Network Working Group                                            M. Rose
Request for Comments: 3081                        Invisible Worlds, Inc.
Category: Standards Track                                     March 2001


                    Mapping the BEEP Core onto TCP

Status of this Memo

  This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
  Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
  improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
  Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
  and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

  Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

  This memo describes how a BEEP (Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol)
  session is mapped onto a single TCP (Transmission Control Protocol)
  connection.

Table of Contents

  1.    Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
  2.    Session Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
  3.    Message Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
  3.1   Flow Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
  3.1.1 Channel Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
  3.1.2 Sending Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
  3.1.3 Processing SEQ Frames  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
  3.1.4 Use of Flow Control  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
  4.    Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
        References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
        Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
  A.    Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
        Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1. Introduction

  This memo describes how a BEEP [1] session is mapped onto a single
  TCP [2] connection.  Refer to Section 2.5 of [1] for an explanation
  of the mapping requirements.





Rose                        Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 3081             Mapping the BEEP Core onto TCP           March 2001


2. Session Management

  The mapping of BEEP session management onto the TCP service is
  straight-forward.

  A BEEP session is established when a TCP connection is established
  between two BEEP peers:

  o  the BEEP peer that issues a passive TCP OPEN call is termed the
     listener; and,

  o  the BEEP peer that issues an active TCP OPEN call is termed the
     initiator.

  A simultaneous TCP OPEN would result in both BEEP peers believing
  they are the initiator and neither peer will be able to start any
  channels.  Because of this, services based on BEEP must be designed
  so that simultaneous TCP OPENs cannot occur.

  If both peers agree to release a BEEP session (c.f., [1]'s Section
  2.4), the peer sending the "ok" reply, immediately issues the TCP
  CLOSE call.  Upon receiving the reply, the other peer immediately
  issues the TCP CLOSE call.

  A BEEP session is terminated when either peer issues the TCP ABORT
  call, and the TCP connection is subsequently aborted.

3. Message Exchange

  The mapping of BEEP exchanges onto the TCP service is less straight-
  forward.

  Messages are reliably sent and received using TCP's SEND and RECEIVE
  calls.  (This also provides ordered delivery of messages on the same
  channel.)

  Although TCP imposes flow control on a per-connection basis, if
  multiple channels are simultaneously in use on a BEEP session, BEEP
  must provide a mechanism to avoid starvation and deadlock.  To
  achieve this, BEEP re-introduces a mechanism used by the TCP:
  window-based flow control -- each channel has a sliding window that
  indicates the number of payload octets that a peer may transmit
  before receiving further permission.








Rose                        Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 3081             Mapping the BEEP Core onto TCP           March 2001


3.1 Flow Control

  Recall from Section 2.2.1.2 of [1] that every payload octet sent in
  each direction on a channel has an associated sequence number.
  Numbering of payload octets within a data frame is such that the
  first payload octet is the lowest numbered, and the following payload
  octets are numbered consecutively.

  The actual sequence number space is finite, though very large,
  ranging from 0..4294967295 (2**32 - 1).  Since the space is finite,
  all arithmetic dealing with sequence numbers is performed modulo
  2**32.  This unsigned arithmetic preserves the relationship of
  sequence numbers as they cycle from 2**32 - 1 to 0 again.  Consult
  Sections 2 through 5 of [3] for a discussion of the arithmetic
  properties of sequence numbers.

3.1.1 Channel Creation

  When a channel is created, the sequence number associated with the
  first payload octet of the first data frame is 0, and the initial
  window size for that channel is 4096 octets.  After channel creation,
  a BEEP peer may update the window size by sending a SEQ frame
  (Section 3.1.3).

  If a BEEP peer is asked to create a channel and it is unable to
  allocate at least 4096 octets for that channel, it must decline
  creation of the channel, as specified in Section 2.3.1.2 of [1].
  Similarly, during establishment of the BEEP session, if the BEEP peer
  acting in the listening role is unable to allocate at least 4096
  octets for channel 0, then it must return a negative reply, as
  specified in Section 2.4 of [1], instead of a greeting.

3.1.2 Sending Messages

  Before a message is sent, the sending BEEP peer must ensure that the
  size of the payload is within the window advertised by the receiving
  BEEP peer.  If not, it has three choices:

  o  if the window would allow for at least one payload octet to be
     sent, the BEEP peer may segment the message and start by sending a
     smaller data frame (up to the size of the remaining window);

  o  the BEEP peer may delay sending the message until the window
     becomes larger; or,







Rose                        Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 3081             Mapping the BEEP Core onto TCP           March 2001


  o  the BEEP peer may signal to its application that it is unable to
     send the message, allowing the application to try again at a later
     time (or perhaps signaling its application when a larger window is
     available).

  The choice is implementation-dependent, although it is recommended
  that the application using BEEP be given a mechanism for influencing
  the decision.

3.1.3 Processing SEQ Frames

  As an application accepts responsibility for incoming data frames,
  its BEEP peer should send SEQ frames to advertise a new window.

  The ABNF [4] for a SEQ frame is:

     seq        = "SEQ" SP channel SP ackno SP window CR LF

     ackno      = seqno

     window     = size

     ; channel, seqno, and size are defined in Section 2.2.1 of [1].

  The SEQ frame has three parameters:

  o  a channel number;

  o  an acknowledgement number, that indicates the value of the next
     sequence number that the sender is expecting to receive on this
     channel; and,

  o  a window size, that indicates the number of payload octets
     beginning with the one indicated by the acknowledgement number
     that the sender is expecting to receive on this channel.

  A single space character (decimal code 32, " ") separates each
  component.  The SEQ frame is terminated with a CRLF pair.

  When a SEQ frame is received, if any of the channel number,
  acknowledgement number, or window size cannot be determined or is
  invalid, then the BEEP session is terminated without generating a
  response, and it is recommended that a diagnostic entry be logged.

3.1.4 Use of Flow Control

  The key to successful use of flow control within BEEP is to balance
  performance and fairness:



Rose                        Standards Track                     [Page 4]

RFC 3081             Mapping the BEEP Core onto TCP           March 2001


  o  large messages should be segmented into frames no larger than
     two-thirds of TCP's negotiated maximum segment size;

  o  frames for different channels with traffic ready to send should be
     sent in a round-robin fashion;

  o  each time a frame is received, a SEQ frame should be sent whenever
     the window size that will be sent is at least one half of the
     buffer space available to this channel; and,

  o  if the transport service presents multiple frames to a BEEP peer
     simultaneously, then a single consolidating SEQ frame may be sent.

  In order to avoid pathological interactions with the transport
  service, it is important that a BEEP peer advertise windows based on
  available buffer space, to allow data to be read from the transport
  service as soon as available.  Further, SEQ frames for a channel must
  have higher priority than messages for that channel.

  Implementations may wish to provide queue management facilities to
  the application using BEEP, e.g., channel priorities, (relative)
  buffer allocations, and so on.  In particular, implementations should
  not allow a given channel to monopolize the underlying transport
  window (e.g., slow readers should get small windows).

  In addition, where possible, implementations should support transport
  layer APIs that convey congestion information.  These APIs allow an
  implementation to determine its share of the available bandwidth, and
  also be notified of changes in the estimated path bandwidth.  Note
  that when a BEEP session has multiple channels that are
  simultaneously exchanging large messages, implementations without
  access to this information may have uncertain fairness and progress
  properties during times of network congestion.

  Finally, implementors should follow the guidelines given in the
  relevant portions of RFC1122 [5] that deal with flow control (and
  bear in mind that issues such as retransmission, while they interact
  with flow control in TCP, are not applicable to this memo).  For
  example, Section 4.2.2.16 of RFC1122 [5] indicates that a "receiver
  SHOULD NOT shrink the window, i.e., move the right window edge to the
  left" and then discusses the impact of this rule on unacknowledged
  data.  In the context of mapping BEEP onto a single TCP connection,
  only the portions concerning flow control should be implemented.








Rose                        Standards Track                     [Page 5]

RFC 3081             Mapping the BEEP Core onto TCP           March 2001


4. Security Considerations

  Consult Section [1]'s Section 9 for a discussion of security issues.

References

  [1]  Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core", RFC
       3080, March 2001.

  [2]  Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793,
       September 1981.

  [3]  Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Serial Number Arithmetic", RFC 1982,
       August 1996.

  [4]  Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
       Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997.

  [5]  Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Communication
       Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.

Author's Address

  Marshall T. Rose
  Invisible Worlds, Inc.
  1179 North McDowell Boulevard
  Petaluma, CA  94954-6559
  US

  Phone: +1 707 789 3700
  EMail: [email protected]
  URI:   http://invisible.net/



















Rose                        Standards Track                     [Page 6]

RFC 3081             Mapping the BEEP Core onto TCP           March 2001


Appendix A. Acknowledgements

  The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions of: Dave
  Crocker, Steve Harris, Eliot Lear, Keith McCloghrie, Craig Partridge,
  Vernon Schryver, and, Joe Touch.  In particular, Dave Crocker
  provided helpful suggestions on the nature of flow control in the
  mapping.












































Rose                        Standards Track                     [Page 7]

RFC 3081             Mapping the BEEP Core onto TCP           March 2001


Full Copyright Statement

  Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001).  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 assigns.

  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
  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.



















Rose                        Standards Track                     [Page 8]