Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) M. Blanchet
Request for Comments: 6255 Viagenie
Category: Informational May 2011
ISSN: 2070-1721
Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) M. Blanchet
Request for Comments: 6255 Viagenie
Category: Informational May 2011
ISSN: 2070-1721
Delay-Tolerant Networking Bundle Protocol IANA Registries
延迟容忍网络捆绑协议IANA注册表
Abstract
摘要
The Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN) Research Group research group has defined many protocols such as the Bundle Protocol and Licklider Transmission Protocol. The specifications of these protocols contain fields that are subject to a registry. For the purpose of its research work, the group created ad hoc registries. As the specifications are stable and have multiple interoperable implementations, the group would like to hand off the registries to IANA for official custody. This document describes the actions executed by IANA.
延迟容忍网络（DTN）研究小组定义了许多协议，如捆绑协议和利克利德传输协议。这些协议的规范包含受注册表约束的字段。为了开展研究工作，专家组设立了特设登记处。由于规范是稳定的，并且有多个可互操作的实现，该小组希望将注册中心移交给IANA进行正式保管。本文档描述了IANA执行的操作。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
本文件不是互联网标准跟踪规范；它是为了提供信息而发布的。
This document is a product of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-related research and development activities. These results might not be suitable for deployment. This RFC represents the consensus of the Delay-Tolerant Network Research Group of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). Documents approved for publication by the IRSG are not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
本文件是互联网研究工作组（IRTF）的产品。IRTF发布互联网相关研究和开发活动的结果。这些结果可能不适合部署。该RFC代表了互联网研究任务组（IRTF）的延迟容忍网络研究小组的共识。IRSG批准发布的文件不适用于任何级别的互联网标准；见RFC 5741第2节。
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6255.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6255.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2011 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Treatment of Flag Fields Encoded Using SDNVs ....................2
3. Bundle Protocol .................................................3
3.1. Bundle Block Types .........................................3
3.2. Primary Bundle Protocol Version ............................3
3.3. Bundle Processing Control Flags ............................4
3.4. Block Processing Control Flags .............................5
3.5. Bundle Status Report Flags .................................6
3.6. Bundle Status Report Reason Codes ..........................7
3.7. Bundle Custody Signal Reason Codes .........................7
4. Security Considerations .........................................8
5. IANA Considerations .............................................8
6. Acknowledgements ................................................8
7. References ......................................................9
7.1. Normative References .......................................9
7.2. Informative References .....................................9
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Treatment of Flag Fields Encoded Using SDNVs ....................2
3. Bundle Protocol .................................................3
3.1. Bundle Block Types .........................................3
3.2. Primary Bundle Protocol Version ............................3
3.3. Bundle Processing Control Flags ............................4
3.4. Block Processing Control Flags .............................5
3.5. Bundle Status Report Flags .................................6
3.6. Bundle Status Report Reason Codes ..........................7
3.7. Bundle Custody Signal Reason Codes .........................7
4. Security Considerations .........................................8
5. IANA Considerations .............................................8
6. Acknowledgements ................................................8
7. References ......................................................9
7.1. Normative References .......................................9
7.2. Informative References .....................................9
The DTNRG research group has defined many protocols relevant to the DTN architecture [RFC4838] such as the Bundle Protocol [RFC5050] and Licklider Transmission Protocol [RFC5326]. The specifications of these protocols contain fields that are subject to a registry. For the purpose of its research work, the group created ad hoc registries (http://www.dtnrg.org/wiki/AssignedNamesAndNumbers). As the specifications are stable and have multiple interoperable implementations, the group would like to hand off the registries to IANA for official custody. This document describes the actions executed by IANA.
DTNRG研究小组定义了许多与DTN体系结构[RFC4838]相关的协议，如捆绑协议[RFC5050]和利克利德传输协议[RFC5326]。这些协议的规范包含受注册表约束的字段。为了开展研究工作，专家组设立了特设登记处(http://www.dtnrg.org/wiki/AssignedNamesAndNumbers). 由于规范是稳定的，并且有多个可互操作的实现，该小组希望将注册中心移交给IANA进行正式保管。本文档描述了IANA执行的操作。
The DTN protocols use several extensible bit flag fields that are encoded as Self-Delimiting Numeric Values (SDNVs) as defined in Section 4.1 of [RFC5050]. For these fields, the registry specifies the allocation and usage of bit positions within the unencoded field. The SDNV encoding treats the ensemble of bits in the unencoded value as a numeric value to be encoded on transmission and decoded on reception as described in [RFC5050].
DTN协议使用多个可扩展位标志字段，这些字段被编码为[RFC5050]第4.1节中定义的自定界数值（SDNV）。对于这些字段，注册表指定未编码字段中位位置的分配和使用。SDNV编码将未编码值中的位集合视为数字值，在传输时进行编码，在接收时进行解码，如[RFC5050]中所述。
Processing of SDNV-encoded flags is discussed in [RFC6256].
[RFC6256]中讨论了SDNV编码标志的处理。
Section 4.1 of [RFC5050] specifies that implementations are not required to handle SDNVs with more than 64 bits in their unencoded value. Accordingly, SDNV-encoded flag fields should be limited to 64 bit positions.
[RFC5050]第4.1节规定，不需要实现来处理未编码值超过64位的SDNV。因此，SDNV编码的标志字段应限制在64位位置。
IANA registry policies and wording used in this document are described in [RFC5226].
[RFC5226]中描述了本文件中使用的IANA注册表策略和措辞。
The Bundle Protocol (BP) [RFC5050] has fields requiring a registry managed by IANA.
捆绑协议（BP）[RFC5050]具有需要IANA管理的注册表的字段。
The Bundle Protocol has a Bundle Block Type code field (Section 4.5.2) [RFC5050]. An IANA registry has been set up as follows.
捆绑协议具有捆绑块类型代码字段（第4.5.2节）[RFC5050]。IANA注册已按如下方式建立。
The registration policy for this registry is:
此注册表的注册策略为：
0-191: Specification Required
0-191：所需规格
192-255: Private or experimental use. No assignment by IANA.
192-255：私人或实验用途。没有IANA的任务。
The Value range is: unsigned 8-bit integer.
值范围为：无符号8位整数。
Bundle Block Type Registry
包块类型注册表
+--------------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+--------------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| 0 | Reserved | This document |
| 1 | Bundle Payload Block | [RFC5050] |
| 2-191 | Unassigned | |
| 192-255 | Private and/or Experimental Use | [RFC5050] |
+--------------+---------------------------------+---------------+
+--------------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+--------------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| 0 | Reserved | This document |
| 1 | Bundle Payload Block | [RFC5050] |
| 2-191 | Unassigned | |
| 192-255 | Private and/or Experimental Use | [RFC5050] |
+--------------+---------------------------------+---------------+
The value "0" was not defined in any document or in the ad hoc registry. As per consensus by the DTNRG research group, it is reserved per this document.
未在任何文档或临时注册表中定义值“0”。根据DTNRG研究小组的共识，本文件保留了该文件。
The Bundle Protocol has a version field (see Section 4.5.1 of [RFC5050]). An IANA registry has been set up as follows.
捆绑协议有一个版本字段（见[RFC5050]第4.5.1节）。IANA注册已按如下方式建立。
The registration policy for this registry is: RFC Required
此注册表的注册策略为：RFC Required
The Value range is: unsigned 8-bit integer.
值范围为：无符号8位整数。
Primary Bundle Protocol Version Registry
主捆绑协议版本注册表
+-------+-------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+-------------+---------------+
| 0-5 | Reserved | This document |
| 6 | Assigned | [RFC5050] |
| 7-255 | Unassigned | |
+-------+-------------+---------------+
+-------+-------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+-------------+---------------+
| 0-5 | Reserved | This document |
| 6 | Assigned | [RFC5050] |
| 7-255 | Unassigned | |
+-------+-------------+---------------+
The value "0-5" was not defined in any document or in the ad hoc registry. As per consensus by the DTNRG research group, it is reserved per this document.
未在任何文档或临时注册表中定义值“0-5”。根据DTNRG研究小组的共识，本文件保留了该文件。
The Bundle Protocol has a Bundle Processing Control Flags field (see Section 4.2 of [RFC5050]) encoded as an SDNV (see Section 2). An IANA registry has been set up as follows.
捆绑协议有一个捆绑处理控制标志字段（见[RFC5050]第4.2节），编码为SDNV（见第2节）。IANA注册已按如下方式建立。
The registration policy for this registry is: Specification Required
此注册表的注册策略为：需要规范
The Value range is: Variable length. Maximum number of flag bit positions: 64
值范围为：可变长度。最大标志位位置数：64
Bundle Processing Control Flags Registry
捆绑处理控制标志注册表
+--------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+
| Bit Position | Description | Reference |
| (right to left) | | |
+--------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+
| 0 | Bundle is a fragment | [RFC5050] |
| 1 | Application data unit is an | [RFC5050] |
| | administrative record | |
| 2 | Bundle must not be fragmented | [RFC5050] |
| 3 | Custody transfer is requested | [RFC5050] |
| 4 | Destination endpoint is a | [RFC5050] |
| | singleton | |
| 5 | Acknowledgement by application | [RFC5050] |
| | is requested | |
| 6 | Reserved | [RFC5050] |
| 7-8 | Class of service: priority | [RFC5050] |
| 9-13 | Class of service: reserved | [RFC5050] |
| 14 | Request reporting of bundle | [RFC5050] |
| | reception | |
| 15 | Request reporting of custody | [RFC5050] |
| | acceptance | |
| 16 | Request reporting of bundle | [RFC5050] |
| | forwarding | |
| 17 | Request reporting of bundle | [RFC5050] |
| | delivery | |
| 18 | Request reporting of bundle | [RFC5050] |
| | deletion | |
| 19 | Reserved | [RFC5050] |
| 20 | Reserved | [RFC5050] |
| 21-63 | Unassigned | |
+--------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+
+--------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+
| Bit Position | Description | Reference |
| (right to left) | | |
+--------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+
| 0 | Bundle is a fragment | [RFC5050] |
| 1 | Application data unit is an | [RFC5050] |
| | administrative record | |
| 2 | Bundle must not be fragmented | [RFC5050] |
| 3 | Custody transfer is requested | [RFC5050] |
| 4 | Destination endpoint is a | [RFC5050] |
| | singleton | |
| 5 | Acknowledgement by application | [RFC5050] |
| | is requested | |
| 6 | Reserved | [RFC5050] |
| 7-8 | Class of service: priority | [RFC5050] |
| 9-13 | Class of service: reserved | [RFC5050] |
| 14 | Request reporting of bundle | [RFC5050] |
| | reception | |
| 15 | Request reporting of custody | [RFC5050] |
| | acceptance | |
| 16 | Request reporting of bundle | [RFC5050] |
| | forwarding | |
| 17 | Request reporting of bundle | [RFC5050] |
| | delivery | |
| 18 | Request reporting of bundle | [RFC5050] |
| | deletion | |
| 19 | Reserved | [RFC5050] |
| 20 | Reserved | [RFC5050] |
| 21-63 | Unassigned | |
+--------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+
The Bundle Protocol has a Block Processing Control Flags field (see Section 4.3 of [RFC5050]). An IANA registry has been set up as follows.
捆绑协议有一个块处理控制标志字段（见[RFC5050]第4.3节）。IANA注册已按如下方式建立。
The registration policy for this registry is: Specification Required
此注册表的注册策略为：需要规范
The Value range is: Variable length. Maximum number of flag bit positions: 64
值范围为：可变长度。最大标志位位置数：64
Block Processing Control Flags Registry
块处理控制标志注册表
+--------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+
| Bit Position | Description | Reference |
| (right to left) | | |
+--------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+
| 0 | Block must be replicated in | [RFC5050] |
| | every fragment | |
| 1 | Transmit status report if block | [RFC5050] |
| | can't be processed | |
| 2 | Delete bundle if block can't be | [RFC5050] |
| | processed | |
| 3 | Last block | [RFC5050] |
| 4 | Discard block if it can't be | [RFC5050] |
| | processed | |
| 5 | Block was forwarded without | [RFC5050] |
| | being processed | |
| 6 | Block contains an EID-reference | [RFC5050] |
| | field | |
| 7-63 | Unassigned | |
+--------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+
+--------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+
| Bit Position | Description | Reference |
| (right to left) | | |
+--------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+
| 0 | Block must be replicated in | [RFC5050] |
| | every fragment | |
| 1 | Transmit status report if block | [RFC5050] |
| | can't be processed | |
| 2 | Delete bundle if block can't be | [RFC5050] |
| | processed | |
| 3 | Last block | [RFC5050] |
| 4 | Discard block if it can't be | [RFC5050] |
| | processed | |
| 5 | Block was forwarded without | [RFC5050] |
| | being processed | |
| 6 | Block contains an EID-reference | [RFC5050] |
| | field | |
| 7-63 | Unassigned | |
+--------------------+----------------------------------+-----------+
The Bundle Protocol has a Status Report Status Flag field (see Section 6.1.1 of [RFC5050]). An IANA registry has been set up as follows.
捆绑协议有一个状态报告状态标志字段（见[RFC5050]第6.1.1节）。IANA注册已按如下方式建立。
The registration policy for this registry is: RFC Required
此注册表的注册策略为：RFC Required
The Value range is: 8 bits.
值范围为：8位。
Bundle Status Report Flags Registry
捆绑包状态报告标志注册表
+----------+----------------------------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+----------+----------------------------------------+---------------+
| 00000000 | Reserved | This document |
| 00000001 | Reporting node received bundle | [RFC5050] |
| 00000010 | Reporting node accepted custody of | [RFC5050] |
| | bundle | |
| 00000100 | Reporting node forwarded the bundle | [RFC5050] |
| 00001000 | Reporting node delivered the bundle | [RFC5050] |
| 00010000 | Reporting node deleted the bundle | [RFC5050] |
| 00100000 | Unassigned | |
| 01000000 | Unassigned | |
| 10000000 | Unassigned | |
+----------+----------------------------------------+---------------+
+----------+----------------------------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+----------+----------------------------------------+---------------+
| 00000000 | Reserved | This document |
| 00000001 | Reporting node received bundle | [RFC5050] |
| 00000010 | Reporting node accepted custody of | [RFC5050] |
| | bundle | |
| 00000100 | Reporting node forwarded the bundle | [RFC5050] |
| 00001000 | Reporting node delivered the bundle | [RFC5050] |
| 00010000 | Reporting node deleted the bundle | [RFC5050] |
| 00100000 | Unassigned | |
| 01000000 | Unassigned | |
| 10000000 | Unassigned | |
+----------+----------------------------------------+---------------+
The value "00000000" was not defined in any document or in the ad hoc registry. As per consensus by the DTNRG research group, it is reserved per this document.
任何文档或临时注册表中均未定义值“00000000”。根据DTNRG研究小组的共识，本文件保留了该文件。
The Bundle Protocol has a Bundle Status Report Reason Codes field (see Section 6.1.1 of [RFC5050]). An IANA registry has been set up as follows.
捆绑协议有一个捆绑状态报告原因代码字段（见[RFC5050]第6.1.1节）。IANA注册已按如下方式建立。
The registration policy for this registry is: Specification Required
此注册表的注册策略为：需要规范
The Value range is: unsigned 8-bit integer.
值范围为：无符号8位整数。
Bundle Status Report Reason Codes Registry
捆绑状态报告原因代码注册表
+-------+-------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+-------------------------------------------+---------------+
| 0 | No additional information | [RFC5050] |
| 1 | Lifetime expired | [RFC5050] |
| 2 | Forwarded over unidirectional link | [RFC5050] |
| 3 | Transmission canceled | [RFC5050] |
| 4 | Depleted storage | [RFC5050] |
| 5 | Destination endpoint ID unintelligible | [RFC5050] |
| 6 | No known route to destination from here | [RFC5050] |
| 7 | No timely contact with next node on route | [RFC5050] |
| 8 | Block unintelligible | [RFC5050] |
| 9-254 | Unassigned | |
| 255 | Reserved | This document |
+-------+-------------------------------------------+---------------+
+-------+-------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+-------------------------------------------+---------------+
| 0 | No additional information | [RFC5050] |
| 1 | Lifetime expired | [RFC5050] |
| 2 | Forwarded over unidirectional link | [RFC5050] |
| 3 | Transmission canceled | [RFC5050] |
| 4 | Depleted storage | [RFC5050] |
| 5 | Destination endpoint ID unintelligible | [RFC5050] |
| 6 | No known route to destination from here | [RFC5050] |
| 7 | No timely contact with next node on route | [RFC5050] |
| 8 | Block unintelligible | [RFC5050] |
| 9-254 | Unassigned | |
| 255 | Reserved | This document |
+-------+-------------------------------------------+---------------+
The value "255" was not defined in any document or in the ad hoc registry. As per consensus by the DTNRG research group, it is reserved per this document.
没有在任何文档或临时注册表中定义值“255”。根据DTNRG研究小组的共识，本文件保留了该文件。
The Bundle Protocol has a Bundle Custody Signal Reason Codes field (see Section 6.1.2 of [RFC5050]). An IANA registry has been set up as follows.
捆绑协议有一个捆绑保管信号原因码字段（见[RFC5050]第6.1.2节）。IANA注册已按如下方式建立。
The registration policy for this registry is: Specification Required
此注册表的注册策略为：需要规范
The Value range is: unsigned 7-bit integer.
值范围为：无符号7位整数。
Bundle Custody Signal Reason Codes Registry
捆绑保管信号原因代码注册表
+--------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+--------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| 0 | No additional information | [RFC5050] |
| 1-2 | Unassigned | |
| 3 | Redundant reception (reception by a | [RFC5050] |
| | node that is a custodial node for | |
| | this bundle) | |
| 4 | Depleted storage | [RFC5050] |
| 5 | Destination endpoint ID | [RFC5050] |
| | unintelligible | |
| 6 | No known route to destination from | [RFC5050] |
| | here | |
| 7 | No timely contact with next node on | [RFC5050] |
| | route | |
| 8 | Block unintelligible | [RFC5050] |
| 9-126 | Unassigned | |
| 127 | Reserved | This |
| | | document |
+--------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
+--------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+--------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
| 0 | No additional information | [RFC5050] |
| 1-2 | Unassigned | |
| 3 | Redundant reception (reception by a | [RFC5050] |
| | node that is a custodial node for | |
| | this bundle) | |
| 4 | Depleted storage | [RFC5050] |
| 5 | Destination endpoint ID | [RFC5050] |
| | unintelligible | |
| 6 | No known route to destination from | [RFC5050] |
| | here | |
| 7 | No timely contact with next node on | [RFC5050] |
| | route | |
| 8 | Block unintelligible | [RFC5050] |
| 9-126 | Unassigned | |
| 127 | Reserved | This |
| | | document |
+--------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+
The value "127" was not defined in any document or in the ad hoc registry. As per consensus by the DTNRG research group, it is reserved per this document.
任何文件或临时注册表中均未定义值“127”。根据DTNRG研究小组的共识，本文件保留了该文件。
This document requests the creation of registries managed by IANA. There are no security issues involved. Refer to the Security Considerations section of the referenced protocols.
本文件要求创建IANA管理的注册中心。不涉及安全问题。请参阅参考协议的安全注意事项部分。
IANA has created the registries as described in the previous sections.
IANA已经按照前面章节的描述创建了注册中心。
The editor would like to thank the following people who have provided comments and suggestions to this document, in no specific order: Stephen Farrell, Daniel Ellard, Scott Burleigh, Keith Scott, and Elwyn Davies.
编辑要感谢以下对本文件提供评论和建议的人，没有具体顺序：斯蒂芬·法雷尔、丹尼尔·埃拉德、斯科特·伯利、基思·斯科特和埃尔温·戴维斯。
[RFC5050] Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, "Bundle Protocol Specification", RFC 5050, November 2007.
[RFC5050]Scott，K.和S.Burleigh，“捆绑协议规范”，RFC 50502007年11月。
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008.
[RFC5226]Narten，T.和H.Alvestrand，“在RFCs中编写IANA注意事项部分的指南”，BCP 26，RFC 5226，2008年5月。
[RFC4838] Cerf, V., Burleigh, S., Hooke, A., Torgerson, L., Durst, R., Scott, K., Fall, K., and H. Weiss, "Delay-Tolerant Networking Architecture", RFC 4838, April 2007.
[RFC4838]Cerf，V.，Burleigh，S.，Hooke，A.，Torgerson，L.，Durst，R.，Scott，K.，Fall，K.，和H.Weiss，“延迟容忍网络架构”，RFC 48382007年4月。
[RFC5326] Ramadas, M., Burleigh, S., and S. Farrell, "Licklider Transmission Protocol - Specification", RFC 5326, September 2008.
[RFC5326]Ramadas，M.，Burleigh，S.和S.Farrell，“利克利德传输协议-规范”，RFC 5326，2008年9月。
[RFC6256] Eddy, W. and E. Davies, "Using Self-Delimiting Numeric Values in Protocols", RFC 6256, May 2011.
[RFC6256]Eddy，W.和E.Davies，“在协议中使用自定界数值”，RFC 6256，2011年5月。
Author's Address
作者地址
Marc Blanchet Viagenie 2875 boul. Laurier, suite D2-630 Quebec, QC G1V 2M2 Canada
Marc Blanchet Viagenie 2875 boul。Laurier，加拿大魁北克QC G1V 2M2 D2-630套房
EMail: Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.ca
URI: http://viagenie.ca
EMail: Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.ca
URI: http://viagenie.ca