Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
draft-aranda-dispatch-q4s

draft-aranda-dispatch-q4s has been presented to the ISE for publication as an
Informational RFC in the Independent Submissions steam.

The document describes an application level protocol for the communication of
end-to-end QoS compliance information based on the Hypertext Transfer Protocol
(HTTP) and the Session Description Protocol (SDP). It provides a mechanism to
negotiate and monitor latency, jitter, bandwidth, and packet, and to alert
whenever one of the negotiated conditions is violated.

The work is chiefly experimental in nature, but the authors do not propose any
ongoing experimentation. Instead, they believe that recording this work in the
permanent archive will offer a foundation for future similar work.

The Abstract carefully notes that:

   This protocol specification is the product of research conducted
   over a number of years, and is presented here as a permanent record
   and to offer a foundation for future similar work.  It does not
   represent a standard protocol and does not have IETF consensus.

This is, of course, in addition to the standard boilerplate that will be added
to the RFC before publication.

The draft was originally taken to the Dispatch WG at IETF-80. I contacted Mary
Barnes and Ben Campbell about the history, and they told me that the idea
received no support, but not that it was rejected for technical reasons.

Further discussions, including with Mirja Kuehlewind, pointed out that the
world has moved on across the last 25 IETF meetings, and that this document
needed to make reference to OWAMP/TWAMP and to QUIC. The authors duly added
section 1.4 and some discussions in 1.1.

Along the way, this draft received reviews Tommy Pauly and from me. It was
updated three times before reaching this stage.

A final note on code points...

This document originally requested code points from the IANA, but after
discussions with the authors we have decided to present all code points from
new registries in line, and section 11 in terms of the future allocation that
would be needed were this work to progress in the IETF at some time.
Back