Internet-Draft BPv7 Admin IANA October 2024
Sipos Expires 6 April 2025 [Page]
Workgroup:
Delay-Tolerant Networking
Internet-Draft:
draft-ietf-dtn-bpv7-admin-iana-04
Updates:
9171 (if approved)
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Author:
B. Sipos
JHU/APL

Bundle Protocol Version 7 Administrative Record Types Registry

Abstract

This document updates RFC 9171 to clarify that a Bundle Protocol Version 7 agent is intended to use an IANA registry for Administrative Record types. It also makes a code point reservations for private and experimental use.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on 6 April 2025.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

The earlier Bundle Protocol (BP) Version 6 (BPv6) defined an IANA registry for Administrative Record type code points under [IANA-BP]. When Bundle Protocol Version 7 (BPv7) was published in [RFC9171] it identified the IANA registry for Administrative Record types but did not update the table to be explicit about which entries applied to which Bundle Protocol version(s). The BPv7 specification also did not discriminate between code point reservations and unassigned ranges for Administrative Record types.

This document updates BPv7 to explicitly use the IANA Administrative Record type registry in Section 2. This document makes a reservation of the zero value for consistency with BPv6. This document also makes a reservation of high-valued code points for private use and experimental use in accordance with [RFC8126] to avoid collisions with assigned code points.

1.1. Scope

This document describes updates to the IANA Administrative Record type registry and how a BPv7 agent is supposed to use that registry for identifying Administrative Record types.

This document does not specify how BPv6 and BPv7 can interoperate for overlapping code points or how a specific code point is to be interpreted either similarly or differently between Bundle Protocol versions. It is up to each individual Administrative Record type specification to define how it relates to each BP version.

1.2. 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.

2. Administrative Record Types Registry

This document updates the requirements in Section 6.1 of [RFC9171] to use an existing IANA registry and updates that registry in Section 4.1.

The code point allocated in Annex D of [CCSDS-BP] was never added to the IANA registry. To avoid a collision, this document adds that allocation to the registry.

Instead of using the list of types in Section 6.1 of [RFC9171], a BPv7 administrative element SHALL interpret administrative record type code values in accordance with the IANA "Bundle Administrative Record Types" registry under [IANA-BP] for entries having a "Bundle Protocol Version" of 7.

If an administrative element receives a not-well-formed application data unit (ADU) or an administrative record type code which is not able to be processed by the element, the record SHALL be ignored by the element. The processing of a received administrative record ADU does not affect the fact that the bundle itself was delivered to the administrative element or any related BPA processing of (e.g. status reports on) the enveloping bundle.

3. Security Considerations

This document does not define any requirements or structures which introduce new security considerations.

The existing security considerations of [RFC9171] still apply when using the IANA Administrative Record Types registry.

4. IANA Considerations

This specification modifies a BPv6 registry to extend BPv7.

4.1. Bundle Administrative Record Types

Within the "Bundle Protocol" registry group [IANA-BP], the "Bundle Administrative Record Types" registry has been updated to include a leftmost "Bundle Protocol Version" column. New entries have been added and existing entries have been updated to have BP versions as in the following table. This document makes no changes to the registration procedures for this registry.

Table 1: Bundle Administrative Record Types
Bundle Protocol Version Value Description Reference
6,7 0 Reserved [RFC7116] [This specification]
6,7 1 Bundle status report [RFC5050] [RFC9171]
6 2 Custody signal [RFC5050]
6,7 3 Unassigned
6 4 Aggregate Custody Signal [CCSDS-BP]
6,7 5 to 15 Unassigned
7 16 to 64383 Unassigned
7 64384 to 64511 Reserved for experimental use [This specification]
7 64512 to 65535 Reserved for private use [This specification]

5. References

5.1. Normative References

[IANA-BP]
IANA, "Bundle Protocol", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/bundle/>.
[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC9171]
Burleigh, S., Fall, K., and E. Birrane, III, "Bundle Protocol Version 7", RFC 9171, DOI 10.17487/RFC9171, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9171>.

5.2. Informative References

[CCSDS-BP]
Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems, "CCSDS Bundle Protocol Specification", CCSDS 734.2-B-1, , <https://public.ccsds.org/Pubs/734x2b1.pdf>.
[RFC5050]
Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, "Bundle Protocol Specification", RFC 5050, DOI 10.17487/RFC5050, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5050>.
[RFC7116]
Scott, K. and M. Blanchet, "Licklider Transmission Protocol (LTP), Compressed Bundle Header Encoding (CBHE), and Bundle Protocol IANA Registries", RFC 7116, DOI 10.17487/RFC7116, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7116>.
[RFC8126]
Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

Acknowledgments

Author's Address

Brian Sipos
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
11100 Johns Hopkins Rd.
Laurel, MD 20723
United States of America