Reliable Server Pooling (rserpool) Concluded WG

Note: The data for concluded WGs is occasionally incorrect.

WG Name Reliable Server Pooling
Acronym rserpool
Area Transport Area (tsv)
State Concluded
Charter charter-ietf-rserpool-02 Approved
Personnel Chairs Maureen Stillman
Lyndon Ong
Area Director David Harrington
Tech Advisor Ned Freed
Mailing list

Charter for Working Group

The purpose of the WG is to develop an architecture and protocols for
the management and operation of server pools supporting highly reliable
applications, and for client access mechanisms to a server pool.

The WG will define architecture and requirements for management and
access to server pools, including requirements from a variety of
applications, building blocks and interfaces, different styles of
pooling, security requirements and performance requirements, such as
failover times and coping with heterogeneous latencies. This will be
documented in an Informational RFC.


The working group will focus on supporting high availability and
scalability of applications through the use of pools of servers. This
requires both a way to keep track of what servers are in the pool
and are able to receive requests and a way for the client to bind to
a desired server.

The Working Group will NOT address:

1) reliable multicast protocols - the use of multicast for reliable
server pooling is optional. Reliable multicast protocols will be
developed by the RMT WG.

2) synchronization/consistency of data between server pool elements,
e.g. shared memory

3) mechanisms for sharing state information between server pool

4) Transaction failover. If a server fails during processing of a
transaction this transaction may be lost. Some services may provide
a way to handle the failure, but this is not guaranteed.

The WG will address client access mechanisms for server pools,

1) An access mechanism that allows geographically dispersed servers in
the pool

2) A client-server binding mechanism that allows dynamic assignment of
client to servers based on load balancing or application specific
assignment policies.

3) Support of automatic reconfiguration of the client/server binding in
case of server failure or administrative changes.

To the extent that new protocols are necessary to support the
requirements for server pooling, these will be documented in a
Standards Track RFC on client access to a binding service (i.e. name
space) protocol.

The WG will also address use of proxying to interwork existing client
access mechanisms to any new binding service.

The WG will address server pool management and a distributed service to
support client/server binding, including:

1) A scalable mechanism for tracking server pool membership (incl.

2) A scalable protocol for performing node failure detection,
reconfiguration and failover, and otherwise managing the server pool
(supporting caching, membership, query, authentication,
and security)

3) A distributed service to support binding of clients to servers,
based on information specific to the server pool. Given that this
service is essential to access the server pool, a high degree of
availability is necessary.

4) A means for allowing flexible load assignment and balancing policies

The protocols and procedures for server pool management will be
documented in a Standards Track RFC.

The WG will address:

- transport protocol(s) that would be supported (eg. UDP, SCTP, TCP)

- any new congestion management issues

- relationship to existing work such as URI resolution mechanisms

Rserpool will consult with other IETF working groups such as Reliable
multicast, DNS extensions, AAA, URN, WREC and Sigtran as appropriate
and will not duplicate any of these efforts.


Date Milestone
Done Overview, Threat Analysis and Protocol specifications submitted to IESG for Informational, Informational and Experimental respectively.
Done WG last call on protocol specifications, Threats Analysis and Overview document
Done WG discussion on any outstanding issues.
Done Updated drafts submitted based on review comments
Done Threats Analysis updated to align with specification
Done Finished review cycle with at least 2 external reviewers
Done Revised versions of protocol specification drafts
Done Initial draft of RSERPOOL Overview document
Done Submit Threat Analysis to IESG for Informational RFC
Done Submit Architecture draft to IESG for Informational RFC
Done Initial draft of Applicability Statement
Done Initial draft of TCP Mapping document
Done Initial draft of Resrpool Requirements document
Done Submit Comparison document to IESG for Informational RFC
Done Submit Requirements document to IESG for Informational RFC
Done Initial draft of Binding Service document
Done Initial draft of Rserpool Architecture document
Done Initial draft of Pool Management document
Done Initial draft of Rserpool Services document
Done Initial draft of MIB
Done Initial draft of Threat Analysis
Done Initial draft of Protocol Comparison