet Informational [Page 1]
^L
RFC 6255 DTN IANA Registries May 2011
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Treatment of Flag Fields Encoded Using SDNVs ....................2
3. Bundle Protocol .................................................3
3.1. Bundle Block Types .........................................3
3.2. Primary Bundle Protocol Version ............................3
3.3. Bundle Processing Control Flags ............................4
3.4. Block Processing Control Flags .............................5
3.5. Bundle Status Report Flags .................................6
3.6. Bundle Status Report Reason Codes ..........................7
3.7. Bundle Custody Signal Reason Codes .........................7
4. Security Considerations .........................................8
5. IANA Considerations .............................................8
6. Acknowledgements ................................................8
7. References ......................................................9
7.1. Normative References .......................................9
7.2. Informative References .....................................9
1. Introduction
The DTNRG research group has defined many protocols relevant to the
DTN architecture [RFC4838] such as the Bundle Protocol [RFC5050] and
Licklider Transmission Protocol [RFC5326]. The specifications of
these protocols contain fields that are subject to a registry. For
the purpose of its research work, the group created ad hoc registries
(http://www.dtnrg.org/wiki/AssignedNamesAndNumbers). As the
specifications are stable and have multiple interoperable
implementations, the group would like to hand off the registries to
IANA for official custody. This document describes the actions
executed by IANA.
2. Treatment of Flag Fields Encoded Using SDNVs
The DTN protocols use several extensible bit flag fields that are
encoded as Self-Delimiting Numeric Values (SDNVs) as defined in
Section 4.1 of [RFC5050]. For these fields, the registry specifies
the allocation and usage of bit positions within the unencoded field.
The SDNV encoding treats the ensemble of bits in the unencoded value
as a numeric value to be encoded on transmission and decoded on
reception as described in [RFC5050].
Processing of SDNV-encoded flags is discussed in [RFC6256].
Section 4.1 of [RFC5050] specifies that implementations are not
required to handle SDNVs with more than 64 bits in their unencoded
value. Accordingly, SDNV-encoded flag fields should be limited to 64
bit positions.
Blanchet Informational [Page 2]
^L
RFC 6255 DTN IANA Registries May 2011
IANA registry policies and wording used in this document are
described in [RFC5226].
3. Bundle Protocol
The Bundle Protocol (BP) [RFC5050] has fields requiring a registry
managed by IANA.
3.1. Bundle Block Types
The Bundle Protocol has a Bundle Block Type code field (Section
4.5.2) [RFC5050]. An IANA registry has been set up as follows.
The registration policy for this registry is:
0-191: Specification Required
192-255: Private or experimental use. No assignment by IANA.
The Value range is: unsigned 8-bit integer.
Bundle Block Type Registry
+--------------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+--------------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| 0 | Reserved | This document |
| 1 | Bundle Payload Block | [RFC5050] |
| 2-191 | Unassigned | |
| 192-255 | Private and/or Experimental Use | [RFC5050] |
+--------------+---------------------------------+---------------+
The value "0" was not defined in any document or in the ad hoc
registry. As per consensus by the DTNRG research group, it is
reserved per this document.
3.2. Primary Bundle Protocol Version
The Bundle Protocol has a version field (see Section 4.5.1 of
[RFC5050]). An IANA registry has been set up as follows.
The registration policy for this registry is: RFC Required
The Value range is: unsigned 8-bit integer.
Blanchet Informational [Page 3]
^L
RFC 6255 DTN IANA Registries May 2011
Primary Bundle Protocol Version Registry
+-------+-------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+-------------+---------------+
| 0-5 | Reserved | This document |
| 6 | Assigned | [RFC5050] |
| 7-255 | Unassigned | |
+-------+-------------+---------------+
The value "0-5" was not defined in any document or in the ad hoc
registry. As per consensus by the DTNRG research group, it is
reserved per this document.
3.3. Bundle Processing Control Flags
The Bundle Protocol has a Bundle Processing Control Flags field (see
Section 4.2 of [RFC5050]) encoded as an SDNV (see Section 2). An
IANA registry has been set up as follows.
The registration policy for this registry is: Specification Required
The Value range is: Variable length. Maximum number of flag bit
positions: 64
Blanchet Informational [Page 4]
^L
RFC 6255 DTN IANA Registries May 2011
Bundle Processing Control Flags Registry
+--------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+
| Bit Position | Description | Reference |
| (right to left) | | |
+--------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+
| 0 | Bundle is a fragment | [RFC5050] |
| 1 | Application data unit is an | [RFC5050] |
| | administrative record | |
| 2 | Bundle must not be fragmented | [RFC5050] |
| 3 | Custody transfer is requested | [RFC5050] |
| 4 | Destination endpoint is a | [RFC5050] |
| | singleton | |
| 5 | Acknowledgement by application | [RFC5050] |
| | is requested | |
| 6 | Reserved | [RFC5050] |
| 7-8 | Class of service: priority | [RFC5050] |
| 9-13 | Class of service: reserved | [RFC5050] |
| 14 | Request reporting of bundle | [RFC5050] |
| | reception | |
| 15 | Request reporting of custody | [RFC5050] |
| | acceptance | |
| 16 | Request reporting of bundle | [RFC5050] |
| | forwarding | |
| 17 | Request reporting of bundle | [RFC5050] |
| | delivery | |
| 18 | Request reporting of bundle | [RFC5050] |
| | deletion | |
| 19 | Reserved | [RFC5050] |
| 20 | Reserved | [RFC5050] |
| 21-63 | Unassigned | |
+--------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+
3.4. Block Processing Control Flags
The Bundle Protocol has a Block Processing Control Flags field (see
Section 4.3 of [RFC5050]). An IANA registry has been set up as
follows.
The registration policy for this registry is: Specification Required
The Value range is: Variable length. Maximum number of flag bit
positions: 64
Blanchet Informational [Page 5]
^L
RFC 6255 DTN IANA Registries May 2011
Block Processing Control Flags Registry
+--------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+
| Bit Position | Description | Reference |
| (right to left) | | |
+--------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+
| 0 | Block must be replicated in | [RFC5050] |
| | every fragment | |
| 1 | Transmit status report if block | [RFC5050] |
| | can't be processed | |
| 2 | Delete bundle if block can't be | [RFC5050] |
| | processed | |
| 3 | Last block | [RFC5050] |
| 4 | Discard block if it can't be | [RFC5050] |
| | processed | |
| 5 | Block was forwarded without | [RFC5050] |
| | being processed | |
| 6 | Block contains an EID-reference | [RFC5050] |
| | field | |
| 7-63 | Unassigned | |
+--------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+
3.5. Bundle Status Report Flags
The Bundle Protocol has a Status Report Status Flag field (see
Section 6.1.1 of [RFC5050]). An IANA registry has been set up as
follows.
The registration policy for this registry is: RFC Required
The Value range is: 8 bits.
Bundle Status Report Flags Registry
+----------+----------------------------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+----------+----------------------------------------+---------------+
| 00000000 | Reserved | This document |
| 00000001 | Reporting node received bundle | [RFC5050] |
| 00000010 | Reporting node accepted custody of | [RFC5050] |
| | bundle | |
| 00000100 | Reporting node forwarded the bundle | [RFC5050] |
| 00001000 | Reporting node delivered the bundle | [RFC5050] |
| 00010000 | Reporting node deleted the bundle | [RFC5050] |
| 00100000 | Unassigned | |
| 01000000 | Unassigned | |
| 10000000 | Unassigned | |
+----------+----------------------------------------+---------------+
Blanchet Informational [Page 6]
^L
RFC 6255 DTN IANA Registries May 2011
The value "00000000" was not defined in any document or in the ad hoc
registry. As per consensus by the DTNRG research group, it is
reserved per this document.
3.6. Bundle Status Report Reason Codes
The Bundle Protocol has a Bundle Status Report Reason Codes field
(see Section 6.1.1 of [RFC5050]). An IANA registry has been set up
as follows.
The registration policy for this registry is: Specification Required
The Value range is: unsigned 8-bit integer.
Bundle Status Report Reason Codes Registry
+-------+-------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+-------------------------------------------+---------------+
| 0 | No additional information | [RFC5050] |
| 1 | Lifetime expired | [RFC5050] |
| 2 | Forwarded over unidirectional link | [RFC5050] |
| 3 | Transmission canceled | [RFC5050] |
| 4 | Depleted storage | [RFC5050] |
| 5 | Destination endpoint ID unintelligible | [RFC5050] |
| 6 | No known route to destination from here | [RFC5050] |
| 7 | No timely contact with next node on route | [RFC5050] |
| 8 | Block unintelligible | [RFC5050] |
| 9-254 | Unassigned | |
| 255 | Reserved | This document |
+-------+-------------------------------------------+---------------+
The value "255" was not defined in any document or in the ad hoc
registry. As per consensus by the DTNRG research group, it is
reserved per this document.
3.7. Bundle Custody Signal Reason Codes
The Bundle Protocol has a Bundle Custody Signal Reason Codes field
(see Section 6.1.2 of [RFC5050]). An IANA registry has been set up
as follows.
The registration policy for this registry is: Specification Required
The Value range is: unsigned 7-bit integer.
Blanchet Informational [Page 7]
^L
RFC 6255 DTN IANA Registries May 2011
Bundle Custody Signal Reason Codes Registry
+--------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+--------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| 0 | No additional information | [RFC5050] |
| 1-2 | Unassigned | |
| 3 | Redundant reception (reception by a | [RFC5050] |
| | node that is a custodial node for | |
| | this bundle) | |
| 4 | Depleted storage | [RFC5050] |
| 5 | Destination endpoint ID | [RFC5050] |
| | unintelligible | |
| 6 | No known route to destination from | [RFC5050] |
| | here | |
| 7 | No timely contact with next node on | [RFC5050] |
| | route | |
| 8 | Block unintelligible | [RFC5050] |
| 9-126 | Unassigned | |
| 127 | Reserved | This |
| | | document |
+--------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
The value "127" was not defined in any document or in the ad hoc
registry. As per consensus by the DTNRG research group, it is
reserved per this document.
4. Security Considerations
This document requests the creation of registries managed by IANA.
There are no security issues involved. Refer to the Security
Considerations section of the referenced protocols.
5. IANA Considerations
IANA has created the registries as described in the previous
sections.
6. Acknowledgements
The editor would like to thank the following people who have provided
comments and suggestions to this document, in no specific order:
Stephen Farrell, Daniel Ellard, Scott Burleigh, Keith Scott, and
Elwyn Davies.
Blanchet Informational [Page 8]
^L
RFC 6255 DTN IANA Registries May 2011
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC5050] Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, "Bundle Protocol
Specification", RFC 5050, November 2007.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC4838] Cerf, V., Burleigh, S., Hooke, A., Torgerson, L., Durst,
R., Scott, K., Fall, K., and H. Weiss, "Delay-Tolerant
Networking Architecture", RFC 4838, April 2007.
[RFC5326] Ramadas, M., Burleigh, S., and S. Farrell, "Licklider
Transmission Protocol - Specification", RFC 5326,
September 2008.
[RFC6256] Eddy, W. and E. Davies, "Using Self-Delimiting Numeric
Values in Protocols", RFC 6256, May 2011.
Author's Address
Marc Blanchet
Viagenie
2875 boul. Laurier, suite D2-630
Quebec, QC G1V 2M2
Canada
EMail: Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.ca
URI: http://viagenie.ca
Blanchet Informational [Page 9]
^L
|
