Self-Tuning Distributed Hash Table (DHT) for REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD)
draft-ietf-p2psip-self-tuning-15
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2014-08-29
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2014-08-27
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2014-08-22
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2014-08-05
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2014-08-01
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2014-07-31
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2014-07-30
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from On Hold |
2014-07-29
|
15 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2014-07-28
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2014-07-28
|
15 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2014-07-25
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to On Hold from In Progress |
2014-07-25
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2014-07-25
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2014-07-25
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2014-07-25
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2014-07-25
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-07-09
|
15 | Alexey Melnikov | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov. |
2014-06-27
|
15 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2014-06-26
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2014-06-26
|
15 | Jouni Maenpaa | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2014-06-26
|
15 | Jouni Maenpaa | New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-self-tuning-15.txt |
2014-06-26
|
14 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2014-06-26
|
14 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2014-06-25
|
14 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2014-06-25
|
14 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot comment] In 6.2: A peer MAY choose to maintain a fixed-size predecessor list with only three entries as specified in RELOAD base. … [Ballot comment] In 6.2: A peer MAY choose to maintain a fixed-size predecessor list with only three entries as specified in RELOAD base. However, it is RECOMMENDED that a peer maintains ceiling(log2(N)) predecessors. I see that this text is the subject of negotiations with Pete, so I don't want to belabor it too much, but it seems to me that the only reason a peer would choose to do this would be that it didn't support self-tuning, since it seems that supporting a short predecessor list would make the node vulnerable to failures that the longer list is intended to prevent. The motivation for allowing this behavior is thus unclear to me. It may be that it's explained adequately and I missed it, but if not it might help to explain it here. This is really cool work, and I greatly enjoyed reading it. Thanks for documenting it! |
2014-06-25
|
14 | Ted Lemon | Ballot comment text updated for Ted Lemon |
2014-06-25
|
14 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot comment] In 6.2: A peer MAY choose to maintain a fixed-size predecessor list with only three entries as specified in RELOAD base. … [Ballot comment] In 6.2: A peer MAY choose to maintain a fixed-size predecessor list with only three entries as specified in RELOAD base. However, it is RECOMMENDED that a peer maintains ceiling(log2(N)) predecessors. I see that this text is the subject of negotiations with Pete, so I don't want to belabor it too much, but it seems to me that the only reason a peer would choose to do this would be that it didn't support self-tuning, since it seems that supporting a short predecessor list would make the node vulnerable to failures that the longer list is intended to prevent. The motivation for allowing this behavior is thus unclear to me. It may be that it's explained adequately and I missed it, but if not it might help to explain it here. This is really cool work, and I greatly enjoyed reading it. Thanks for documenting it! |
2014-06-25
|
14 | Ted Lemon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Lemon |
2014-06-25
|
14 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot comment] An interesting, good extension based on what looks like lots of research. I wish we had more drafts like this. |
2014-06-25
|
14 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2014-06-25
|
14 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] 5. Tilting at a windmill: The MUSTs in the section don't help the implementer: s/MUST be used/is used s/MUST maintain/maintains s/MUST restart the … [Ballot comment] 5. Tilting at a windmill: The MUSTs in the section don't help the implementer: s/MUST be used/is used s/MUST maintain/maintains s/MUST restart the time and carry out/restarts the timer and carries out 5.1 Regardless of the type, all Update requests include an 'uptime' field. Since the self-tuning extensions require information on the uptimes of peers in the routing table, the sender of an Update request MUST include its current uptime in seconds in the 'uptime' field. I think in the newspaper business, this is called "burying the lede". The MUST is in the wrong place. What's important is that all Update requests MUST include an 'uptime' field. The MUST in the second sentence makes it confusing as to whether there are choices about other kinds of Updates or different format for time ("Are there other senders that don't have to use 'uptime'?" "Could they send minutes instead of seconds, and you can only use seconds in Updates? Is that why they're saying 'MUST'?" I suggest replacing with: NEW The self-tuning extensions require information on the uptimes of peers in the routing table. The sender of an Update request includes its current uptime (in seconds) in the 'uptime' field. Regardless of the type, all Update requests MUST include an 'uptime' field. END Maybe I'm not understanding how this works, but the laste sentence of this section is confusing to me. Is the rule that if I've got enough space in my data structure for everything I got from my peer *and* what I had in there before, I keep everything? What if there's not enough space to keep everything? Do I trim what I had and add everything I got in the update, or do I trim what I got in the update? 5.2. Therefore, when the self-tuning mechanisms are used, each peer MUST send a periodic Update request only to its first predecessor and first successor on the Chord ring. Again, potentially confusing because you've described the requirement backwards: NEW Therefore, when the self-tuning mechanisms are used, each peer only sends a periodic Update request to its first predecessor and first successor on the Chord ring; it MUST NOT send Update requests to others. END In the last two paragraphs of this section, which of the MUSTs are actual requirements that an implementation needs to be aware of, and which are just statements of the way things are done in the protocol? In other words, why is the following not a reasonable replacement? NEW The neighbor stabilization routine is executed when the stabilization timer fires. To begin the neighbor stabilization routine, a peer sends an Update request to its first successor and its first predecessor. The type of the Update request MUST be 'neighbors'. The Update request includes the successor and predecessor lists of the sender. If a peer receiving such an Update request learns from the predecessor and successor lists included in the request that new peers can be included in its neighborhood set, it sends Attach requests to the new peers. After a new peer has been added to the predecessor or successor list, an Update request of type 'peer_ready' is sent to the new peer. This allows the new peer to insert the sender into its neighborhood set. END If the answer to the question, "Why does it say MUST?" is "Because if you don't do that, you're not doing the protocol", that's going to confuse implementers and can make for brittle code. Please review 5.3, 5.4, 6.1, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6 for similar uses. 6.2: The size of the successor list MUST be set to ceiling(log2(N)). An implementation MAY place a lower limit on the size of the successor list. MUST/MAY conflict. I think the first sentence should say "MUST be set to a maximum of". In the last paragraph, change "MAY" to "can". |
2014-06-25
|
14 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2014-06-25
|
14 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] Providing a way to estimate N seems like a fine improvement over 6940. Good stuff. - 5.6: What does a "better predecessor" mean … [Ballot comment] Providing a way to estimate N seems like a fine improvement over 6940. Good stuff. - 5.6: What does a "better predecessor" mean here? Asking because there's stuff you MUST do when you find one. - 5.6: I also wondered if there's any security issue associated with having a MUST there - could a leaving node use that to force its successor to talk to nodes the leaving node has chosen for some nefarious purpose? (Apologies, I forget RELOAD, which may already counter that;-) |
2014-06-25
|
14 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2014-06-24
|
14 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Thanks for a nice write up of security considerations as well as addressing the questions from the SecDir review. |
2014-06-24
|
14 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2014-06-24
|
14 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2014-06-24
|
14 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2014-06-24
|
14 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] Probably a very simple question from browsing through the doc (mainly due to my lack of RELOAD knowledge, combined with my laziness to … [Ballot comment] Probably a very simple question from browsing through the doc (mainly due to my lack of RELOAD knowledge, combined with my laziness to review the 175 page RFC 6940) This document extends the mandatory-to-implement chord-reload algorithm by making it self-tuning. The use of the self-tuning feature is optional. However, when used, it needs to be supported by all peers in the RELOAD overlay network. From an operational point of view, what is the mechanism to discover that all peers support this optional self-tuning feature? |
2014-06-24
|
14 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2014-06-23
|
14 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] Thanks for producing this document. The static configuration seemed kind of lame when I was following RELOAD more closely - this seems like … [Ballot comment] Thanks for producing this document. The static configuration seemed kind of lame when I was following RELOAD more closely - this seems like a much better idea! |
2014-06-23
|
14 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2014-06-23
|
14 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2014-06-19
|
14 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2014-06-19
|
14 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2014-06-16
|
14 | Jouni Maenpaa | New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-self-tuning-14.txt |
2014-06-14
|
13 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing all my comments in version -13. The one we're still talking about, now a non-blocking comment, is below: 1. In … [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing all my comments in version -13. The one we're still talking about, now a non-blocking comment, is below: 1. In the Introduction: These characteristics are then used to configure the DHT in a static fashion by using fixed values for parameters such as the size of the successor set, size of the routing table, and rate of maintenance messages. The problem with this approach is that it is not possible to achieve a low failure rate and a low communication overhead by using fixed parameters. Instead, a better approach is to allow the system to take into account the evolution of network conditions and adapt to them. This document extends the mandatory-to-implement chord-reload algorithm by making it self-tuning. Two main advantages of self-tuning are that users no longer need to tune every DHT parameter correctly for a given operating environment and that the system adapts to changing operating conditions. Does this mean that this self-tuning version is intended to be the way chord-reload is implemented in the future? Or is it just meant to be an optional feature, which might or might not be implemented for chord-reload? It seems that self-tuning doesn't work unless most peers support it and share the necessary information. Reply from Jouni: " The self-tuning version is an optional feature. But it needs to be supported by all the peers in the overlay. A RELOAD overlay can either choose to use chord-reload or the self-tuning version." As a non-blocking comment, would it be useful to say what you just told me as part of the text I quote above? I suggest this, which you may accept or decline as you see best (it also inserts a paragraph break for the long paragraph): NEW These characteristics are then used to configure the DHT in a static fashion by using fixed values for parameters such as the size of the successor set, size of the routing table, and rate of maintenance messages. The problem with this approach is that it is not possible to achieve a low failure rate and a low communication overhead by using fixed parameters. Instead, a better approach is to allow the system to take into account the evolution of network conditions and adapt to them. This document extends the mandatory-to-implement chord-reload algorithm by making it self-tuning. The self-tuning feature is optional. When it is used, it needs to be supported by all peers in the overlay. Two main advantages of self-tuning are that users no longer need to tune every DHT parameter correctly for a given operating environment and that the system adapts to changing operating conditions. END |
2014-06-14
|
13 | Barry Leiba | Ballot comment text updated for Barry Leiba |
2014-06-14
|
13 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing all my comments in version -13. The one we're still talking about, now a non-blocking comment, is below: 1. In … [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing all my comments in version -13. The one we're still talking about, now a non-blocking comment, is below: 1. In the Introduction: These characteristics are then used to configure the DHT in a static fashion by using fixed values for parameters such as the size of the successor set, size of the routing table, and rate of maintenance messages. The problem with this approach is that it is not possible to achieve a low failure rate and a low communication overhead by using fixed parameters. Instead, a better approach is to allow the system to take into account the evolution of network conditions and adapt to them. This document extends the mandatory-to-implement chord-reload algorithm by making it self-tuning. Two main advantages of self-tuning are that users no longer need to tune every DHT parameter correctly for a given operating environment and that the system adapts to changing operating conditions. Does this mean that this self-tuning version is intended to be the way chord-reload is implemented in the future? Or is it just meant to be an optional feature, which might or might not be implemented for chord-reload? It seems that self-tuning doesn't work unless most peers support it and share the necessary information. Reply from Jouni: " The self-tuning version is an optional feature. But it needs to be supported by all the peers in the overlay. A RELOAD overlay can either choose to use chord-reload or the self-tuning version." As a non-blocking comment, would it be useful to say what you just told me as part of the text I quote above? I suggest this, which you may accept or decline as you see best (it also inserts a paragraph break for the long paragraph): NEW These characteristics are then used to configure the DHT in a static fashion by using fixed values for parameters such as the size of the successor set, size of the routing table, and rate of maintenance messages. The problem with this approach is that it is not possible to achieve a low failure rate and a low communication overhead by using fixed parameters. Instead, a better approach is to allow the system to take into account the evolution of network conditions and adapt to them. This document extends the mandatory-to-implement chord-reload algorithm by making it self-tuning. The self-tuning feature is optional. When it is used, it needs to be supported by all peers in the overlay. Two main advantages of self-tuning are that users no longer need to tune every DHT parameter correctly for a given operating environment and that the system adapts to changing operating conditions. END |
2014-06-14
|
13 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Barry Leiba has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2014-06-14
|
13 | Jouni Maenpaa | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2014-06-14
|
13 | Jouni Maenpaa | New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-self-tuning-13.txt |
2014-06-12
|
12 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot discuss] Quick discussion on two things, please: 1. In the Introduction: These characteristics are then used to configure the DHT in a … [Ballot discuss] Quick discussion on two things, please: 1. In the Introduction: These characteristics are then used to configure the DHT in a static fashion by using fixed values for parameters such as the size of the successor set, size of the routing table, and rate of maintenance messages. The problem with this approach is that it is not possible to achieve a low failure rate and a low communication overhead by using fixed parameters. Instead, a better approach is to allow the system to take into account the evolution of network conditions and adapt to them. This document extends the mandatory-to-implement chord-reload algorithm by making it self-tuning. Two main advantages of self-tuning are that users no longer need to tune every DHT parameter correctly for a given operating environment and that the system adapts to changing operating conditions. Does this mean that this self-tuning version is intended to be the way chord-reload is implemented in the future? Or is it just meant to be an optional feature, which might or might not be implemented for chord-reload? It seems that self-tuning doesn't work unless most peers support it and share the necessary information. In Section 2, Terminology: This document uses the terminology and definitions from the Concepts and Terminology for Peer to Peer SIP [I-D.ietf-p2psip-concepts] draft. If that document is needed for terminology and definitions, doesn't that make it a normative reference? |
2014-06-12
|
12 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] And a few non-blocking comments on minor things: 1. In Section 4, I found "ith" to be distracting -- I kept reading it … [Ballot comment] And a few non-blocking comments on minor things: 1. In Section 4, I found "ith" to be distracting -- I kept reading it as "with" without the "w", and had to force myself to think "eye-th". I don't know what to do about it, and suggest leaving it for the RFC Editor to come up with something (maybe they've been there before and already have an answer). But I just wanted to bring it up. 2. In the last sentence of Section 6.3, "Use of this approach is RECOMMENDED.": What does "this approach" refer to? It looks like it refers to setting K to 25% of the routing table size. If so, I think "Use of that value is RECOMMENDED," would be clearer. Or is it the technique described in the whole section, which begins "A typical approach is..."? In that case, I suggest either (1) putting that final sentence into a paragraph of its own or (2) putting that into the first sentence of the section, as "A typical approach, and the one that is RECOMMENDED, is...". 3. In the IANA Considerations: The authors have sorted this out with IANA, but I think clarifying the text is the best thing to do anyway: OLD This document registers one new URI for the self-tuning namespace in the IETF XML registry defined in [RFC3688]. NEW This document registers one new URI for the self-tuning namespace in the "ns" subregistry of the IETF XML registry defined in [RFC3688]. END While we're there, I don't think that 3688 is a normative reference -- I think it's informative. But do as you see fit there. |
2014-06-12
|
12 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2014-06-11
|
12 | Alissa Cooper | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-06-26 |
2014-06-11
|
12 | Alissa Cooper | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2014-06-11
|
12 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot has been issued |
2014-06-11
|
12 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2014-06-11
|
12 | Alissa Cooper | Created "Approve" ballot |
2014-06-11
|
12 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2014-06-08
|
12 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2014-06-08
|
12 | Pearl Liang | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-p2psip-self-tuning-11. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-p2psip-self-tuning-11. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible. We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer: IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA must complete. In the RELOAD Extensions Registry within the REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/reload/ a new extension is to be added to the registry as follows: Code: 0x3 Extension Name: self_tuning_data Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA understands this to be the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. |
2014-06-08
|
12 | Jouni Maenpaa | New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-self-tuning-12.txt |
2014-06-05
|
11 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2014-06-05
|
11 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2014-06-05
|
11 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Tobias Gondrom. |
2014-06-02
|
11 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Chown |
2014-06-02
|
11 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Chown |
2014-05-30
|
11 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tobias Gondrom |
2014-05-30
|
11 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tobias Gondrom |
2014-05-28
|
11 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2014-05-28
|
11 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Self-tuning Distributed Hash Table (DHT) … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Self-tuning Distributed Hash Table (DHT) for REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD)) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Peer-to-Peer Session Initiation Protocol WG (p2psip) to consider the following document: - 'Self-tuning Distributed Hash Table (DHT) for REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD)' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-06-11. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) is a peer-to-peer (P2P) signaling protocol that provides an overlay network service. Peers in a RELOAD overlay network collectively run an overlay algorithm to organize the overlay, and to store and retrieve data. This document describes how the default topology plugin of RELOAD can be extended to support self-tuning, that is, to adapt to changing operating conditions such as churn and network size. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-p2psip-self-tuning/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-p2psip-self-tuning/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2014-05-28
|
11 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2014-05-28
|
11 | Alissa Cooper | Last call was requested |
2014-05-28
|
11 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-05-28
|
11 | Alissa Cooper | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2014-05-28
|
11 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-05-28
|
11 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot writeup was generated |
2014-05-28
|
11 | Alissa Cooper | Last call announcement was generated |
2014-05-28
|
11 | Alissa Cooper | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2014-05-15
|
11 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Self-tuning Distributed Hash Table (DHT) for REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) (draft-ietf-p2psip-self-tuning-11) (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, … Self-tuning Distributed Hash Table (DHT) for REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) (draft-ietf-p2psip-self-tuning-11) (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Proposed Standard Why is this the proper type of RFC? The document has received significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community interest to be considered valuable. It defines extensions to RFC6940, which also has the status of Proposed Standard. Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Yes (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: Peers in a RELOAD overlay network collectively run an overlay algorithm to organize the overlay, and to store and retrieve data. This document describes an extension to the default topology plugin of RELOAD to support self-tuning, meaning to make it capable of adapting to changing operating conditions such as churn and network size. Working Group Summary: The normal WG process was followed and the document has been discussed for several years. The document as it is now, reflects WG consensus, with nothing special worth noting. Document Quality: The document was thoroughly reviewed by Marc Petit-Huguenin and Carlos J. Bernardos. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Carlos J. Bernardos Who is the Responsible Area Director? Alissa Cooper (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The Document Shepherd has personally done a thorough review of the document. Some changes (mainly editorial) were requested to the authors and included in the last revision of the draft. The Document Shepherd believes the document is ready for forwarding to IESG for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The Document Shepherd has no concerns about the depth or breadth of these reviews. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. A review of the Section 7 was requested to the APPS area. Martin J. Dürst was selected and performed a review of the whole document. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. The Document Shepherd has no such concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is WG consensus behind this document. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. There are no nits. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. The document meets the review criteria. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). The document introduces one additional extension to the "RELOAD Extensions" Registry. This registry is described in [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base]. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. None. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. No formal language segments exist. |
2014-05-15
|
11 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Self-tuning Distributed Hash Table (DHT) for REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) (draft-ietf-p2psip-self-tuning-11) (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, … Self-tuning Distributed Hash Table (DHT) for REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) (draft-ietf-p2psip-self-tuning-11) (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Proposed Standard Why is this the proper type of RFC? The document has received significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community interest to be considered valuable. It defines extensions to draft-ietf-p2psip-base, which also has an intended status of Proposed Standard. Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Yes (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: Peers in a RELOAD overlay network collectively run an overlay algorithm to organize the overlay, and to store and retrieve data. This document describes an extension to the default topology plugin of RELOAD to support self-tuning, meaning to make it capable of adapting to changing operating conditions such as churn and network size. Working Group Summary: The normal WG process was followed and the document has been discussed for several years. The document as it is now, reflects WG consensus, with nothing special worth noting. Document Quality: The document was thoroughly reviewed by Marc Petit-Huguenin and Carlos J. Bernardos. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Carlos J. Bernardos Who is the Responsible Area Director? Alissa Cooper (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The Document Shepherd has personally done a thorough review of the document. Some changes (mainly editorial) were requested to the authors and included in the last revision of the draft. The Document Shepherd believes the document is ready for forwarding to IESG for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The Document Shepherd has no concerns about the depth or breadth of these reviews. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. A review of the Section 7 was requested to the APPS area. Martin J. Dürst was selected and performed a review of the whole document. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. The Document Shepherd has no such concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is WG consensus behind this document. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. There are no nits. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. The document meets the review criteria. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). The document introduces one additional extension to the "RELOAD Extensions" Registry. This registry is described in [I-D.ietf-p2psip-base]. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. None. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. No formal language segments exist. |
2014-05-15
|
11 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | State Change Notice email list changed to p2psip-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-p2psip-self-tuning@tools.ietf.org |
2014-05-15
|
11 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Responsible AD changed to Alissa Cooper |
2014-05-15
|
11 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
2014-05-15
|
11 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2014-05-15
|
11 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2014-05-15
|
11 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Changed document writeup |
2014-05-09
|
11 | Jouni Maenpaa | New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-self-tuning-11.txt |
2014-02-02
|
10 | Jouni Maenpaa | New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-self-tuning-10.txt |
2013-08-09
|
09 | Jouni Maenpaa | New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-self-tuning-09.txt |
2013-07-29
|
08 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Document shepherd changed to Carlos Jésus Bernardos |
2013-07-29
|
08 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2013-07-29
|
08 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2013-02-16
|
08 | Jouni Maenpaa | New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-self-tuning-08.txt |
2013-01-20
|
07 | Jouni Maenpaa | New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-self-tuning-07.txt |
2012-07-16
|
06 | Jouni Maenpaa | New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-self-tuning-06.txt |
2012-01-06
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-self-tuning-05.txt |
2012-01-06
|
05 | (System) | Document has expired |
2011-07-05
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-self-tuning-04.txt |
2011-01-07
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-self-tuning-03.txt |
2010-07-12
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-self-tuning-02.txt |
2010-03-01
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-self-tuning-01.txt |
2009-12-08
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-p2psip-self-tuning-00.txt |