Tech-invite   3GPPspecs   RFCs   Search in Tech-invite

868584838281807978777675747372717069686766656463626160595857565554535251504948474645444342414039383736353433323130292827262524232221201918171615141312111009080706050403020100IETF‑orgGroupsStats
in Index   Prev   Next

RFC 8569

Content-Centric Networking (CCNx) Semantics

Pages: 40
Group: IRTF
Experimental
Part 1 of 2 – Pages 1 to 20
None   None   Next

Top   ToC   RFC8569 - Page 1
Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)                             M. Mosko
Request for Comments: 8569                                    PARC, Inc.
Category: Experimental                                          I. Solis
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                 LinkedIn
                                                                 C. Wood
                                         University of California Irvine
                                                               July 2019


              Content-Centric Networking (CCNx) Semantics

Abstract

   This document describes the core concepts of the Content-Centric
   Networking (CCNx) architecture and presents a network protocol based
   on two messages: Interests and Content Objects.  It specifies the set
   of mandatory and optional fields within those messages and describes
   their behavior and interpretation.  This architecture and protocol
   specification is independent of a specific wire encoding.

   The protocol also uses a control message called an Interest Return,
   whereby one system can return an Interest message to the previous hop
   due to an error condition.  This indicates to the previous hop that
   the current system will not respond to the Interest.

   This document is a product of the Information-Centric Networking
   Research Group (ICNRG).  The document received wide review among
   ICNRG participants.  Two full implementations are in active use and
   have informed the technical maturity of the protocol specification.
Top   ToC   RFC8569 - Page 2
Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for examination, experimental implementation, and
   evaluation.

   This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
   community.  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
   Information-Centric Networking Research Group of the Internet
   Research Task Force (IRTF).  Documents approved for publication by
   the IRSG are not candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see
   Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8569.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://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.
Top   ToC   RFC8569 - Page 3
Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.2.  Architecture  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.3.  Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   2.  Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     2.1.  Message Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     2.2.  Consumer Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     2.3.  Publisher Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     2.4.  Forwarder Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       2.4.1.  Interest HopLimit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       2.4.2.  Interest Aggregation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       2.4.3.  Content Store Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       2.4.4.  Interest Pipeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       2.4.5.  Content Object Pipeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   3.  Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     3.1.  Name Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     3.2.  Interest Payload ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   4.  Cache Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   5.  Content Object Hash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   6.  Link  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   7.  Hashes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   8.  Validation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     8.1.  Validation Algorithm  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     8.2.  Message Integrity Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     8.3.  Message Authentication Codes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     8.4.  Signature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   9.  Interest to Content Object Matching . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   10. Interest Return . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     10.1.  Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     10.2.  ReturnCode Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     10.3.  Interest Return Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
       10.3.1.  No Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
       10.3.2.  HopLimit Exceeded  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
       10.3.3.  Interest MTU Too Large . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
       10.3.4.  No Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
       10.3.5.  Path Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
       10.3.6.  Prohibited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
       10.3.7.  Congestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
       10.3.8.  Unsupported Content Object Hash Algorithm  . . . . .  34
       10.3.9.  Malformed Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
   11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
   12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
   13. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
     13.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
     13.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
Top   ToC   RFC8569 - Page 4
1.  Introduction

   This document describes the principles of the CCNx architecture.  It
   describes a network protocol that uses a hierarchical name to forward
   requests and to match responses to requests.  It does not use
   endpoint addresses, such as Internet Protocol.  Restrictions in a
   request can limit the response by the public key of the response's
   signer or the cryptographic hash of the response.  Every CCNx
   forwarder along the path does the name matching and restriction
   checking.  The CCNx protocol fits within the broader framework of
   Information-Centric Networking (ICN) protocols [RFC7927].  This
   document concerns the semantics of the protocol and is not dependent
   on a specific wire encoding.  The CCNx Messages [RFC8609] document
   describes a type-length-value (TLV) wire-protocol encoding.  This
   section introduces the main concepts of CCNx, which are further
   elaborated in the remainder of the document.

   The CCNx protocol derives from the early ICN work by Jacobson, et al.
   [nnc].  Jacobson's version of CCNx is known as the 0.x version ("CCNx
   0.x"), and the present work is known as the 1.0 version ("CCNx 1.0").
   There are two active implementations of CCNx 1.0.  The most complete
   implementation is Community ICN (CICN) [cicn], a Linux Foundation
   project hosted at fd.io.  Another active implementation is CCN-lite
   [ccn-lite], with support for Internet of Things (IoT) systems and the
   RIOT operating system.  CCNx 0.x formed the basis of the Named Data
   Networking (NDN) [ndn] university project.

   The current CCNx 1.0 specification diverges from CCNx 0.x in a few
   significant areas.  The most pronounced behavioral difference between
   CCNx 0.x and CCNx 1.0 is that CCNx 1.0 has a simpler response
   processing behavior.  In both versions, a forwarder uses a
   hierarchical longest prefix match of a request name against the
   forwarding information base (FIB) to send the request through the
   network to a system that can issue a response.  A forwarder must then
   match a response's name to a request's name to determine the reverse
   path and deliver the response to the requester.  In CCNx 0.x, the
   Interest name may be a hierarchical prefix of the response name,
   which allows a form of Layer 3 (L3) content discovery.  In CCNx 1.0,
   a response's name must exactly equal a request's name.  Content
   discovery is performed by a higher-layer protocol.

   The selector protocol "CCNx Selectors" [selectors] is an example of
   using a higher-layer protocol on top of the CCNx 1.0 L3 to perform
   content discovery.  The selector protocol uses a method similar to
   the original CCNx 0.x techniques without requiring partial name
   matching of a response to a request in the forwarder.
Top   ToC   RFC8569 - Page 5
   This document represents the consensus of the Information-Centric
   Networking Research Group (ICNRG).  It is the first ICN protocol from
   the RG, created from the early CCNx protocol [nnc] with significant
   revision and input from the ICN community and RG members.  This
   document has received critical reading by several members of the ICN
   community and the RG.  The authors and RG chairs approve of the
   contents.  This document is sponsored under the IRTF, is not issued
   by the IETF, and is not an IETF standard.  This is an experimental
   protocol and may not be suitable for any specific application.  The
   specification may change in the future.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

1.2.  Architecture

   We describe the architecture of the network in which CCNx operates
   and introduce certain terminology from [terminology].  The detailed
   behavior of each component and message grammar is in Section 2.

   A producer (also called a "publisher") is an endpoint that
   encapsulates content in Content Objects for transport in the CCNx
   network.  A producer has a public/private keypair and signs (directly
   or indirectly) the Content Objects.  Usually, the producer's KeyId
   (hash of the public key) is well known or may be derived from the
   producer's namespace via standard means.

   A producer operates within one or more namespaces.  A namespace is a
   name prefix that is represented in the forwarding information base
   (FIB).  This allows a request to reach the producer and fetch a
   response (if one exists).

   The FIB is a table that tells a forwarder where to send a request.
   It may point to a local application, a local cache or Content Store,
   or to a remote system.  If there is no matching entry in the FIB, a
   forwarder cannot process a request.  The detailed rules on name
   matching to the FIB are given in Section 2.4.4.  An endpoint has a
   FIB, though it may be a simple default route.  An intermediate system
   (i.e., a router) typically has a much larger FIB.  A core CCNx
   forwarder, for example, would know all the global routes.
Top   ToC   RFC8569 - Page 6
   A consumer is an endpoint that requests a name.  It is beyond the
   scope of this document to describe how a consumer learns of a name or
   publisher KeyId; higher-layer protocols built on top of CCNx handle
   those tasks, such as search engines or lookup services or well-known
   names.  The consumer constructs a request, called an Interest, and
   forwards it via the endpoint's FIB.  The consumer should get back
   either a response (called a Content Object) that matches the Interest
   or a control message (called an Interest Return) that indicates the
   network cannot handle the request.

   There are three ways to detect errors in Interest handling.  An
   Interest Return is a network control message that indicates a low-
   level error like "no route" or "out of resources".  If an Interest
   arrives at a producer, but the producer does not have the requested
   content, the producer should send an application-specific error
   message (e.g., a "not found" message).  Finally, a consumer may not
   receive anything; in which case, it should timeout and, depending on
   the application, retry the request or return an error to the
   application.

1.3.  Protocol Overview

   The goal of CCNx is to name content and retrieve the content from the
   network without binding it to a specific network endpoint.  A routing
   system (specified separately) populates the FIB tables at each CCNx
   router with hierarchical name prefixes that point towards the content
   producers under that prefix.  A request finds matching content along
   those paths, in which case a response carries the data, or, if no
   match is found, a control message indicates the failure.  A request
   may further refine acceptable responses with a restriction on the
   response's signer and the cryptographic hash of the response.  The
   details of these restrictions are described below.

   The CCNx name is a hierarchical series of name segments.  Each name
   segment has a type and zero or more bytes.  Matching two names is
   done as a binary comparison of the type and value, and is done
   segment by segment.  The human-readable form is defined under a URI
   scheme "ccnx:" [ccnx-uri], though the canonical encoding of a name is
   a series of pairs (type, octet string).  There is no requirement that
   any name segment be human readable or UTF-8.  The first few segments
   in a name will be matched against the FIB, and a routing protocol may
   put its own restrictions on the routable name components (e.g., a
   maximum length or character-encoding rules).  In principle, name
   segments and names have unbounded length, though in practice they are
   limited by the wire encoding and practical considerations imposed by
   a routing protocol.  Note that in CCNx, name segments use binary
   comparison, whereas in a URI, the authority uses a case-insensitive
   hostname (due to DNS).
Top   ToC   RFC8569 - Page 7
   The CCNx name, as used by the forwarder, is purposefully left as a
   general octet-encoded type and value without any requirements on
   human readability and character encoding.  The reason for this is
   that we are concerned with how a forwarder processes names.  We
   expect that applications, routing protocols, or other higher layers
   will apply their own conventions and restrictions on the allowed name
   segment types and name segment values.

   CCNx is a request and response protocol that fetches chunks of data
   using a name.  The integrity of each chunk may be directly asserted
   through a digital signature or Message Authentication Code (MAC), or,
   alternatively, indirectly via hash chains.  Chunks may also carry
   weaker Message Integrity Codes (MICs) or no integrity protection
   mechanism at all.  Because provenance information is carried with
   each chunk (or larger indirectly protected block), we no longer need
   to rely on host identities, such as those derived from TLS
   certificates, to ascertain the chunk legitimacy.  Therefore, data
   integrity is a core feature of CCNx; it does not rely on the data
   transmission channel.  There are several options for data
   confidentiality, discussed later.

   This document only defines the general properties of CCNx names.  In
   some isolated environments, CCNx users may be able to use any name
   they choose and either inject that name (or prefix) into a routing
   protocol or use other information foraging techniques.  In the
   Internet environment, there will be policies around the formats of
   names and assignments of names to publishers, though those are not
   specified here.

   The key concept of CCNx is that a subjective name is
   cryptographically bound to a fixed payload.  These publisher-
   generated bindings can therefore be cryptographically verified.  A
   named payload is thus the tuple {{Name, ExtraFields, Payload,
   ValidationAlgorithm}, ValidationPayload}, where all fields in the
   inner tuple are covered by the validation payload (e.g., signature).
   Consumers of this data can check the binding integrity by recomputing
   the same cryptographic hash and verifying the digital signature in
   ValidationPayload.

   In addition to digital signatures (e.g., RSA), CCNx also supports
   message authentication codes (e.g., Hashed Message Authentication
   Code (HMAC)) and message integrity codes (e.g., Cyclic Redundancy
   Checks (CRC)).  To maintain the cryptographic binding, there should
   be at least one object with a signature or authentication code, but
   not all objects require it.  For example, a first object with a
   signature could refer to other objects via a hash chain, a Merkle
   tree, or a signed manifest.  The later objects may not have any
Top   ToC   RFC8569 - Page 8
   validation and rely purely on the references.  The use of an
   integrity code (e.g., CRC) is intended for detecting accidental
   corruption in an Interest.

   CCNx specifies a network protocol around Interests (request messages)
   and Content Objects (response messages) to move named payloads.  An
   Interest includes the Name field, which identifies the desired
   response, and optional matching restrictions.  Restrictions limit the
   possible matching Content Objects.  Two restrictions exist: the Key
   ID restriction (KeyIdRestr) and Content Object Hash restriction
   (ContentObjectHashRestr).  The first restriction on the KeyId limits
   responses to those signed with a ValidationAlgorithm KeyId field
   equal to the restriction.  The second is the Content Object Hash
   restriction, which limits the response to one where the cryptographic
   hash of the entire named payload is equal to the restriction.
   Section 9 fully explains how these restrictions limit matching of a
   Content Object to an Interest.

   The hierarchy of a CCNx name is used for routing via the longest
   matching prefix in a forwarder.  The longest matching prefix is
   computed name segment by name segment in the hierarchical name, where
   each name segment must be exactly equal to match.  There is no
   requirement that the prefix be globally routable.  Within a
   deployment, any local routing may be used, even one that only uses a
   single flat (nonhierarchical) name segment.

   Another concept of CCNx is that there should be flow balance between
   Interest messages and Content Object messages.  At the network level,
   an Interest traveling along a single path should elicit no more than
   one Content Object response.  If some node sends the Interest along
   more than one path, that node should consolidate the responses such
   that only one Content Object flows back towards the requester.  If an
   Interest is sent broadcast or multicast on a multiple-access media,
   the sender should be prepared for multiple responses unless some
   other media-dependent mechanism like gossip suppression or leader
   election is used.

   As an Interest travels the forward path following the FIB, it
   establishes state at each forwarder such that a Content Object
   response can trace its way back to the original requester(s) without
   the requester needing to include a routable return address.  We use
   the notional Pending Interest Table (PIT) as a method to store state
   that facilitates the return of a Content Object.

   The notional PIT stores the last hop of an Interest plus its Name
   field and optional restrictions.  This is the data required to match
   a Content Object to an Interest (see Section 9).  When a Content
Top   ToC   RFC8569 - Page 9
   Object arrives, it must be matched against the PIT to determine which
   entries it satisfies.  For each such entry, at most one copy of the
   Content Object is sent to each listed last hop in the PIT entries.

   An actual PIT is not mandated by this specification.  An
   implementation may use any technique that gives the same external
   behavior.  There are, for example, research papers that use
   techniques like label switching in some parts of the network to
   reduce the per-node state incurred by the PIT [dart].  Some
   implementations store the PIT state in the FIB, so there is not a
   second table.

   If multiple Interests with the same {Name, [KeyIdRestr],
   [ContentObjectHashRestr]} tuple arrive at a node before a Content
   Object matching the first Interest comes back, they are grouped in
   the same PIT entry and their last hops are aggregated (see
   Section 2.4.2).  Thus, one Content Object might satisfy multiple
   pending Interests in a PIT.

   In CCNx, higher-layer protocols are often called "name-based
   protocols" because they operate on the CCNx name.  For example, a
   versioning protocol might append additional name segments to convey
   state about the version of payload.  A content discovery protocol
   might append certain protocol-specific name segments to a prefix to
   discover content under that prefix.  Many such protocols may exist
   and apply their own rules to names.  They may be layered with each
   protocol encapsulating (to the left) a higher layer's name prefix.

   This document also describes a control message called an Interest
   Return.  A network element may return an Interest message to a
   previous hop if there is an error processing the Interest.  The
   returned Interest may be further processed at the previous hop or
   returned towards the Interest origin.  When a node returns an
   Interest, it indicates that the previous hop should not expect a
   response from that node for the Interest, i.e., there is no PIT entry
   left at the returning node for a Content Object to follow.

   There are multiple ways to describe larger objects in CCNx.
   Aggregating L3 Content Objects into larger objects is beyond the
   scope of this document.  One proposed method, File-Like ICN
   Collection (FLIC) [flic], uses a manifest to enumerate the pieces of
   a larger object.  Manifests are, themselves, Content Objects.
   Another option is to use a convention in the Content Object name, as
   in the CCNx Chunking [chunking] protocol where a large object is
   broken into small chunks and each chunk receives a special name
   component indicating its serial order.
Top   ToC   RFC8569 - Page 10
   At the semantic level, described in this document, we do not address
   fragmentation.  One experimental fragmentation protocol, BeginEnd
   Fragments [befrags], uses a multipoint PPP-style technique for use
   over L2 interfaces with the specification for CCNx Messages [RFC8609]
   in TLV wire encoding.

   With these concepts, the remainder of the document specifies the
   behavior of a forwarder in processing Interest, Content Object, and
   Interest Return messages.

2.  Protocol

   This section defines the grammar of a CCNx Message (Interest, Content
   Object, or Interest Return).  It then presents typical behaviors for
   a consumer, a publisher, and a forwarder.  In the forwarder section,
   there are detailed descriptions about how to handle the forwarder-
   specific topics, such as HopLimit and Content Store, along with
   detailed processing pipelines for Interest and Content Object
   messages.

2.1.  Message Grammar

   The CCNx Message ABNF [RFC5234] grammar is shown in Figure 1.  The
   grammar does not include any encoding delimiters, such as TLVs.
   Specific wire encodings are given in a separate document.  If a
   Validation section exists, the Validation Algorithm covers from the
   Body (BodyName or BodyOptName) through the end of the ValidationAlg
   section.  The InterestLifetime, CacheTime, and Return Code fields
   exist outside of the validation envelope and may be modified.

   HashType, PayloadType, and Private Enterprise Number (PEN) need to
   correspond to IANA values registered in the "CCNx Hash Function
   Types" and "CCNx Payload Types" registries [ccnx-registry], as well
   as the "Private Enterprise Numbers" registry [eprise-numbers],
   respectively.

   The various fields, in alphabetical order, are defined as:

   AbsTime:  Absolute times are conveyed as the 64-bit UTC time in
      milliseconds since the epoch (standard POSIX time).

   CacheTime:  The absolute time after which the publisher believes
      there is low value in caching the Content Object.  This is a
      recommendation to caches (see Section 4).

   Cert:  Some applications may wish to embed an X.509 certificate to
      both validate the signature and provide a trust anchor.  The Cert
      is a DER-encoded X.509 certificate.
Top   ToC   RFC8569 - Page 11
   ConObjField:  These are optional fields that may appear in a Content
      Object.

   ConObjHash:  The value of the Content Object Hash, which is the
      SHA256-32 over the message from the beginning of the body to the
      end of the message.  Note that this coverage area is different
      from the ValidationAlg.  This value SHOULD NOT be trusted across
      domains (see Section 5).

   ContentObjectHashRestr:  The Content Object Hash restriction.  A
      Content Object must hash to the same value as the restriction
      using the same HashType.  The ContentObjectHashRestr MUST use
      SHA256-32.

   ExpiryTime:  An absolute time after which the Content Object should
      be considered expired (see Section 4).

   Hash:  Hash values carried in a Message carry a HashType to identify
      the algorithm used to generate the hash followed by the hash
      value.  This form is to allow hash agility.  Some fields may
      mandate a specific HashType.

   HashType:  The algorithm used to calculate a hash, which must
      correspond to one of the IANA "CCNx Hash Function Types"
      [ccnx-registry].

   HopLimit:  Interest messages may loop if there are loops in the
      forwarding plane.  To eventually terminate loops, each Interest
      carries a HopLimit that is decremented after each hop and no
      longer forwarded when it reaches zero.  See Section 2.4.

   InterestField:  These are optional fields that may appear in an
      Interest message.

   KeyId:  An identifier for the key used in the ValidationAlg.  See
      Validation (Section 8) for a description of how it is used for
      MACs and signatures.

   KeyIdRestr:  The KeyId Restriction.  A Content Object must have a
      KeyId with the same value as the restriction.

   KeyLink:  A Link (see Section 6) that names how to retrieve the key
      used to verify the ValidationPayload (see Section 8).

   Lifetime:  The approximate time during which a requester is willing
      to wait for a response, usually measured in seconds.  It is not
      strongly related to the network round-trip time, though it must
      necessarily be larger.
Top   ToC   RFC8569 - Page 12
   Name:  A name is made up of a nonempty first segment followed by zero
      or more additional segments, which may be of 0 length.  Name
      segments are opaque octet strings and are thus case sensitive if
      encoding UTF-8.  An Interest MUST have a Name.  A Content Object
      MAY have a Name (see Section 9).  The segments of a name are said
      to be complete if its segments uniquely identify a single Content
      Object.  A name is exact if its segments are complete.  An
      Interest carrying a full name is one that specifies an exact name
      and the Content Object Hash restriction of the corresponding
      Content Object.

   Payload:  The message's data, as defined by PayloadType.

   PayloadType:  The format of the Payload field.  If missing, assume
      Data type (T_PAYLOADTYPE_DATA) [ccnx-registry].  Data type means
      the payload is opaque application bytes.  Key type
      (T_PAYLOADTYPE_KEY [ccnx-registry]) means the payload is a DER-
      encoded public key or X.509 certificate.  Link type
      (T_PAYLOADTYPE_LINK [ccnx-registry]) means it is one or more Links
      (see Section 6).

   PublicKey:  Some applications may wish to embed the public key used
      to verify the signature within the message itself.  The PublickKey
      is DER encoded.

   RelTime:  A relative time, measured in milliseconds.

   ReturnCode:  States the reason an Interest message is being returned
      to the previous hop (see Section 10.2).

   SigTime:  The absolute time (UTC milliseconds) when the signature was
      generated.  The signature time only applies to the validation
      algorithm; it does not necessarily represent when the validated
      message was created.

   Vendor:  Vendor-specific opaque data.  The Vendor data includes the
      IANA Private Enterprise Numbers [eprise-numbers], followed by
      vendor-specific information.  CCNx allows vendor-specific data in
      most locations of the grammar.

   Message       = Interest / ContentObject / InterestReturn
   Interest      = IntHdr BodyName [Validation]
   IntHdr        = HopLimit [Lifetime] *Vendor
   ContentObject = ConObjHdr BodyOptName [Validation]
   ConObjHdr     = [CacheTime / ConObjHash] *Vendor
   InterestReturn= ReturnCode Interest
   BodyName      = Name Common
   BodyOptName   = [Name] Common
Top   ToC   RFC8569 - Page 13
   Common        = *Field [Payload]
   Validation    = ValidationAlg ValidationPayload

   Name          = FirstSegment *Segment
   FirstSegment  = 1*OCTET / Vendor
   Segment       = *OCTET / Vendor

   ValidationAlg = (RSA-SHA256 / EC-SECP-256K1 / EC-SECP-384R1 /
                    HMAC-SHA256 / CRC32C) *Vendor
   ValidationPayload = 1*OCTET
   PublicAlg     = KeyId [SigTime] [KeyLink] [PublicKey] [Cert]
   RSA-SHA256    = PublicAlg
   EC-SECP-256K1 = PublicAlg
   EC-SECP-384R1 = PublicAlg
   HMAC-SHA256   = KeyId [SigTime] [KeyLink]
   CRC32C        = [SigTime]

   AbsTime       = 8OCTET ; 64-bit UTC msec since epoch
   CacheTime     = AbsTime
   ConObjField   = ExpiryTime / PayloadType
   ConObjHash    = Hash
   ExpiryTime    = AbsTime
   Field         = InterestField / ConObjField / Vendor
   Hash          = HashType 1*OCTET
   HashType      = 2OCTET ; IANA "CCNx Hash Function Types"
   HopLimit      = OCTET
   InterestField = KeyIdRestr / ContentObjectHashRestr
   KeyId         = Hash
   KeyIdRestr    = Hash
   KeyLink       = Link
   Lifetime      = RelTime
   Link          = Name [KeyIdRestr] [ContentObjectHashRestr]
   ContentObjectHashRestr  = Hash
   Payload       = *OCTET
   PayloadType   = OCTET ; IANA "CCNx Payload Types"
   PublicKey     = *OCTET ; DER-encoded public key
   Cert          = *OCTET ; DER-encoded X.509 Certificate
   RelTime       = 1*OCTET ; msec
   ReturnCode    = OCTET ; see Section 10.2
   SigTime       = AbsTime
   Vendor        = PEN *OCTET
   PEN           = 1*OCTET ; IANA "Private Enterprise Number"

                    Figure 1: CCNx Message ABNF Grammar
Top   ToC   RFC8569 - Page 14
2.2.  Consumer Behavior

   To request a piece of content for a given {Name, [KeyIdRest],
   [ContentObjectHashRestr]} tuple, a consumer creates an Interest
   message with those values.  It MAY add a validation section,
   typically only a CRC32C.  A consumer MAY put a Payload field in an
   Interest to send additional data to the producer beyond what is in
   the name.  The name is used for routing and may be remembered at each
   hop in the notional PIT to facilitate returning a Content Object;
   storing large amounts of state in the name could lead to high memory
   requirements.  Because the payload is not considered when forwarding
   an Interest or matching a Content Object to an Interest, a consumer
   SHOULD put an Interest Payload ID (see Section 3.2) as part of the
   name to allow a forwarder to match Interests to Content Objects and
   avoid aggregating Interests with different payloads.  Similarly, if a
   consumer uses a MAC or a signature, it SHOULD also include a unique
   segment as part of the name to prevent the Interest from being
   aggregated with other Interests or satisfied by a Content Object that
   has no relation to the validation.

   The consumer SHOULD specify an InterestLifetime, which is the length
   of time the consumer is willing to wait for a response.  The
   InterestLifetime is an application-scale time, not a network round-
   trip time (see Section 2.4.2).  If not present, the InterestLifetime
   will use a default value (2 seconds).

   The consumer SHOULD set the Interest HopLimit to a reasonable value
   or use the default 255.  If the consumer knows the distances to the
   producer via routing, it SHOULD use that value.

   A consumer hands off the Interest to its first forwarder, which will
   then forward the Interest over the network to a publisher (or
   replica) that may satisfy it based on the name (see Section 2.4).

   Interest messages are unreliable.  A consumer SHOULD run a transport
   protocol that will retry the Interest if it goes unanswered, up to
   the InterestLifetime.  No transport protocol is specified in this
   document.

   The network MAY send to the consumer an Interest Return message that
   indicates the network cannot fulfill the Interest.  The ReturnCode
   specifies the reason for the failure, such as no route or congestion.
   Depending on the ReturnCode, the consumer MAY retry the Interest or
   MAY return an error to the requesting application.
Top   ToC   RFC8569 - Page 15
   If the content was found and returned by the first forwarder, the
   consumer will receive a Content Object.  The consumer uses the
   following set of checks to validate a received Content Object:

   o  The consumer MUST ensure the Content Object is properly formatted.

   o  The consumer MUST verify that the returned Content Object matches
      one or more pending Interests as per Section 9.

   o  If the Content Object is signed, the consumer SHOULD
      cryptographically verify the signature as per Section 8.  If it
      does not have the corresponding key, it SHOULD fetch the key, such
      as from a key resolution service or via the KeyLink.

   o  If the signature has a SigTime, the consumer MAY use that in
      considering if the signature is valid.  For example, if the
      consumer is asking for dynamically generated content, it should
      expect the SigTime not to be before the time the Interest was
      generated.

   o  If the Content Object is signed, the consumer SHOULD assert the
      trustworthiness of the signing key to the namespace.  Such an
      assertion is beyond the scope of this document, though one may use
      traditional PKI methods, a trusted key resolution service, or
      methods like [trust].

   o  The consumer MAY cache the Content Object for future use, up to
      the ExpiryTime if present.

   o  The consumer MAY accept a Content Object off the wire that is
      expired.  A packet Content Object may expire while in flight;
      there is no requirement that forwarders drop expired packets in
      flight.  The only requirement is that Content Stores, caches, or
      producers MUST NOT respond with an expired Content Object.

2.3.  Publisher Behavior

   This document does not specify the method by which names populate a
   FIB table at forwarders (see Section 2.4).  A publisher is either
   configured with one or more name prefixes under which it may create
   content or it chooses its name prefixes and informs the routing layer
   to advertise those prefixes.

   When a publisher receives an Interest, it SHOULD:

   o  Verify that the Interest is part of the publisher's namespace(s).
Top   ToC   RFC8569 - Page 16
   o  If the Interest has a Validation section, verify it as per
      Section 8.  Usually an Interest will only have a CRC32C, unless
      the publisher application specifically accommodates other
      validations.  The publisher MAY choose to drop Interests that
      carry a Validation section if the publisher application does not
      expect those signatures, as this could be a form of computational
      denial of service.  If the signature requires a key that the
      publisher does not have, it is NOT RECOMMENDED that the publisher
      fetch the key over the network unless it is part of the
      application's expected behavior.

   o  Retrieve or generate the requested Content Object and return it to
      the Interest's previous hop.  If the requested content cannot be
      returned, the publisher SHOULD reply with an Interest Return or a
      Content Object with application payload that says the content is
      not available; this Content Object should have a short ExpiryTime
      in the future or not be cacheable (i.e., an expiry time of 0).

2.4.  Forwarder Behavior

   A forwarder routes Interest messages based on a Forwarding
   Information Base (FIB), returns Content Objects that match Interests
   to the Interest's previous hop, and processes Interest Return control
   messages.  It may also keep a cache of Content Objects in the
   notional Content Store table.  This document does not specify the
   internal behavior of a forwarder, only these and other external
   behaviors.

   In this document, we will use two processing pipelines: one for
   Interests and one for Content Objects.  Interest processing is made
   up of checking for duplicate Interests in the PIT (see
   Section 2.4.2), checking for a cached Content Object in the Content
   Store (see Section 2.4.3), and forwarding an Interest via the FIB.
   Content Store processing is made up of checking for matching
   Interests in the PIT and forwarding to those previous hops.

2.4.1.  Interest HopLimit

   Interest looping is not prevented in CCNx.  An Interest traversing
   loops is eventually discarded using the hop-limit field of the
   Interest, which is decremented at each hop traversed by the Interest.

   A loop may also terminate because the Interest is aggregated with its
   previous PIT entry along the loop.  In this case, the Content Object
   will be sent back along the loop and eventually return to a node that
   already forwarded the content, so it will likely not have a PIT entry
   anymore.  When the content reaches a node without a PIT entry, it
Top   ToC   RFC8569 - Page 17
   will be discarded.  It may be that a new Interest or another looped
   Interest will return to that same node, in which case the node will
   return a cached response to make a new PIT entry, as below.

   The HopLimit is the last resort method to stop Interest loops where a
   Content Object chases an Interest around a loop and where the
   intermediate nodes, for whatever reason, no longer have a PIT entry
   and do not cache the Content Object.

   Every Interest MUST carry a HopLimit.  An Interest received from a
   local application MAY have a 0 HopLimit, which restricts the Interest
   to other local sources.

   When an Interest is received from another forwarder, the HopLimit
   MUST be positive, otherwise the forwarder will discard the Interest.
   A forwarder MUST decrement the HopLimit of an Interest by at least 1
   before it is forwarded.

   If the decremented HopLimit equals 0, the Interest MUST NOT be
   forwarded to another forwarder; it MAY be sent to a local publisher
   application or serviced from a local Content Store.

   A RECOMMENDED HopLimit-processing pipeline is below:

   o  If Interest received from a remote system:

      *  If received HopLimit is 0, optionally send Interest Return
         (HopLimit Exceeded), and discard Interest.

      *  Otherwise, decrement the HopLimit by 1.

   o  Process as per Content Store and Aggregation rules.

   o  If the Interest will be forwarded:

      *  If the (potentially decremented) HopLimit is 0, restrict
         forwarding to the local system.

      *  Otherwise, forward as desired to local or remote systems.

2.4.2.  Interest Aggregation

   Interest aggregation is when a forwarder receives an Interest message
   that could be satisfied by the response to another Interest message
   already forwarded by the node, so the forwarder suppresses forwarding
   the new Interest; it only records the additional previous hop so a
   Content Object sent in response to the first Interest will satisfy
   both Interests.
Top   ToC   RFC8569 - Page 18
   CCNx uses an Interest aggregation rule that assumes the
   InterestLifetime is akin to a subscription time and is not a network
   round-trip time.  Some previous aggregation rules assumed the
   lifetime was a round-trip time, but this leads to problems of
   expiring an Interest before a response comes if the RTT is estimated
   too short or interfering with an Automatic Repeat reQuest (ARQ)
   scheme that wants to retransmit an Interest but a prior Interest
   overestimated the RTT.

   A forwarder MAY implement an Interest aggregation scheme.  If it does
   not, then it will forward all Interest messages.  This does not imply
   that multiple, possibly identical, Content Objects will come back.  A
   forwarder MUST still satisfy all pending Interests, so one Content
   Object could satisfy multiple similar Interests, even if the
   forwarder did not suppress duplicate Interest messages.

   A RECOMMENDED Interest aggregation scheme is:

   o  Two Interests are considered "similar" if they have the same Name,
      KeyIdRestr, and ContentObjectHashRestr, where a missing optional
      field in one must be missing in the other.

   o  Let the notional value InterestExpiry (a local value at the
      forwarder) be equal to the receive time plus the InterestLifetime
      (or a platform-dependent default value if not present).

   o  An Interest record (PIT entry) is considered invalid if its
      InterestExpiry time is in the past.

   o  The first reception of an Interest MUST be forwarded.

   o  A second or later reception of an Interest similar to a valid
      pending Interest from the same previous hop MUST be forwarded.  We
      consider these a retransmission request.

   o  A second or later reception of an Interest similar to a valid
      pending Interest from a new previous hop MAY be aggregated (not
      forwarded).  If this Interest has a larger HopLimit than the
      pending Interest, it MUST be forwarded.

   o  Aggregating an Interest MUST extend the InterestExpiry time of the
      Interest record.  An implementation MAY keep a single
      InterestExpiry time for all previous hops or MAY keep the
      InterestExpiry time per previous hop.  In the first case, the
      forwarder might send a Content Object down a path that is no
      longer waiting for it, in which case the previous hop (next hop of
      the Content Object) would drop it.
Top   ToC   RFC8569 - Page 19
2.4.3.  Content Store Behavior

   The Content Store is a special cache that is an integral part of a
   CCNx forwarder.  It is an optional component.  It serves to repair
   lost packets and handle flash requests for popular content.  It could
   be prepopulated or use opportunistic caching.  Because the Content
   Store could serve to amplify an attack via cache poisoning, there are
   special rules about how a Content Store behaves.

   1.  A forwarder MAY implement a Content Store.  If it does, the
       Content Store matches a Content Object to an Interest via the
       normal matching rules (see Section 9).

   2.  If an Interest has a KeyId restriction, then the Content Store
       MUST NOT reply unless it knows the signature on the matching
       Content Object is correct.  It may do this by external knowledge
       (i.e., in a managed network or system with prepopulated caches)
       or by having the public key and cryptographically verifying the
       signature.  A Content Store is NOT REQUIRED to verify signatures;
       if it does not, then it treats these cases like a cache miss.

   3.  If a Content Store chooses to verify signatures, then it MAY do
       so as follows.  If the public key is provided in the Content
       Object itself (i.e., in the PublicKey field) or in the Interest,
       the Content Store MUST verify that the public key's hash is equal
       to the KeyId and that it verifies the signature (see
       Section 8.4).  A Content Store MAY verify the digital signature
       of a Content Object before it is cached, but it is not required
       to do so.  A Content Store SHOULD NOT fetch keys over the
       network.  If it cannot or has not yet verified the signature, it
       should treat the Interest as a cache miss.

   4.  If an Interest has a Content Object Hash restriction, then the
       Content Store MUST NOT reply unless it knows the matching Content
       Object has the correct hash.  If it cannot verify the hash, then
       it should treat the Interest as a cache miss.

   5.  It must obey the cache control directives (see Section 4).

2.4.4.  Interest Pipeline

   1.  Perform the HopLimit check (see Section 2.4.1).

   2.  If the Interest carries a validation, such as a MIC or a
       signature with an embedded public key or certificate, a forwarder
       MAY validate the Interest as per Section 8.  A forwarder SHOULD
       NOT fetch keys via a KeyLink.  If the forwarder drops an Interest
Top   ToC   RFC8569 - Page 20
       due to failed validation, it MAY send an Interest Return
       (Section 10.3.9).

   3.  Determine if the Interest can be aggregated as per Section 2.4.2.
       If it can be, aggregate and do not forward the Interest.

   4.  If forwarding the Interest, check for a hit in the Content Store
       as per Section 2.4.3.  If a matching Content Object is found,
       return it to the Interest's previous hop.  This injects the
       Content Store as per Section 2.4.5.

   5.  Look up the Interest in the FIB.  Longest Prefix Match (LPM) is
       performed name segment by name segment (not byte or bit).  It
       SHOULD exclude the Interest's previous hop.  If a match is found,
       forward the Interest.  If no match is found or the forwarder
       chooses not to forward due to a local condition (e.g.,
       congestion), it SHOULD send an Interest Return message as per
       Section 10.

2.4.5.  Content Object Pipeline

   1.  It is RECOMMENDED that a forwarder that receives a Content Object
       check that the Content Object came from an expected previous hop.
       An expected previous hop is one pointed to by the FIB or one
       recorded in the PIT as having had a matching Interest sent that
       way.

   2.  A Content Object MUST be matched to all pending Interests that
       satisfy the matching rules (see Section 9).  Each satisfied
       pending Interest MUST then be removed from the set of pending
       Interests.

   3.  A forwarder SHOULD NOT send more than one copy of the received
       Content Object to the same Interest previous hop.  It may happen,
       for example, that two Interests ask for the same Content Object
       in different ways (e.g., by name and by name and KeyId), and that
       they both come from the same previous hop.  It is normal to send
       the same Content Object multiple times on the same interface,
       such as Ethernet, if it is going to different previous hops.

   4.  A Content Object SHOULD only be put in the Content Store if it
       satisfied an Interest (and passed rule #1 above).  This is to
       reduce the chances of cache poisoning.


Next Section