transport

This document defines a number of transport mechanisms that are used to move Certificate Management over CMS (CMC) messages. The transport mechanisms described in this document are HTTP, file, mail, and TCP.

This document obsoletes RFCs 5273 and 6402.

To protect user data and privacy, Internet transport protocols have supported payload encryption and authentication for some time. Such encryption and authentication are now also starting to be applied to the transport protocol headers. This helps avoid transport protocol ossification by middleboxes, mitigate attacks against the transport protocol, and protect metadata about the communication. Current operational practice in some networks inspect transport header information within the network, but this is no longer possible when those transport headers are encrypted.

This document discusses the possible impact when network traffic uses a protocol with an encrypted transport header. It suggests issues to consider when designing new transport protocols or features.

This document discusses the nature of signals seen by on-path elements examining transport protocols, contrasting implicit and explicit signals. For example, TCP's state machine uses a series of well-known messages that are exchanged in the clear. Because these are visible to network elements on the path between the two nodes setting up the transport connection, they are often used as signals by those network elements. In transports that do not exchange these messages in the clear, on-path network elements lack those signals. Often, the removal of those signals is intended by those moving the messages to confidential channels. Where the endpoints desire that network elements along the path receive these signals, this document recommends explicit signals be used.

This document defines the procedures that the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) uses when handling assignment and other requests related to the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number registry. It also discusses the rationale and principles behind these procedures and how they facilitate the long-term sustainability of the registry.

This document updates IANA's procedures by obsoleting the previous UDP and TCP port assignment procedures defined in Sections 8 and 9.1 of the IANA Allocation Guidelines, and it updates the IANA service name and port assignment procedures for UDP-Lite, the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP), and the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP). It also updates the DNS SRV specification to clarify what a service name is and how it is registered. This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.

The document describes a transparent cell transport service that makes use of the "N-to-one" cell relay mode for Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Asynchronous Transfer-Mode (ATM) cell encapsulation. [STANDARDS-TRACK]

Pragmatic General Multicast (PGM) is a reliable multicast transport protocol for applications that require ordered or unordered, duplicate- free, multicast data delivery from multiple sources to multiple receivers. PGM guarantees that a receiver in the group either receives all data packets from transmissions and repairs, or is able to detect unrecoverable data packet loss. PGM is specifically intended as a workable solution for multicast applications with basic reliability requirements. Its central design goal is simplicity of operation with due regard for scalability and network efficiency. This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.

This document specifies three protocols for transporting CIP requests, responses and index objects, utilizing TCP, mail, and HTTP. [STANDARDS-TRACK]

This document describes a new Network level protocol (from the PPP point of view), PPP Serial Data Transport Protocol, that provides encapsulation and an associated control protocol for transporting serial data streams over a PPP link. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.

This RFC provides information for the Internet community about a method for establishing and maintaining SNA sessions over an IP internet. This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard.

This memo describes a protocol for reliable transport that utilizes the multicast capability of applicable lower layer networking architectures. The transport definition permits an arbitrary number of transport providers to perform realtime collaborations without requiring networking clients (aka, applications) to possess detailed knowledge of the population or geographical dispersion of the participating members. It is not network architectural specific, but does implicitly require some form of multicasting (or broadcasting) at the data link level, as well as some means of communicating that capability up through the layers to the transport. This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard.

This document supplements the Transport Service and Protocol of the International Standards Organization (ISO), IS 8072 and IS 8073, respectively, and their formal descriptions by providing conventions, option selections and parameter values. This RFC is being distributed to members of the Internet community in order to solicit comments on the Draft Military Supplement. While this document may not be directly relevant to the research problems of the Internet, it may be of some interest to a number of researchers and implementors.

This RFC is being distributed to members of the Internet community in order to solicit comments on the Implementors Guide. While this document may not be directly relevant to the research problems of the Internet, it may be of some interest to a number of researchers and implementors.

The DoD Internet protocol suite includes two alternative transport service protocols, TCP and UDP, which provide virtual circuit and datagram service, respectively. These two protocols represent points in the space of possible transport service attributes which are quite "far apart". We want to examine an important class of applications, those which perform what is often called "transaction processing". We will see that the communication needs for these applications fall into the gap "between" TCP and UDP -- neither protocol is very appropriate. This RFC is concerned with the possible design of one or more new protocols for the ARPA-Internet, to support kinds of applications which are not well supported at present. The RFC is intended to spur discussion in the Internet research community towards the development of new protocols and/or concepts, in order to meet these unmet application requirements. It does not represent a standard, nor even a concrete protocol proposal.

This RFC reproduces the material from the "front pages" of the National Research Council report resulting from a study of the DOD Internet Protocol (IP) and Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) in comparison with the ISO Internet Protocol (ISO-IP) and Transport Protocol level 4 (TP-4). The point of this RFC is to make the text of the Executive Summary widely available in a timely way. The order of presentation has been altered, and the pagination changed. This RFC is distributed for information only. This RFC does not establish any policy for the DARPA research community or the DDN operational community.

This RFC reproduces the National Research Council report resulting from a study of the DoD Internet Protocol (IP) and Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) in comparison with the ISO Internet Protocol (ISO-IP) and Transport Protocol level 4 (TP-4).

This is the current specification of the ISO Transport Protocol. This document is the text of ISO/TC97/SC16/N1576 as corrected by ISO/TC97/SC16/N1695. This is the specification currently being voted on in ISO as a Draft International Standard (DIS). This document is distributed as an RFC for your information only, it does not specify a standard for the ARPA-Internet or DARPA research community. Our thanks to Alex McKenzie of BBN for making this online version available. Please note the size of this document, the file contains 258,729 characters.