Network Working Group M. Tüxen Internet-Draft Münster Univ. of Appl. Sciences Intended status: Standards Track R. Jesup Expires: 9 June 2024 Mozilla H. Tschofenig 7 December 2023 Payload Protocol Identifier based Fragmentation and Reassembly for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol draft-tuexen-tsvwg-sctp-ppid-frag-00 Abstract This document describes a method for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) allowing the upper layer to perform fragmentation, reassembly, and interleaving of large ordered user messages by using the payload protocol identifier (PPID). According to the base specification supporting fragmentation of large user messages is optional. And even if an SCTP implementation supports fragmentation, interleaving of user messages is not supported by the base specification. 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 9 June 2024. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Tüxen, et al. Expires 9 June 2024 [Page 1] Internet-Draft PPID based Frag. and Reass. for SCTP December 2023 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 2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Sender Side Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Receiver Side Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. Socket API Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1. Introduction This document specifies a method to use PPIDs for fragmenting ordered large user messages. Using this method also allows the ability to interleave large user messages as provided by [RFC8260] in combination with using the SCTP_FRAGMENT_INTERLEAVE level_2 as described [RFC6458], Section 8.1.20. Reasons to use this method include: * The fragmentation of large user messages is only an optional feature of SCTP implementations compliant [RFC9260]. Therefore, if an implementation does not support fragmentation, it is impossible to send large user messages requiring fragmentation. * An SCTP implementation supporting [RFC9260], but not [RFC8260], does not allow the interleaving of large user messages. This method does not apply to user messages sent using partial reliability as described in [RFC3758]. The idea described in this document was already described in [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel]. In the final specification [RFC8831], this method is declared deprecated. Tüxen, et al. Expires 9 June 2024 [Page 2] Internet-Draft PPID based Frag. and Reass. for SCTP December 2023 2. Conventions 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. 3. Sender Side Considerations An upper layer splits a user message in one or more user message fragments. The upper layer SHOULD choose the size of the user message fragments such than SCTP level fragmentation is avoided. The upper layer uses two PPIDs. It MUST use one PPID for all user messages fragments except the last one, and it MUST the other PPID for the last user message fragments. All user message fragments belonging to the same user message MUST be sent on the same stream, reliable, and ordered in the sequence they belong to the user message. User message fragments sent on different stream MAY be sent in any order. This allows the interleaving of user messages sent on different streams. User messages not requiring to be split into multiple user message fragments are sent as a single user message fragment with the PPID used for last user fragments. 4. Receiver Side Considerations The upper layer MUST process user message fragments received on different streams independently. All user message fragments are received by the upper layer in the correct ordering and the PPID MUST be used to reconstruct the user message boundaries. A user message fragment with the PPID marking the last user message fragment is the last fragment of a use message. The next received user message fragment on the stream is the first fragment of the next user message. An upper layer MUST deal with interleaving of user messages. Please note that notifications, if enabled, can be provided by the SCTP implementation at any time. 5. Socket API Considerations This document does not require and changes or additions to the Socket API described in [RFC6458]. Tüxen, et al. Expires 9 June 2024 [Page 3] Internet-Draft PPID based Frag. and Reass. for SCTP December 2023 6. IANA Considerations This document does not make any requests for IANA. 7. Security Considerations This document does not change the considerations given in [RFC9260]. 8. References 8.1. 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, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [RFC9260] Stewart, R., Tüxen, M., and K. Nielsen, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 9260, DOI 10.17487/RFC9260, June 2022, . 8.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel] Jesup, R., Loreto, S., and M. Tüxen, "WebRTC Data Channels", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf- rtcweb-data-channel-06, 4 January 2015, . [RFC3758] Stewart, R., Ramalho, M., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., and P. Conrad, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Partial Reliability Extension", RFC 3758, DOI 10.17487/RFC3758, May 2004, . [RFC6458] Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., Poon, K., Lei, P., and V. Yasevich, "Sockets API Extensions for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)", RFC 6458, DOI 10.17487/RFC6458, December 2011, . Tüxen, et al. Expires 9 June 2024 [Page 4] Internet-Draft PPID based Frag. and Reass. for SCTP December 2023 [RFC8260] Stewart, R., Tuexen, M., Loreto, S., and R. Seggelmann, "Stream Schedulers and User Message Interleaving for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 8260, DOI 10.17487/RFC8260, November 2017, . [RFC8831] Jesup, R., Loreto, S., and M. Tüxen, "WebRTC Data Channels", RFC 8831, DOI 10.17487/RFC8831, January 2021, . Authors' Addresses Michael Tüxen Münster University of Applied Sciences Stegerwaldstrasse 39 48565 Steinfurt Germany Email: tuexen@fh-muenster.de Randell Jesup Mozilla Corporation 1835 Horse Shoe Trl Malvern, PA 19355 United States of America Email: randell-ietf@jesup.org Hannes Tschofenig Email: hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net Tüxen, et al. Expires 9 June 2024 [Page 5]