One document matched: draft-stewart-tsvwg-sctpscore-02.txt

Differences from draft-stewart-tsvwg-sctpscore-01.txt

Network Working Group                                         R. Stewart
Internet-Draft                                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: January 14, 2005                                      M. Tuexen
                                      Univ. of Applied Sciences Muenster
                                                           July 16, 2004



      Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Bakeoff Scoring
                  draft-stewart-tsvwg-sctpscore-02.txt


Status of this Memo


   This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
   of section 3 of RFC 3667.  By submitting this Internet-Draft, each
   author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of
   which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of
   which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
   RFC 3668.


   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 January 14, 2005.


Copyright Notice


   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  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 January 14, 2005                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft              Bakeoff Scoring                    July 2004



Table of Contents


   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Base protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.1   Basic Communication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.2   Beyond Basic Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Protocol Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1   Partial reliable SCTP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2   AddIP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.3   PktDrpRep  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  Bonus Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   5.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . .  8






































Stewart & Tuexen        Expires January 14, 2005                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft              Bakeoff Scoring                    July 2004



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 [8]


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.
      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:





Stewart & Tuexen        Expires January 14, 2005                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft              Bakeoff Scoring                    July 2004



   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.
      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).





Stewart & Tuexen        Expires January 14, 2005                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft              Bakeoff Scoring                    July 2004



      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 for 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.
      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.
      5 points for handling excessive packet duplication during
      association setup.
      5 points for handling excessive packet duplication during DATA
      transfer.


3.  Protocol Extensions


3.1  Partial reliable SCTP


   This extension is described in PRSCTP [6].
      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.





Stewart & Tuexen        Expires January 14, 2005                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft              Bakeoff Scoring                    July 2004



3.3  PktDrpRep


   This extension is currently being described in PKTDRPREP [9].
      10 points for handling a packet drop report.
      10 points sending a notification due to checksum errors.


4.  Bonus Points


   You can also Bonus Points (directly from RFC1025 [1] with one added
   item :>)
      10 points for the best excuse.
      20 points for the fewest excuses.
      20 points for the fastest transfer of 1000000 DATA chunks of 100
      Byte length between two implementations.  (not from RFC1025)
      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.
   Please note that except for that last item the whole period of the
   bakeoff is relevant.


5  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., Ramalho, M., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M. and P. Conrad,
        "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Partial Reliability
        Extension", RFC 3758, May 2004.


   [7]  Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
        Dynamic Address  Reconfiguration",
        draft-ietf-tsvwg-addip-sctp-09 (work in progress), June 2004.





Stewart & Tuexen        Expires January 14, 2005                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft              Bakeoff Scoring                    July 2004



   [8]  Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
        Implementors Guide", draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpimpguide-10 (work in
        progress), December 2003.


   [9]  Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Packet
        Drop Reporting", draft-stewart-sctp-pktdrprep-01 (work in
        progress), June 2004.



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 January 14, 2005                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft              Bakeoff Scoring                    July 2004



Intellectual Property Statement


   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights 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; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.


   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat 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 implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.


   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.



Disclaimer of Validity


   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.



Copyright Statement


   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.



Acknowledgment


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





Stewart & Tuexen        Expires January 14, 2005                [Page 8]