A Cost Mode Registry for the Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol
draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-03

alto                                                        M. Boucadair
Internet-Draft                                                    Orange
Updates: 7285 (if approved)                                        Q. Wu
Intended status: Standards Track                                  Huawei
Expires: 17 November 2022                                    16 May 2022

  A Cost Mode Registry for the Application-Layer Traffic Optimization
                            (ALTO) Protocol
                      draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-03

Abstract

   This document creates a new IANA registry for tracking cost modes
   supported by the Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO)
   Protocol.  Also, this document relaxes a constraint that was imposed
   by the ALTO specification on allowed cost mode values.

   This document updates RFC 7285.

Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)

   Please update RFC XXXX statements within the document with the RFC
   number to be assigned to this document.

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 17 November 2022.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Boucadair & Wu          Expires 17 November 2022                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft               ALTO Cost Mode                     May 2022

   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
   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.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Updates to RFC7285  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Updates to Section 6.1.2 of RFC7285 . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  Updates to Section 10.5 of RFC7285  . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   The cost mode attribute indicates how costs should be interpreted
   when communicated in the Application-Layer Traffic Optimization
   (ALTO) Protocol [RFC7285].  The base ALTO specification includes a
   provision for only two modes:

   "numerical":  Indicates that numerical operations can be performed
      (e.g., normalization) on the returned costs (Section 6.1.2.1 of
      [RFC7285]).

   "ordinal":  Indicates that the cost values in a cost map represent
      ranking (relative to all other values in a cost map), not actual
      costs (Section 6.1.2.2 of [RFC7285]).

   Additional cost modes are required for specific ALTO deployment cases
   (e.g., [I-D.ietf-alto-path-vector]).  In order to allow for such use
   cases, this document relaxes the constraint imposed by the base ALTO
   specification on allowed cost modes (Section 3) and creates a new
   ALTO registry to track new cost modes (Section 4).

Boucadair & Wu          Expires 17 November 2022                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft               ALTO Cost Mode                     May 2022

2.  Terminology

   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.

   This document makes use of the terms defined in [RFC7285].

3.  Updates to RFC7285

3.1.  Updates to Section 6.1.2 of RFC7285

   This document updates Section 6.1.2 of [RFC7285] as follows:

   OLD:

      The cost mode attribute indicates how costs should be interpreted.
      Specifically, the cost mode attribute indicates whether returned
      costs should be interpreted as numerical values or ordinal
      rankings.

      It is important to communicate such information to ALTO clients,
      as certain operations may not be valid on certain costs returned
      by an ALTO server.  For example, it is possible for an ALTO server
      to return a set of IP addresses with costs indicating a ranking of
      the IP addresses.  Arithmetic operations that would make sense for
      numerical values, do not make sense for ordinal rankings.  ALTO
      clients may handle such costs differently.

      Cost modes are indicated in protocol messages as strings.

   NEW:

      The cost mode attribute indicates how costs should be interpreted.
      This document defines two cost modes (numerical values and ordinal
      rankings), but additional cost modes can be defined in the future.

      It is important to communicate such information to ALTO clients,
      as certain operations may not be valid on certain costs returned
      by an ALTO server.  For example, it is possible for an ALTO server
      to return a set of IP addresses with costs indicating a ranking of
      the IP addresses.  Arithmetic operations that would make sense for
      numerical values, do not make sense for ordinal rankings.  ALTO
      clients may handle such costs differently.

Boucadair & Wu          Expires 17 November 2022                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft               ALTO Cost Mode                     May 2022

      Cost modes are indicated in protocol messages as strings.

      Future documents that define a new cost mode SHOULD indicate
      whether that new cost mode applies to all or a subset of cost
      metrics.  If not explicitly indicated, the new cost mode applies
      to all cost metrics.

3.2.  Updates to Section 10.5 of RFC7285

   This document updates Section 10.5 of [RFC7285] as follows:

   OLD:

      A cost mode is encoded as a string.  The string MUST have a value
      of either "numerical" or "ordinal".

   NEW:

      A cost mode is encoded as a string.  The string MUST be no more
      than 32 characters, and it MUST NOT contain characters other than
      US-ASCII alphanumeric characters (U+0030-U+0039, U+0041-U+005A,
      and U+0061-U+007A), the hyphen-minus ('-', U+002D), the colon
      (':', U+003A), or the low line ('_', U+005F).  Cost modes reserved
      for Private Use are prefixed with "priv:" (Section 4).  Otherwise,
      the cost mode MUST have a value that is listed in the registry
      created in Section 4 of RFCXXXX.

4.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests IANA to create a new subregistry entitled
   "ALTO Cost Modes" under the "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization
   (ALTO) Protocol" registry available at [ALTO].

   The registry is initially populated with the following values:

Boucadair & Wu          Expires 17 November 2022                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft               ALTO Cost Mode                     May 2022

   +============+=============================+============+===========+
   | Identifier | Description                 | Intended   | Reference |
   |            |                             | Semantics  |           |
   +============+=============================+============+===========+
   | numerical  | Indicates that numerical    | Section    | RFCXXXX   |
   |            | operations can be performed | 6.1.2.1 of |           |
   |            | on the returned costs       | RFC7285    |           |
   +------------+-----------------------------+------------+-----------+
   | ordinal    | Indicates that the cost     | Section    | RFCXXXX   |
   |            | values in a cost map        | 6.1.2.2 of |           |
   |            | represent ranking           | RFC7285    |           |
   +------------+-----------------------------+------------+-----------+

   The assignment policy for this registry is "IETF Review" (Section 4.8
   of [RFC8126]).

   Cost modes prefixed with "priv:" are reserved for Private Use
   (Section 4.1 of [RFC8126]).

5.  Security Considerations

   This document does not introduce new concerns other than those
   already discussed in Section 15 of [RFC7285].

6.  Acknowledgements

   Many thanks to Benjamin Kaduk for spotting the issue during the
   review of [I-D.ietf-alto-path-vector].

   Thanks to Adrian Farrel, Dhruv Dhody, Luis Miguel Contreras Murillo,
   Sabine Randriamasy, and Qiao Xiang for the review and comments.

   Special thanks to Kai Gao for Shepherding the document.

   Thanks to Martin Duke for the AD review.

   Thanks to Roni Even for the gen-art review and Jaime Jimenez for the
   artart review.

7.  References

7.1.  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/info/rfc2119>.

Boucadair & Wu          Expires 17 November 2022                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft               ALTO Cost Mode                     May 2022

   [RFC7285]  Alimi, R., Ed., Penno, R., Ed., Yang, Y., Ed., Kiesel, S.,
              Previdi, S., Roome, W., Shalunov, S., and R. Woundy,
              "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol",
              RFC 7285, DOI 10.17487/RFC7285, September 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7285>.

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

   [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/info/rfc8174>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [ALTO]     "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol",
              2 March 2022, <https://www.iana.org/assignments/alto-
              protocol/alto-protocol.xhtml>.

   [I-D.ietf-alto-path-vector]
              Gao, K., Lee, Y., Randriamasy, S., Yang, Y. R., and J. J.
              Zhang, "An ALTO Extension: Path Vector", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-alto-path-vector-25, 20 March
              2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-alto-
              path-vector-25.txt>.

Authors' Addresses

   Mohamed Boucadair
   Orange
   35000 Rennes
   France
   Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com

   Qin Wu
   Huawei
   101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
   Nanjing
   Jiangsu, 210012
   China
   Email: bill.wu@huawei.com

Boucadair & Wu          Expires 17 November 2022                [Page 6]