Message Multiplexing (memux) Charter

Name | Area | Chair | Directors | Mailing List | Description | Goals & Milestones | Background

Working Group Name

Message Multiplexing (memux)


Transport Area


Transport Area Directors

Responsible Area Director

Vern Paxson

Mailing List

The <> (NOT EXTANT YET; use until then) mailing list and archives are available for discussions of MEMUX. Postings to this mailing list from non-subscribers are moderated in order to avoid spam, everything else will be passed as is. See the Mailing list administrativia for details.

Description of Working Group

The goal of this working group is to develop a lightweight protocol that delivers multiplexed bidirectional reliable ordered message streams over a bidirectional reliable ordered byte stream protocol (such as TCP).  This is envisioned as a relatively small, low-level piece of other protocol stacks, fitting between, e.g., TCP and RPC.  The length of a message is unrestricted (e.g., not bounded by layer 2 or 3 packet sizes), and the payload of a message is also unrestricted; such a message can be used directly, e.g., as a request or a response in an application-level request/response protocol.  Within each message stream, the messages are delivered reliably and in order (as are bytes in TCP).  Each message may be passed as a series of chunks, so that the multiplexing does not introduce unnecessary synchronization between streams.  The MEMUX protocol will be layered on top of bidirectional reliable ordered byte stream protocols (such as, but not limited to, TCP), and multiplex many message streams over a single byte stream connection.  It should be possible to put multiple message chunks into one IP packet.  The MEMUX protocol will be lightweight in these two ways: (1) its overhead, in bytes on the wire, will be low, and (2) opening and closing new message streams, once the byte stream connection is established, will take few bytes and impose no round-trip delays.  The value of the MEMUX protocol is twofold: (1) it provides a commonly useful service abstraction (bidirectional reliable ordered arbitrary-sized message stream), and (2) the multiplexing achieves the same results as state sharing between parallel TCP streams (which is not widely available today).  The second value may cease to be unique in the future (when TCP and/or replacements that effectively share state between parallel connections become widely available), but having built other protocols and implementations on top of the service provided by MEMUX enables a smooth transition to a MEMUX-- that delivers the same service while doing no multiplexing of its own.


  1. An Informational RFC on the goals of the MEMUX protocol.
  2. Standards-track specification of the MEMUX protocol.

Out of Scope

  1. Replacing TCP; MEMUX is to be layered over TCP, not replace it.
  2. Underlying connection agility; MEMUX will transport a given message stream over exactly one byte stream.
  3. Datagrams; MEMUX provides message stream connections.
  4. Control channel vs. data channel separation; that distinction is to be made at a higher layer, which will use MEMUX's service for whichever channel(s) it chooses.
  5. Security functions; MEMUX is not intended to solve security problems, but is intended to be includable in effectively secured stacks where the security problems are solved in other layer(s) (examples: TLS below, something GSS-based above); this leaves to MEMUX the problem of controlling the interactions between message streams that are multiplexed over the same byte stream.

Goals and Milestones

Background Information

Interest in a multiplexing protocol appeared at IETF-43 in the HTTPNG, RUTS, SIGTRAN, MEGACO, and AAA meetings.  The HTTP-NG proponents submitted a draft multiplexing protocol (draft-gettys-webmux-00.txt) on 1 August 1998 as part of the HTTP-NG suite.