APIs To Expose SCONE Metadata to Applications
draft-eddy-scone-api-00
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Wesley Eddy , Abhishek Tiwari , Alan Frindell | ||
| Last updated | 2024-11-03 | ||
| Replaces | draft-eddy-sconepro-api | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-eddy-scone-api-00
SCONE W. Eddy
Internet-Draft A. Tiwari
Intended status: Informational A. Frindell
Expires: 7 May 2025 Meta
3 November 2024
APIs To Expose SCONE Metadata to Applications
draft-eddy-scone-api-00
Abstract
This document describes API considerations to provide applications
with network-supplied information about acceptable network flow
rates. Since this information is expected to be signalled from the
network within the stack below the application using the SCONE
protocol (to be defined by the IETF), it needs to be made accessible
to applications in order for them to pick proper video rates, or to
otherwise confine the application behavior within network-defined
limits.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 7 May 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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. Code Components
Eddy, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SCONE APIs November 2024
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. SCONE Background and Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. SCONE API Motivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Application Stack Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Potential SCONE Metadata Provided By An API . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Consideration of CTA Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Potential Browser API Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. Potential Network Information API Inclusion . . . . . . . 10
5.2. Potential WebTrans API Inclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3. Potential HLS/DASH Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.4. Other JavaScript API Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Potential QUIC API Inclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. Potential MoQ API Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Potential OS APIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. Editor's Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. SCONE Background and Introduction
Video traffic is already 70% of all traffic on the Internet and is
expected to grow to 80% by 2028. New formats like short form videos
have seen tremendous growth in recent years. Both in developed and
emerging markets video traffic forms 50-80% of traffic on mobile
networks. These growth trends are likely to increase with new
populations coming online on mobile-first markets and the observation
that unlike text content, video content consumption is not being
limited by literacy barriers. On the other hand, the electromagnetic
spectrum is a limited resource. In order to ensure that mobile
networks continue functioning in a healthy state despite this
incredible growth, communication service providers (CSPs) will be
required to make infrastructure investments such as more licensed
spectrum, cell densification, massive MIMO etc. In order to flatten
the rate of growth, CSPs in several markets attempt to identify and
throttle video traffic based on user data plans. There are several
problems with this kind of throttling:
Eddy, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SCONE APIs November 2024
1. CSPs can not explicitly measure the effect that throttling has on
the end user’s quality of experience (QoE) making this an open
loop approach.
2. Traffic detection and throttling for every flow is compute
intensive for CSPs. With distributed UPF (user plane function)
in 5G mobile networks more nodes in CSP network may need to
support traffic detection and throttling. Traffic detection can
have inaccuracies and these inaccuracies are expected to increase
as the content delivery industry moves towards end-2-end
encryption like TLS 1.3 and encrypted client hello (ECH).
3. The unpredictable and non-transparent behavior of traffic
throttlers used by CSPs confuse the bandwidth estimation and
congestion control protocols being used within end-2-end video
delivery sessions between content server and client. This
results in poor quality of experience (QoE) for the end user.
4. Content and Application Providers (CAPs) are designing algorithms
to detect the presence of such traffic throttlers to counter
their detrimental effects. These algorithms have their own
inaccuracies in detection and add compute resources on the CAP
side.
An alternative approach is for CAPs to self-adapt the traffic
corresponding to video flows. Since CAPs control the client and
server endpoints and can measure end user QoE, they are in a better
position to do this self-adaptation in a close loop manner. This
alternative approach has already been proven to improve user QoE in
production deployments [YouTube].
For this alternative approach to work a standardized secure on-path
network interface is required which will enable CSP controlled
network elements to signal the desired traffic profile
characteristics to the CAP client/server endpoints. The Standard
Communication with Network Elements (SCONE) protocol (previously
known as SADCDN and SCONEPRO) is an IETF working group motivated by
this alternate approach.
1.1. SCONE API Motivations
The general problem statement for SCONE is described in the video
optimization requirements document
[I-D.joras-sconepro-video-opt-requirements], including the shaping or
throttling that CSPs perform. While this problem currently has
especially large impact on a few large content providers, solutions
for SCONE are generally applicable to any applications that use QUIC
[RFC9000] and are subject to throttling within CSP networks.
Eddy, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SCONE APIs November 2024
General use of SCONE metadata for any applications can be facilitated
via an open Application Programming Interface (API) that could be
implemented in appropriate QUIC stacks, web browsers, or other
libraries.
There are two aspects to consider for an API:
1. How will applications learn about network information that is
discovered by SCONE lower in the stack? This is a primary
consideration in this document.
2. How will applications signal their type (e.g. video streaming) or
other relevant properties to the stack, to indicate that they are
SCONE-capable? This is a secondary consideration in this
document, because currently networks that perform throttling have
built-in methods to implicitly determine the appropriate flows to
throttle.
Depending on how the SCONE signaling protocol works (that is to-be-
defined by the IETF), the SCONE metadata may be available at various
different places in the protocol stack spanning operating system,
browser, and application code. This document tries to initially make
no assumptions about how the SCONE signalling works, and so considers
possibilities to integrate the metadata into APIs provided from OSes,
QUIC libraries, web browsers, etc. There are open questions at the
moment about SCONE signaling via on-path devices, what type of
information is conveyed, and how it is represented. The API
capabilities may be limited by the protocol decisions, and realistic
concerns about signaling across network domain boundaries, etc.
During early SCONE discussions, there have been suggestions that the
API might take inspiration from Explicit Congestion Notification
(ECN), as ECN also exposes information from the network (congestion
experienced codepoints) to end hosts, and the design contends with
potential for abuse, crosses network domain boundaries, and has other
desirable properties. Some key differences from ECN in usage
relavent to a SCONE API have been pointed out:
1) ECN information is consumed either by transport protocols (e.g.
TCP, MPTCP, and SCTP) or congestion control algorithms operating
above e.g. UDP or UDP-Lite [RFC8303] [RFC8304], but typically below
an application. For instance, within QUIC stacks used for video
streaming, ECN can be consumed by the QUIC congestion control, but is
not exposed to the application.
Eddy, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SCONE APIs November 2024
2) The exposure of SCONE metadata is intended to be at the level of
data flows (e.g. to aid application decisions about what media
quality to fetch), whereas ECN is consumed at the level of packets
(within an individual flow).
While ECN is not a solution for SCONE [I-D.tomar-sconepro-ecn], it is
productive to consider as an example based on similarities,
including:
* Signaling is coming from the network, and may cross different
network domains.
* Signaling points can also drop packets, and the signaling
participation is indtended to avoid excessive packet drops.
The purpose of this document is only to demonstrate that general API
exposure of the SCONE metadata is achievable without prescribing a
specific API solution. It is envisioned that one or more specific
API solutions will be defined either through IETF or W3C, to
correspond with the SCONE protocol specification. At least in its
current form, this document is not intended to be published as an
RFC.
2. Conventions and Definitions
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.
3. Application Stack Designs
There are a variety of different application stack designs that are
relevant. The main assumption for SCONE in general is that QUIC is
used.
Applications could, for instance, either use QUIC directly through a
linked software library, or applications could be running within a
browser, using QUIC indirectly via browser APIs.
Specific protocol solutions for SCONE will be defined by the working
group. In general, the SCONE network rate-limiting information could
be discovered by an end-system in several different ways; potential
network signaling approaches are described in other documents (e.g.
[I-D.ihlar-scone-masque-mediabitrate],
[I-D.brw-sconepro-rate-policy-discovery], or others). General
classes of information signaling include:
Eddy, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SCONE APIs November 2024
1. Via the QUIC stack, with the information inserted by an on-path
SCONE network element.
2. Via other IP or transport methods below QUIC (e.g. IP extension
headers, UDP options, etc.) that might be inserted on the path.
3. Via the OS, with the information coming in network advertisements
separate from the transport connection (e.g. via Router
Advertisements or DHCP).
These methods are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For instance,
a DHCP option could indicate that certain classes of applications are
throttled at a particular rate, while a SCONE on-path mechanism could
also provide more explicit per-connection indications of when
throttling is active as well.
+================+=============+===================================+
| SCONE Solution | Information | API Definitions |
| Type | Visibility | |
+================+=============+===================================+
| QUIC-based | QUIC | Specific to each QUIC-library, or |
| | library or | browser APIs. |
| | web browser | |
+----------------+-------------+-----------------------------------+
| IP or UDP- | OS and | Socket API extension may be |
| based | possibly | needed, e.g. to expose via socket |
| | QUIC | options or other means. For |
| | library | mobile apps using native stacks, |
| | | OS extensions may be needed. |
+----------------+-------------+-----------------------------------+
| Other | OS | Per-OS and/or socket API |
| approaches | | extensions |
| that are not | | |
| on-path or | | |
| per-connection | | |
+----------------+-------------+-----------------------------------+
Table 1
For solution types that are not QUIC-based, the QUIC implementation
could use socket or OS API extensions in order to get the data and
convey it up to the applications via its own API. However, QUIC
library APIs are not standardized; they differ between common QUIC
libraries, and so this document only suggests in a general sense of
how the QUIC stack should convey this information to applications.
Eddy, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SCONE APIs November 2024
The following sections consider first the types of metadata that
could be provided, and then how that SCONE metadata might be provided
in different cases of APIs including potential:
1. Browser APIs
2. QUIC APIs
3. OS APIs
4. Potential SCONE Metadata Provided By An API
There are existing collections of metadata that are available for
some types of adaptive rate streaming. Examples include those
defined by the CTA-5004 specification [CTA-5004] and CTA-5006
specification [CTA-5006], which standardize JSON objects or HTTP
headers conveyed by streaming media clients and servers respectively.
These CTA specifications are also expected to be usable by
intermediaries.
Another example that could be built upon is the proposed flow
metadata identifying the DownlinkBitrate
[I-D.rwbr-sconepro-flow-metadata].
4.1. Consideration of CTA Standards
Several of the use cases defined by CTA-5006 are relevant, including:
* Provide an estimate of the throughput available between an edge
server and a player, such that the player can use that information
to enrich its decision about which bitrate to select, especially
the initial bitrate decision made at the start of playback.
* Provide a means for a CDN to instruct all connected players to
limit their upper bitrate, in response to an ISP request to reduce
congestion on the last-mile network.
* Allow a CDN to signal to a player a suggested playback bitrate in
order to optimize collective QoE.
The "CDN" notion could be replaced with an ISP's on-path throttling
device.
As a specific example of metadata for SCONE, CTA-5004 allows clients
to indicate multiple types of rate metadata that are related to
adaptive coded rate selection in the face of throttling. Which of
these options are used depends upon the client, but could be one of:
Eddy, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SCONE APIs November 2024
+============+==========+==========================================+
| CTA Data | Units | CTA Description |
+============+==========+==========================================+
| Measured | Integer | The throughput between client and |
| Throughput | kilobits | server, as measured by the client and |
| | per | MUST be rounded to the nearest 100 kbps. |
| | second | This value, however derived, SHOULD be |
| | (kbps) | the value that the client is using to |
| | | make its next Adaptive Bitrate switching |
| | | decision. If the client is connected to |
| | | multiple servers concurrently, it must |
| | | take care to report only the throughput |
| | | measured against the receiving server. |
| | | If the client has multiple concurrent |
| | | connections to the server, then the |
| | | intent is that this value communicates |
| | | the aggregate throughput the client sees |
| | | across all those connections. |
+------------+----------+------------------------------------------+
| Requested | Integer | The requested maximum throughput that |
| maximum | kbps | the client considers sufficient for |
| throughput | | delivery of the asset. Values MUST be |
| | | rounded to the nearest 100 kbps. ... |
| | | Note: This can benefit clients by |
| | | preventing buffer saturation through |
| | | over-delivery ... |
+------------+----------+------------------------------------------+
Table 2
The CTA-5006 also allows the server to convey a maximum suggested
bitrate.
+===========+=========+===========================================+
| CTA Data | Units | CTA Description |
+===========+=========+===========================================+
| Max | Integer | The maximum bitrate value that the player |
| suggested | kbps | SHOULD play in its Adaptive Bit Rate |
| bitrate | | (ABR) ladder. If the player is playing a |
| | | bitrate higher than this value, it SHOULD |
| | | immediately switch to a bitrate lower |
| | | than or equal to this value. |
+-----------+---------+-------------------------------------------+
Table 3
There are two high-level approaches that might be viable in reusing
CTA data types within an API that supports SCONE:
Eddy, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SCONE APIs November 2024
1. Append entire CTA-defined objects as optional components of
dictionary or other data structures used in APIs, e.g. as a
"cta5005" object that would be able to fully convey all of the
CTA-defined metadata.
2. Append only selected fields from the CTA specs, reusing the
definitions, but only including specific items of interest for
SCONE's problem statement, and leaving other CTA-defined metadata
to be conveyed through the existing CTA-defined methods.
The API can be agnostic to how the data is conveyed between network
or on-path SCONE devices and either clients or servers, but the same
API can convey the information to the applications, regardless of how
the network signaling works. The semantics of the maxium suggested
bitrate from the CTA-5006 match the needed semantics most closely,
though since it is for an ABR ladder, it should be described
carefully to apply the proper bitrate definition that the throttler
is using for "on the wire" packets (including header overhead, etc.)
versus the pure media payload stream bitrate.
5. Potential Browser API Extensions
For browser applications, there are multiple different browser APIs
that might be extended to include SCONE metadata; notably including:
* W3C Network Information
* WebTransport using QUIC
* HTTP Live Streaming (HLS) or Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP
(DASH) client libraries
* Any Javascript HTTP requests that directly or indirectly use
HTTP/3.
In either of these cases, the corresponding W3C API definitions are
the proper place for actual definition of API extensions, and this
document is merely exploring possibilities.
The exploration is primarily around the ability to convey SCONE
signaling information that is discovered from the network path up to
applications. In addition, to indicate an application's desire to
use SCONE signaling in the first place, some small API extension is
also be required, unless relying totally on the underlying stack or
network to infer which flows should be receiving SCONE treatment
(e.g. as networks already infer which flows to throttle).
Eddy, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SCONE APIs November 2024
5.1. Potential Network Information API Inclusion
The W3C Network Information API [W3C-NetInfo] is supported to some
extent by several, but not all, common web browsers today. It
provides the possibility for an appliction to determine what
underlying connection types or "effective" connection types (e.g.
cellular. bluetooth, etc.) may be in use, with a corresponding set of
performance parameter estimates including:
* Round Trip Time (RTT) in milliseconds providing a delay estimate.
* downlink in megabits per second providing an effective bandwidth
estimate based on recently observed application layer throughput
or properties of the underlying connectivity technology.
* downlinkMax in megabits per second representing an upper bound on
the downlink speed of the first network hop, based on the
underlying connectivity technology.
The downlink and downlinkMax could be leveraged as places to put the
SCONE-discovered rate limit for an application, since anything
greater than the SCONE-discovered rate would not be expected to be
usable for the application.
Alternatively, another field could be added to the NetworkInformation
interface in order to specifically provide the SCONE metadata.
In any case, a good property of the Network Information API is that
an application can hook event handlers to be notified of changes, so
that if there are limits that kick-in or are lifted midway into an
application's lifetime (e.g. due to some mobility, etc.), the
application will be able to be easily notified and adapt.
5.2. Potential WebTrans API Inclusion
In the future, WebTransport (WEBTRANS) might be used by SCONE's
targeted types of applications, such as browser-based adaptive
streaming. The IETF WEBTRANS working group is liasing with W3C as
the IETF defines the protocol specification, whereas the W3C defines
the API to use it. This case is similar to the IETF RTCWEB and W3C
WebRTC WG coordination in the past. The same model of collaboration
between IETF and W3C should work for SCONE metadata, and the
information provided could be discussed with the WEBTRANS WG in the
IETF and notified to the W3C later, either through common
participation and/or formal liason statement.
Eddy, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SCONE APIs November 2024
The existing WebTrans API definition from W3C includes a "getStats()"
method, that is defned in order to asynchronously gather and report
statistics for a WebTransport underlying connection. It returns a
WebTransportConnectionStats object that is defined as a dictionary,
including a number of items such as:
* bytesSent
* packetsSent
* bytesLost
* packetsLost
* bytesReceived
* packetsReceived
* smoothedRtt
* rttVariation
* minRtt
* WebTransportDatagramStats datagrams
* estimatedSendRate
The estimatedSendRate is an unsigned long long, in bits per second,
calculated by the congestion control algorithm in the user agent.
This would be in the "upstream" direction to a CSP, though, rather
than the "downstream" from a CSP, so is not useful to a client
application in receiving indication of a downstream throttling rate
from the network.
Since other measurements are already included and the
WebTransportConnectionStats is a dictionary, it seems natural to
extend it to include additional optional fields, such as an allowed
media rate, or other types of fields providing the application
information that the underlying host or stack have discovered about
the presence of throttling or explicit signaling of allowed media
rate on a path.
Eddy, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SCONE APIs November 2024
Such extensions might be including at a "MAY" level of conformance
statement (rather than "SHALL" as used by all of the currently-
defined information elements), as the allowed media rate will not be
universally present or even useful for all WebTransport applications.
Alternatively, it could be set to a "null" value similar to how the
estimatedSendRate is sent when it is unknown by the user agent.
5.3. Potential HLS/DASH Support
Client libraries for HLS and DASH will use the underlying Javascript
APIs or other underlying APIs, and might rely on them for SCONE
metadata support, as discussed in the next subsection.
5.4. Other JavaScript API Options
Typical HTTP adaptive streaming applications using existing browser
API options would be ideal to support as directly as possible. There
are different ways to transfer HTTP/3 data provided to JavaScript
applications that might be applicable.
For instance, things like jQuery.ajax() or the "Fetch" API may be
used. In this case, there is little or no information about the
network path state provided, though there are either jqXHR or
Response objects returned that (for instance) allow HTTP headers to
be conveyed, and in both cases could be extended to include SCONE
metadata. These are returned at the completion of the HTTP transfer,
however. It might be more difficult to support more dynamic updates
such as providing the metadata to an application mid-transfer so that
an application might quickly switch to other media rates for future
video segments being pre-fetched.
6. Potential QUIC API Inclusion
While there are no standard QUIC APIs, and there are multiple
different styles in use, many QUIC implementations include objects in
the API that represent the QUIC connections directly, and allow
setting callbacks for connection-related events, or allow direct
querying of connection state. SCONE metadata could either be
supported as a type of callback event, triggered when the metadata is
received, or it could be included within other connection state in a
polled or interrogated data structure.
Other QUIC implementations may leave I/O and management of sockets or
other aspects to the application, external to the QUIC library. In
this case:
1. If the SCONE metadata is visible as part of the QUIC connection,
then it could be provided through the QUIC implementation's API.
Eddy, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SCONE APIs November 2024
2. If the SCONE metadata is visible to the OS or as part of a socket
API, it could be provided to the application via the underlying
OS or socket abstraction libraries used by applications.
Regarding identification of the application flow type, options for a
QUIC API may include adding "SCONE-capable" type of flag or an
optional flow-type tag that can be set by applications. Compared to
the complexity of existing QUIC APIs, these could be small additions.
6.1. Potential MoQ API Extension
While Media over QUIC (MoQ) is being defined, it is intended for
media streaming over QUIC, which might be applicable to SCONE, in
case adaptive rate streams are detected and throttled by CSPs. As
yet, there is no standard MoQ API, an MoQ session is currently scoped
either to a QUIC connection or a WebTransport session, so it should
not be difficult to expose information learned by either transport
stack to MoQ applications. Since MoQ applications are media flows,
it may be very simple for an application flow type to be conveyed or
inferred via an eventual MoQ API..
7. Potential OS APIs
If SCONE signaling is implemented via QUIC packets, this section is
likely to be moot. OS APIs would only be important to consider for
SCONE metadata to be exposed in the cases that it is discovered
through some lower-level possibilities such as IP extension headers
or options, UDP options, DHCP, etc.
In applicable cases, the OSes supporting SCONE might extend their
sets of socket options to support a getsockopt that permits reading
SCONE-received metadata, such as a maximum bit rate. Another
possibility would be to allow such information to be retrieved via an
ioctl on relevant sockets. Several popular libraries and higher-
level languages wrap system calls like getsockopt and ioctl already,
and could be extended to include SCONE metadata. The "cmsg"
interface [RFC2292] provices an example of how complex sets of
ancillary data can be exchanged between applications and an OS kernel
consistent with the way that socket options are implemented.
A challenge might be that the application would likely need to
periodically poll the OS for this information, as there may not be a
general way to register a callback or hander for when the OS notices
a change. This may be one reason, among others, why supporting SCONE
signaling via the QUIC connection itself is more desirable.
Eddy, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft SCONE APIs November 2024
Another challenge relates to information such as a maximum rate per
flow type discovered via DHCP or other means. In that case, it may
be difficult for the application to know how the network will
actually classify its packets, and so it may not be clear what rate
is relevant to assume. This could be another argument favoring QUIC-
based signaling, in terms of applications being able to directly make
productive use of the information.
8. Security Considerations
General SCONE security considerations are discussed in the other
documents covering specific network-to-host signaling methods.
Privacy concerns have also been discussed in
[I-D.tomar-scone-privacy].
Existing APIs that expose information about the network path to
applications have documented security considerations, especially with
regard to user privacy. For instance, there may be concerns that
such information can be used to assist in fingerprinting users,
defeating anonymization, or otherwise exposing more information about
the user to the application than the user might explicitly consent
to. Such concerns have been document, for example, with regard to
the Network Information API.
By providing additional information about throttling rate limits
within the path, SCONE could increase the amount of information
availble on top of that provided by the current APIs. For instance,
if the rate information is very fine-grained, it could be useful in
fingerprinting.
Generally, however, the CSP throttling information is currently very
coarse grained, as it is used today. Additionally, the application
providers authenticate their users, and their is not an expectation
of anonymity in popular platforms today.
Beyond this, it is also the case that information provided by SCONE
can already be learned by CAP endpoints through various other
mechanisms (e.g. the effect of on-path throttlers is clearly visible
by observing application traffic packet flows). SCONE simply makes
the signaling explicit, rather than requiring it to be observed and
inferred separately.
9. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
Eddy, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft SCONE APIs November 2024
10. Editor's Notes
This section to be removed prior to any potential publication within
an RFC.
* The "CSP" term is overloaded, especially with regard to web
technology, and might be changed to "carrier", "network operator",
etc. in the future, but would need to be consistent with
terminology in other SCONE documents.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
[RFC9000] Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9000>.
11.2. Informative References
[CTA-5004] CTA, "Web Application Video Ecosystem - Common Media
Client Data", September 2020.
[CTA-5006] CTA, "Common Media Server Data", November 2022.
[I-D.brw-sconepro-rate-policy-discovery]
Boucadair, M., Wing, D., Reddy.K, T., Rajagopalan, S.,
Mishra, G. S., Amend, M., and L. M. Contreras, "Discovery
of Network Rate-Limit Policies (NRLPs)", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-brw-sconepro-rate-policy-discovery-
02, 3 July 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-brw-sconepro-rate-policy-discovery-02>.
Eddy, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft SCONE APIs November 2024
[I-D.ihlar-scone-masque-mediabitrate]
Ihlar, L. M. and M. Kühlewind, "MASQUE extension for
signaling throughput advice", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ihlar-scone-masque-mediabitrate-01, 21
October 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ihlar-scone-masque-mediabitrate-01>.
[I-D.joras-sconepro-video-opt-requirements]
Joras, M., Tomar, A., Tiwari, A., and A. Frindell,
"SCONEPRO Video Optimization Requirements", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-joras-sconepro-video-opt-
requirements-00, 17 May 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-joras-
sconepro-video-opt-requirements-00>.
[I-D.rwbr-sconepro-flow-metadata]
Rajagopalan, S., Wing, D., Boucadair, M., Reddy.K, T., and
L. M. Contreras, "Flow Metadata for Collaborative Host/
Network Signaling", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-rwbr-sconepro-flow-metadata-02, 26 June 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-rwbr-
sconepro-flow-metadata-02>.
[I-D.tomar-scone-privacy]
Tomar, A., Eddy, W., Tiwari, A., and M. Joras, "SCONE
Privacy Properties and Incentives for Abuse", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-tomar-scone-privacy-00, 3
November 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-tomar-scone-privacy-00>.
[I-D.tomar-sconepro-ecn]
Tomar, A., Ihlar, L. M., Eddy, W., Swett, I., Tiwari, A.,
and M. Joras, "SCONEPRO Need for Defining A New On-Path
Signaling Mechanism", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-tomar-sconepro-ecn-01, 23 May 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-tomar-
sconepro-ecn-01>.
[RFC2292] Stevens, W. and M. Thomas, "Advanced Sockets API for
IPv6", RFC 2292, DOI 10.17487/RFC2292, February 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2292>.
[RFC8303] Welzl, M., Tuexen, M., and N. Khademi, "On the Usage of
Transport Features Provided by IETF Transport Protocols",
RFC 8303, DOI 10.17487/RFC8303, February 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8303>.
Eddy, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft SCONE APIs November 2024
[RFC8304] Fairhurst, G. and T. Jones, "Transport Features of the
User Datagram Protocol (UDP) and Lightweight UDP (UDP-
Lite)", RFC 8304, DOI 10.17487/RFC8304, February 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8304>.
[W3C-NetInfo]
W3C, "The Network Information API", 11 May 2020,
<https://wicg.github.io/netinfo/>.
[YouTube] YouTube, "YouTube Plan Aware Streaming", 21 March 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/119/materials/
slides-119-sconepro-youtube-plan-aware-streaming-01>.
Acknowledgments
This document represents collaboration and inputs from others,
including:
* Anoop Tomar
* Matt Joras
* Bryan Tan
Additional, helpful critique and comments were provided by:
* Lucas Pardue
* Ted Hardie
* Michael Welzl
* Gorry Fairhurst
* Brian Trammell
Authors' Addresses
Wesley Eddy
Meta
Email: wesleyeddy@meta.com
Abhishek Tiwari
Meta
Email: atiwari@meta.com
Eddy, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft SCONE APIs November 2024
Alan Frindell
Meta
Email: afrind@meta.com
Eddy, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 18]