One document matched: draft-stewart-tsvwg-sctpscore-01.txt
Differences from draft-stewart-tsvwg-sctpscore-00.txt
Network Working Group R. Stewart
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: November 30, 2003 M. Tuexen
Univ. of Applied Sciences Muenster
June 2003
Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Bakeoff Scoring
draft-stewart-tsvwg-sctpscore-01.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 30, 2003.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This memo describes some of the scoring to be used in the testing of
Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) at upcoming bakeoffs.
Stewart & Tuexen Expires November 30, 2003 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Bakeoff Scoring June 2003
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Base protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1 Basic Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 Beyond Basic Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1 Partial reliable SCTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2 AddIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Bonus Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 9
Stewart & Tuexen Expires November 30, 2003 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Bakeoff Scoring June 2003
1. Introduction
This document will be used as a basis for point scoring at upcoming
SCTP bakeoffs. Its purpose is similar to that described in RFC1025.
It is hoped that a clear definition of where and how to score points
will further the development of SCTP RFC2960 [4].
Note that while attending a bakeoff no one else will score your
points for you. We trust that all implementations will faithfully
record their points that are received honestly. Note also that these
scores are NOT to be used for marketing purposes. They are for the
use of the implementations to know how well they are doing. The only
reporting that will be done is a basic summary to the Transport Area
Working Group but please note that NO company or implementation names
will be attached.
Note Bene: Checksums must be enforced. No points will be awarded if
the checksum test is disabled.
2. Base protocol
The base protocol is described in the follwing documents:
RFC2960 [4]
RFC3309 [5]
IMPLGUIDE [6]
SCTPIPV4 [9]
SCTPIPV6 [10]
2.1 Basic Communication
These points will be scored for EACH peer implementation that you
successfully communicate with.
2 points for being the sender of the INIT chunk and completing
setup of an association.
2 points for being the sender of the INIT-ACK chunk and completing
setup of an association.
1 point for sending data on the association where you sent the
INIT.
Stewart & Tuexen Expires November 30, 2003 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Bakeoff Scoring June 2003
1 point for sending data on the association where you sent the
INIT-ACK.
2 points for gracefully ending the conversation by being the
sender of the SHUTDOWN.
2 points for gracefully ending the conversation by being the
sender of the SHUTDOWN-ACK.
4 points for repeating the above without reinitializing the SCTP.
In order to receive all of the above points (14) an implementation
will need to:
o send a INIT chunk and setup an association.
o send a data chunk on that association.
o receive a data chunk on that association.
o send a SHUTDOWN chunk and bring the association to a close.
o receive a INIT-ACK and setup a new association (after the previous
one is closed).
o send a data chunk on that association.
o receive a data chunk on that association.
o receive a SHUTDOWN chunk and send a SHUTDOWN-ACK and close the
association.
o without restarting repeat these steps once.
You can get 5 extra points if you do not include any address
parameter in the INIT-/INIT-ACK chunk in case you are using ony one
of your addresses.
2.2 Beyond Basic Communication
10 points for bring up multiple associations at the same time to
different implementations. The implementation must send and
receive data on both associations simultaneously.
15 points for correctly handling ECN.
10 points for correctly handling both Transmission Sequence Number
(TSN) and Stream Sequence Number (SSN) wrap around.
Stewart & Tuexen Expires November 30, 2003 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Bakeoff Scoring June 2003
5 points for correctly being able to process a "Kamikaze" packet
(AKA nastygram, christmas tree packet, lamp test segment, et al.).
That is, correctly handle a segment with the maximum combination
of features at once (e.g., a COOKIE-ECHO, SACK, ASCONF,
UNKNOWN-CHUNK, SHUTDOWN).
5 additional points if the response to the "Kamikaze" packet is
bundled.
10 additional points if the implementation supports ECN and thus
the "Kamikaze" packet is expanded to include COOKIE-ECHO, SACK,
ECN, ASCONF, UNKNOWN-CHUNK, SHUTDOWN.
30 points for KOing your opponent with legal blows. (That is,
operate a connection until one SCTP or the other crashes, the
surviving SCTP has KOed the other. Legal blows are chunks that
meet the requirements of the specification.)
20 points for KOing your opponent with dirty blows. (Dirty blows
are packets or chunks that violate the requirements of the
specification.)
10 points for showing your opponents checksum is disabled or using
the old checksum aka Adler-32 RFC3309 [5].
10 points for showing you can fast-retransmit.
10 points for showing your t3-timer retransmits to an alternate
destination (aka uses the multi-homed facility during
retransmission).
10 points for properly demonstrating the partial delivery API.
10 points for demonstrating recognition and proper handling of
restart.
10 points for correctly handling INIT collision.
10 points for correctly handling the STALE COOKIE case (sending of
the error chunk).
10 points an automatic resend of the INIT in case of a STALE
COOKIE with an appropiate COOKIE-PRESERVATIVE parameter such that
the association gets established.
10 points for doing bulk transfer for over 10 Minutes at a high
constant rate.
Stewart & Tuexen Expires November 30, 2003 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Bakeoff Scoring June 2003
5 points for handling the restart with a data transfer after that.
10 points for proving that your opponent accepts additional
addresses during the restart compared to the original association.
2 points for the correct handling of an unknown chunk with high
order bits 00, 01, 10, and 11. 2 additional points (10 in total)
for handling all four cases correctly.
2 points for the correct handling of an unknown parameter with
high order bits 00, 01, 10, and 11. 2 additional points (10 in
total) for handling all four cases correctly.
3. Protocol Extensions
3.1 Partial reliable SCTP
This extension is currently being described in PRSCTP [8]
10 points for sending a FWD-TSN to skip a "timed-out" data chunk.
10 points for correctly adopting the new cumulative-ack point
indicated by a FWD-TSN.
10 points for freeing data chunks to the application that were
held awaiting the FWD-TSN.
10 points for properly handling the partial-delivery API where the
last part of a message already being delivered is subjected to a
FWD-TSN.
3.2 AddIP
This extension is currently being described in ADDIP [7].
10 points for adding an IP address to an existing association.
10 points for deleting an IP address from an existing association.
10 points for requesting that your peer set a primary address.
10 points for showing that you honored the request to set a
primary address and thus adopted a new primary address.
10 points for showing that your opponent does not do the address
scoping as described in SCTPIPV4 [9] and SCTPIPV6 [10] correctly.
Stewart & Tuexen Expires November 30, 2003 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Bakeoff Scoring June 2003
4. Bonus Points
You can also Bonus Points (directly from RFC1025 [1] :>)
10 points for the best excuse.
20 points for the fewest excuses.
30 points for the longest conversation.
40 points for the most simultaneous connections.
50 points for the most simultaneous connections with distinct
SCTPs.
50 points for hijacking an existing association between other
participants.
References
[1] Postel, J., "TCP and IP bake off", RFC 1025, September 1987.
[2] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3",
BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[4] Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Morneault, K., Sharp, C., Schwarzbauer,
H., Taylor, T., Rytina, I., Kalla, M., Zhang, L. and V. Paxson,
"Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 2960, October 2000.
[5] Stone, J., Stewart, R. and D. Otis, "Stream Control
Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Checksum Change", RFC 3309,
September 2002.
[6] Stewart, R., Ong, L., Arias-Rodriguez, I., Poon, K., Conrad,
P., Caro, A. and M. Tuexen, "Stream Control Transmission
Protocol (SCTP) Implementer's Guide",
draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpimpguide-08 (work in progress), March
2003.
[7] Stewart, R., Ramalho, M., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., Rytina, I.,
Belinchon, M. and P. Conrad, "Stream Control Transmission
Protocol (SCTP) Dynamic Address Reconfiguration",
draft-ietf-tsvwg-addip-sctp-07 (work in progress), February
2003.
Stewart & Tuexen Expires November 30, 2003 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Bakeoff Scoring June 2003
[8] Stewart, R., Ramalho, M., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M. and P. Conrad,
"SCTP Partial Reliability Extension",
draft-stewart-tsvwg-prsctp-03 (work in progress), March 2003.
[9] Stewart, R. and M. Tuexen, "IPv4 Address handling for SCTP",
draft-stewart-tsvwg-sctpipv4-00 (work in progress), May 2002.
[10] Stewart, R. and S. Tuexen, "IPv6 addressing and Stream Control
Transmission Protocol", Internet-Draft
ddraft-stewart-tsvwg-sctpipv6-01, April 2002.
Authors' Addresses
Randall R. Stewart
Cisco Systems, Inc.
8725 West Higgins Road
Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60631
USA
Phone: +1-815-477-2127
EMail: rrs@cisco.com
Michael Tuexen
Univ. of Applied Sciences Muenster
Stegerwaldstr. 39
48565 Steinfurt
Germany
EMail: tuexen@fh-muenster.de
Stewart & Tuexen Expires November 30, 2003 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Bakeoff Scoring June 2003
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). 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 assignees.
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
Stewart & Tuexen Expires November 30, 2003 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Bakeoff Scoring June 2003
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.
Stewart & Tuexen Expires November 30, 2003 [Page 10]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-22 23:25:53 |