Secure naming structure and p2p application interaction

Document Type Expired Internet-Draft (individual)
Authors Christian Dannewitz  , Teemu Rautio  , Ove Strandberg  , Börje Ohlman 
Last updated 2011-03-14
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Expired & archived
pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state Expired
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft can be found at


Today, each application typically uses its own way to identify data. The lack of a common naming scheme prevents applications from benefiting from available copies of the same data distributed via different P2P and CDN systems. The main proposal presented in this draft is idea that there should be a secure and application independent way of naming information objects that are transported over the Internet. The draft defines a set of requirements for such a naming structure. It also presents a proposal for such a naming structure that could relevant for a number of work groups (existing and potential), e.g. PPSP, DECADE and CDNI. In addition, today's P2P naming schemes lack important security aspects that would allow the user to check the data integrity and build trust in data and data publishers. This is especially important in P2P applications as data is received from untrusted peers. Providing a generic naming scheme for P2P systems so that multiple P2P systems can use the same data regardless of data location and P2P system increases the efficiency and data availability of the overall data dissemination process. The secure naming scheme is providing self-certification such that the receiver can verify the data integrity, i.e., that the correct data has been received, without requiring a trusted third party. It also enables owner authentication to build up trust in (potentially anonymous) data publishers. The secure naming structure should be beneficial as potential design principle in defining the two protocols identified as objectives in the PPSP charter. This document enumerates a number of design considerations to impact the design and implementation of the tracker-peer signaling and peer-peer streaming signaling protocols.


Christian Dannewitz (
Teemu Rautio (
Ove Strandberg (
Börje Ohlman (

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)