Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)                          S. Burleigh
Request for Comments: 6260                    Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
Category: Experimental                California Institute of Technology
ISSN: 2070-1721                                               May 2011


               Compressed Bundle Header Encoding (CBHE)

Abstract

  This document describes a convention by which Delay-Tolerant
  Networking (DTN) Bundle Protocol (BP) "convergence-layer" adapters
  may represent endpoint identifiers in a compressed form within the
  primary blocks of bundles, provided those endpoint identifiers
  conform to the structure prescribed by this convention.

  Compressed Bundle Header Encoding (CBHE) compression is a
  convergence-layer adaptation.  It is opaque to bundle processing.
  Therefore, it has no impact on the interoperability of different
  Bundle Protocol implementations, but instead affects only the
  interoperability of different convergence-layer adaptation
  implementations.

  This document is a product of the Delay-Tolerant Networking Research
  Group and has been reviewed by that group.  No objections to its
  publication as an RFC were raised.

Status of This Memo

  This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
  published for examination, experimental implementation, and
  evaluation.

  This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
  community.  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 Networking 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/rfc6260.





Burleigh                      Experimental                      [Page 1]

RFC 6260                          CBHE                          May 2011


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.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction ....................................................2
     1.1. Requirements Language ......................................3
  2. Compression Convention ..........................................3
     2.1. Constraints ................................................3
     2.2. Method .....................................................6
  3. Specification ...................................................7
     3.1. Transmission ...............................................7
     3.2. Reception ..................................................7
  4. IANA Considerations .............................................8
  5. Security Considerations ........................................10
  6. References .....................................................11
     6.1. Normative References ......................................11
     6.2. Informative References ....................................11
  Appendix A. Acknowledgments .......................................12

1.  Introduction

  This document describes a convention by which Delay-Tolerant
  Networking (DTN) Bundle Protocol (BP) [RFC5050] "convergence-layer"
  adapters may represent endpoint identifiers (EIDs) in a compressed
  form within the primary blocks of bundles, provided those endpoint
  identifiers conform to the structure prescribed by this convention.

  Each DTN bundle's primary block contains the following four BP
  endpoint identifiers, of which any two, any three, or even all four
  may be lexically identical: the endpoint identifiers of the bundle's
  source, destination, report-to endpoint, and current custodian.  Each
  EID is a Uniform Record Identifier (URI) as defined by [RFC3986].
  More specifically, each BP EID is a URI consisting of a "scheme name"
  followed by ":", followed by a sequence of characters --
  historically, termed the "scheme-specific part" (SSP) in DTN
  specifications -- conforming to URI syntax as defined by RFC 3986.





Burleigh                      Experimental                      [Page 2]

RFC 6260                          CBHE                          May 2011


  A degree of block compression is provided by the design of the
  primary block: the scheme names and scheme-specific parts of the four
  endpoints' IDs -- up to eight NULL-terminated strings -- are
  concatenated at the end of the block in a variable-length character
  array called a "dictionary", enabling each EID to be represented by a
  pair of integers indicating the offsets (within the dictionary) of
  the EID's scheme name and scheme-specific part.  Duplicate strings
  may be omitted from the dictionary, so the actual number of
  concatenated NULL-terminated strings in the dictionary may be less
  than eight, and two or more of the scheme name or scheme-specific
  part offsets in the block may have the same value.  Moreover, the
  eight offsets in the primary block are encoded as Self-Delimiting
  Numeric Values (SDNVs), which shrink to fit the encoded values; when
  the total length of the dictionary is less than 127 bytes, all eight
  offsets can be encoded into just eight bytes.

  However, these strategems do not prevent the scheme names and
  especially the scheme-specific parts themselves from being lengthy
  strings of ASCII text.  It is therefore still possible for the length
  of a bundle's primary header to be a very large fraction of the total
  length of the bundle when the bundle's payload is relatively small,
  as is anticipated for a number of DTN applications such as space
  flight operations (and as is in any case true of bundles carrying BP
  administrative records).

  The Compressed Bundle Header Encoding (CBHE) convention was developed
  to improve DTN transmission efficiency for such applications by
  further reducing the number of bytes used by convergence-layer
  adapters to represent EIDs in the primary blocks of bundles.

1.1.  Requirements Language

  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
  "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
  document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2.  Compression Convention

2.1.  Constraints

  The only valid scheme name for BP EIDs identified to date is "dtn".
  Although no specification of valid SSP syntax for URIs composed
  within the "dtn" scheme has yet been formally defined, the syntax on
  which rough agreement has been reached in practice is unsuitable for
  CBHE's compression procedures.  For the purposes of CBHE, then, this
  document defines an additional URI scheme named "ipn".  As noted in
  Section 4, IANA has registered this new URI scheme.




Burleigh                      Experimental                      [Page 3]

RFC 6260                          CBHE                          May 2011


  Compressed Bundle Header Encoding (CBHE) is possible only when all
  endpoint IDs in the primary block of a given bundle are "CBHE
  conformant".  The following two forms of endpoint ID are CBHE
  conformant: (a) the null endpoint ID "dtn:none" and (b) any endpoint
  ID formed within the "ipn" scheme.

  The SSP of every URI formed within the "ipn" scheme must comprise:

  1.  A sequence of ASCII numeric digits representing an integer in the
      range 1 to (2^64 - 1), termed the "node number" of the URI.

  2.  An ASCII period ('.') character.

  3.  A sequence of ASCII numeric digits representing an integer in the
      range 0 to (2^64 - 1), termed the "service number" of the URI.

  The node number notionally identifies a BP node.  However, since CBHE
  is not used universally in Delay-Tolerant Networking, it must not be
  assumed that all BP nodes are identified by node numbers.

  Negative integers and integers larger than (2^64 - 1) cannot be used
  as node numbers because they cannot be encoded into the SDNVs that
  are used for representation of scheme name and SSP offsets in the
  primary blocks of bundles and therefore could not be compressed as
  described later in this specification.  Node number zero is reserved
  for representation of the null endpoint ID in the compressed form
  described later; decompressing a compressed null EID must always
  yield the standard null endpoint ID URI "dtn:none".

  The service number notionally functions as a de-multiplexing token.
  When the bundle payload is a protocol data unit of some protocol that
  has its own de-multiplexing identifiers, the service number may
  function in a manner similar to that of the protocol number in an IP
  packet, characterizing the encapsulated protocol; alternatively, the
  service number may function in a manner similar to that of the port
  number in a UDP datagram.  Service numbers enable inbound bundles'
  application data units to be de-multiplexed to instances of
  application functionality that are designed to process them, so that
  effective communication relationships can be developed between bundle
  producers and consumers.

  A service number must not be negative or exceed (2^64 - 1) for the
  same reason that a node number must not do so.

  For example, "ipn:9.37" would be a CBHE-conformant endpoint ID.






Burleigh                      Experimental                      [Page 4]

RFC 6260                          CBHE                          May 2011


  Conversion of a CBHE-conformant EID to and from a tuple of two
  integers is therefore straightforward: all characters in the EID
  other than the node number and service number are constant (as
  defined by the "ipn" scheme definition), and the node number and
  service number are taken as the two integers of the tuple.  This ease
  of conversion enables an array of pairs of integers to serve the same
  function as a dictionary of ASCII string EIDs.

  Note, however, that CBHE decompression cannot faithfully recreate the
  dictionary of a compressed primary block from an array of integer
  pairs unless the order of the scheme names and scheme-specific part
  strings in the dictionary of the original, uncompressed block is
  known.  (The Bundle Protocol Specification does not require that the
  strings in the dictionary appear in any particular order and does not
  require that redundant strings be omitted from the dictionary.)
  Therefore, a further precondition to CBHE compression is that the
  strings in the dictionary of the bundle to be compressed must be
  exactly as follows, in this order and without addition:

  1.  The scheme name of the destination endpoint ID.

  2.  The scheme-specific part of the destination endpoint ID.

  3.  The scheme name of the source endpoint ID, if and only if
      different from any prior string in the dictionary.

  4.  The scheme-specific part of the source endpoint ID, if and only
      if different from any prior string in the dictionary.

  5.  The scheme name of the report-to endpoint ID, if and only if
      different from any prior string in the dictionary.

  6.  The scheme-specific part of the report-to endpoint ID, if and
      only if different from any prior string in the dictionary.

  7.  The scheme name of the current custodian endpoint ID, if and only
      if different from any prior string in the dictionary.

  8.  The scheme-specific part of the current custodian endpoint ID, if
      and only if different from any prior string in the dictionary.

  Note: this constraint implies that a bundle that includes any
  extension blocks containing EID-references to endpoint IDs other than
  the block's destination, source, report-to, and current custodian
  cannot be CBHE compressed since such compression would result in a
  dictionary that would deviate from this structure.





Burleigh                      Experimental                      [Page 5]

RFC 6260                          CBHE                          May 2011


2.2.  Method

  When the constraints enumerated above are met, the CBHE block
  compression method can be applied by the convergence-layer adapter
  (CLA) at the time the bundle is transmitted via a convergence-layer
  protocol.  In a CBHE-compressed primary block, the eight SDNVs that
  normally contain EIDs' scheme name and SSP offsets within the
  dictionary are instead used to contain the eight integer values
  listed below, in the order shown:

  1.  The node number of the destination endpoint ID, or zero if the
      destination endpoint is the null endpoint.

  2.  The service number of the destination endpoint ID, or zero if the
      destination endpoint is the null endpoint.

  3.  The node number of the source endpoint ID, or zero if the source
      endpoint is the null endpoint.

  4.  The service number of the source endpoint ID, or zero if the
      source endpoint is the null endpoint.

  5.  The node number of the report-to endpoint ID, or zero if the
      report-to endpoint is the null endpoint.

  6.  The service number of the report-to endpoint ID, or zero if the
      report-to endpoint is the null endpoint.

  7.  The node number of the current custodian endpoint ID, or zero if
      the current custodian endpoint is the null endpoint.

  8.  The service number of the current custodian endpoint ID, or zero
      if the current custodian endpoint is the null endpoint.

  Further, the dictionary is omitted from the primary block and the
  primary block's dictionary length is set to zero.

  Upon reception, the receiving convergence-layer adaptation de-
  compresses the block by simply reversing the process so that the
  bundle presented to the bundle protocol agent has the standard form
  (i.e., the dictionary is reconstituted).










Burleigh                      Experimental                      [Page 6]

RFC 6260                          CBHE                          May 2011


3.  Specification

  CBHE compression is a convergence-layer adaptation.  It is opaque to
  bundle processing.  Therefore, it has no impact on the
  interoperability of different Bundle Protocol implementations, but
  instead affects only the interoperability of different convergence-
  layer adaptation implementations.

  Bundle Protocol convergence-layer adapters that conform to the CBHE
  specification must implement the following procedures.

3.1.  Transmission

  When and only when required by the bundle protocol agent to transmit
  a bundle whose primary block's endpoint IDs satisfy the constraints
  identified in Section 2.1, the CLA MAY encode the primary block of
  the bundle in accordance with the CBHE compression convention
  described in Section 2.2 UNLESS the CLA to which the bundle is to be
  transmitted is known not to be CBHE conformant.  Note that CBHE
  compression may be applied only if the receiving CLA is known or
  presumed to be CBHE conformant, i.e., able to decode the encoded
  primary block.  Knowledge as to whether or not a receiving CLA is (or
  might be) CBHE conformant may be asserted by node administration
  and/or may be inferred from reception of a CBHE-compressed bundle as
  noted in Section 3.2.

3.2.  Reception

  Upon receiving a bundle whose dictionary length is zero (and only in
  this circumstance), a CBHE-conformant convergence-layer adapter:

  1.  MAY infer that the CLA from which the bundle was received is CBHE
      conformant.

  2.  MUST decode the primary block of the bundle in accordance with
      the CBHE compression convention described in Section 2.2 before
      delivering it to the bundle protocol agent.

  Note that when a CLA that is not CBHE conformant receives a bundle
  whose dictionary length is zero, it has no choice but to pass it to
  the bundle agent without modification.  In this case, the bundle
  protocol agent will be unable to dispatch the received bundle,
  because it will be unable to determine the destination endpoint; the
  bundle will be judged to be malformed.  The behavior of the bundle
  protocol agent in this circumstance is an implementation matter.






Burleigh                      Experimental                      [Page 7]

RFC 6260                          CBHE                          May 2011


4.  IANA Considerations

  IANA has registered a provisional registration (per [RFC4395]) for a
  URI scheme for CBHE, with the string "ipn" as the scheme name, as
  follows:

  URI scheme name: "ipn"

  Status: provisional

  URI scheme syntax:

  This specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF)
  notation of [RFC5234], including the core ABNF syntax rule for DIGIT
  defined by that specification.

  ipn-uri = "ipn:" ipn-hier-part
  ipn-hier-part = node-nbr nbr-delim service-nbr ; a path-rootless
  node-nbr = 1*DIGIT
  nbr-delim = "."
  service-nbr = 1*DIGIT

  None of the reserved characters defined in the generic URI syntax are
  used as delimiters within URIs of the IPN scheme.

  URI scheme semantics: URIs of the IPN scheme are used as endpoint
  identifiers in the Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN) Bundle Protocol
  (BP) [RFC5050] as described in Section 2.1.

  Encoding considerations: URIs of the IPN scheme are encoded
  exclusively in US-ASCII characters.

  Applications and/or protocols that use this URI scheme name: the
  Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN) Bundle Protocol (BP) [RFC5050].

  Interoperability considerations: as noted above, URIs of the IPN
  scheme are encoded exclusively in US-ASCII characters.

  Security considerations:

  o  Reliability and consistency: none of the BP endpoints identified
     by the URIs of the IPN scheme are guaranteed to be reachable at
     any time, and the identity of the processing entities operating on
     those endpoints is never guaranteed by the Bundle Protocol itself.
     Bundle authentication as defined by the Bundle Security Protocol
     is required for this purpose.





Burleigh                      Experimental                      [Page 8]

RFC 6260                          CBHE                          May 2011


  o  Malicious construction: malicious construction of a conformant
     IPN-scheme URI is limited to the malicious selection of node
     numbers and the malicious selection of service numbers.  That is,
     a maliciously constructed IPN-scheme URI could be used to direct a
     bundle to an endpoint that might be damaged by the arrival of that
     bundle or, alternatively, to declare a false source for a bundle
     and thereby cause incorrect processing at a node that receives the
     bundle.  In both cases (and indeed in all bundle processing), the
     node that receives a bundle should verify its authenticity and
     validity before operating on it in any way.

  o  Back-end transcoding: the limited expressiveness of URIs of the
     IPN scheme effectively eliminates the possibility of threat due to
     errors in back-end transcoding.

  o  Rare IP address formats: not relevant, as IP addresses do not
     appear anywhere in conformant IPN-scheme URIs.

  o  Sensitive information: because IPN-scheme URIs are used only to
     represent the identities of Bundle Protocol endpoints, the risk of
     disclosure of sensitive information due to interception of these
     URIs is minimal.  Examination of IPN-scheme URIs could be used to
     support traffic analysis; where traffic analysis is a plausible
     danger, bundles should be conveyed by secure convergence-layer
     protocols that do not expose endpoint IDs.

  o  Semantic attacks: the simplicity of IPN-scheme URI syntax
     minimizes the possibility of misinterpretation of a URI by a human
     user.

  Contact:
     Scott Burleigh
     Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
     California Institute of Technology
     [email protected]
     +1 (800) 393-3353

  Author/Change controller:
     Scott Burleigh
     Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
     California Institute of Technology
     [email protected]
     +1 (800) 393-3353

  References: S. Burleigh, "Compressed Bundle Header Encoding (CBHE)",
  RFC 6260, May 2011.





Burleigh                      Experimental                      [Page 9]

RFC 6260                          CBHE                          May 2011


5.  Security Considerations

  The Bundle Security Protocol (BSP) may, under some conditions, insert
  additional endpoint ID strings into the dictionary of a bundle and
  reference those strings in BSP extension blocks.  Because a bundle
  that includes any extension blocks containing EID-references to
  endpoint IDs other than the block's destination, source, report-to,
  and current custodian cannot be CBHE compressed, bundles cannot be
  compressed under those conditions.

  Specifically, the specification detailed above implies that a bundle
  cannot be CBHE compressed when the security-source endpoint for the
  Bundle Authentication Block (BAB) is noted in the dictionary
  (typically, because there is no other way for the receiving bundle
  protocol agent to determine the security-source endpoint); when the
  security-destination endpoint for the BAB is noted in the dictionary
  (in the rare case that the receiving endpoint is not the security-
  destination endpoint); when the security-source endpoint for the
  Payload Integrity Block (PIB), Payload Confidentiality Block (PCB),
  or Extension Security Block (ESB) is not the source endpoint; or when
  the security-destination endpoint for the PIB, PCB, or ESB is not the
  destination endpoint.

  Also, the CBHE-conformance inference mechanism identified in
  Section 3.2 introduces a possible denial-of-service attack.
  Malicious code could issue a CHBE-compressed bundle whose source EID
  falsely identifies the bundle origin as some node whose CLA is not
  CBHE conformant; a CBHE-conformant CLA receiving this bundle might
  incorrectly infer that the CLA at the purported source node was CBHE
  conformant and might then begin CBHE compressing all bundles that it
  sends to that node, thus preventing those bundles from being
  dispatched by the node's bundle protocol agent.  Nodes can defend
  against such an attack by requiring Bundle Authentication Blocks and
  discarding any inference of CBHE conformance for the CLAs at nodes
  from which inauthentic bundles are received.

  These caveats aside, CBHE introduces no new security considerations
  beyond those discussed in the DTN Bundle Protocol RFC 5050 [RFC5050]
  and Bundle Security Protocol RFC 6257 [RFC6257] Specifications.












Burleigh                      Experimental                     [Page 10]

RFC 6260                          CBHE                          May 2011


6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

  [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

  [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
             Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
             RFC 3986, January 2005.

  [RFC5050]  Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, "Bundle Protocol
             Specification", RFC 5050, November 2007.

  [RFC5234]  Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
             Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.

  [RFC6257]  Symington, S., Farrell, S., Weiss, H., and P. Lovell,
             "Bundle Security Protocol Specification", RFC 6257,
             May 2011.

6.2.  Informative References

  [RFC4395]  Hansen, T., Hardie, T., and L. Masinter, "Guidelines and
             Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes", BCP 35,
             RFC 4395, February 2006.

























Burleigh                      Experimental                     [Page 11]

RFC 6260                          CBHE                          May 2011


Appendix A.  Acknowledgments

  This research was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
  California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the
  National Aeronautics and Space Administration.  Government
  sponsorship acknowledged.

Author's Address

  Scott Burleigh
  Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology
  4800 Oak Grove Drive, m/s 301-490
  Pasadena, CA  91109
  USA

  Phone: +1 818 393 3353
  EMail: [email protected]


































Burleigh                      Experimental                     [Page 12]