draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-netid-01.txt   draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-netid-02.txt 
NFSv4 M. Eisler NFSv4 M. Eisler
Internet-Draft NetApp Internet-Draft NetApp
Updates: 1833 (if approved) August 18, 2008 Updates: 1833 (if approved) August 19, 2008
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: February 19, 2009 Expires: February 20, 2009
IANA Considerations for RPC Net Identifiers IANA Considerations for RPC Net Identifiers and Universal Address
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-netid-01.txt Formats
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-netid-02.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 1, line 35 skipping to change at page 1, line 36
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 19, 2009. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 20, 2009.
Abstract Abstract
This Internet-Draft lists IANA Considerations for RPC Network This Internet-Draft lists IANA Considerations for RPC Network
Identifiers (netids). This Internet-Draft updates, but does not Identifiers (netids) and RPC Universal Network Addresses (uaddrs).
replace, RFC1833. This Internet-Draft updates, but does not replace, RFC1833.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1].
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction and Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Initial Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. IANA Considerations for Netids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Updating Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1.1. Initial Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1.2. Updating Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2. IANA Considerations for Uaddr Formats . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2.1. Initial Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2.2. Updating Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2.3. Uaddr Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Cross Referencing Between the Netid and Format Registry . 10
4. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. RFC Editor Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction and Motivation 1. Introduction and Motivation
The concept of an RPC ([3]) Network Identifier (netid) was introduced The concepts of an RPC [4] Network Identifier (netid) and an RPC
in [2] for distinguishing universal network addresses of multiple Universal Address (uaddr) were introduced in [2] for distinguishing
protocols. [2] states that a netid ``is defined by a system network addresses of multiple protocols and representing those
administrator based on local conventions, and cannot be depended on addresses in a canonical form. [2] states that a netid ``is defined
to have the same value on every system.'' Since the publication of by a system administrator based on local conventions, and cannot be
RFC1833, it has been found to be necessary that protocols like [4] depended on to have the same value on every system.'' (The netid is
and [5] depend on consistent values of netids across every system, contained in the field r_netid of the data type rpcb_entry, and the
and current practices tend to ensure this consistency. Thus, this uaddr is contained in the field r_addr of the same data type, where
document identifies the considerations for IANA to establish a rpcb_entry is defined in [2].) Since the publication of [2], it has
registry of netids for RPC and specifies the initial content of the been found to be necessary that protocols like [5] and [6] depend on
registry. consistent values of netids and representations of uaddrs. Current
practices tend to ensure this consistency. Thus, this document
identifies the considerations for IANA to establish registries of
netids and uaddr formats for RPC and specifies the initial content of
the two registries.
2. Security Considerations 2. Security Considerations
See section 9 of [6]. See section 9 of [7].
3. IANA Considerations 3. IANA Considerations
This section uses terms that are defined in [6]. This section uses terms that are defined in [7].
3.1. IANA Considerations for Netids
IANA will create a registry called "ONC RPC Netids". The remainder IANA will create a registry called "ONC RPC Netids". The remainder
of this section describes the registry. of this section describes the registry.
All assignments to the ONC RPC Netids registry are made on one of two All assignments to the ONC RPC Netids registry are made on one of two
bases: bases:
o First Come First Served basis per section 4.1 of [6]. o First Come First Served basis per section 4.1 of [7].
o Standards Action per section 4.1 of [6]. o Standards Action per section 4.1 of [7].
Netids can be up to 2^32 - 1 octets in length. However, to ensure Netids can be up to 2^32 - 1 octets in length. However, to ensure
that practical values for Standards Track protocols are not that practical values for Standards Track protocols are not
exhausted, the values of netids one to eight octets long should be exhausted, the values of netids one to eight octets long should be
used for netids assigned on the Standards Action basis. Assignments used for netids assigned on the Standards Action basis. Assignments
made on a First Come First Served basis should be assigned netids of made on a First Come First Served basis should be assigned netids of
length 9 to 128 octets long. All netids, regardless of length, that length 9 to 128 octets long. All netids, regardless of length, that
start with the prefixes "STDS" or "FCFS" are Reserved, in order to start with the prefixes "STDS" or "FCFS" are Reserved, in order to
extend the name space of either basis. In addition, to give IESG the extend the name space of either basis. In addition, to give IESG the
flexibility in the future to permit Private and Experimental Uses, flexibility in the future to permit Private and Experimental Uses,
all netids with the prefixes "PRIV" or "EXPE" are Reserved. The zero all netids with the prefixes "PRIV" or "EXPE" are Reserved. The zero
length netid is Reserved. Some exceptions are listed in Table 2. A length netid is Reserved. Some exceptions are listed in Table 2. A
recommended convention for netids corresponding to transports that recommended convention for netids corresponding to transports that
work over the IPv6 protocol is to have "6" as the last character in work over the IPv6 protocol is to have "6" as the last character in
the netid string name. the netid's name.
Since netids are not constructed in an explicit hierarchical manner, Since netids are not constructed in an explicit hierarchical manner,
this document does not provide for Hierarchical Allocation of netids. this document does not provide for Hierarchical Allocation of netids.
Nonetheless, the octet "." in a netid string is Reserved for future Nonetheless, the octet "." in a netid string is Reserved for future
possible provision of Hierarchical Allocation. possible provision of Hierarchical Allocation.
The registry of netids is a list of assignments, each containing six The registry of netids is a list of assignments, each containing five
fields for each assignment made on a First Come First Served basis, fields for each assignment.
and five fields for each assignment made on a Standards Action basis.
Regardless of basis, all six fields must be provided to IANA.
1. A US-ASCII string name that is the actual netid. This name MUST 1. A US-ASCII string name that is the actual netid. This name MUST
NOT conflict with any other netid. This string name can be zero NOT conflict with any other netid. This string name can be zero
to 128 octets long. to 128 octets long.
2. A constant name that can be used for software programs that wish 2. A constant name that can be used for software programs that wish
to use the transport protocol associated with protocol. The name to use the transport protocol associated with protocol. The name
of the constant typically has the prefix: 'NC_', and a suffix of the constant typically has the prefix: 'NC_', and a suffix
equal to the upper case version of the netid. This constant name equal to the upper case version of the netid. This constant name
should be a constant that is valid in the 'C' programming should be a constant that is valid in the 'C' programming
language. This constant name MUST NOT conflict with any other language. This constant name MUST NOT conflict with any other
netid constant name. Constant names starting with "NC_STDS", netid constant name. Constant names with the prefix "NC_STDS",
"NC_FCFS", "NC_PRIV", or "NC_EXPE" are reserved. Constant names "NC_FCFS", "NC_PRIV", or "NC_EXPE" are reserved. Constant names
with a prefix of "NC_" and a total length of 11 characters or with a prefix of "NC_" and a total length of 11 characters or
less should be for assignments made on the Standards Action less should be for assignments made on the Standards Action
basis. The constant name can be 1 to 131 octets long. basis. The constant name can be 1 to 131 octets long.
3. For assignments made on a First Come First Served basis a 3. A description and/or a reference to a description of the how the
description, which can be up to 1024 US-ASCII characters (or more netid will be used. For assignments made on a First Come First
if IANA permits) how the netid will be used. For assignments Served basis the description should include, if applicable, a
made on a Standards Action basis, the description field is reference to the transport and network protocols corresponding to
provided to the Designated Expert to enable the review, but the the netid. For assignments made on a Standards Action basis, the
description is not recorded in the registry, and IANA may dispose description field must include the RFC numbers of the protocol
of the description once IESG approves the assignment. associated with the netid, including if applicable, RFC numbers
of the transport and network protocols. This field can be up to
1024 octets. If more space is required, an RFC should be
published.
4. For assignments made on a First Come First Served basis, if 4. A point of contact of the registrant. The point of contact can
applicable, a reference to a published description of the consume up to 256 octets (or more if IANA permits). For
transport protocol (preferred), or a reference to a published use assignments made on a First Come First Served basis,
of the transport protocol. This reference can consume up to 256
octets (or more if IANA permits). For assignments made on a
Standards Action basis, the RFC number of the protocol the netid
is associated with must be provided.
5. For assignments made on a First Come First Served basis, if * the point of contact should include an email address.
applicable, a reference to a published description of the network
protocol (preferred), or a reference to a published use of the
transport protocol. This reference can consume up to 256 octets
(or more if IANA permits). For assignments made on a Standards
Action basis, if the previous field refers to a transport
protocol, the RFC number of the network protocol the netid is
associated with must be provided.
6. For assignments made on a First Come First Served basis, a point * subject to authorization by a Designated Expert, the point of
of contact, including an email address. The point of contact can contact may be omitted for extraordinary situations, such as
consume up to 256 octets (or more if IANA permits). Subject to the registration of a commonly used netid where the owner is
authorization by a Designated Expert, the point of contact may be unknown.
omitted for extraordinary situations, such as the registration of
a commonly used netid where the owner is in unknown. For
assignments made on a Standards Action basis the point of contact
is always IESG.
3.1. Initial Registry For assignments made on a Standards Action basis the point of
contact is always IESG.
5. A numerical value, used to cross reference the netid assignment
with an assignment in the uaddr format registry (see
Section 3.2). If the registrant is registering a netid that
cross references an existing assignment in the uaddr format
registry, then the registrant provides the actual value of the
cross reference along with the date the registrant retrieved the
cross reference value from the uaddr format registry. If the
registrant is registering both a new netid and new uaddr format,
then the registrant provides a value of TBD1 in the netid
request, and uses TBD1 in the the uaddr format request. IANA
will then substitute TBD1 for cross reference number IANA
allocates.
3.1.1. Initial Registry
The initial list of netids is broken into those assigned on a First The initial list of netids is broken into those assigned on a First
Come First Serve basis in Table 1 and those assigned on a Standards Come First Serve basis in Table 1 and those assigned on a Standards
Action basis in Table 2. These lists will change when IANA registers Action basis in Table 2. These lists will change when IANA registers
additional netids as needed, and the authoritative list of registered additional netids as needed, and the authoritative list of registered
netids will always live with IANA. netids will always live with IANA.
+-------------+--------------+---------------------+-----+----+-----+ +-------------+--------------+---------------------------+-----+----+
| Netid | Constant | Description | PR | NR | PoC | | Netid | Constant | Description and/or | PoC | CR |
| | Name | | | | | | | Name | Reference | | |
+-------------+--------------+---------------------+-----+----+-----+ +-------------+--------------+---------------------------+-----+----+
| "ticlts" | NC_TICLTS | The loop back | [7] | | | | "-" | NC_NOPROTO | RFC1833 [2], | | 1 |
| | | connectionless | | | | | | | Section 3.2.3.2 of | | |
| | | transport used in | | | | | | | RFCTBD2 | | |
| | | System V Release 4 | | | | | "ticlts" | NC_TICLTS | The loop back | | 0 |
| | | and other operating | | | | | | | connectionless transport | | |
| | | systems. Although | | | | | | | used in System V Release | | |
| | | this assignment is | | | | | | | 4 and other operating | | |
| | | made on a First | | | | | | | systems. Although this | | |
| | | Come First Served | | | | | | | assignment is made on a | | |
| | | basis and is fewer | | | | | | | First Come First Served | | |
| | | than 9 characters | | | | | | | basis and is fewer than 9 | | |
| | | log, the exception | | | | | | | characters long, the | | |
| | | is authorized. | | | | | | | exception is authorized. | | |
| "ticots" | NC_TICOTS | The loop back | [7] | | | | | | See [8]. | | |
| | | connection-oriented | | | | | "ticots" | NC_TICOTS | The loop back | | 0 |
| | | transport used in | | | | | | | connection-oriented | | |
| | | System V Release 4 | | | | | | | transport used in System | | |
| | | and other operating | | | | | | | V Release 4 and other | | |
| | | systems. Although | | | | | | | operating systems. See | | |
| | | this assignment is | | | | | | | [8]. Although this | | |
| | | made on a First | | | | | | | assignment is made on a | | |
| | | Come First Served | | | | | | | First Come First Served | | |
| | | basis and is fewer | | | | | | | basis and is fewer than 9 | | |
| | | than 9 characters | | | | | | | characters long, the | | |
| | | log, the exception | | | | | | | exception is authorized. | | |
| | | is authorized. | | | | | "ticotsord" | NC_TICOTSORD | The loop back | | 0 |
| "ticotsord" | NC_TICOTSORD | The loop back | [7] | | | | | | connection-oriented with | | |
| | | connection-oriented | | | | | | | orderly-release transport | | |
| | | with | | | | | | | used in System V Release | | |
| | | orderly-release | | | | | | | 4 and other operating | | |
| | | transport used in | | | | | | | systems. See [8]. | | |
| | | System V Release 4 | | | | +-------------+--------------+---------------------------+-----+----+
| | | and other operating | | | |
| | | systems. | | | |
+-------------+--------------+---------------------+-----+----+-----+
Table 1 Table 1: Initial First Come First Serve Netid Assignments
PR: Protocol Reference. NR: Network protocol Reference. PoC: Point PoC: Point of Contact. CR: Cross Reference to the Uaddr Format
of Contact. Registry.
+---------+---------------+--------------+--------------+------+ +---------+--------------+------------------------------+------+----+
| Netid | Constant Name | PR | NR | PoC | | Netid | Constant | RFC(s) and Description (if | PoC | CR |
+---------+---------------+--------------+--------------+------+ | | Name | needed) | | |
| "-" | NC_NOPROTO | RFC1833 [2] | | IESG | +---------+--------------+------------------------------+------+----+
| "dccp" | NC_DCCP | RFC4340 [8] | RFC0760 [9] | IESG | | "dccp" | NC_DCCP | RFC4340 [9] RFC0760 [10] | IESG | 2 |
| "dccp6" | NC_DCCP6 | RFC4340 [8] | RFC2460 [10] | IESG | | "dccp6" | NC_DCCP6 | RFC4340 [9] RFC2460 [11] | IESG | 3 |
| "icmp" | NC_ICMP | RFC0777 [11] | RFC0760 [9] | IESG | | "icmp" | NC_ICMP | RFC0777 [12] RFC0760 [10] | IESG | 4 |
| "icmp6" | NC_ICMP6 | RFC0777 [11] | RFC2460 [10] | IESG | | "icmp6" | NC_ICMP6 | RFC0777 [12] RFC2460 [11] | IESG | 4 |
| "rdma" | NC_RDMA | RFCTBD1 [5] | RFC0760 [9] | IESG | | "rdma" | NC_RDMA | RFCTBD1 [6] RFC0760 [10] | IESG | 2 |
| "rdma6" | NC_RDMA6 | RFCTBD1 [5] | RFC2460 [10] | IESG | | "rdma6" | NC_RDMA6 | RFCTBD1 [6] RFC2460 [11] | IESG | 3 |
| "sctp" | NC_SCTP | RFC2960 [12] | RFC0760 [9] | IESG | | "sctp" | NC_SCTP | RFC2960 [13] RFC0760 [10] | IESG | 2 |
| "sctp6" | NC_SCTP6 | RFC2960 [12] | RFC2460 [10] | IESG | | "sctp6" | NC_SCTP6 | RFC2960 [13] RFC2460 [11] | IESG | 3 |
| "tcp" | NC_TCP | RFC0675 [13] | RFC0760 [9] | IESG | | "tcp" | NC_TCP | RFC0675 [14] RFC0760 [10] | IESG | 2 |
| "tcp6" | NC_TCP6 | RFC0675 [13] | RFC2460 [10] | IESG | | "tcp6" | NC_TCP6 | RFC0675 [14] RFC2460 [11] | IESG | 3 |
| "udp" | NC_UDP | RFC0768 [14] | RFC0760 [9] | IESG | | "udp" | NC_UDP | RFC0768 [15] RFC0760 [10] | IESG | 2 |
| "udp6" | NC_UDP6 | RFC0768 [14] | RFC2460 [10] | IESG | | "udp6" | NC_UDP6 | RFC0768 [15] RFC2460 [11] | IESG | 3 |
+---------+---------------+--------------+--------------+------+ +---------+--------------+------------------------------+------+----+
Table 2 Table 2: Initial Standards Action Netid Assignments
3.2. Updating Registrations 3.1.2. Updating Registrations
Per section 5.2 of [6] the point of contact is always permitted to Per section 5.2 of [7] the registrant always permitted to update a
update a registration made on a First Come First Served basis registration made on a First Come First Served basis "subject to the
"subject to the same constraints and review as with new same constraints and review as with new registrations." IESG or a
registrations." IESG or a Designated Expert is permitted to update Designated Expert is permitted to update any registration made on a
any registration made on a First Come First Served basis, which First Come First Served basis, which normally is done when the PoC
normally is done when the PoC cannot be reached in order to make cannot be reached in order to make necessary updates. Examples where
necessary updates. Examples where an update would be needed an update would be needed include, but are not limited to: the email
included, but are not limited to: the email address or other contact address or other contact information becomes invalid; the reference
information becomes invalid; the reference to the corresponding to the corresponding protocol becomes obsolete or unavailable; and
protocol becomes obsolete or unavailable; and RFC1833 [2] is updated RFC1833 [2] is updated or replaced in such a way that the scope of
or replaced in such a way that the scope of netids changes, requiring netids changes, requiring additional fields in the assignment.
additional fields in the assignment.
Only IESG, on the advice of a Designated Expert, can update a Only IESG, on the advice of a Designated Expert, can update a
registration made on a Standards Action basis. registration made on a Standards Action basis.
3.2. IANA Considerations for Uaddr Formats
IANA will create a registry called "ONC RPC Uaddr Format Registry"
(called the "format registry" for the remainder of this document).
The remainder of this section describes the registry.
All assignments to the format registry are made on one of two bases:
o First Come First Served basis per section 4.1 of [7].
o Standards Action per section 4.1 of [7].
The registry of formats is a list of assignments, each containing
four fields for each assignment.
1. The basis for the assignment, which can be either FCFS for First
Come First Served assignments, or STDS for Standards Action
assignments.
2. A description and/or reference to a description of the actual
uaddr format. Assignments made on a Standards Action basis
always have a reference to an RFC. This field can be up to 1024
octets. If more space is required, an RFC should be published.
3. For assignments made on a First Come First Served basis, a point
of contact, including an email address. The point of contact can
consume up to 256 octets (or more if IANA permits). Subject to
authorization by a Designated Expert, the point of contact may be
omitted for extraordinary situations, such as the registration of
a commonly used format where the owner is unknown. For
assignments made on a Standards Action basis the point of contact
is always IESG.
4. A numerical value, used to cross reference the format assignment
with an assignment in the netid registry. The registrant
provides a value of TBD1 for the cross reference filed when
requesting an assignment. IANA will assign TBD1 to a real value.
All requests for assignments to the format registry must undergo
Expert Review. All requests for assignments made on a Standards
Action basis must be approved by IESG.
3.2.1. Initial Registry
The initial list of formats is in Table 3. This lists will change
when IANA registers additional formats as needed, and the
authoritative list of registered formats will always live with IANA.
+-------+-----------------------------------------------+------+----+
| Basis | Description and/or Reference | PoC | CR |
+-------+-----------------------------------------------+------+----+
| FCFS | System V Release 4 loopback transport uaddr | | 0 |
| | format. Section 3.2.3.1 of RFCTBD2 | | |
| FCFS | Uaddr format for NC_NOPROTO. Section 3.2.3.2 | | 1 |
| | of RFCTBD2 | | |
| STDS | Uaddr format for IPv4 transports. | IESG | 2 |
| | Section 3.2.3.3 of RFCTBD2 | | |
| STDS | Uaddr format for IPv6 transports. | IESG | 3 |
| | Section 3.2.3.4 of RFCTBD2 | | |
| STDS | Uaddr formation for ICMP. Section 3.2.3.5 of | IESG | 4 |
| | RFCTBD2 | | |
+-------+-----------------------------------------------+------+----+
Table 3: Initial Format Assignments
3.2.2. Updating Registrations
The registrant always permitted to update a registration made on a
First Come First Served basis "subject to the same constraints and
review as with new registrations.", but as with new registrations,
any requested changes to any field other the point of contact
requires Expert Review. IESG or a Designated Expert is permitted to
update any registration made on a First Come First Served basis,
which normally is done when the PoC cannot be reached in order to
make necessary updates. Examples where an update would be needed
include, but are not limited to: the email address or other contact
information becomes invalid; the reference to the format description
becomes obsolete or unavailable; and RFC1833 [2] is updated or
replaced in such a way that the scope of uaddr formats changes,
requiring additional fields in the assignment.
Only IESG, on the advice of a Designated Expert, can update a
registration made on a Standards Action basis.
3.2.3. Uaddr Formats
3.2.3.1. Uaddr Format for System V Release 4 Loopback Transports
Although [2] identifies the uaddr as data type string (hence, limited
to US-ASCII), implementations of the System V Release 4 loopback
transports will use an opaque string of octets. Thus format of a
loopback transport address is any non-zero length array of octets.
3.2.3.2. Uaddr Format for Netid "-"
There is no address format for netid "-". This netid is apparently
for internal use for supporting some implementations of [2].
3.2.3.3. Uaddr Format for Most IPv4 Transports
Most transport protocols that operate over IPv4 use 16 bit port
numbers, including DCCP [9], RDMA [6], SCTP [13], TCP [14], and UDP
[15]. The format of the uaddr for the above 16 bit port transports
(when used over IPv4) is the US-ASCII string:
h1.h2.h3.h4.p1.p2
The prefix, "h1.h2.h3.h4", is the standard textual form for
representing an IPv4 address, which is always four octets long.
Assuming big-endian ordering, h1, h2, h3, and h4, are respectively,
the first through fourth octets each converted to ASCII-decimal. The
suffix, "p1.p2", is a textual form for representing a TCP and UDP
service port. Assuming big-endian ordering, p1 and p2 are,
respectively, the first and second octets each converted to ASCII-
decimal. For example, if a host, in big-endian order, has an address
of 0x0A010307 and there is a service listening on, in big endian
order, port 0x020F (decimal 527), then the complete uaddr is
"10.1.3.7.2.15".
3.2.3.4. Uaddr Format for Most IPv6 Transports
Most transport protocols that operate over IPv6 use 16 bit port
numbers, including DCCP [9], RDMA [6], SCTP [13], TCP [14], and UDP
[15]. The format of the uaddr for the above 16 bit port transports
(when used over IPv6) is the US-ASCII string:
x1:x2:x3:x4:x5:x6:x7:x8.p1.p2
The suffix "p1.p2" is the service port, and is computed the same way
as with uaddrs for transports over IPv4 (see Section 3.2.3.3). The
prefix, "x1:x2:x3:x4:x5:x6:x7:x8", is the preferred textual form for
representing an IPv6 address as defined in Section 2.2 of [3].
Additionally, the two alternative forms specified in Section 2.2 of
[3] are also acceptable.
3.2.3.5. Uaddr Format for ICMP over IPv4 and IPv6
As ICMP is not a true transport, there is no uaddr format for ICMP.
The netid assignments "icmp" and "icmp6" and their shared uaddr
"format" are listed to prevent any registrant from allocating the
netids "icmp" and "icmp6" for a purpose that would likely cause
confusion.
3.3. Cross Referencing Between the Netid and Format Registry
The last field of the netids registry is used to cross reference with
the last field of the format registry. IANA is under no obligation
to maintain same numeric value in cross references when updating each
registry; i.e. IANA is free to "re-number" these corresponding
fields. However, if IANA does so, both the netid and format
registries must be updated atomically.
4. References 4. References
4.1. Normative References 4.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Srinivasan, R., "Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2", [2] Srinivasan, R., "Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2",
RFC 1833, August 1995. RFC 1833, August 1995.
[3] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
4.2. Informative References 4.2. Informative References
[3] Srinivasan, R., "RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol [4] Srinivasan, R., "RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol
Specification Version 2", RFC 1831, August 1995. Specification Version 2", RFC 1831, August 1995.
[4] Shepler, S., Callaghan, B., Robinson, D., Thurlow, R., Beame, [5] Shepler, S., Callaghan, B., Robinson, D., Thurlow, R., Beame,
C., Eisler, M., and D. Noveck, "Network File System (NFS) C., Eisler, M., and D. Noveck, "Network File System (NFS)
version 4 Protocol", RFC 3530, April 2003. version 4 Protocol", RFC 3530, April 2003.
[5] Talpey, T. and B. Callaghan, "Remote Direct Memory Access [6] Talpey, T. and B. Callaghan, "Remote Direct Memory Access
Transport for Remote Procedure Call", Transport for Remote Procedure Call",
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-08 (work in progress), April 2008. draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-08 (work in progress), April 2008.
[6] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA [7] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008. Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008.
[7] American Telephone and Telegraph Company, "UNIX System V, [8] American Telephone and Telegraph Company, "UNIX System V,
Release 4 Programmer's Guide: Networking Interfaces, ISBN Release 4 Programmer's Guide: Networking Interfaces, ISBN
0139470786", 1990. 0139470786", 1990.
[8] Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram Congestion [9] Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram Congestion
Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, March 2006. Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, March 2006.
[9] Postel, J., "DoD standard Internet Protocol", RFC 760, [10] Postel, J., "DoD standard Internet Protocol", RFC 760,
January 1980. January 1980.
[10] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) [11] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6)
Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[11] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", RFC 777, [12] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", RFC 777,
April 1981. April 1981.
[12] Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Morneault, K., Sharp, C., Schwarzbauer, [13] Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Morneault, K., Sharp, C., Schwarzbauer,
H., Taylor, T., Rytina, I., Kalla, M., Zhang, L., and V. H., Taylor, T., Rytina, I., Kalla, M., Zhang, L., and V.
Paxson, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 2960, Paxson, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 2960,
October 2000. October 2000.
[13] Cerf, V., Dalal, Y., and C. Sunshine, "Specification of [14] Cerf, V., Dalal, Y., and C. Sunshine, "Specification of
Internet Transmission Control Program", RFC 675, December 1974. Internet Transmission Control Program", RFC 675, December 1974.
[14] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, [15] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
August 1980. August 1980.
Appendix A. RFC Editor Notes
[RFC Editor: please remove this section prior to publication.]
[RFC Editor: Please replace occurrences of RFCTBD1 with the RFCxxxx
where xxxx is the RFC number assigned to the document referenced in
[6].]
[RFC Editor: Please replace occurrences of RFCTBD2 with the RFCyyyy
where yyyy is the RFC number assigned to this document.]
Author's Address Author's Address
Mike Eisler Mike Eisler
NetApp NetApp
5765 Chase Point Circle 5765 Chase Point Circle
Colorado Springs, CO 80919 Colorado Springs, CO 80919
US US
Phone: +1-719-599-9026 Phone: +1-719-599-9026
Email: mike@eisler.com Email: mike@eisler.com
 End of changes. 41 change blocks. 
154 lines changed or deleted 332 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/