

Network Working Group                                         R. Stewart
Internet-Draft                                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: November 30, 2003                                     M. Tuexen
                                      Univ. of Applied Sciences Muenster
                                                               June 2003


      Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Bakeoff Scoring
                draft-stewart-tsvwg-sctpscore-01.txt

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as
   Internet-Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
   www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 30, 2003.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This memo describes some of the scoring to be used in the testing of
   Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) at upcoming bakeoffs.











Stewart & Tuexen       Expires November 30, 2003                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft              Bakeoff Scoring                    June 2003


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Base protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.1 Basic Communication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.2 Beyond Basic Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Protocol Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.1 Partial reliable SCTP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.2 AddIP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  Bonus Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . .  9






































Stewart & Tuexen       Expires November 30, 2003                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft              Bakeoff Scoring                    June 2003


1. Introduction

   This document will be used as a basis for point scoring at upcoming
   SCTP bakeoffs.  Its purpose is similar to that described in RFC1025.
   It is hoped that a clear definition of where and how to score points
   will further the development of SCTP RFC2960 [4].

   Note that while attending a bakeoff no one else will score your
   points for you.  We trust that all implementations will faithfully
   record their points that are received honestly.  Note also that these
   scores are NOT to be used for marketing purposes.  They are for the
   use of the implementations to know how well they are doing.  The only
   reporting that will be done is a basic summary to the Transport Area
   Working Group but please note that NO company or implementation names
   will be attached.

   Note Bene: Checksums must be enforced.   No points will be awarded if
   the checksum test is disabled.

2. Base protocol

   The base protocol is described in the follwing documents:

      RFC2960 [4]

      RFC3309 [5]

      IMPLGUIDE [6]

      SCTPIPV4 [9]

      SCTPIPV6 [10]


2.1 Basic Communication

   These points will be scored for EACH peer implementation that you
   successfully communicate with.

      2 points for being the sender of the INIT chunk and completing
      setup of an association.

      2 points for being the sender of the INIT-ACK chunk and completing
      setup of an association.

      1 point for sending data on the association where you sent the
      INIT.




Stewart & Tuexen       Expires November 30, 2003                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft              Bakeoff Scoring                    June 2003


      1 point for sending data on the association where you sent the
      INIT-ACK.

      2 points for gracefully ending the conversation by being the
      sender of the SHUTDOWN.

      2 points for gracefully ending the conversation by being the
      sender of the SHUTDOWN-ACK.

      4 points for repeating the above without reinitializing the SCTP.

   In order to receive all of the above points (14) an implementation
   will need to:

   o  send a INIT chunk and setup an association.

   o  send a data chunk on that association.

   o  receive a data chunk on that association.

   o  send a SHUTDOWN chunk and bring the association to a close.

   o  receive a INIT-ACK and setup a new association (after the previous
      one is closed).

   o  send a data chunk on that association.

   o  receive a data chunk on that association.

   o  receive a SHUTDOWN chunk and send a SHUTDOWN-ACK and close the
      association.

   o  without restarting repeat these steps once.

   You can get 5 extra points if you do not include any address
   parameter in the INIT-/INIT-ACK chunk in case you are using ony one
   of your addresses.

2.2 Beyond Basic Communication

      10 points for bring up multiple associations at the same time to
      different implementations.  The implementation must send and
      receive data on both associations simultaneously.

      15 points for correctly handling ECN.

      10 points for correctly handling both Transmission Sequence Number
      (TSN) and Stream Sequence Number (SSN) wrap around.



Stewart & Tuexen       Expires November 30, 2003                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft              Bakeoff Scoring                    June 2003


      5  points for correctly being able to process a "Kamikaze" packet
      (AKA nastygram, christmas tree packet, lamp test segment, et al.).
      That is, correctly handle a segment with the maximum combination
      of features at once (e.g., a  COOKIE-ECHO, SACK, ASCONF,
      UNKNOWN-CHUNK, SHUTDOWN).

      5  additional points if the response to the "Kamikaze" packet is
      bundled.

      10 additional points if the implementation supports ECN and thus
      the "Kamikaze" packet is expanded to include COOKIE-ECHO, SACK,
      ECN, ASCONF, UNKNOWN-CHUNK, SHUTDOWN.

      30 points for KOing your opponent with legal blows.  (That is,
      operate a connection until one SCTP or the other crashes, the
      surviving SCTP has KOed the other.  Legal blows are chunks that
      meet the requirements of the specification.)

      20 points for KOing your opponent with dirty blows.  (Dirty blows
      are packets or chunks that violate the requirements of the
      specification.)

      10 points for showing your opponents checksum is disabled or using
      the old checksum aka Adler-32 RFC3309 [5].

      10 points for showing you can fast-retransmit.

      10 points for showing your t3-timer retransmits to an alternate
      destination (aka uses the multi-homed facility during
      retransmission).

      10 points for properly demonstrating the partial delivery API.

      10 points for demonstrating recognition and proper handling of
      restart.

      10 points for correctly handling INIT collision.

      10 points for correctly handling the STALE COOKIE case (sending of
      the error chunk).

      10 points an automatic resend of the INIT in case of a STALE
      COOKIE with an appropiate COOKIE-PRESERVATIVE parameter such that
      the association gets established.

      10 points for doing bulk transfer for over 10 Minutes at a high
      constant rate.




Stewart & Tuexen       Expires November 30, 2003                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft              Bakeoff Scoring                    June 2003


      5 points for handling the restart with a data transfer after that.

      10 points for proving that your opponent accepts additional
      addresses during the restart compared to the original association.

      2 points for the correct handling of an unknown chunk with high
      order bits 00, 01, 10, and 11.  2 additional points (10 in total)
      for handling all four cases correctly.

      2 points for the correct handling of an unknown parameter with
      high  order bits 00, 01, 10, and 11.  2 additional points (10 in
      total) for handling all four cases correctly.


3. Protocol Extensions

3.1 Partial reliable SCTP

   This extension is currently being described in PRSCTP [8]

      10 points for sending a FWD-TSN to skip a "timed-out" data chunk.

      10 points for correctly adopting the new cumulative-ack point
      indicated by a FWD-TSN.

      10 points for freeing data chunks to the application that were
      held awaiting the FWD-TSN.

      10 points for properly handling the partial-delivery API where the
      last part of a message already being delivered is subjected to a
      FWD-TSN.


3.2 AddIP

   This extension is currently being described in ADDIP [7].

      10 points for adding an IP address to an existing association.

      10 points for deleting an IP address from an existing association.

      10 points for requesting that your peer set a primary address.

      10 points for showing that you honored the request to set a
      primary address and thus adopted a new primary address.

      10 points for showing that your opponent does not do the address
      scoping as described in SCTPIPV4 [9] and SCTPIPV6 [10] correctly.



Stewart & Tuexen       Expires November 30, 2003                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft              Bakeoff Scoring                    June 2003


4. Bonus Points

   You can also Bonus Points (directly from RFC1025 [1] :>)

      10 points for the best excuse.

      20 points for the fewest excuses.

      30 points for the longest conversation.

      40 points for the most simultaneous connections.

      50 points for the most simultaneous connections with distinct
      SCTPs.

      50 points for hijacking an existing association between other
      participants.

References

   [1]   Postel, J., "TCP and IP bake off", RFC 1025, September 1987.

   [2]   Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3",
         BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

   [3]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
         Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [4]   Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Morneault, K., Sharp, C., Schwarzbauer,
         H., Taylor, T., Rytina, I., Kalla, M., Zhang, L. and V. Paxson,
         "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 2960, October 2000.

   [5]   Stone, J., Stewart, R. and D. Otis, "Stream Control
         Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Checksum Change", RFC 3309,
         September 2002.

   [6]   Stewart, R., Ong, L., Arias-Rodriguez, I., Poon, K., Conrad,
         P., Caro, A. and M. Tuexen, "Stream Control Transmission
         Protocol (SCTP) Implementer's Guide",
         draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpimpguide-08 (work in progress), March
         2003.

   [7]   Stewart, R., Ramalho, M., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., Rytina, I.,
         Belinchon, M. and P. Conrad, "Stream Control Transmission
         Protocol (SCTP) Dynamic Address Reconfiguration",
         draft-ietf-tsvwg-addip-sctp-07 (work in progress), February
         2003.




Stewart & Tuexen       Expires November 30, 2003                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft              Bakeoff Scoring                    June 2003


   [8]   Stewart, R., Ramalho, M., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M. and P. Conrad,
         "SCTP Partial Reliability Extension",
         draft-stewart-tsvwg-prsctp-03 (work in progress), March 2003.

   [9]   Stewart, R. and M. Tuexen, "IPv4 Address handling for SCTP",
         draft-stewart-tsvwg-sctpipv4-00 (work in progress), May 2002.

   [10]  Stewart, R. and S. Tuexen, "IPv6 addressing and Stream Control
         Transmission Protocol", Internet-Draft
         ddraft-stewart-tsvwg-sctpipv6-01, April 2002.


Authors' Addresses

   Randall R. Stewart
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   8725 West Higgins Road
   Suite 300
   Chicago, IL  60631
   USA

   Phone: +1-815-477-2127
   EMail: rrs@cisco.com


   Michael Tuexen
   Univ. of Applied Sciences Muenster
   Stegerwaldstr. 39
   48565 Steinfurt
   Germany

   EMail: tuexen@fh-muenster.de



















Stewart & Tuexen       Expires November 30, 2003                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft              Bakeoff Scoring                    June 2003


Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
   has made any effort to identify any such rights.  Information on the
   IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
   standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11.  Copies of
   claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
   licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
   obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
   proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
   be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF Executive
   Director.


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION



Stewart & Tuexen       Expires November 30, 2003                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft              Bakeoff Scoring                    June 2003


   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.











































Stewart & Tuexen       Expires November 30, 2003               [Page 10]

