draft-ietf-anima-grasp-00.txt   draft-ietf-anima-grasp-01.txt 
Network Working Group B. Carpenter, Ed. Network Working Group C. Bormann
Internet-Draft Univ. of Auckland Internet-Draft Universitaet Bremen TZI
Intended status: Standards Track B. Liu, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track B. Carpenter, Ed.
Expires: February 15, 2016 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd Expires: April 11, 2016 Univ. of Auckland
August 14, 2015 B. Liu, Ed.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
October 9, 2015
A Generic Autonomic Signaling Protocol (GRASP) A Generic Autonomic Signaling Protocol (GRASP)
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-00 draft-ietf-anima-grasp-01
Abstract Abstract
This document establishes requirements for a signaling protocol that This document establishes requirements for a signaling protocol that
enables autonomic devices and autonomic service agents to dynamically enables autonomic devices and autonomic service agents to dynamically
discover peers, to synchronize state with them, and to negotiate discover peers, to synchronize state with them, and to negotiate
parameter settings mutually with them. The document then defines a parameter settings mutually with them. The document then defines a
general protocol for discovery, synchronization and negotiation, general protocol for discovery, synchronization and negotiation,
while the technical objectives for specific scenarios are to be while the technical objectives for specific scenarios are to be
described in separate documents. An Appendix briefly discusses described in separate documents. An Appendix briefly discusses
skipping to change at page 1, line 38 skipping to change at page 1, line 40
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 15, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 11, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 21 skipping to change at page 2, line 23
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirement Analysis of Discovery, Synchronization and 2. Requirement Analysis of Discovery, Synchronization and
Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Requirements for Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Requirements for Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Requirements for Synchronization and Negotiation 2.2. Requirements for Synchronization and Negotiation
Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. Specific Technical Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.3. Specific Technical Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. GRASP Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3. GRASP Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. High-Level Design Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.2. High-Level Design Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3. GRASP Protocol Basic Properties and Mechanisms . . . . . 14 3.3. GRASP Protocol Basic Properties and Mechanisms . . . . . 15
3.3.1. Required External Security Mechanism . . . . . . . . 15 3.3.1. Required External Security Mechanism . . . . . . . . 15
3.3.2. Transport Layer Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.3.2. Transport Layer Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3.3. Discovery Mechanism and Procedures . . . . . . . . . 15 3.3.3. Discovery Mechanism and Procedures . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3.4. Negotiation Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.3.4. Negotiation Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.3.5. Synchronization Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.3.5. Synchronization Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.4. GRASP Constants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.4. High Level Deployment Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.5. Session Identifier (Session ID) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.5. GRASP Constants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.6. GRASP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.6. Session Identifier (Session ID) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.6.1. GRASP Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.7. GRASP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.6.2. Discovery Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.7.1. GRASP Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.6.3. Response Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.7.2. Discovery Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.6.4. Request Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.7.3. Response Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.6.5. Negotiation Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.7.4. Request Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.6.6. Negotiation-ending Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.7.5. Negotiation Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.6.7. Confirm-waiting Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.7.6. Negotiation-ending Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.7. GRASP General Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.7.7. Confirm-waiting Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.7.1. Format of GRASP Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.8. GRASP General Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.7.2. Divert Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.8.1. Format of GRASP Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.7.3. Accept Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.8.2. Divert Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.7.4. Decline Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.8.3. Accept Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.7.5. Waiting Time Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.8.4. Decline Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.7.6. Device Identity Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.8.5. Waiting Time Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.7.7. Locator Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.8.6. Device Identity Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.8. Objective Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 3.8.7. Locator Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.8.1. Format of Objective Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 3.9. Objective Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.8.2. General Considerations for Objective Options . . . . 30 3.9.1. Format of Objective Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.8.3. Organizing of Objective Options . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.9.2. Objective flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.8.4. Vendor Specific Objective Options . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.9.3. General Considerations for Objective Options . . . . 30
3.8.5. Experimental Objective Options . . . . . . . . . . . 32 3.9.4. Organizing of Objective Options . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 3.9.5. Experimental and Example Objective Options . . . . . 32
4. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 6. CDDL Specification of GRASP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
8. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove] . . . . . . . . . . . 40 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 9. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove] . . . . . . . . . . . 42
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Appendix A. Capability Analysis of Current Protocols . . . . . . 45 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Appendix A. Capability Analysis of Current Protocols . . . . . . 48
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The success of the Internet has made IP-based networks bigger and The success of the Internet has made IP-based networks bigger and
more complicated. Large-scale ISP and enterprise networks have more complicated. Large-scale ISP and enterprise networks have
become more and more problematic for human based management. Also, become more and more problematic for human based management. Also,
operational costs are growing quickly. Consequently, there are operational costs are growing quickly. Consequently, there are
increased requirements for autonomic behavior in the networks. increased requirements for autonomic behavior in the networks.
General aspects of autonomic networks are discussed in [RFC7575] and General aspects of autonomic networks are discussed in [RFC7575] and
[RFC7576]. A reference model for autonomic networking is given in [RFC7576]. A reference model for autonomic networking is given in
skipping to change at page 4, line 32 skipping to change at page 4, line 38
2. Requirement Analysis of Discovery, Synchronization and Negotiation 2. Requirement Analysis of Discovery, Synchronization and Negotiation
This section discusses the requirements for discovery, negotiation This section discusses the requirements for discovery, negotiation
and synchronization capabilities. The primary user of the protocol and synchronization capabilities. The primary user of the protocol
is an autonomic service agent (ASA), so the requirements are mainly is an autonomic service agent (ASA), so the requirements are mainly
expressed as the features needed by an ASA. A single physical device expressed as the features needed by an ASA. A single physical device
might contain several ASAs, and a single ASA might manage several might contain several ASAs, and a single ASA might manage several
technical objectives. technical objectives.
Note that requirements for ASAs themselves, such as the processing of
Intent [RFC7575] or interfaces for coordination between ASAs are out
of scope for the present document.
2.1. Requirements for Discovery 2.1. Requirements for Discovery
1. ASAs may be designed to manage anything, as required in 1. ASAs may be designed to manage anything, as required in
Section 2.2. A basic requirement is therefore that the protocol can Section 2.2. A basic requirement is therefore that the protocol can
represent and discover any kind of technical objective among represent and discover any kind of technical objective among
arbitrary subsets of participating nodes. arbitrary subsets of participating nodes.
In an autonomic network we must assume that when a device starts up In an autonomic network we must assume that when a device starts up
it has no information about any peer devices, the network structure, it has no information about any peer devices, the network structure,
or what specific role it must play. The ASA(s) inside the device are or what specific role it must play. The ASA(s) inside the device are
skipping to change at page 6, line 5 skipping to change at page 6, line 13
hierarchical structure, which is an attribute of individual hierarchical structure, which is an attribute of individual
technical objectives and not of the autonomic network as a whole. technical objectives and not of the autonomic network as a whole.
This is part of the more general requirement to discover off-link This is part of the more general requirement to discover off-link
peers. peers.
o During initialisation, a device must be able to establish mutual o During initialisation, a device must be able to establish mutual
trust with the rest of the network and join an authentication trust with the rest of the network and join an authentication
mechanism. Although this will inevitably start with a discovery mechanism. Although this will inevitably start with a discovery
action, it is a special case precisely because trust is not yet action, it is a special case precisely because trust is not yet
established. This topic is the subject of established. This topic is the subject of
[I-D.pritikin-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra]. We require that once [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra]. We require that once
trust has been established for a device, all ASAs within the trust has been established for a device, all ASAs within the
device inherit the device's credentials and are also trusted. device inherit the device's credentials and are also trusted.
o Depending on the type of network involved, discovery of other o Depending on the type of network involved, discovery of other
central functions might be needed, such as a source of Intent central functions might be needed, such as the Network Operations
distribution [RFC7575] or the Network Operations Center (NOC) Center (NOC) [I-D.eckert-anima-stable-connectivity]. The protocol
[I-D.eckert-anima-stable-connectivity]. The protocol must be must be capable of supporting such discovery during
capable of supporting such discovery during initialisation, as initialisation, as well as discovery during ongoing operation.
well as discovery during ongoing operation.
8. The discovery process must not generate excessive (multicast) 8. The discovery process must not generate excessive (multicast)
traffic and must take account of sleeping nodes in the case of a traffic and must take account of sleeping nodes in the case of a
resource-constrained network [RFC7228]. resource-constrained network [RFC7228].
2.2. Requirements for Synchronization and Negotiation Capability 2.2. Requirements for Synchronization and Negotiation Capability
As background, consider the example of routing protocols, the closest As background, consider the example of routing protocols, the closest
approximation to autonomic networking already in widespread use. approximation to autonomic networking already in widespread use.
Routing protocols use a largely autonomic model based on distributed Routing protocols use a largely autonomic model based on distributed
skipping to change at page 8, line 19 skipping to change at page 8, line 27
parameters. In other words there must be a possibility of parameters. In other words there must be a possibility of
forecasting the effect of a change by a "dry run" mechanism before forecasting the effect of a change by a "dry run" mechanism before
actually installing the change. This will be an application of actually installing the change. This will be an application of
the protocol rather than a feature of the protocol itself. the protocol rather than a feature of the protocol itself.
o Management logging, monitoring, alerts and tools for intervention o Management logging, monitoring, alerts and tools for intervention
are required. However, these can only be features of individual are required. However, these can only be features of individual
ASAs. Another document [I-D.eckert-anima-stable-connectivity] ASAs. Another document [I-D.eckert-anima-stable-connectivity]
discusses how such agents may be linked into conventional OAM discusses how such agents may be linked into conventional OAM
systems via an Autonomic Control Plane systems via an Autonomic Control Plane
[I-D.behringer-anima-autonomic-control-plane]. [I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane].
16. The protocol will be able to deal with a wide variety of 16. The protocol will be able to deal with a wide variety of
technical objectives, covering any type of network parameter. technical objectives, covering any type of network parameter.
Therefore the protocol will need either an explicit information model Therefore the protocol will need either an explicit information model
describing its messages, or at least a flexible and extensible describing its messages, or at least a flexible and easily extensible
message format. One design consideration is whether to adopt an message format. One design consideration is whether to adopt an
existing information model or to design a new one. existing information model or to design a new one.
2.3. Specific Technical Requirements 2.3. Specific Technical Requirements
17. It should be convenient for ASA designers to define new 17. It should be convenient for ASA designers to define new
technical objectives and for programmers to express them, without technical objectives and for programmers to express them, without
excessive impact on run-time efficiency and footprint. The classes excessive impact on run-time efficiency and footprint. The classes
of device in which the protocol might run is discussed in of device in which the protocol might run is discussed in
[I-D.behringer-anima-reference-model]. [I-D.behringer-anima-reference-model].
18. The protocol should be extensible in case the initially defined 18. The protocol should be easily extensible in case the initially
discovery, synchronization and negotiation mechanisms prove to be defined discovery, synchronization and negotiation mechanisms prove
insufficient. to be insufficient.
19. To be a generic platform, the protocol payload format should be 19. To be a generic platform, the protocol payload format should be
independent of the transport protocol or IP version. In particular, independent of the transport protocol or IP version. In particular,
it should be able to run over IPv6 or IPv4. However, some functions, it should be able to run over IPv6 or IPv4. However, some functions,
such as multicasting or broadcasting on a link, might need to be IP such as multicasting or broadcasting on a link, might need to be IP
version dependent. In case of doubt, IPv6 should be preferred. version dependent. In case of doubt, IPv6 should be preferred.
20. The protocol must be able to access off-link counterparts via 20. The protocol must be able to access off-link counterparts via
routable addresses, i.e., must not be restricted to link-local routable addresses, i.e., must not be restricted to link-local
operation. operation.
skipping to change at page 9, line 49 skipping to change at page 10, line 7
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119] when they appear in ALL CAPS. When these words are not in [RFC2119] when they appear in ALL CAPS. When these words are not in
ALL CAPS (such as "should" or "Should"), they have their usual ALL CAPS (such as "should" or "Should"), they have their usual
English meanings, and are not to be interpreted as [RFC2119] key English meanings, and are not to be interpreted as [RFC2119] key
words. words.
This document uses terminology defined in [RFC7575]. This document uses terminology defined in [RFC7575].
The following additional terms are used throughout this document: The following additional terms are used throughout this document:
o Autonomic Device: identical to Autonomic Node.
o Discovery: a process by which an ASA discovers peers according to o Discovery: a process by which an ASA discovers peers according to
a specific discovery objective. The discovery results may be a specific discovery objective. The discovery results may be
different according to the different discovery objectives. The different according to the different discovery objectives. The
discovered peers may later be used as negotiation counterparts or discovered peers may later be used as negotiation counterparts or
as sources of synchronization data. as sources of synchronization data.
o Negotiation: a process by which two (or more) ASAs interact o Negotiation: a process by which two (or more) ASAs interact
iteratively to agree on parameter settings that best satisfy the iteratively to agree on parameter settings that best satisfy the
objectives of one or more ASAs. objectives of one or more ASAs.
skipping to change at page 11, line 29 skipping to change at page 11, line 36
o Negotiation Counterpart: a peer with which the Negotiation o Negotiation Counterpart: a peer with which the Negotiation
Initiator negotiates a specific negotiation objective. Initiator negotiates a specific negotiation objective.
3.2. High-Level Design Choices 3.2. High-Level Design Choices
This section describes a behavior model and some considerations for This section describes a behavior model and some considerations for
designing a generic signaling protocol initially supporting designing a generic signaling protocol initially supporting
discovery, synchronization and negotiation, which can act as a discovery, synchronization and negotiation, which can act as a
platform for different technical objectives. platform for different technical objectives.
NOTE: This protocol is described here in a stand-alone fashion as a NOTE: An earlier version of this protocol used type-length-value
proof of concept. An earlier version was prototyped by Huawei and formats and was prototyped by Huawei and the Beijing University of
the Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications. However, Posts and Telecommunications.
this is not yet a definitive proposal for IETF adoption. In
particular, a change from the current TLV design to an object-
oriented design is under discussion. This whole specification is
subject to change as a result.
o A generic platform o A generic platform
The protocol is designed as a generic platform, which is The protocol is designed as a generic platform, which is
independent from the synchronization or negotiation contents. It independent from the synchronization or negotiation contents. It
takes care of the general intercommunication between counterparts. takes care of the general intercommunication between counterparts.
The technical contents will vary according to the various The technical contents will vary according to the various
technical objectives and the different pairs of counterparts. technical objectives and the different pairs of counterparts.
o The protocol is expected to form part of an Autonomic Networking o The protocol is expected to form part of an Autonomic Networking
skipping to change at page 12, line 18 skipping to change at page 12, line 21
device configurations and bring significant impacts to a running device configurations and bring significant impacts to a running
network, this protocol is assumed to run within an existing secure network, this protocol is assumed to run within an existing secure
environment with strong authentication. environment with strong authentication.
On the other hand, a limited negotiation model might be deployed On the other hand, a limited negotiation model might be deployed
based on a limited trust relationship. For example, between two based on a limited trust relationship. For example, between two
administrative domains, ASAs might also exchange limited administrative domains, ASAs might also exchange limited
information and negotiate some particular configurations based on information and negotiate some particular configurations based on
a limited conventional or contractual trust relationship. a limited conventional or contractual trust relationship.
o Discovery, synchronization and negotiation designed together o Discovery, synchronization and negotiation are designed together.
The discovery method and the synchronization and negotiation The discovery method and the synchronization and negotiation
methods are designed in the same way and can be combined when this methods are designed in the same way and can be combined when this
is useful. These processes can also be performed independently is useful. These processes can also be performed independently
when appropriate. when appropriate.
* GRASP discovery is appropriate for efficient discovery of GRASP * GRASP discovery is always available for efficient discovery of
peers and allows a rapid mode of operation described in GRASP peers and allows a rapid mode of operation described in
Section 3.3.3. For some parameters, especially those concerned Section 3.3.3. For some objectives, especially those concerned
with application layer services, a text-based discovery with application layer services, another discovery mechanism
mechanism such as the future DNS Service Discovery [RFC7558] or such as the future DNS Service Discovery [RFC7558] or Service
Service Location Protocol [RFC2608] might be more appropriate. Location Protocol [RFC2608] MAY be used. The choice is left to
The choice is left to the designers of individual ASAs. the designers of individual ASAs.
o A uniform pattern for technical contents o A uniform pattern for technical contents
The synchronization and negotiation contents are defined according The synchronization and negotiation contents are defined according
to a uniform pattern. They could be carried either in simple TLV to a uniform pattern. They could be carried either in simple
(Type, Length and Value) format or in payloads described by a binary format or in payloads described by a flexible language.
flexible language. The initial protocol design uses the TLV The basic protocol design uses the Concise Binary Object
approach. The format is extensible for unknown future Representation (CBOR) [RFC7049]. The format is extensible for
requirements. unknown future requirements.
o A flexible model for synchronization o A flexible model for synchronization
GRASP supports bilateral synchronization, which could be used to GRASP supports bilateral synchronization, which could be used to
perform synchronization among a small number of nodes. It also perform synchronization among a small number of nodes. It also
supports an unsolicited flooding mode when large groups of nodes, supports an unsolicited flooding mode when large groups of nodes,
possibly including all autonomic nodes, need data for the same possibly including all autonomic nodes, need data for the same
technical objective. technical objective.
* There may be some network parameters for which a more * There may be some network parameters for which a more
traditional flooding mechanism such as DNCP traditional flooding mechanism such as DNCP
[I-D.ietf-homenet-dncp] is considered more appropriate. GRASP [I-D.ietf-homenet-dncp] is considered more appropriate. GRASP
can coexist with DNCP. can coexist with DNCP.
skipping to change at page 15, line 4 skipping to change at page 15, line 6
* Failed negotiation * Failed negotiation
There must be a well-defined procedure for concluding that a There must be a well-defined procedure for concluding that a
negotiation cannot succeed, and if so deciding what happens negotiation cannot succeed, and if so deciding what happens
next (deadlock resolution, tie-breaking, or revert to best- next (deadlock resolution, tie-breaking, or revert to best-
effort service). Again, this MUST be specified for individual effort service). Again, this MUST be specified for individual
negotiation objectives, as an implementation choice, a pre- negotiation objectives, as an implementation choice, a pre-
configurable parameter, or network Intent. configurable parameter, or network Intent.
3.3. GRASP Protocol Basic Properties and Mechanisms 3.3. GRASP Protocol Basic Properties and Mechanisms
3.3.1. Required External Security Mechanism 3.3.1. Required External Security Mechanism
The protocol SHOULD run within a secure Autonomic Control Plane (ACP) The protocol SHOULD run within a secure Autonomic Control Plane (ACP)
[I-D.behringer-anima-autonomic-control-plane]. The procedure for [I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane]. The ACP MUST provide a
establishing the ACP MUST provide a flag indicating to GRASP that the status indicator to inform GRASP that the ACP is operational.
ACP has been established.
If there is no ACP, the protocol MUST use TLS [RFC5246] or DTLS If there is no ACP, the protocol MUST use another form of strong
[RFC6347] for all messages, based on a local Public Key authentication and SHOULD use a form of strong encryption. TLS
Infrastructure (PKI) [RFC5280] managed within the autonomic network [RFC5246] or DTLS [RFC6347] are RECOMMENDED for this purpose, based
itself. on a local Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) [RFC5280] managed within
the autonomic network itself.
Link-local multicast is used for discovery messages. These cannot be Link-local multicast is used for discovery messages. It is expected
secured, but responses to discovery messages MUST be secured. that the ACP will handle these and distribute them securely to all
However, during initialisation, before a node has joined the on-link ACP nodes only. However, in the absence of an ACP they
applicable trust infrastructure, e.g., cannot be secured. Responses to discovery messages MUST be secured.
[I-D.pritikin-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra], it might be impossible
to secure certain messages. Such messages MUST be limited to the During initialisation, before a node has joined the applicable trust
strictly necessary minimum. infrastructure, e.g., [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra], it
might be impossible to secure certain messages. Such messages MUST
be limited to the strictly necessary minimum. A full analysis of the
secure bootstrap process is out of scope for the present document.
3.3.2. Transport Layer Usage 3.3.2. Transport Layer Usage
The protocol is capable of running over UDP or TCP, except for link- The protocol is capable of running over UDP or TCP, except for link-
local multicast discovery messages, which can only run over UDP and local multicast discovery messages, which can only run over UDP and
MUST NOT be fragmented, and therefore cannot exceed the link MTU MUST NOT be fragmented, and therefore cannot exceed the link MTU
size. size.
When running within a secure ACP, UDP SHOULD be used for messages not When running within a secure ACP, UDP SHOULD be used for messages not
exceeding the minimum IPv6 path MTU, and TCP MUST be used for longer exceeding the minimum IPv6 path MTU, and TCP MUST be used for longer
messages. In other words, IPv6 fragmentation is avoided. If a node messages. In other words, IPv6 fragmentation is avoided. If a node
receives a UDP message but the reply is too long, it MUST open a TCP receives a UDP message but the reply is too long, it MUST open a TCP
connection to the peer for the reply. connection to the peer for the reply.
When running without an ACP, TLS MUST be supported and used by When running without an ACP, TLS MUST be supported and used by
default, except for multicast discovery messages. DTLS MAY be default, except for multicast discovery messages. DTLS MAY be
supported as an alternative but the details are out of scope for this supported as an alternative but the details are out of scope for this
document. document.
For all transport protocols, the GRASP protocol listens to the GRASP For all transport protocols, the GRASP protocol listens to the GRASP
Listen Port (Section 3.4). Listen Port (Section 3.5).
3.3.3. Discovery Mechanism and Procedures 3.3.3. Discovery Mechanism and Procedures
o Separated discovery and negotiation mechanisms o Separated discovery and negotiation mechanisms
Although discovery and negotiation or synchronization are Although discovery and negotiation or synchronization are
defined together in the GRASP, they are separated mechanisms. defined together in the GRASP, they are separated mechanisms.
The discovery process could run independently from the The discovery process could run independently from the
negotiation or synchronization process. Upon receiving a negotiation or synchronization process. Upon receiving a
discovery (Section 3.6.2) or request (Section 3.6.4) message, discovery (Section 3.7.2) or request (Section 3.7.4) message,
the recipient ASA should return a message in which it either the recipient ASA should return a message in which it either
indicates itself as a discovery responder or diverts the indicates itself as a discovery responder or diverts the
initiator towards another more suitable ASA. initiator towards another more suitable ASA.
The discovery action will normally be followed by a negotiation The discovery action will normally be followed by a negotiation
or synchronization action. The discovery results could be or synchronization action. The discovery results could be
utilized by the negotiation protocol to decide which ASA the utilized by the negotiation protocol to decide which ASA the
initiator will negotiate with. initiator will negotiate with.
o Discovery Procedures o Discovery Procedures
Discovery starts as an on-link operation. The Divert option Discovery starts as an on-link operation. The Divert option
can tell the discovery initiator to contact an off-link ASA for can tell the discovery initiator to contact an off-link ASA for
that discovery objective. Every DISCOVERY message is sent by a that discovery objective. Every Discovery message is sent by a
discovery initiator via UDP to the ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBOR multicast discovery initiator via UDP to the ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBOR multicast
address (Section 3.4). Every network device that supports the address (Section 3.5). Every network device that supports the
GRASP always listens to a well-known UDP port to capture the GRASP always listens to a well-known UDP port to capture the
discovery messages. discovery messages.
If an ASA in the neighbor device supports the requested If an ASA in the neighbor device supports the requested
discovery objective, it MAY respond with a Response message discovery objective, it MAY respond with a Response message
(Section 3.6.3) with locator option(s). Otherwise, if the (Section 3.7.3) with locator option(s). Otherwise, if the
neighbor has cached information about an ASA that supports the neighbor has cached information about an ASA that supports the
requested discovery objective (usually because it discovered requested discovery objective (usually because it discovered
the same objective before), it SHOULD respond with a Response the same objective before), it SHOULD respond with a Response
message with a Divert option pointing to the appropriate message with a Divert option pointing to the appropriate
Discovery Responder. Discovery Responder.
If no discovery response is received within a reasonable If no discovery response is received within a reasonable
timeout (default GRASP_DEF_TIMEOUT milliseconds, Section 3.4), timeout (default GRASP_DEF_TIMEOUT milliseconds, Section 3.5),
the DISCOVERY message MAY be repeated, with a newly generated the Discovery message MAY be repeated, with a newly generated
Session ID (Section 3.5). An exponential backoff SHOULD be Session ID (Section 3.6). An exponential backoff SHOULD be
used for subsequent repetitions, in order to mitigate possible used for subsequent repetitions, in order to mitigate possible
denial of service attacks. denial of service attacks.
After a GRASP device successfully discovers a Discovery After a GRASP device successfully discovers a Discovery
Responder supporting a specific objective, it MUST cache this Responder supporting a specific objective, it MUST cache this
information. This cache record MAY be used for future information. This cache record MAY be used for future
negotiation or synchronization, and SHOULD be passed on when negotiation or synchronization, and SHOULD be passed on when
appropriate as a Divert option to another Discovery Initiator. appropriate as a Divert option to another Discovery Initiator.
The cache lifetime is an implementation choice that MAY be The cache lifetime is an implementation choice that MAY be
modified by network Intent. modified by network Intent.
If multiple Discovery Responders are found for the same If multiple Discovery Responders are found for the same
objective, they SHOULD all be cached, unless this creates a objective, they SHOULD all be cached, unless this creates a
resource shortage. The method of choosing between multiple resource shortage. The method of choosing between multiple
responders is an implementation choice. responders is an implementation choice.
A GRASP device with multiple link-layer interfaces (typically a A GRASP device with multiple link-layer interfaces (typically a
router) MUST support discovery on all interfaces. If it router) MUST support discovery on all interfaces. If it
receives a DISCOVERY message on a given interface for a receives a Discovery message on a given interface for a
specific objective that it does not support and for which it specific objective that it does not support and for which it
has not previously discovered a Discovery Responder, it MUST has not previously discovered a Discovery Responder, it MUST
relay the query by re-issuing the same DISCOVERY message on its relay the query by re-issuing the same Discovery message on its
other interfaces. However, it MUST limit the total rate at other interfaces. Before this, it MUST decrement the loop
count within the objective, and discard the Discovery message
if the result is zero. Also, it MUST limit the total rate at
which it relays discovery messages to a reasonable value, in which it relays discovery messages to a reasonable value, in
order to mitigate possible denial of service attacks. It MUST order to mitigate possible denial of service attacks. It MUST
cache the Session ID value of each relayed discovery message cache the Session ID value of each relayed discovery message
and, to prevent loops, MUST NOT relay a DISCOVERY message which and, to prevent loops, MUST NOT relay a Discovery message which
carries such a cached Session ID. These precautions avoid carries such a cached Session ID. These precautions avoid
discovery loops. discovery loops and mitigate potential overload.
This relayed discovery mechanism, with caching of the results, This relayed discovery mechanism, with caching of the results,
should be sufficient to support most network bootstrapping should be sufficient to support most network bootstrapping
scenarios. scenarios.
o A complete discovery process will start with multicast on the o A complete discovery process will start with multicast on the
local link; a neighbor might divert it to an off-link destination, local link; a neighbor might divert it to an off-link destination,
which could be a default higher-level gateway in a hierarchical which could be a default higher-level gateway in a hierarchical
network. Then discovery would continue with a unicast to that network. Then discovery would continue with a unicast to that
gateway; if that gateway is still not the right counterpart, it gateway; if that gateway is still not the right counterpart, it
skipping to change at page 18, line 5 skipping to change at page 18, line 15
3.3.4. Negotiation Procedures 3.3.4. Negotiation Procedures
A negotiation initiator sends a negotiation request to a counterpart A negotiation initiator sends a negotiation request to a counterpart
ASA, including a specific negotiation objective. It may request the ASA, including a specific negotiation objective. It may request the
negotiation counterpart to make a specific configuration. negotiation counterpart to make a specific configuration.
Alternatively, it may request a certain simulation or forecast result Alternatively, it may request a certain simulation or forecast result
by sending a dry run configuration. The details, including the by sending a dry run configuration. The details, including the
distinction between dry run and an actual configuration change, will distinction between dry run and an actual configuration change, will
be defined separately for each type of negotiation objective. be defined separately for each type of negotiation objective.
If no reply message of any kind is received within a reasonable
timeout (default GRASP_DEF_TIMEOUT milliseconds, Section 3.5), the
negotiation request MAY be repeated, with a newly generated Session
ID (Section 3.6). An exponential backoff SHOULD be used for
subsequent repetitions.
If the counterpart can immediately apply the requested configuration, If the counterpart can immediately apply the requested configuration,
it will give an immediate positive (accept) answer. This will end it will give an immediate positive (accept) answer. This will end
the negotiation phase immediately. Otherwise, it will negotiate. It the negotiation phase immediately. Otherwise, it will negotiate. It
will reply with a proposed alternative configuration that it can will reply with a proposed alternative configuration that it can
apply (typically, a configuration that uses fewer resources than apply (typically, a configuration that uses fewer resources than
requested by the negotiation initiator). This will start a bi- requested by the negotiation initiator). This will start a bi-
directional negotiation to reach a compromise between the two ASAs. directional negotiation to reach a compromise between the two ASAs.
The negotiation procedure is ended when one of the negotiation peers The negotiation procedure is ended when one of the negotiation peers
sends a Negotiation Ending message, which contains an accept or sends a Negotiation Ending message, which contains an accept or
skipping to change at page 18, line 48 skipping to change at page 19, line 16
that a higher efficiency could be achieved. This rapid that a higher efficiency could be achieved. This rapid
negotiation function SHOULD be configured off by default and MAY negotiation function SHOULD be configured off by default and MAY
be configured on or off by Intent. be configured on or off by Intent.
3.3.5. Synchronization Procedure 3.3.5. Synchronization Procedure
A synchronization initiator sends a synchronization request to a A synchronization initiator sends a synchronization request to a
counterpart, including a specific synchronization objective. The counterpart, including a specific synchronization objective. The
counterpart responds with a Response message containing the current counterpart responds with a Response message containing the current
value of the requested synchronization objective. No further value of the requested synchronization objective. No further
messages are needed. If no Response message is received, the messages are needed.
synchronization request MAY be repeated after a suitable timeout.
If no reply message of any kind is received within a reasonable
timeout (default GRASP_DEF_TIMEOUT milliseconds, Section 3.5), the
synchronization request MAY be repeated, with a newly generated
Session ID (Section 3.6). An exponential backoff SHOULD be used for
subsequent repetitions.
In the case just described, the message exchange is unicast and In the case just described, the message exchange is unicast and
concerns only one synchronization objective. For large groups of concerns only one synchronization objective. For large groups of
nodes requiring the same data, synchronization flooding is available. nodes requiring the same data, synchronization flooding is available.
For this, a synchronization responder MAY send an unsolicited For this, a synchronization responder MAY send an unsolicited
Response message containing one or more Synchronization Objective Response message containing one or more Synchronization Objective
option(s), if and only if the specification of those objectives option(s), if and only if the specification of those objectives
permits it. This is sent as a multicast message to the permits it. This is sent as a multicast message to the
ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBOR multicast address (Section 3.4). In this case a ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBOR multicast address (Section 3.5). To ensure that
suitable mechanism is needed to avoid excessive multicast traffic. flooding does not result in a loop, the originator of the Response
This mechanism MUST be defined as part of the specification of the message MUST set the loop count in the objective to a suitable value
synchronization objective(s) concerned. It might be a simple rate (the default is GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT). In this case a suitable mechanism
limit or a more complex mechanism such as the Trickle algorithm is needed to avoid excessive multicast traffic. This mechanism MUST
[RFC6206]. be defined as part of the specification of the synchronization
objective(s) concerned. It might be a simple rate limit or a more
complex mechanism such as the Trickle algorithm [RFC6206].
A GRASP device with multiple link-layer interfaces (typically a A GRASP device with multiple link-layer interfaces (typically a
router) MUST support synchronization flooding on all interfaces. If router) MUST support synchronization flooding on all interfaces. If
it receives a multicast unsolicited Response message on a given it receives a multicast unsolicited Response message on a given
interface, it MUST relay it by re-issuing the same Response message interface, it MUST relay it by re-issuing the same Response message
on its other interfaces. However, it MUST limit the total rate at on its other interfaces. Before this, it MUST decrement the loop
which it relays Response messages to a reasonable value, in order to count within the objective, and discard the Response message if the
mitigate possible denial of service attacks. It MUST cache the result is zero. Also, it MUST limit the total rate at which it
Session ID value of each relayed discovery message and, to prevent relays Response messages to a reasonable value, in order to mitigate
loops, MUST NOT relay a Response message which carries such a cached possible denial of service attacks. It MUST cache the Session ID
Session ID. These precautions avoid synchronization loops. value of each relayed Response message and, to prevent loops, MUST
NOT relay a Response message which carries such a cached Session ID.
These precautions avoid synchronization loops and mitigate potential
overload.
Note that this mechanism is unreliable in the case of sleeping nodes. Note that this mechanism is unreliable in the case of sleeping nodes.
Sleeping nodes that require an objective subject to synchronization Sleeping nodes that require an objective subject to synchronization
flooding SHOULD periodically initiate normal synchronization for that flooding SHOULD periodically initiate normal synchronization for that
objective. objective.
Rapid Mode (Discovery/Synchronization linkage) Rapid Mode (Discovery/Synchronization linkage)
A Discovery message MAY include one or more Synchronization A Discovery message MAY include one or more Synchronization
Objective option(s). In this case the Discovery message also acts Objective option(s). In this case the Discovery message also acts
skipping to change at page 20, line 5 skipping to change at page 20, line 26
message with synchronization data for rapid processing, if the message with synchronization data for rapid processing, if the
discovery target supports the corresponding synchronization discovery target supports the corresponding synchronization
objective(s). However, the indication is only advisory not objective(s). However, the indication is only advisory not
prescriptive. prescriptive.
This rapid mode could reduce the interactions between nodes so This rapid mode could reduce the interactions between nodes so
that a higher efficiency could be achieved. This rapid that a higher efficiency could be achieved. This rapid
synchronization function SHOULD be configured off by default and synchronization function SHOULD be configured off by default and
MAY be configured on or off by Intent. MAY be configured on or off by Intent.
3.4. GRASP Constants 3.4. High Level Deployment Model
It is expected that a GRASP implementation will reside in an
autonomic node that also contains both the appropriate security
environment (preferably the ACP) and one or more Autonomic Service
Agents (ASAs). In the minimal case of a single-purpose device, these
three components might be fully integrated. A more common model is
expected to be a multi-purpose device capable of containing several
ASAs. In this case it is expected that the ACP, GRASP and the ASAs
will be implemented as separate processes, which are probably multi-
threaded to support asynchronous operation. It is expected that
GRASP will access the ACP by using a typical socket interface. Well
defined Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) will be needed
between GRASP and the ASAs. For further details of possible
deployment models, see [I-D.behringer-anima-reference-model].
3.5. GRASP Constants
o ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBOR o ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBOR
A link-local scope multicast address used by a GRASP-enabled A link-local scope multicast address used by a GRASP-enabled
device to discover GRASP-enabled neighbor (i.e., on-link) devices device to discover GRASP-enabled neighbor (i.e., on-link) devices
. All devices that support GRASP are members of this multicast . All devices that support GRASP are members of this multicast
group. group.
* IPv6 multicast address: TBD1 * IPv6 multicast address: TBD1
* IPv4 multicast address: TBD2 * IPv4 multicast address: TBD2
o GRASP Listen Port (TBD3) o GRASP_LISTEN_PORT (TBD3)
A UDP and TCP port that every GRASP-enabled network device always A UDP and TCP port that every GRASP-enabled network device always
listens to. listens to.
o GRASP_DEF_TIMEOUT (60000 milliseconds) o GRASP_DEF_TIMEOUT (60000 milliseconds)
The default timeout used to determine that a discovery or The default timeout used to determine that a discovery etc. has
negotiation has failed to complete. failed to complete.
o GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT (6) o GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT (6)
The default loop count used to determine that a negotiation has The default loop count used to determine that a negotiation has
failed to complete. failed to complete, and to avoid looping messages.
3.5. Session Identifier (Session ID) 3.6. Session Identifier (Session ID)
A 24-bit opaque value used to distinguish multiple sessions between This is an up to 24-bit opaque value used to distinguish multiple
the same two devices. A new Session ID MUST be generated for every sessions between the same two devices. A new Session ID MUST be
new Discovery or Request message, and for every unsolicited Response generated for every new Discovery or Request message, and for every
message. All follow-up messages in the same discovery, unsolicited Response message. All follow-up messages in the same
synchronization or negotiation procedure, which is initiated by the discovery, synchronization or negotiation procedure, which is
request message, MUST carry the same Session ID. initiated by the request message, MUST carry the same Session ID.
The Session ID SHOULD have a very low collision rate locally. It is The Session ID SHOULD have a very low collision rate locally. It
MUST be generated by a pseudo-random algorithm using a locally MUST be generated by a pseudo-random algorithm using a locally
generated seed which is unlikely to be used by any other device in generated seed which is unlikely to be used by any other device in
the same network [RFC4086]. the same network [RFC4086].
3.6. GRASP Messages 3.7. GRASP Messages
This document defines the following GRASP message format and types.
Message types not listed here are reserved for future use. The
numeric encoding for each message type is shown in parentheses.
3.6.1. GRASP Message Format This section defines the GRASP message format and message types.
Message types not listed here are reserved for future use.
GRASP messages share an identical fixed format header and a variable 3.7.1. GRASP Message Format
format area for options. GRASP message headers and options are in
the type-length-value (TLV) format defined in DNCP (see Section
"Type-Length-Value Objects" in [I-D.ietf-homenet-dncp]).
Every GRASP message carries a Session ID. Options are presented GRASP messages share an identical header format and a variable format
serially in the options field, with padding to 4-byte alignment. area for options. GRASP message headers and options are transmitted
in Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) [RFC7049]. In this
specification, they are described using CBOR data definition language
(CDDL) [I-D.greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl]. Fragmentary CDDL is
used to describe each item in this section. A complete and normative
CDDL specification of GRASP is given in Section 6.
The following diagram illustrates the format of GRASP messages: Every GRASP message carries a Session ID (Section 3.6). Options are
then presented serially in the options field.
0 1 2 3 In fragmentary CDDL, every GRASP message follows the pattern:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MESSAGE_TYPE | 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Session ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Options (variable length) |
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
MESSAGE_TYPE: Identifies the GRASP message type. 16-bit. message /= [MESSAGE_TYPE, session-id, *option]
Reserved: Set to zero, ignored on receipt. 8-bit. MESSAGE_TYPE = ; a defined constant
session-id = 0..16777215
option /= ; one of the options defined below
Session ID: Identifies this GRASP session, as defined in 3.7.2. Discovery Message
Section 3.5. 24-bit.
Options: GRASP Options carried in this message. Options are defined In fragmentary CDDL, a Discovery message follows the pattern:
starting at Section 3.7.
3.6.2. Discovery Message discovery-message = [M_DISCOVERY, session-id, objective]
DISCOVERY (MESSAGE_TYPE = G1): M_DISCOVERY = ; a defined constant
session-id = 0..16777215
objective /= ; defined below
A discovery initiator sends a DISCOVERY message to initiate a A discovery initiator sends a Discovery message to initiate a
discovery process. discovery process.
The discovery initiator sends the DISCOVERY messages to the link- The discovery initiator sends the Discovery messages to the link-
local ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBOR multicast address for discovery, and stores local ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBOR multicast address for discovery, and stores
the discovery results (including responding discovery objectives and the discovery results (including responding discovery objectives and
corresponding unicast addresses or FQDNs). corresponding unicast addresses or FQDNs).
A DISCOVERY message MUST include exactly one of the following: A Discovery message MUST include exactly one of the following:
o a discovery objective option (Section 3.8.1). o a discovery objective option (Section 3.9.1). Its loop count must
be set to a suitable value to prevent discovery loops (default
value is GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT).
o a negotiation objective option (Section 3.8.1) to indicate to the o a negotiation objective option (Section 3.9.1) to indicate to the
discovery target that it MAY directly reply to the discovery discovery target that it MAY directly reply to the discovery
initiatior with a NEGOTIATION message for rapid processing, if it initiatior with a Negotiation message for rapid processing, if it
could act as the corresponding negotiation counterpart. The could act as the corresponding negotiation counterpart. The
sender of such a DISCOVERY message MUST initialize a negotiation sender of such a Discovery message MUST initialize a negotiation
timer and loop count in the same way as a REQUEST message timer and loop count in the same way as a Request message
(Section 3.6.4). (Section 3.7.4).
o one or more synchronization objective options (Section 3.8.1) to o one or more synchronization objective options (Section 3.9.1) to
indicate to the discovery target that it MAY directly reply to the indicate to the discovery target that it MAY directly reply to the
discovery initiator with a RESPONSE message for rapid processing, discovery initiator with a Response message for rapid processing,
if it could act as the corresponding synchronization counterpart. if it could act as the corresponding synchronization counterpart.
3.6.3. Response Message 3.7.3. Response Message
RESPONSE (MESSAGE_TYPE = G2): In fragmentary CDDL, a Response message follows the pattern:
A node which receives a DISCOVERY message sends a Response message to response-message = [M_RESPONSE, session-id,
(+locator-option // divert-option // objective)]
M_RESPONSE = ; a defined constant
session-id = 0..16777215
locator-option /= ; defined below
divert-option = ; defined below
objective /= ; defined below
A node which receives a Discovery message sends a Response message to
respond to a discovery. It MUST contain the same Session ID as the respond to a discovery. It MUST contain the same Session ID as the
DISCOVERY message. It MAY include a copy of the discovery objective Discovery message. It MAY include a copy of the discovery objective
from the DISCOVERY message. from the Discovery message.
If the responding node supports the discovery objective of the If the responding node supports the discovery objective of the
discovery, it MUST include at least one kind of locator option discovery, it MUST include at least one kind of locator option
(Section 3.7.7) to indicate its own location. A combination of (Section 3.8.7) to indicate its own location. A combination of
multiple kinds of locator options (e.g. IP address option + FQDN multiple kinds of locator options (e.g. IP address option + FQDN
option) is also valid. option) is also valid.
If the responding node itself does not support the discovery If the responding node itself does not support the discovery
objective, but it knows the locator of the discovery objective, then objective, but it knows the locator of the discovery objective, then
it SHOULD respond to the discovery message with a divert option it SHOULD respond to the discovery message with a divert option
(Section 3.7.2) embedding a locator option or a combination of (Section 3.8.2) embedding a locator option or a combination of
multiple kinds of locator options which indicate the locator(s) of multiple kinds of locator options which indicate the locator(s) of
the discovery objective. the discovery objective.
A node which receives a synchronization request sends a Response A node which receives a synchronization request sends a Response
message with the synchronization data, in the form of GRASP Option(s) message with the synchronization data, in the form of GRASP Option(s)
for the specific synchronization objective(s). for the specific synchronization objective(s).
3.6.4. Request Message 3.7.4. Request Message
REQUEST (MESSAGE_TYPE = G3): In fragmentary CDDL, a Request message follows the pattern:
A negotiation or synchronization requesting node sends the REQUEST discovery-message = [M_REQUEST, session-id, objective]
M_REQUEST = ; a defined constant
session-id = 0..16777215
objective /= ; defined below
A negotiation or synchronization requesting node sends the Request
message to the unicast address (directly stored or resolved from the message to the unicast address (directly stored or resolved from the
FQDN) of the negotiation or synchronization counterpart (selected FQDN) of the negotiation or synchronization counterpart (selected
from the discovery results). from the discovery results).
A request message MUST include the relevant objective option, with A request message MUST include the relevant objective option, with
the requested value in the case of negotiation. the requested value in the case of negotiation.
When an initiator sends a REQUEST message, it MUST initialize a When an initiator sends a Request message, it MUST initialize a
negotiation timer for the new negotiation thread with the value negotiation timer for the new negotiation thread with the value
GRASP_DEF_TIMEOUT milliseconds. Unless this timeout is modified by a GRASP_DEF_TIMEOUT milliseconds. Unless this timeout is modified by a
CONFIRM-WAITING message (Section 3.6.7), the initiator will consider Confirm-waiting message (Section 3.7.7), the initiator will consider
that the negotiation has failed when the timer expires. that the negotiation has failed when the timer expires.
When an initiator sends a REQUEST message, it MUST initialize the When an initiator sends a Request message, it MUST initialize the
loop count of the objective option with a value defined in the loop count of the objective option with a value defined in the
specification of the option or, if no such value is specified, with specification of the option or, if no such value is specified, with
GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT. GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT.
3.6.5. Negotiation Message 3.7.5. Negotiation Message
NEGOTIATION (MESSAGE_TYPE = G4): In fragmentary CDDL, a Negotiation message follows the pattern:
A negotiation counterpart sends a NEGOTIATION message in response to discovery-message = [M_NEGOTIATE, session-id, objective]
a REQUEST message, a NEGOTIATION message, or a DISCOVERY message in
M_NEGOTIATE = ; a defined constant
session-id = 0..16777215
objective /= ; defined below
A negotiation counterpart sends a Negotiation message in response to
a Request message, a Negotiation message, or a Discovery message in
Rapid Mode. A negotiation process MAY include multiple steps. Rapid Mode. A negotiation process MAY include multiple steps.
The NEGOTIATION message MUST include the relevant Negotiation The Negotiation message MUST include the relevant Negotiation
Objective option, with its value updated according to progress in the Objective option, with its value updated according to progress in the
negotiation. The sender MUST decrement the loop count by 1. If the negotiation. The sender MUST decrement the loop count by 1. If the
loop count becomes zero both parties will consider that the loop count becomes zero both parties will consider that the
negotiation has failed. negotiation has failed.
3.6.6. Negotiation-ending Message 3.7.6. Negotiation-ending Message
NEGOTIATION-ENDING (MESSAGE_TYPE = G5): In fragmentary CDDL, a Negotiation-ending message follows the
pattern:
A negotiation counterpart sends an NEGOTIATION-ENDING message to end-message = [M_END, session-id, accept-option / decline-option]
M_END = ; a defined constant
session-id = 0..16777215
accept-option = ; defined below
decline-option ; defined below
A negotiation counterpart sends an Negotiation-ending message to
close the negotiation. It MUST contain one, but only one of accept/ close the negotiation. It MUST contain one, but only one of accept/
decline option, defined in Section 3.7.3 and Section 3.7.4. It could decline option, defined in Section 3.8.3 and Section 3.8.4. It could
be sent either by the requesting node or the responding node. be sent either by the requesting node or the responding node.
3.6.7. Confirm-waiting Message 3.7.7. Confirm-waiting Message
CONFIRM-WAITING (MESSAGE_TYPE = G6): In fragmentary CDDL, a Confirm-waiting message follows the pattern:
A responding node sends a CONFIRM-WAITING message to indicate the wait-message = [M_WAIT, session-id, waiting-time-option]
M_WAIT = ; a defined constant
session-id = 0..16777215
waiting-time-option = ; defined below
A responding node sends a Confirm-waiting message to indicate the
requesting node to wait for a further negotiation response. It might requesting node to wait for a further negotiation response. It might
be that the local process needs more time or that the negotiation be that the local process needs more time or that the negotiation
depends on another triggered negotiation. This message MUST NOT depends on another triggered negotiation. This message MUST NOT
include any other options than the Waiting Time Option include any other options than the Waiting Time Option
(Section 3.7.5). (Section 3.8.5).
3.7. GRASP General Options 3.8. GRASP General Options
This section defines the GRASP general options for the negotiation This section defines the GRASP general options for the negotiation
and synchronization protocol signaling. Additional option types are and synchronization protocol signaling. Additional option types are
reserved for GRASP general options defined in the future. reserved for GRASP general options defined in the future.
3.7.1. Format of GRASP Options 3.8.1. Format of GRASP Options
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| option-code | option-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| option-data |
| (option-len octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Option-code: An unsigned integer identifying the specific option
type carried in this option.
Option-len: An unsigned integer giving the length of the option-data
field in this option in octets.
Option-data: The data for the option; the format of this data GRASP options are CBOR objects that MUST start with an unsigned
depends on the definition of the option. integer identifying the specific option type carried in this option.
Apart from that the only format requirement is each option MUST be a
well-formed CBOR object. In general a CBOR array format is
RECOMMENDED to limit overhead.
GRASP options are scoped by using encapsulation. If an option GRASP options are usually scoped by using encapsulation. However,
contains other options, the outer Option-len includes the total size this is not a requirement
of the encapsulated options, and the latter apply only to the outer
option.
3.7.2. Divert Option 3.8.2. Divert Option
The divert option is used to redirect a GRASP request to another The Divert option is used to redirect a GRASP request to another
node, which may be more appropriate for the intended negotiation or node, which may be more appropriate for the intended negotiation or
synchronization. It may redirect to an entity that is known as a synchronization. It may redirect to an entity that is known as a
specific negotiation or synchronization counterpart (on-link or off- specific negotiation or synchronization counterpart (on-link or off-
link) or a default gateway. The divert option MUST only be link) or a default gateway. The divert option MUST only be
encapsulated in Response messages. If found elsewhere, it SHOULD be encapsulated in Response messages. If found elsewhere, it SHOULD be
silently ignored. silently ignored.
0 1 2 3 In fragmentary CDDL, the Divert option follows the pattern:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_DIVERT | option-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Locator Option(s) of Diversion Target(s) |
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Option-code: OPTION_DIVERT (G32). divert-option = [O_DIVERT, +locator-option]
Option-len: The total length of diverted destination sub-option(s) O_DIVERT = ; a defined constant
in octets. locator-option = ; defined below
Locator Option(s) of Diversion Device(s): Embedded Locator Option(s) The embedded Locator Option(s) (Section 3.8.7) point to diverted
(Section 3.7.7) that point to diverted destination target(s). destination target(s) in response to a Discovery message.
3.7.3. Accept Option Note: Currently the need for this option is disputed. It might be
removed or modified.
3.8.3. Accept Option
The accept option is used to indicate to the negotiation counterpart The accept option is used to indicate to the negotiation counterpart
that the proposed negotiation content is accepted. that the proposed negotiation content is accepted.
The accept option MUST only be encapsulated in Negotiation-ending The accept option MUST only be encapsulated in Negotiation-ending
messages. If found elsewhere, it SHOULD be silently ignored. messages. If found elsewhere, it SHOULD be silently ignored.
0 1 2 3 In fragmentary CDDL, the Accept option follows the pattern:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_ACCEPT | option-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Option-code: OPTION_ACCEPT (G33) accept-option = [O_ACCEPT]
Option-len: 0 O_ACCEPT = ; a defined constant
3.7.4. Decline Option 3.8.4. Decline Option
The decline option is used to indicate to the negotiation counterpart The decline option is used to indicate to the negotiation counterpart
the proposed negotiation content is declined and end the negotiation the proposed negotiation content is declined and end the negotiation
process. process.
The decline option MUST only be encapsulated in Negotiation-ending The decline option MUST only be encapsulated in Negotiation-ending
messages. If found elsewhere, it SHOULD be silently ignored. messages. If found elsewhere, it SHOULD be silently ignored.
0 1 2 3 In fragmentary CDDL, the Decline option follows the pattern:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_DECLINE | option-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Option-code: OPTION_DECLINE (G34) decline-option = [O_DECLINE]
Option-len: 0 O_DECLINE = ; a defined constant
Notes: there are scenarios where a negotiation counterpart wants to Notes: there are scenarios where a negotiation counterpart wants to
decline the proposed negotiation content and continue the negotiation decline the proposed negotiation content and continue the negotiation
process. For these scenarios, the negotiation counterpart SHOULD use process. For these scenarios, the negotiation counterpart SHOULD use
a Negotiate message, with either an objective option that contains at a Negotiate message, with either an objective option that contains a
least one data field with all bits set to 1 to indicate a meaningless data field set to indicate a meaningless initial value, or a specific
initial value, or a specific objective option that provides further objective option that provides further conditions for convergence.
conditions for convergence.
3.7.5. Waiting Time Option 3.8.5. Waiting Time Option
The waiting time option is used to indicate that the negotiation The waiting time option is used to indicate that the negotiation
counterpart needs to wait for a further negotiation response, since counterpart needs to wait for a further negotiation response, since
the processing might need more time than usual or it might depend on the processing might need more time than usual or it might depend on
another triggered negotiation. another triggered negotiation.
The waiting time option MUST only be encapsulated in Confirm-waiting The waiting time option MUST only be encapsulated in Confirm-waiting
messages. If found elsewhere, it SHOULD be silently ignored. When messages. If found elsewhere, it SHOULD be silently ignored. When
received, its value overwrites the negotiation timer (Section 3.6.4). received, its value overwrites the negotiation timer (Section 3.7.4).
The counterpart SHOULD send a Negotiation, Negotiation-Ending or The counterpart SHOULD send a Negotiation, Negotiation-Ending or
another Confirm-waiting message before the negotiation timer expires. another Confirm-waiting message before the negotiation timer expires.
If not, the initiator MUST abandon or restart the negotiation If not, the initiator MUST abandon or restart the negotiation
procedure, to avoid an indefinite wait. procedure, to avoid an indefinite wait.
0 1 2 3 In fragmentary CDDL, the Waiting-time option follows the pattern:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_WAITING | option-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Time |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Option-code: OPTION_WAITING (G35)
Option-len: 4, in octets waiting-time-option = [O_WAITING, option-waiting-time]
Time: Time in milliseconds O_WAITING = ; a defined constant
option-waiting-time = 0..4294967295 ; in milliseconds
3.7.6. Device Identity Option 3.8.6. Device Identity Option
The Device Identity option carries the identities of the sender and The Device Identity option carries the identities of the sender and
of the domain(s) that it belongs to. The format of the Device of the domain(s) that it belongs to.
Identity option is as follows:
0 1 2 3 In fragmentary CDDL, the Device Identity option follows the pattern:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_DEVICE_ID | option-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. Identities (variable length) .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Option-code: OPTION_DEVICE_ID (G36) option-device-id = [O_DEVICE_ID, bytes]
Option-len: Length of identities in octets O_DEVICE_ID = ; a defined constant
Identities: A variable-length field containing the device identity The option contains a variable-length field containing the device
and one or more domain identities. The format is not yet defined. identity and one or more domain identities. The format is not yet
defined.
Note: Currently this option is a placeholder. It might be removed Note: Currently this option is a placeholder. It might be removed or
or modified. modified.
3.7.7. Locator Options 3.8.7. Locator Options
These locator options are used to present reachability information These locator options are used to present reachability information
for an ASA, a device or an interface. They are Locator IPv4 Address for an ASA, a device or an interface. They are Locator IPv4 Address
Option, Locator IPv6 Address Option, Locator FQDN (Fully Qualified Option, Locator IPv6 Address Option, Locator FQDN (Fully Qualified
Domain Name) Option and Uniform Resource Locator Option. Domain Name) Option and Uniform Resource Locator Option.
Note that it is assumed that all locators are in scope throughout the Note: It is assumed that all locators are in scope throughout the
GRASP domain. GRASP is not intended to work across disjoint GRASP domain. GRASP is not intended to work across disjoint
addressing or naming realms. addressing or naming realms.
3.7.7.1. Locator IPv4 address option 3.8.7.1. Locator IPv4 address option
0 1 2 3 In fragmentary CDDL, the IPv4 address option follows the pattern:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_LOCATOR_IPV4ADDR | option-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4-Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Option-code: OPTION_LOCATOR_IPV4ADDR (G37)
Option-len: 4, in octets ipv4-locator-option = bytes .size 4
IPv4-Address: The IPv4 address locator of the target The content of this option is a binary IPv4 address.
Note: If an operator has internal network address translation for Note: If an operator has internal network address translation for
IPv4, this option MUST NOT be used within the Divert option. IPv4, this option MUST NOT be used within the Divert option.
3.7.7.2. Locator IPv6 address option 3.8.7.2. Locator IPv6 address option
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_LOCATOR_IPV6ADDR | option-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| IPv6-Address |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Option-code: OPTION_LOCATOR_IPV6ADDR (G38) In fragmentary CDDL, the IPv6 address option follows the pattern:
Option-len: 16, in octets ipv6-locator-option = bytes .size 16
IPv6-Address: The IPv6 address locator of the target The content of this option is a binary IPv6 address.
Note: A link-local IPv6 address MUST NOT be used when this option is Note: A link-local IPv6 address MUST NOT be used when this option is
used within the Divert option. used within the Divert option.
3.7.7.3. Locator FQDN option 3.8.7.3. Locator FQDN option
0 1 2 3 In fragmentary CDDL, the FQDN option follows the pattern:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_FQDN | option-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Fully Qualified Domain Name |
| (variable length) |
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Option-code: OPTION_FQDN (G39) fqdn-locator-option = [O_FQDN_LOCATOR, text]
Option-len: Length of Fully Qualified Domain Name in octets O_FQDN_LOCATOR = ; a defined constant
The content of this option is the Fully Qualified Domain Name of the
target.
Domain-Name: The Fully Qualified Domain Name of the target
Note: Any FQDN which might not be valid throughout the network in Note: Any FQDN which might not be valid throughout the network in
question, such as a Multicast DNS name [RFC6762], MUST NOT be used question, such as a Multicast DNS name [RFC6762], MUST NOT be used
when this option is used within the Divert option. when this option is used within the Divert option.
3.7.7.4. Locator URL option 3.8.7.4. Locator URL option
0 1 2 3 In fragmentary CDDL, the URL option follows the pattern:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_URL | option-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| URL |
| (variable length) |
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Option-code: OPTION_URL (G40) url-locator-option = [O_URL_LOCATOR, text]
Option-len: Length of Uniform Resource Locator in octets O_URL_LOCATOR = ; a defined constant
URL: The Uniform Resource Locator of the target [RFC3986] The content of this option is the Uniform Resource Locator of the
target [RFC3986].
Note: Any URL which might not be valid throughout the network in Note: Any URL which might not be valid throughout the network in
question, such as one based on a Multicast DNS name [RFC6762], MUST question, such as one based on a Multicast DNS name [RFC6762], MUST
NOT be used when this option is used within the Divert option. NOT be used when this option is used within the Divert option.
3.8. Objective Options 3.9. Objective Options
3.8.1. Format of Objective Options 3.9.1. Format of Objective Options
An objective option is used to identify objectives for the purposes An objective option is used to identify objectives for the purposes
of discovery, negotiation or synchronization. All objectives must of discovery, negotiation or synchronization. All objectives must
follow a common format as follows: follow one of two common formats as follows, described in fragmentary
CDDL:
0 1 2 3 generic-obj = [objective-name, objective-flags, loop-count, ?any]
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 vendor-obj = [{"PEN":pen}, objective-name, objective-flags,
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ loop-count, ?any]
| OPTION_XXX | option-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| flags | loop-count | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ value |
. (variable length) .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Option-code: OPTION_XXX: The option code assigned in the objective-name = tstr
specification of the XXX objective. pen = 0..4294967295
loop-count = 0..255
objective-flags \= ; defined below
option-len: The total length in octets. All objectives are identified by a unique name which is a UTF-8
string. The names of generic objectives MUST be registered with
IANA.
flags: Flag bits. The name "PEN" and the value following it MUST be prepended to
indicate vendor-defined objectives. The associated value uniquely
identifies the enterprise that defines the option, in the form of a
registered 32 bit Private Enterprise Number (PEN)
[I-D.liang-iana-pen]. There is no default value for this field.
Note that it is not used during discovery. It MUST be verified
during negotiation or synchronization.
Bit 0 (D bit): set if this objective is valid for GRASP discovery The 'loop-count' field is used for terminating negotiation as
operations. described in Section 3.7.5. It is also used for terminating
discovery as described in Section 3.3.3, and for terminating flooding
as described in FLOODING.
Bit 1 (N bit): set if this objective is valid for GRASP The 'any' field is to express the actual value of a negotiation or
negotiation operations. synchronization objective. Its format is defined in the
specification of the objective and may be a single value or a data
structure of any kind. It is optional because it is optional in a
Discovery or Response message.
Bit 2 (S bit): set if this objective is valid for GRASP 3.9.2. Objective flags
synchronization operations.
Bits 3~7: reserved, set to zero and ignored on reception. An objective may be relevant for discovery, negotiation or
synchronization. This is expressed in the objective by logical
flags:
loop-count: The loop count for terminating negotation. This field objective-flags = uint .bits objective-flag
is present if and only if the objective is a negotiation objective-flag = &(
objective. D: 0 ; valid for discovery only
N: 1 ; valid for discovery and negotiation
S: 2 ; valid for discovery and synchronization
)
value: This field is to express the actual value of a negotiation or 3.9.3. General Considerations for Objective Options
synchronization objective. Its format is defined in the
specification of the objective and may be a single value or a data
structure of any kind.
3.8.2. General Considerations for Objective Options As mentioned above, generic Objective Options MUST be assigned a
unique name. As long as vendor-defined Objective Options start with
a valid PEN, this document does not restrict their choice of name,
but the vendor SHOULD publish the names in use.
Objective Options MUST be assigned an option type greater than G63 in All Objective Options MUST respect the CBOR patterns defined above as
the GRASP option table. "generic-obj" or "vendor-obj" and MUST replace the "any" field with a
valid CBOR data definition for the relevant use case and application.
An Objective Option that contains no additional fields, i.e., has a An Objective Option that contains no additional fields beyond its
length of 4 octets, is a discovery objective and MUST only be used in "loop-count" can only be a discovery objective and MUST only be used
Discovery and Response messages. in Discovery and Response messages.
The Negotiation Objective Options contain negotiation objectives, The Negotiation Objective Options contain negotiation objectives,
which are various according to different functions/services. They which vary according to different functions/services. They MUST be
MUST be carried by Discovery, Request or Negotiation Messages only. carried by Discovery, Request or Negotiation Messages only. The
The negotiation initiator MUST set the initial "loop-count" to a negotiation initiator MUST set the initial "loop-count" to a value
value specified in the specification of the objective or, if no such specified in the specification of the objective or, if no such value
value is specified, to GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT. is specified, to GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT.
For most scenarios, there should be initial values in the negotiation For most scenarios, there should be initial values in the negotiation
requests. Consequently, the Negotiation Objective options MUST requests. Consequently, the Negotiation Objective options MUST
always be completely presented in a Request message, or in a always be completely presented in a Request message, or in a
Discovery message in rapid mode. If there is no initial value, the Discovery message in rapid mode. If there is no initial value, the
bits in the value field SHOULD all be set to 1 to indicate a bits in the value field SHOULD all be set to indicate a meaningless
meaningless value, unless this is inappropriate for the specific value, unless this is inappropriate for the specific negotiation
negotiation objective. objective.
Synchronization Objective Options are similar, but MUST be carried by Synchronization Objective Options are similar, but MUST be carried by
Discovery, Request or Response messages only. They include value Discovery, Request or Response messages only. They include value
fields only in Response messages. fields only in Response messages.
3.8.3. Organizing of Objective Options 3.9.4. Organizing of Objective Options
Generic objective options MUST be specified in documents available to
the public and MUST be designed to use either the negotiation or the
synchronization mechanism described above.
As noted earlier, one negotiation objective is handled by each GRASP As noted earlier, one negotiation objective is handled by each GRASP
negotiation thread. Therefore, a negotiation objective, which is negotiation thread. Therefore, a negotiation objective, which is
based on a specific function or action, SHOULD be organized as a based on a specific function or action, SHOULD be organized as a
single GRASP option. It is NOT RECOMMENDED to organize multiple single GRASP option. It is NOT RECOMMENDED to organize multiple
negotiation objectives into a single option, nor to split a single negotiation objectives into a single option, nor to split a single
function or action into multiple negotiation objectives. function or action into multiple negotiation objectives.
A synchronization objective SHOULD also be organized as a single It is important to understand that GRASP negotiation does not support
GRASP option. transactional integrity. If transactional integrity is needed for a
specific objective, this must be ensured by the ASA. For example, an
ASA might need to ensure that it only participates in one negotiation
thread at the same time. Such an ASA would need to stop listening
for incoming negotiation requests before generating an outgoing
negotiation request.
A synchronization objective SHOULD be organized as a single GRASP
option.
Some objectives will support more than one operational mode. An Some objectives will support more than one operational mode. An
example is a negotiation objective with both a "dry run" mode (where example is a negotiation objective with both a "dry run" mode (where
the negotiation is to find out whether the other end can in fact make the negotiation is to find out whether the other end can in fact make
the requested change without problems) and a "live" mode. Such modes the requested change without problems) and a "live" mode. Such modes
will be defined in the specification of such an objective. These will be defined in the specification of such an objective. These
objectives SHOULD include a "flags" octet, with bits indicating the objectives SHOULD include flags indicating the applicable mode(s).
applicable mode(s).
An objective may have multiple parameters. Parameters can be An objective may have multiple parameters. Parameters can be
categorized into two classes: the obligatory ones presented as fixed categorized into two classes: the obligatory ones presented as fixed
fields; and the optional ones presented in TLV sub-options or some fields; and the optional ones presented in CBOR sub-options or some
other form of data structure. The format might be inherited from an other form of data structure embedded in CBOR. The format might be
existing management or configuration protocol, the objective option inherited from an existing management or configuration protocol, the
acting as a carrier for that format. The data structure might be objective option acting as a carrier for that format. The data
defined in a formal language, but that is a matter for the structure might be defined in a formal language, but that is a matter
specifications of individual objectives. There are many candidates, for the specifications of individual objectives. There are many
according to the context, such as ABNF, RBNF, XML Schema, possibly candidates, according to the context, such as ABNF, RBNF, XML Schema,
YANG, etc. The GRASP protocol itself is agnostic on these questions. possibly YANG, etc. The GRASP protocol itself is agnostic on these
questions.
It is NOT RECOMMENDED to split parameters in a single objective into It is NOT RECOMMENDED to split parameters in a single objective into
multiple options, unless they have different response periods. An multiple options, unless they have different response periods. An
exception scenario may also be described by split objectives. exception scenario may also be described by split objectives.
3.8.4. Vendor Specific Objective Options All objectives MUST support GRASP discovery. However, as mentioned
in Section 3.2, it is acceptable for an ASA to use an alternative
Option codes G128~159 have been reserved for vendor specific options. method of discovery.
Multiple option codes have been assigned because a single vendor
might use multiple options simultaneously. These vendor specific
options are highly likely to have different meanings when used by
different vendors. Therefore, they SHOULD NOT be used without an
explicit human decision and SHOULD NOT be used in unmanaged networks
such as home networks.
There is one general requirement that applies to all vendor specific
options. They MUST start with a field that uniquely identifies the
enterprise that defines the option, in the form of a registered 32
bit Private Enterprise Number (PEN) [I-D.liang-iana-pen]. There is
no default value for this field. Note that it is not used during
discovery. It MUST be verified during negotiation or
synchronization.
In the case of a vendor-specific objective, the loop count and flags,
if present, follow the PEN.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_vendor | option-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PEN |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| flags | loop-count | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ value |
. (variable length) .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Option-code: OPTION_vendor (G128~159)
Option-len: The total length in octets.
PEN: Private Enterprise Number.
flags: See Section 3.8.1
loop-count: See Section 3.8.1 This field is present if and only if
the objective is a negotiation objective.
value: This field is to express the actual value of a negotiation or Normally, a GRASP objective will refer to specific technical
synchronization objective. Its format is defined in the vendor's parameters as explained in Section 3.1. However, it is acceptable to
specification of the objective. define an abstract objective for the purpose of managing or
coordinating ASAs. It is also acceptable to define a special-purpose
objective for purposes such as trust bootstrapping or formation of
the ACP.
3.8.5. Experimental Objective Options 3.9.5. Experimental and Example Objective Options
Option codes G176~191 have been reserved for experimental options. The names "EX0" through "EX9" have been reserved for experimental
Multiple option codes have been assigned because a single experiment options. Multiple names have been assigned because a single
may use multiple options simultaneously. These experimental options experiment may use multiple options simultaneously. These
are highly likely to have different meanings when used for different experimental options are highly likely to have different meanings
experiments. Therefore, they SHOULD NOT be used without an explicit when used for different experiments. Therefore, they SHOULD NOT be
human decision and SHOULD NOT be used in unmanaged networks such as used without an explicit human decision and SHOULD NOT be used in
home networks. unmanaged networks such as home networks.
These option codes are also RECOMMENDED for use in documentation These names are also RECOMMENDED for use in documentation examples.
examples.
4. Open Issues 4. Open Issues
There are various unresolved design questions that are worthy of more There are various unresolved design questions that are worthy of more
work in the near future, as listed below (statically numbered in work in the near future, as listed below (statically numbered in
historical order for reference purposes, with the resolved issues historical order for reference purposes, with the resolved issues
retained for reference): retained for reference):
o 1. UDP vs TCP: For now, this specification suggests UDP and TCP o 1. UDP vs TCP: For now, this specification suggests UDP and TCP
as message transport mechanisms. This is not clarified yet. UDP as message transport mechanisms. This is not clarified yet. UDP
skipping to change at page 34, line 34 skipping to change at page 34, line 9
more records are stored in the repository, the less the multicast- more records are stored in the repository, the less the multicast-
based discovery is needed. However, if we adopt such a mechanism, based discovery is needed. However, if we adopt such a mechanism,
there would be challenges: stateful solution, and security. there would be challenges: stateful solution, and security.
RESOLVED for now by adding optional use of DNS-SD by ASAs. RESOLVED for now by adding optional use of DNS-SD by ASAs.
o 5. Need to expand description of the minimum requirements for the o 5. Need to expand description of the minimum requirements for the
specification of an individual discovery, synchronization or specification of an individual discovery, synchronization or
negotiation objective. negotiation objective.
RESOLVED for now by extra wording.
o 6. Use case and protocol walkthrough. A description of how a o 6. Use case and protocol walkthrough. A description of how a
node starts up, performs discovery, and conducts negotiation and node starts up, performs discovery, and conducts negotiation and
synchronisation for a sample use case would help readers to synchronisation for a sample use case would help readers to
understand the applicability of this specification. Maybe it understand the applicability of this specification. Maybe it
should be an artificial use case or maybe a simple real one, based should be an artificial use case or maybe a simple real one, based
on a conceptual API. However, the authors have not yet decided on a conceptual API. However, the authors have not yet decided
whether to have a separate document or have it in the protocol whether to have a separate document or have it in the protocol
document. document.
RESOLVED: recommend a separate document.
o 7. Cross-check against other ANIMA WG documents for consistency o 7. Cross-check against other ANIMA WG documents for consistency
and gaps. and gaps.
o 8. Consideration of ADNCP proposal. o 8. Consideration of ADNCP proposal.
RESOLVED by adding optional use of DNCP for flooding-type RESOLVED by adding optional use of DNCP for flooding-type
synchronization. synchronization.
o 9. Clarify how a GDNP instance knows whether it is running inside o 9. Clarify how a GDNP instance knows whether it is running inside
the ACP. (Sheng) the ACP. (Sheng)
skipping to change at page 36, line 18 skipping to change at page 35, line 39
Response" for flooding synchronisation data? This has to be done Response" for flooding synchronisation data? This has to be done
carefully due to the well-known issues with flooding, but it could carefully due to the well-known issues with flooding, but it could
be useful, e.g. for Intent distribution, where DNCP doesn't seem be useful, e.g. for Intent distribution, where DNCP doesn't seem
applicable. applicable.
RESOLVED: Yes, see #14. RESOLVED: Yes, see #14.
o 17. Ensure that the discovery mechanism is completely proof o 17. Ensure that the discovery mechanism is completely proof
against loops and protected against duplicate responses. against loops and protected against duplicate responses.
RESOLVED: Added loop count mechanism.
o 18. Discuss the handling of multiple valid discovery responses. o 18. Discuss the handling of multiple valid discovery responses.
o 19. Should we use a text-oriented format such as JSON/CBOR o 19. Should we use a text-oriented format such as JSON/CBOR
instead of native binary TLV format? instead of native binary TLV format?
RESOLVED: Yes, changed to CBOR
o 20. Is the Divert option needed? If a discovery response o 20. Is the Divert option needed? If a discovery response
provides a valid IP address or FQDN, the recipient doesn't gain provides a valid IP address or FQDN, the recipient doesn't gain
any extra knowledge from the Divert. any extra knowledge from the Divert. On the other hand, the
presence of Divert informs the receiver that the target is off-
link, which might be useful sometimes.
o 21. Rename the protocol as GRASP (GeneRic Autonomic Signaling o 21. Rename the protocol as GRASP (GeneRic Autonomic Signaling
Protocol)? Protocol)?
RESOLVED: Yes, name changed. RESOLVED: Yes, name changed.
o 22. Does discovery mechanism scale robustly as need? Need hop o 22. Does discovery mechanism scale robustly as needed? Need hop
limit on relaying? limit on relaying?
RESOLVED: Added hop limit.
o 23. Need more details on TTL for caching discovery responses. o 23. Need more details on TTL for caching discovery responses.
RESOLVED: Done.
o 24. Do we need "fast withdrawal" of discovery responses? o 24. Do we need "fast withdrawal" of discovery responses?
o 25. Does GDNP discovery meet the needs of multi-hop DNS-SD? o 25. Does GDNP discovery meet the needs of multi-hop DNS-SD?
o 26. Add a URL type to the locator options (for security o 26. Add a URL type to the locator options (for security
bootstrap) bootstrap)
RESOLVED: Done. RESOLVED: Done.
o 27. Security of unsolicited Response multicasts (Section 3.3.5). o 27. Security of unsolicited Response multicasts (Section 3.3.5).
o 28. Does ACP support multicast?
o 29. PEN is used to distinguish vendor options. Would it be
better to use a domain name? Anything unique will do.
o 30. Does response to discovery require randomized delays to
mitigate amplification attacks?
o 31. We have specified repeats for failed discovery etc. Is that
sufficient to deal with sleeping nodes?
o 32. We have one-to-one synchronization and flooding
synchronization. Do we also need selective flooding to a subset
of nodes?
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
It is obvious that a successful attack on negotiation-enabled nodes It is obvious that a successful attack on negotiation-enabled nodes
would be extremely harmful, as such nodes might end up with a would be extremely harmful, as such nodes might end up with a
completely undesirable configuration that would also adversely affect completely undesirable configuration that would also adversely affect
their peers. GRASP nodes and messages therefore require full their peers. GRASP nodes and messages therefore require full
protection. protection.
- Authentication - Authentication
A cryptographically authenticated identity for each device is A cryptographically authenticated identity for each device is
needed in an autonomic network. It is not safe to assume that a needed in an autonomic network. It is not safe to assume that a
large network is physically secured against interference or that large network is physically secured against interference or that
all personnel are trustworthy. Each autonomic device MUST be all personnel are trustworthy. Each autonomic node MUST be
capable of proving its identity and authenticating its messages. capable of proving its identity and authenticating its messages.
GRASP relies on a separate external certificate-based security GRASP relies on a separate external certificate-based security
mechanism to support authentication, data integrity protection, mechanism to support authentication, data integrity protection,
and anti-replay protection. and anti-replay protection.
Since GRASP is intended to be deployed in a single administrative Since GRASP is intended to be deployed in a single administrative
domain operating its own trust anchor and CA, there is no need for domain operating its own trust anchor and CA, there is no need for
a trusted public third party. In a network requiring "air gap" a trusted public third party. In a network requiring "air gap"
security, such a dependency would be unacceptable. security, such a dependency would be unacceptable.
If GRASP is used temporarily without an external security If GRASP is used temporarily without an external security
mechanism, for example during system bootstrap (Section 3.3.1), mechanism, for example during system bootstrap (Section 3.3.1),
the Session ID (Section 3.5) will act as a nonce to provide the Session ID (Section 3.6) will act as a nonce to provide
limited protection against third parties injecting responses. limited protection against third parties injecting responses. A
full analysis of the secure bootstrap process is out of scope for
the present document.
- Privacy and confidentiality - Privacy and confidentiality
Generally speaking, no personal information is expected to be Generally speaking, no personal information is expected to be
involved in the signaling protocol, so there should be no direct involved in the signaling protocol, so there should be no direct
impact on personal privacy. Nevertheless, traffic flow paths, impact on personal privacy. Nevertheless, traffic flow paths,
VPNs, etc. could be negotiated, which could be of interest for VPNs, etc. could be negotiated, which could be of interest for
traffic analysis. Also, operators generally want to conceal traffic analysis. Also, operators generally want to conceal
details of their network topology and traffic density from details of their network topology and traffic density from
outsiders. Therefore, since insider attacks cannot be excluded in outsiders. Therefore, since insider attacks cannot be excluded in
skipping to change at page 38, line 12 skipping to change at page 38, line 14
denial of service attacks. Relevant mitigations are specified in denial of service attacks. Relevant mitigations are specified in
Section 3.3.3. Additionally, it is of great importance that Section 3.3.3. Additionally, it is of great importance that
firewalls prevent any GRASP messages from entering the domain from firewalls prevent any GRASP messages from entering the domain from
an untrusted source. an untrusted source.
- Security during bootstrap and discovery - Security during bootstrap and discovery
A node cannot authenticate GRASP traffic from other nodes until it A node cannot authenticate GRASP traffic from other nodes until it
has identified the trust anchor and can validate certificates for has identified the trust anchor and can validate certificates for
other nodes. Also, until it has succesfully enrolled other nodes. Also, until it has succesfully enrolled
[I-D.pritikin-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra] it cannot assume that [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra] it cannot assume that
other nodes are able to authenticate its own traffic. Therefore, other nodes are able to authenticate its own traffic. Therefore,
GRASP discovery during the bootstrap phase for a new device will GRASP discovery during the bootstrap phase for a new device will
inevitably be insecure and GRASP synchronization and negotiation inevitably be insecure and GRASP synchronization and negotiation
will be impossible until enrollment is complete. will be impossible until enrollment is complete.
6. IANA Considerations 6. CDDL Specification of GRASP
Section 3.4 defines the following link-local multicast addresses, <CODE BEGINS>
grasp-message = message
session-id = 0..16777215
; that is up to 24 bits
message /= discovery-message
discovery-message = [M_DISCOVERY, session-id, objective]
message /= response-message
response-message = [M_RESPONSE, session-id,
(+locator-option // divert-option // objective)]
message /= request-message
request-message = [M_REQUEST, session-id, objective]
message /= negotiation-message
negotiation-message = [M_NEGOTIATE, session-id, objective]
message /= end-message
end-message = [M_END, session-id, (accept-option / decline-option)]
message /= wait-message
wait-message = [M_WAIT, session-id, waiting-time-option]
divert-option = [O_DIVERT, +locator-option]
accept-option = [O_ACCEPT]
decline-option = [O_DECLINE]
waiting-time-option = [O_WAITING, option-waiting-time]
option-waiting-time = 0..4294967295 ; in milliseconds
option-device-id = [O_DEVICE_ID, bytes]
locator-option /= ipv4-locator-option
ipv4-locator-option = bytes .size 4
; this is simpler than [O_IPv4_LOCATOR, bytes .size 4]
locator-option /= ipv6-locator-option
ipv6-locator-option = bytes .size 16
locator-option /= fqdn-locator-option
fqdn-locator-option = [O_FQDN_LOCATOR, text]
locator-option /= url-locator-option
url-locator-option = [O_URL_LOCATOR, text]
objective-flags = uint .bits objective-flag
objective-flag = &(
D: 0
N: 1
S: 2
)
; D means valid for discovery only
; N means valid for discovery and negotiation
; S means valid for discovery and synchronization
objective /= generic-obj
generic-obj = [objective-name, objective-flags, loop-count, ?any]
objective /= vendor-obj
vendor-obj = [{"PEN":pen}, objective-name, objective-flags,
loop-count, ?any]
; A PEN is used to distinguish vendor-specific options.
pen = 0..4294967295
objective-name = tstr
loop-count = 0..255
; Constants
M_DISCOVERY = 1
M_RESPONSE = 2
M_REQUEST = 3
M_NEGOTIATE = 4
M_END = 5
M_WAIT = 6
O_DIVERT = 100
O_ACCEPT = 101
O_DECLINE = 102
O_WAITING = 103
O_DEVICE_ID = 104
O_FQDN_LOCATOR = 105
O_URL_LOCATOR = 106
<CODE ENDS>
7. IANA Considerations
Section 3.5 defines the following link-local multicast addresses,
which have been assigned by IANA for use by GRASP: which have been assigned by IANA for use by GRASP:
ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBOR multicast address (IPv6): (TBD1). Assigned in ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBOR multicast address (IPv6): (TBD1). Assigned in
the IPv6 Link-Local Scope Multicast Addresses registry. the IPv6 Link-Local Scope Multicast Addresses registry.
ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBOR multicast address (IPv4): (TBD2). Assigned in ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBOR multicast address (IPv4): (TBD2). Assigned in
the IPv4 Multicast Local Network Control Block. the IPv4 Multicast Local Network Control Block.
(Note in draft: alternatively, we could use 224.0.0.1, currently (Note in draft: alternatively, we could use 224.0.0.1, currently
defined as All Systems on this Subnet.) defined as All Systems on this Subnet.)
Section 3.4 defines the following UDP and TCP port, which has been Section 3.5 defines the following UDP and TCP port, which has been
assigned by IANA for use by GRASP: assigned by IANA for use by GRASP:
GRASP Listen Port: (TBD3) GRASP_LISTEN_PORT: (TBD3)
This document defines the General Discovery and Negotiation Protocol This document defines the General Discovery and Negotiation Protocol
(GRASP). The IANA is requested to create a GRASP registry within the (GRASP). The IANA is requested to create a GRASP Parameter Registry.
unused portion of the DNCP registry [I-D.ietf-homenet-dncp]. The The IANA is also requested to add two new registry tables to the
IANA is also requested to add two new registry tables to the newly- newly-created GRASP Parameter Registry. The two tables are the GRASP
created GRASP registry. The two tables are the GRASP Messages table Messages and Options Table and the GRASP Objective Names Table.
and GRASP Options table.
Initial values for these registries are given below. Future
assignments are to be made through Standards Action or Specification
Required [RFC5226]. Assignments for each registry consist of a type
code value, a name and a document where the usage is defined.
Note to the RFC Editor: In the following tables and in the body of GRASP Messages and Options Table. The values in this table are names
this document, the values G0, G1, etc., should be replaced by the paired with decimal integers. Future values MUST be assigned using
assigned values. the Standards Action policy defined by [RFC5226]. The following
initial values are assigned by this document:
GRASP Messages table. The values in this table are 16-bit unsigned M_DISCOVERY = 1
integers. The following initial values are assigned in Section 3.6 M_RESPONSE = 2
in this document: M_REQUEST = 3
M_NEGOTIATE = 4
M_END = 5
M_WAIT = 6
Type | Name | RFCs O_DIVERT = 100
---------+-----------------------------+------------ O_ACCEPT = 101
G0 |Reserved | this document O_DECLINE = 102
G1 |Discovery Message | this document O_WAITING = 103
G2 |Response Message | this document O_DEVICE_ID = 104
G3 |Request Message | this document O_FQDN_LOCATOR = 105
G4 |Negotiation Message | this document O_URL_LOCATOR = 106
G5 |Negotiation-ending Message | this document
G6 |Confirm-waiting Message | this document
G7~31 |reserved for future messages |
GRASP Options table. The values in this table are 16-bit unsigned GRASP Objective Names Table. The values in this table are UTF-8
integers. The following initial values are assigned in Section 3.7 strings. Future values MUST be assigned using the Specification
and Section 3.8.1 in this document: Required policy defined by [RFC5226]. The following initial values
are assigned by this document:
Type | Name | RFCs EX0
---------+-----------------------------+------------ EX1
G32 |Divert Option | this document EX2
G33 |Accept Option | this document EX3
G34 |Decline Option | this document EX4
G35 |Waiting Time Option | this document EX5
G36 |Device Identity Option | this document EX6
G37 |Locator IPv4 Address Option | this document EX7
G38 |Locator IPv6 Address Option | this document EX8
G39 |Locator FQDN Option | this document EX9
G40 |Locator URL Option | this document PEN
G41~63 |Reserved for future GRASP |
|General Options |
G64~127 |Reserved for future GRASP |
|Objective Options |
G128~159|Vendor Specific Options | this document
G160~175|Reserved for future use |
G176~191|Experimental Options | this document
G192~???|Reserved for future use |
7. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
A major contribution to the original version of this document was A major contribution to the original version of this document was
made by Sheng Jiang. made by Sheng Jiang.
Valuable comments were received from Michael Behringer, Jeferson Valuable comments were received from Michael Behringer, Jeferson
Campos Nobre, Laurent Ciavaglia, Zongpeng Du, Yu Fu, Zhenbin Li, Campos Nobre, Laurent Ciavaglia, Zongpeng Du, Yu Fu, Zhenbin Li,
Dimitri Papadimitriou, Reshad Rahman, Michael Richardson, Markus Dimitri Papadimitriou, Pierre Peloso, Reshad Rahman, Michael
Stenberg, Rene Struik, Dacheng Zhang, and other participants in the Richardson, Markus Stenberg, Rene Struik, Dacheng Zhang, and other
NMRG research group and the ANIMA working group. participants in the NMRG research group and the ANIMA working group.
This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629]. This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629].
8. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove] 9. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-01, 2015-10-09:
Updated requirements after list discussion.
Changed from TLV to CBOR format - many detailed changes, added co-
author.
Tightened up loop count and timeouts for various cases.
Noted that GRASP does not provide transactional integrity.
Various other clarifications and editorial fixes.
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-00, 2015-08-14: draft-ietf-anima-grasp-00, 2015-08-14:
File name and protocol name changed following WG adoption. File name and protocol name changed following WG adoption.
Added URL locator type. Added URL locator type.
draft-carpenter-anima-gdn-protocol-04, 2015-06-21: draft-carpenter-anima-gdn-protocol-04, 2015-06-21:
Tuned wording around hierarchical structure. Tuned wording around hierarchical structure.
skipping to change at page 41, line 40 skipping to change at page 43, line 48
draft-carpenter-anima-gdn-protocol-01, restructured the logical flow draft-carpenter-anima-gdn-protocol-01, restructured the logical flow
of the document, updated to describe synchronization completely, add of the document, updated to describe synchronization completely, add
unsolicited responses, numerous corrections and clarifications, unsolicited responses, numerous corrections and clarifications,
expanded future work list, 2015-01-06. expanded future work list, 2015-01-06.
draft-carpenter-anima-gdn-protocol-00, combination of draft-jiang- draft-carpenter-anima-gdn-protocol-00, combination of draft-jiang-
config-negotiation-ps-03 and draft-jiang-config-negotiation-protocol- config-negotiation-ps-03 and draft-jiang-config-negotiation-protocol-
02, 2014-10-08. 02, 2014-10-08.
9. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References
9.1. Normative References [I-D.greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl]
Vigano, C. and H. Birkholz, "CBOR data definition
language: a notational convention to express CBOR data
structures.", draft-greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl-06
(work in progress), July 2015.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005, RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
skipping to change at page 42, line 25 skipping to change at page 44, line 42
[RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S., [RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
(CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008, (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>.
[RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer [RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347, Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
January 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>. January 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>.
9.2. Informative References [RFC7049] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049,
October 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7049>.
[I-D.behringer-anima-autonomic-control-plane] 10.2. Informative References
Behringer, M., Bjarnason, S., BL, B., and T. Eckert, "An
Autonomic Control Plane", draft-behringer-anima-autonomic-
control-plane-03 (work in progress), June 2015.
[I-D.behringer-anima-reference-model] [I-D.behringer-anima-reference-model]
Behringer, M., Carpenter, B., Eckert, T., Ciavaglia, L., Behringer, M., Carpenter, B., Eckert, T., Ciavaglia, L.,
Liu, B., Jeff, J., and J. Strassner, "A Reference Model Liu, B., Jeff, J., and J. Strassner, "A Reference Model
for Autonomic Networking", draft-behringer-anima- for Autonomic Networking", draft-behringer-anima-
reference-model-03 (work in progress), June 2015. reference-model-03 (work in progress), June 2015.
[I-D.chaparadza-intarea-igcp] [I-D.chaparadza-intarea-igcp]
Behringer, M., Chaparadza, R., Petre, R., Li, X., and H. Behringer, M., Chaparadza, R., Petre, R., Li, X., and H.
Mahkonen, "IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)", Mahkonen, "IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)",
draft-chaparadza-intarea-igcp-00 (work in progress), July draft-chaparadza-intarea-igcp-00 (work in progress), July
2011. 2011.
[I-D.eckert-anima-stable-connectivity] [I-D.eckert-anima-stable-connectivity]
Eckert, T. and M. Behringer, "Using Autonomic Control Eckert, T. and M. Behringer, "Using Autonomic Control
Plane for Stable Connectivity of Network OAM", draft- Plane for Stable Connectivity of Network OAM", draft-
eckert-anima-stable-connectivity-01 (work in progress), eckert-anima-stable-connectivity-01 (work in progress),
March 2015. March 2015.
[I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane]
Behringer, M., Bjarnason, S., BL, B., and T. Eckert, "An
Autonomic Control Plane", draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-
control-plane-01 (work in progress), October 2015.
[I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra]
Pritikin, M., Richardson, M., Behringer, M., and S.
Bjarnason, "Bootstrapping Key Infrastructures", draft-
ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-00 (work in progress),
August 2015.
[I-D.ietf-homenet-dncp] [I-D.ietf-homenet-dncp]
Stenberg, M. and S. Barth, "Distributed Node Consensus Stenberg, M. and S. Barth, "Distributed Node Consensus
Protocol", draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-09 (work in progress), Protocol", draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-10 (work in progress),
August 2015. September 2015.
[I-D.ietf-homenet-hncp] [I-D.ietf-homenet-hncp]
Stenberg, M., Barth, S., and P. Pfister, "Home Networking Stenberg, M., Barth, S., and P. Pfister, "Home Networking
Control Protocol", draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-08 (work in Control Protocol", draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09 (work in
progress), August 2015. progress), August 2015.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf] [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]
Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-07 (work in Protocol", draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-07 (work in
progress), July 2015. progress), July 2015.
[I-D.liang-iana-pen] [I-D.liang-iana-pen]
Liang, P., Melnikov, A., and D. Conrad, "Private Liang, P., Melnikov, A., and D. Conrad, "Private
Enterprise Number (PEN) practices and Internet Assigned Enterprise Number (PEN) practices and Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority (IANA) registration considerations", Numbers Authority (IANA) registration considerations",
draft-liang-iana-pen-06 (work in progress), July 2015. draft-liang-iana-pen-06 (work in progress), July 2015.
[I-D.pritikin-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra]
Pritikin, M., Richardson, M., Behringer, M., and S.
Bjarnason, "Bootstrapping Key Infrastructures", draft-
pritikin-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-02 (work in
progress), July 2015.
[I-D.stenberg-anima-adncp] [I-D.stenberg-anima-adncp]
Stenberg, M., "Autonomic Distributed Node Consensus Stenberg, M., "Autonomic Distributed Node Consensus
Protocol", draft-stenberg-anima-adncp-00 (work in Protocol", draft-stenberg-anima-adncp-00 (work in
progress), March 2015. progress), March 2015.
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. [RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205, Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205,
September 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>. September 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.
skipping to change at page 48, line 16 skipping to change at page 51, line 4
generic discovery, state synchronization and negotiation in a single generic discovery, state synchronization and negotiation in a single
solution. Many of the protocols assume that they are working in a solution. Many of the protocols assume that they are working in a
traditional top-down or north-south scenario, rather than a fluid traditional top-down or north-south scenario, rather than a fluid
peer-to-peer scenario. Most of them are specialized in one way or peer-to-peer scenario. Most of them are specialized in one way or
another. As a result, we have not identified a combination of another. As a result, we have not identified a combination of
existing protocols that meets the requirements in Section 2. Also, existing protocols that meets the requirements in Section 2. Also,
we have not identified a path by which one of the existing protocols we have not identified a path by which one of the existing protocols
could be extended to meet the requirements. could be extended to meet the requirements.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Carsten Bormann
Universitaet Bremen TZI
Postfach 330440
D-28359 Bremen
Germany
Email: cabo@tzi.org
Brian Carpenter (editor) Brian Carpenter (editor)
Department of Computer Science Department of Computer Science
University of Auckland University of Auckland
PB 92019 PB 92019
Auckland 1142 Auckland 1142
New Zealand New Zealand
Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
 End of changes. 201 change blocks. 
535 lines changed or deleted 664 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/