Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec
draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec
Internet Engineering Task Force RMT WG
INTERNET-DRAFT M.Luby/Digital Fountain
draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-07.txt L.Vicisano/Cisco
J.Gemmell/Microsoft
L.Rizzo/U. Pisa
M.Handley/ICIR
J. Crowcroft/Cambridge U.
3 September 2002
Expires: March 2003
Forward Error Correction building block
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all
provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [1]. 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 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 a "work in progress".
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
To view the list Internet-Draft Shadow Directories, see
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This document is a product of the IETF RMT WG. Comments should be
addressed to the authors, or the WG's mailing list at rmt@lbl.gov. This
memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. It
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Discussion and
suggestions for improvement are requested. Distribution of this memo is
unlimited.
Abstract
Luby/Vicisano/Gemmell/Rizzo/Handley/Crowcroft [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: March 2003 September 2002
This document generally describes how to use Forward Error Correction
codes to efficiently provide and/or augment reliability for data
transport. The primary focus of this document is the application of
Forward Error Correction codes to one-to-many reliable data transport
using IP multicast. This document describes what information is needed
to identify a specific Forward Error Correction code, what information
needs to be communicated out-of-band to use the Forward Error Correction
code, and what information is needed in data packets to identify the
encoding symbols they carry. The procedures for specifying Forward
Error Correction codes and registering them with IANA are also
described. This document should be read in conjunction with and uses
the terminology of the companion document titled ``The Use of Forward
Error Correction in Reliable Multicast''.
Luby/Vicisano/Gemmell/Rizzo/Handley/Crowcroft [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: March 2003 September 2002
Table of Contents
1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. FEC Encoding ID and FEC Instance ID. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. FEC Payload ID and FEC Object Transmission
Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Packet Header Fields. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. Small Block, Large Block and Expandable FEC
Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Small Block Systematic FEC Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Requirements from other building blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1. Explicit IANA Assignment Guidelines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. Intellectual Property Disclosure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
13. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Luby/Vicisano/Gemmell/Rizzo/Handley/Crowcroft [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: March 2003 September 2002
1. Introduction
This document describes how to use Forward Error Correction (FEC) codes
to provide support for reliable delivery of content using IP multicast.
This document should be read in conjunction with and uses the
terminology of the companion document [4], which describes the use of
FEC codes within the context of reliable IP multicast transport and
provides an introduction to some commonly used FEC codes.
This document describes a building block as defined in RFC3048 [9]. This
document is a product of the IETF RMT WG and follows the general
guidelines provided in RFC3269 [3].
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 RFC2119 [2].
2. Rationale
FEC codes are a valuable basic component of any transport protocol that
is to provide reliable delivery of content. Using FEC codes is valuable
in the context of IP multicast and reliable delivery because FEC
encoding symbols can be useful to all receivers for reconstructing
content even when the receivers have received different encoding
symbols. Furthermore, FEC codes can ameliorate or even eliminate the
need for feedback from receivers to senders to request retransmission of
lost packets.
The goal of the FEC building block is to describe functionality directly
related to FEC codes that is common to all reliable content delivery IP
multicast protocols, and to leave out any additional functionality that
is specific to particular protocols. The primary functionality
described in this document that is common to all such protocols that use
FEC codes are FEC encoding symbols for an object that is included in
packets that flow from a sender to receivers. This document for example
does not describe how receivers may request transmission of particular
encoding symbols for an object. This is because although there are
protocols where requests for transmission are of use, there are also
protocols that do not require such requests.
The companion document [4] should be consulted for a full explanation of
the benefits of using FEC codes for reliable content delivery using IP
multicast. FEC codes are also useful in the context of unicast, and
thus the scope and applicability of this document is not limited to IP
multicast.
Luby/Vicisano/Gemmell/Rizzo/Handley/Crowcroft Section 2. [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: March 2003 September 2002
3. Functionality
This section describes FEC information that is either to be sent out-of-
band or in packets. The FEC information is associated with transmission
of data about a particular object. There are three classes of packets
that may contain FEC information: data packets, session-control packets
and feedback packets. They generally contain different kinds of FEC
information. Note that some protocols may not use session-control or
feedback packets.
Data packets may sometimes serve as session-control packets as well;
both data and session-control packets generally travel downstream from
the sender towards receivers and are sent to a multicast channel or to a
specific receiver using unicast.
As a general rule, feedback packets travel upstream from receivers to
the sender. Sometimes, however, they might be sent to a multicast
channel or to another receiver or to some intermediate node or
neighboring router that provides recovery services.
This document specifies the FEC information that must be carried in data
packets and the other FEC information that must be communicated either
out-of-band or in data packets. This document does not specify out-of-
band methods nor does it specify the way out-of-band FEC information is
associated with FEC information carried in data packets. These methods
must be specified in a complete protocol instantiation that uses the FEC
building block. FEC information is classified as follows:
1) FEC Encoding ID
Identifies the FEC encoder being used and allows receivers to
select the appropriate FEC decoder. The value of the FEC Encoding
ID MUST be the same for all transmission of data related to a
particular object, but MAY vary across different transmissions of
data about different objects, even if transmitted to the same set
of multicast channels and/or using a single upper-layer session.
The FEC Encoding ID is subject to IANA registration.
2) FEC Instance ID
Provides a more specific identification of the FEC encoder being
used for an Under-Specified FEC scheme. This value is not used
for Fully-Specified FEC schemes. (See Section 3.1 for the
definition of Under-Specified and Fully-Specified FEC schemes.)
The FEC Instance ID is scoped by the FEC Encoding ID, and is
subject to IANA registration.
Luby/Vicisano/Gemmell/Rizzo/Handley/Crowcroft Section 3. [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: March 2003 September 2002
3) FEC Payload ID
Identifies the encoding symbol(s) in the payload of the packet.
The types and lengths of the fields in the FEC Payload ID, i.e.,
the format of the FEC Payload ID, are determined by the FEC
Encoding ID. The full specification of each field MUST be
uniquely determined by the FEC Encoding ID for Fully-Specified FEC
schemes, and MUST be uniquely determined by the combination of the
FEC Encoding ID and the FEC Instance ID for Under-Specified FEC
schemes. As an example, for the Under-Specified FEC scheme with
FEC Encoding ID 129 defined in Section 5.1, the fields in the FEC
Payload ID are a 32-bit Source Block Number followed by a 32-bit
Encoding Symbol ID, where the full specification of both of these
fields depends on the FEC Instance ID.
4) FEC Object Transmission Information
This is information regarding the encoding of a specific object
needed by the FEC decoder. As an example, for the Under-Specified
FEC scheme with FEC Encoding ID 129 defined in Section 5.1, this
information might include the lengths of the different source
blocks that make up the object and the overall object length.
This might also include specific parameters of the FEC encoder.
The FEC Encoding ID, FEC Instance ID (for Under-Specified FEC schemes)
and the FEC Object Transmission Information can be sent to a receiver
within the data packet headers, within session control packets, or by
some other means. In any case, the means for communicating this to a
receiver is outside the scope of this document. The FEC Payload ID MUST
be included in the data packet header fields, as it provides a
description of the encoding symbols contained in the packet.
3.1. FEC Encoding ID and FEC Instance ID
The FEC Encoding ID is a numeric index that identifies a specific FEC
scheme OR a class of encoding schemes that share the same FEC Payload ID
format.
An FEC scheme is a Fully-Specified FEC scheme if the encoding scheme is
formally and fully specified, in a way that independent implementors can
implement both encoder and decoder from a specification that is an IETF
RFC. The FEC Encoding ID uniquely identifies a Fully-Specified FEC
scheme. Companion documents of this specification may specify Fully-
Specified FEC schemes and associate them with FEC Encoding ID values.
Luby/Vicisano/Gemmell/Rizzo/Handley/Crowcroft Section 3.1. [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: March 2003 September 2002
These documents MUST also specify a format for the FEC Payload ID and
specify the information in the FEC Object Transmission Information.
It is possible that a FEC scheme cannot be a Fully-Specified FEC scheme,
because a specification is simply not available or that a party exists
that owns the encoding scheme and is not willing to disclose the
algorithm or specification. We refer to such an FEC encoding schemes as
an Under-Specified FEC scheme. The following holds for an Under-
Specified FEC scheme:
o The fields and their formats of the FEC Payload ID and the specific
information in the FEC Object Transmission Information MUST be
defined for the Under-Specified FEC scheme.
o A value for the FEC Encoding ID MUST be reserved and associated with
the fields and their formats of the FEC Payload ID and the specific
information in the FEC Object Transmission Information. An already
reserved FEC Encoding ID value MUST be reused if the associated FEC
Payload ID has the same fields and formats and the FEC Object
Transmission Information has same information as the ones needed for
the new Under-Specified FEC scheme.
o A value for the FEC Instance ID MUST be reserved.
An Under-specified FEC scheme is fully identified by the tuple (FEC
Encoding ID, FEC Instance ID). The tuple MUST identify a single scheme
that has at least one implementation. The party that owns this tuple
MUST be able to provide information on how to obtain the Under-Specified
FEC scheme identified by the tuple, e.g. a pointer to a publicly
available reference-implementation or the name and contacts of a company
that sells it, either separately or embedded in another product.
Different Under-Specified FEC schemes that share the same FEC Encoding
ID -- but have different FEC Instance IDs -- also share the same fields
and corresponding formats of the FEC Payload ID and specify the same
information in the FEC Object Transmission Information.
This specification reserves the range 0-127 for the values of FEC
Encoding IDs for Fully-Specified FEC schemes and the range 128-255 for
the values of Under-Specified FEC schemes.
3.2. FEC Payload ID and FEC Object Transmission Information
A document that specifies an FEC scheme and reserves a value of FEC
Encoding ID MUST define the fields and their packet formats for the FEC
Luby/Vicisano/Gemmell/Rizzo/Handley/Crowcroft Section 3.2. [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: March 2003 September 2002
Payload ID and specify the information in the FEC Object Transmission
Information according to the needs of the encoding scheme. This applies
to documents that reserve values of FEC Encoding IDs for both Fully-
Specified and Under-Specified FEC schemes.
The specification of the fields and their packet formats for the FEC
Payload ID MUST specify the meaning of the fields their format down to
the level of specific bits. The total length of all the fields in the
FEC Payload ID MUST have a length that is a multiple of a 4-byte word.
This requirement facilitates the alignment of packet fields in protocol
instantiations.
4. Applicability Statement
The FEC building block applies to creating and sending encoding symbols
for objects that are to be reliably transported using IP multicast or
unicast. The FEC building block does not provide higher level session
support. Thus, for example, many objects may be transmitted within the
same session, in which case a higher level building block may carry a
unique Transport Object ID (TOI) for each object in the session to allow
the receiver to demultiplex packets within the session based on the TOI
within each packet. As another example, a receiver may subscribe to
more than one session at a time. In this case a higher level building
block may carry a unique Transport Session ID (TSI) for each session to
allow the receiver to demultiplex packets based on the TSI within each
packet.
Other building blocks may supply direct support for carrying out-of-band
information directly relevant to the FEC building block to receivers.
For example, the length of the object is part of the FEC Object
Transmission Information that may in some cases be communicated out-of-
band to receivers, and one mechanism for providing this to receivers is
within the context of another building block that provides this
information.
Some protocols may use FEC codes as a mechanism for repairing the loss
of packets. Within the context of FEC repair schemes, feedback packets
are (optionally) used to request FEC retransmission. The FEC-related
information present in feedback packets usually contains an FEC Block ID
that defines the block that is being repaired, and the number of Repair
Symbols requested. Although this is the most common case, variants are
possible in which the receivers provide more specific information about
the Repair Symbols requested (e.g. an index range or a list of symbols
accepted). It is also possible to include multiple of these requests in
a single feedback packet. This document does not provide any detail
about feedback schemes used in combination with FEC nor the format of
Luby/Vicisano/Gemmell/Rizzo/Handley/Crowcroft Section 4. [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: March 2003 September 2002
FEC information in feedback packets. If feedback packets are used in a
complete protocol instantiation, these details must be provided in the
protocol instantiation specification.
The FEC building block does not provide any support for congestion
control. Any complete protocol MUST provide congestion control that
conforms to RFC2357 [5], and thus this MUST be provided by another
building block when the FEC building block is used in a protocol.
A more complete description of the applicability of FEC codes can be
found in the companion document [4].
5. Packet Header Fields
This section specifies the FEC Encoding ID and the associated FEC
Payload ID format and the specific information in the FEC Object
Transmission Information for a number of known Under-Specified FEC
schemes. Under-specified FEC schemes that use the same FEC Payload ID
fields and formats and specific information in the FEC Object
Transmission Information as for one of the FEC Encoding IDs specified in
this section MUST use the corresponding FEC Encoding ID. Other FEC
Encoding IDs may be specified for other Under-Specified FEC schemes in
companion documents.
5.1. Small Block, Large Block and Expandable FEC Codes
This subsection reserves the FEC Encoding ID value 128 for the Under-
Specified FEC schemes described in [4] that are called Small Block FEC
codes, Large Block FEC codes and Expandable FEC codes.
The FEC Payload ID is composed of a Source Block Number and an Encoding
Symbol ID structured as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Block Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Encoding Symbol ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Source Block Number identifies from which source block of the object
the encoding symbol(s) in the payload are generated. These blocks are
numbered consecutively from 0 to N-1, where N is the number of source
Luby/Vicisano/Gemmell/Rizzo/Handley/Crowcroft Section 5.1. [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: March 2003 September 2002
blocks in the object.
The Encoding Symbol ID identifies which specific encoding symbol(s)
generated from the source block are carried in the packet payload. The
exact details of the correspondence between Encoding Symbol IDs and the
encoding symbol(s) in the packet payload are dependent on the particular
encoding algorithm used as identified by the Fec Encoding ID and by the
FEC Instance ID, and these details may be proprietary.
The FEC Object Transmission Information has the following specific
information:
o The FEC Encoding ID 128.
o The FEC Instance ID associated with the FEC Encoding ID 128 to be
used.
o The total length of the object in bytes.
o The number of source blocks that the object is partitioned into, and
the length of each source block in bytes.
How this out-of-band information is communicated is outside the scope of
this document. As an example the source block lengths may be derived by
a fixed algorithm from the object length. As another example, it may be
that all source blocks are the same length and this is what is passed
out-of-band to the receiver. As a third example, it could be that the
full sized source block length is provided and this is the length used
for all but the last source block, which is calculated based on the full
source block length and the object length.
5.2. Small Block Systematic FEC Codes
This subsection reserves the FEC Encoding ID value 129 for the Under-
Specified FEC schemes described in [4] that are called Small Block
Systematic FEC codes. For Small Block Systematic FEC codes, each source
block is of length at most 65536 source symbols.
Although these codes can generally be accommodated by the FEC Encoding
ID described in Section 5.1, a specific FEC Encoding ID is defined for
Small Block Systematic FEC codes to allow more flexibility and to retain
header compactness. The small source block length and small expansion
factor that often characterize systematic codes may require the data
source to frequently change the source block length. To allow the
Luby/Vicisano/Gemmell/Rizzo/Handley/Crowcroft Section 5.2. [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: March 2003 September 2002
dynamic variation of the source block length and to communicate it to
the receivers with low overhead, the block length is included in the FEC
Payload ID.
The FEC Payload ID is composed of the Source Block Number, Source Block
Length and the Encoding Symbol ID:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Block Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Block Length | Encoding Symbol ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Source Block Number idenfities from which source block of the object
the encoding symbol(s) in the payload are generated. These blocks are
numbered consecutively from 0 to N-1, where N is the number of source
blocks in the object.
The Source Block Length is the length in units of source symbols of the
source block identified by the Source Block Number.
The Encoding Symbol ID identifies which specific encoding symbol(s)
generated from the source block are carried in the packet payload. Each
encoding symbol is either an original source symbol or a redundant
symbol generated by the encoder. The exact details of the
correspondence between Encoding Symbol IDs and the encoding symbol(s) in
the packet payload are dependent on the particular encoding algorithm
used as identified by the Fec Encoding ID and by the FEC Instance ID,
and these details may be proprietary.
The FEC Object Transmission Information has the following specific
information:
o The FEC Encoding ID 129.
o The FEC Instance ID associated with the FEC Encoding ID 129 to be
used.
o The total length of the object in bytes.
o The maximum number of encoding symbols that can be generated for any
source block. This field is provided for example to allow receivers
to preallocate buffer space that is suitable for decoding to recover
Luby/Vicisano/Gemmell/Rizzo/Handley/Crowcroft Section 5.2. [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: March 2003 September 2002
any source block.
o For each source block, the length in bytes of encoding symbols for
the source block.
How this out-of-band information is communicated is outside the scope of
this document. As an example the length in bytes of encoding symbols
for each source block may be the same for all source blocks. As another
example, the encoding symbol length may be the same for all source
blocks of a given object and this length is communicated for each
object. As a third example, it may be that there is a threshold value
I, and for all source blocks consisting of less than I source symbols,
the encoding symbol length is one fixed number of bytes, but for all
source blocks consisting of I or more source symbols, the encoding
symbol length is a different fixed number of bytes.
Note that each encoding symbol, i.e., each source symbol and redundant
symbol, must be the same length for a given source block, and this
implies that each source block length is a multiple of its encoding
symbol length. If the original source block length is not a multiple of
the encoding symbol length, it is up to the sending application to
appropriately pad the original source block to form the source block to
be encoded, and to communicate this padding to the receiving
application. The form of this padding, if used, and how it is
communicated to the receiving application, is outside the scope of this
document, and must be handled at the application level.
6. Requirements from other building blocks
The FEC building block does not provide any support for congestion
control. Any complete protocol MUST provide congestion control that
conforms to RFC2357 [5], and thus this MUST be provided by another
building block when the FEC building block is used in a protocol.
There are no other specific requirements from other building blocks for
the use of this FEC building block. However, any protocol that uses the
FEC building block will inevitably use other building blocks for example
to provide support for sending higher level session information within
data packets containing FEC encoding symbols.
Luby/Vicisano/Gemmell/Rizzo/Handley/Crowcroft Section 6. [Page 12]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: March 2003 September 2002
7. Security Considerations
Data delivery can be subject to denial-of-service attacks by attackers
which send corrupted packets that are accepted as legitimate by
receivers. This is especially a concern for multicast delivery because
a corrupted packet may be injected into the session close to the root of
the multicast tree, in which case the corrupted packet will arrive to
many receivers. This is especially a concern for the FEC BB because the
use of even one corrupted packet containing encoding data may result in
the decoding of content that is completely corrupted and unusable. It
is thus RECOMMENDED that the decoded content be checked for integrity
before delivering the content to an application. For example, an MD5
hash [8] of the content may be appended before transmission, and the MD5
hash is computed and checked after the content is decoded but before it
is delivered to an application. Moreover, in order to obtain strong
cryptographic integrity protection a digital signature verifiable by the
receiver SHOULD be computed on top of such a hash value. It is also
RECOMMENDED that a packet authentication protocol such as TESLA [7] be
used to detect and discard corrupted packets upon arrival. Furthermore,
it is RECOMMENDED that Reverse Path Forwarding checks be enabled in all
network routers and switches along the path from the sender to receivers
to limit the possibility of a bad agent successfully injecting a
corrupted packet into the multicast tree data path.
Another vulnerability of LCT is the potential of receivers obtaining an
incorrect session description for the session. The consequences of a
receiver using an incorrect session description could be a denial of
service attack where legitimate receivers with the wrong session
description are unable to correctly receive the session content, or an
attack on network resources where receivers inadvertently try to receive
at a much higher rate than they are capable of because they receive
incorrect information within the session description related to
congestion control, thereby disrupting traffic in portions of the
network. To avoid these problems, it is RECOMMENDED that measures be
taken to prevent receivers from accepting incorrect session
descriptions, e.g., by using source authentication to ensure that
receivers only accept legitimate session descriptions from authorized
senders.
Another security concern is that some FEC information may be obtained by
receivers out-of-band in a session description, and if the session
description is forged or corrupted then the receivers will not use the
correct protocol for decoding content from received packets. To avoid
these problems, it is RECOMMENDED that measures be taken to prevent
receivers from accepting incorrect session descriptions, e.g., by using
source authentication to ensure that receivers only accept legitimate
session descriptions from authorized senders.
Luby/Vicisano/Gemmell/Rizzo/Handley/Crowcroft Section 7. [Page 13]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: March 2003 September 2002
8. IANA Considerations
Values of FEC Encoding IDs and FEC Instance IDs are subject to IANA
registration. FEC Encoding IDs and FEC Instance IDs are hierarchical:
FEC Encoding IDs scope ranges of FEC Instance IDs. Only FEC Encoding
IDs that correspond to Under-Specified FEC schemes scope a corresponding
set of FEC Instance IDs.
The FEC Encoding ID is a numeric non-negative index. In this document,
the range of values for FEC Encoding IDs is 0 and 255. Values from 0 to
127 are reserved for Fully-Specified FEC schemes and Values from 128 to
255 are reserved for Under-Specified FEC schemes, as described in more
detail in Section 3.1. This specification already assigns the values 128
and 129, as described in Section 5.
Each FEC Encoding ID assigned to an Under-Specified FEC scheme scopes an
independent range of FEC Instance IDs (i.e. the same value of FEC
Instance ID can be reused for different FEC Encoding IDs). An FEC
Instance ID is a numeric non-negative index.
8.1. Explicit IANA Assignment Guidelines
This document defines a name-space for FEC Encoding IDs named:
ietf:rmt:fec:encoding
It is IANA's responsibility to establish and manage a new registry for
the "ietf:rmt:fec:encoding" name-space. The values that can be assigned
within the "ietf:rmt:fec:encoding" name-space are numeric indexes in the
range [0, 255], boundaries included. Assignment requests are granted on
a "Specification Required" basis as defined in RFC2434 [6]: An IETF RFC
MUST exist and specify the FEC Payload ID fields and formats as well as
the FEC Object Transmission Information for the value of
"ietf:rmt:fec:encoding" (FEC Encoding ID) being assigned by IANA (see
Section 3.1 for more details). Note that the values 128 and 129 of
"ietf:rmt:fec:encoding" are already assigned by this document as
described in Section 5.
This document also defines a name-space for FEC Instance IDs named:
ietf:rmt:fec:encoding:instance
The "ietf:rmt:fec:encoding:instance" name-space is a sub-name-space
associated with the "ietf:rmt:fec:encoding" name-space. Each value of
"ietf:rmt:fec:encoding" assigned in the range [128, 255] has a separate
"ietf:rmt:fec:encoding:instance" sub-name-space that it scopes. Values
of "ietf:rmt:fec:encoding" in the range [0, 127] do not scope a
Luby/Vicisano/Gemmell/Rizzo/Handley/Crowcroft Section 8.1. [Page 14]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: March 2003 September 2002
"ietf:rmt:fec:encoding:instance" sub-name-space.
The values that can be assigned within each
"ietf:rmt:fec:encoding:instance" sub-name-space are non-negative numeric
indices. Assignment requests are granted on a "First Come First Served"
basis as defined in RFC2434 [6]. The same value of
"ietf:rmt:fec:encoding:instance" can be assigned within multiple
distinct sub-name-spaces, i.e. the same value of
"ietf:rmt:fec:encoding:instance" can be used for multiple values of
"ietf:rmt:fec:encoding".
Requestors of "ietf:rmt:fec:encoding:instance" assignments MUST provide
the following information:
- The value of "ietf:rmt:fec:encoding" that scopes the
"ietf:rmt:fec:encoding:instance" sub-name-space. This must be in
the range [128, 255].
- Point of contact information
- A pointer to publicly accessible documentation describing the Under-
Specified FEC scheme, associated with the value of
"ietf:rmt:fec:encoding:instance" assigned, and a way to obtain it
(e.g. a pointer to a publicly available reference-implementation or
the name and contacts of a company that sells it, either separately
or embedded in a product).
It is the responsibility of the requestor to keep all the above
information up to date.
9. Intellectual Property Disclosure
The IETF has been notified of intellectual property rights claimed in
regard to some or all of the specification contained in this document.
For more information consult the online list of claimed rights.
10. Acknowledgments
Brian Adamson contributed to this document by shaping Section 5.2 and
providing general feedback. We also wish to thank Vincent Roca, Justin
Chapweske and Roger Kermode for their extensive comments.
Luby/Vicisano/Gemmell/Rizzo/Handley/Crowcroft Section 10. [Page 15]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: March 2003 September 2002
11. References
[1] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3",
RFC2026, October 1996.
[2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", RFC2119, March 1997.
[3] Kermode, R., Vicisano, L., ``Author Guidelines for Reliable
Multicast Transport (RMT) Building Blocks and Protocol Instantiation
documents'', RFC3269, April 2002.
[4] Luby, M., Vicisano, Gemmell, J., L., Rizzo, L., Handley, M.,
Crowcroft, J., "The use of Forward Error Correction in Reliable
Multicast", Internet draft draft-ietf-rmt-info-fec-02.txt, January 2002.
[5] Mankin, A., Romanow, A., Bradner, S., Paxson V., "IETF Criteria for
Evaluating Reliable Multicast Transport and Application Protocols",
RFC2357, June 1998.
[6] Narten, T., Alvestrand, H., "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC2434, October 1998.
[7] Perrig, A., Canetti, R., Song, D., Tygar, J.D., "Efficient and
Secure Source Authentication for Multicast", Network and Distributed
System Security Symposium, NDSS 2001, pp. 35-46, February 2001.
[8] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC1321, April 1992.
[9] Whetten, B., Vicisano, L., Kermode, R., Handley, M., Floyd, S.,
Luby, M., "Reliable Multicast Transport Building Blocks for One-to-Many
Bulk-Data Transfer", RFC3048, January 2001.
12. Authors' Addresses
Michael Luby
luby@digitalfountain.com
Digital Fountain, Inc.
39141 Civic Center Drive
Suite 300
Fremont, CA 94538
Lorenzo Vicisano
lorenzo@cisco.com
cisco Systems, Inc.
Luby/Vicisano/Gemmell/Rizzo/Handley/Crowcroft Section 12. [Page 16]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: March 2003 September 2002
170 West Tasman Dr.,
San Jose, CA, USA, 95134
Jim Gemmell
jgemmell@microsoft.com
Microsoft Research
301 Howard St., #830
San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105
Luigi Rizzo
luigi@iet.unipi.it
Dip. di Ing. dell'Informazione
Universita` di Pisa
via Diotisalvi 2, 56126 Pisa, Italy
Mark Handley
mjh@icir.org
ICSI Center for Internet Research
1947 Center St.
Berkeley CA, USA, 94704
Jon Crowcroft
J.Crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk
Marconi Professor of Communications Systems
University of Cambridge
Computer Laboratory
William Gates Building
J J Thomson Avenue
Cambridge
CB3 0FD
Luby/Vicisano/Gemmell/Rizzo/Handley/Crowcroft Section 12. [Page 17]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: March 2003 September 2002
13. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). 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
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."
Luby/Vicisano/Gemmell/Rizzo/Handley/Crowcroft Section 13. [Page 18]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: March 2003 September 2002
Luby/Vicisano/Gemmell/Rizzo/Handley/Crowcroft Section 13. [Page 19]
