PPSP Tracker Protocol-Base Protocol (PPSP-TP/1.0)
draft-ietf-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol-10
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 7846.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Rui António dos Santos Cruz , Mario Sera Nunes , Gu Yingjie , Jinwei Xia , Rachel Huang , Joao P. Taveira , Deng Lingli | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-15 (Latest revision 2015-09-23) | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
OPSDIR Last Call review
by Nevil Brownlee
Serious Issues
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Ning Zong | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2015-04-28 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 7846 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date |
(None)
Needs a YES. Needs 10 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass. |
||
| Responsible AD | Martin Stiemerling | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | IANA OK - Actions Needed |
draft-ietf-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol-10
PPSP Rui S. Cruz
INTERNET-DRAFT Mario S. Nunes
Intended Status: Standards Track IST/INESC-ID/INOV
Expires: March 27, 2016 Yingjie Gu
Jinwei Xia
Rachel Huang
Huawei
Joao P. Taveira
IST/INOV
Deng Lingli
China Mobile
September 24, 2015
PPSP Tracker Protocol-Base Protocol (PPSP-TP/1.0)
draft-ietf-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol-10
Abstract
This document specifies the base Peer-to-Peer Streaming Protocol-
Tracker Protocol (PPSP-TP/1.0), an application-layer control
(signaling) protocol for the exchange of meta information between
trackers and peers. The specification outlines the architecture of
the protocol and its functionality, and describes message flows,
message processing instructions, message formats, formal syntax and
semantics. The PPSP Tracker Protocol enables cooperating peers to
form content streaming overlay networks to support near real-time
Structured Media content delivery (audio, video, associated timed
text and metadata), such as adaptive multi-rate, layered (scalable)
and multi-view (3D) videos, in live, time-shifted and on-demand
modes.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Copyright and License Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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
(http://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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.1 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2 Design Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.2.1 Typical Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2.2 Enrollment and Bootstrap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2 Protocol Architecture and Functional View . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1 Messaging Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2 Request/Response model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3 State Machines and Flows of the Protocol . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3.1 Normal Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3.2 Error Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3 Protocol Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.1 Presentation Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.2 Resource Element Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.2.1 Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.2.2 Peer Number Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.2.3 Swarm Action Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.2.4 Peer Information Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.2.5 Statistics and Status Information Element . . . . . . . 20
3.3 Requests and Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.3.1 Request Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.3.2 Response Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
3.3.3 Request Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.3.4 Response Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.4 PPSP-TP Message Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4 Protocol Specification: Encoding and Operation . . . . . . . . 24
4.1 Requests and Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.1.1 CONNECT Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.1.1.1 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.1.2 FIND Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.1.2.1 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.1.3 STAT_REPORT Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.1.3.1 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.2 Response element in response Messages . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.3 Error and Recovery conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.4 Parsing of Unknown Fields in Message-body . . . . . . . . . 38
5 Operations and Manageability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.1 Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.1.1 Installation and Initial Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.1.2 Migration Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.1.3 Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional
Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.1.4 Impact on Network Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.1.5 Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.2 Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.2.1 Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.2.2 Management Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.2.3 Fault Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.2.4 Configuration Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.2.5 Accounting Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.2.6 Performance Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.2.7 Security Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6.1 Authentication between Tracker and Peers . . . . . . . . . 42
6.2 Content Integrity protection against polluting
peers/trackers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
6.3 Residual attacks and mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
6.4 Pro-incentive parameter trustfulness . . . . . . . . . . . 43
7 Guidelines for Extending PPSP-TP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
7.1 Forms of PPSP-TP Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
7.2 Issues to Be Addressed in PPSP-TP Extensions . . . . . . . 46
8 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
8.1 MIME Type Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
8.2 PPSP Tracker Protocol Version Number Registry . . . . . . . 48
9 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
10 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
10.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
10.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Appendix A. Revision History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
1 Introduction
The Peer-to-Peer Streaming Protocol (PPSP) is composed of two
protocols: the PPSP Tracker Protocol and the PPSP Peer Protocol. RFC
6972 [RFC6972] specifies that the Tracker Protocol should standardize
the messages between PPSP peers and PPSP trackers and also defines
the requirements.
The PPSP Tracker Protocol provides communication between trackers and
peers, by which peers send meta information to trackers, report
streaming status and obtain peer lists from trackers.
The PPSP architecture requires PPSP peers able to communicate with a
tracker in order to participate in a particular streaming content
swarm. This centralized tracker service is used by PPSP peers for
content registration and location.
The signaling and the media data transfer between PPSP peers is not
in the scope of this specification.
This document describes the base PPSP Tracker protocol and how it
satisfies the requirements for the IETF Peer-to-Peer Streaming
Protocol, in order to derive the implications for the standardization
of the PPSP streaming protocols and to identify open issues and
promote further discussion.
1.1 Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [KEYWORDS].
ABSOLUTE TIME: Absolute time is expressed as ISO 8601 timestamps,
using zero UTC offset. Fractions of a second may be indicated.
Example for December 25, 2010 at 14h56 and 20.25 seconds: basic
format 20101225T145620.25Z or extended format 2010-12-
25T14:56:20.25Z.
CHUNK: A Chunk is a basic unit of data organized in P2P streaming
for storage, scheduling, advertisement and exchange among peers.
CHUNK ID: A unique resource identifier for a Chunk. The identifier
type depends on the addressing scheme used, i.e., an integer, an
HTTP-URL and possibly a byte-range, and is described in the MPD.
CONNECTION TRACKER: The node running the tracker service to which
the PPSP peer will connect when it wants to get registered and join
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
the PPSP system.
LEECH: A Peer that has not yet completed the transfer of all Chunks
of the media content.
LIVE STREAMING: It refers to a scenario where all the audiences
receive streaming content for the same ongoing event. It is desired
that the lags between the play points of the audiences and streaming
source be small.
MEDIA PRESENTATION DESCRIPTION (MPD): Formalized description for a
media presentation, i.e., describes the structure of the media,
namely, the Representations, the codecs used, the Chunks, and the
corresponding addressing scheme.
METHOD: The method is the primary function that a request from a
peer is meant to invoke on a tracker. The method is carried in the
request message itself.
ONLINE TIME: Online Time shows how long the peer has been in the P2P
streaming system since it joined. This value indicates the stability
of a peer, and can be calculated by the tracker whenever necessary.
PEER: A Peer refers to a participant in a P2P streaming system that
not only receives streaming content, but also caches and streams
streaming content to other participants.
PEER ID: The identifier of a Peer such that other Peers, or the
Tracker, can refer to the Peer by using its ID. The Peer ID is
mandatory, can take the form of a universal unique identifier (UUID),
defined in [RFC4122], and can be bound to a network address of the
Peer, i.e., an IP address, or a uniform resource identifier/locator
(URI/URL) that uniquely identifies the corresponding Peer in the
network. The Peer ID and any required security certificates are
obtained from an offline enrollment server.
PEER LIST: A list of Peers which are in a same SWARM maintained by
the Tracker. A Peer can fetch the Peer List of a SWARM from the
Tracker or from other Peers in order to know which Peers have the
required streaming content.
PPSP: The abbreviation of Peer-to-Peer Streaming Protocols. PPSP
refer to the primary signaling protocols among various P2P streaming
system components, including the Tracker and the Peer.
PPSP-TP: The abbreviation of Peer-to-Peer Streaming Protocols -
Tracker Protocol.
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
REPRESENTATION: Structured collection of one or more media
components.
REQUEST: A message sent from a Peer to a Tracker, for the purpose of
invoking a particular operation.
RESPONSE: A message sent from a Tracker to a Peer, for indicating
the status of a request sent from the Peer to the Tracker.
SEEDER: A Peer that holds and shares the complete media content.
SERVICE PORTAL: A logical entity typically used for client enrollment
and content information publishing, searching and retrieval. It is
usually located in a server of content provider.
SWARM: A Swarm refers to a group of Peers who exchange data to
distribute Chunks of the same content (e.g., video/audio program,
digital file, etc.) at a given time.
SWARM ID: The identifier of a Swarm containing a group of Peers
sharing a common streaming content. The Swarm-ID may use a universal
unique identifier (UUID), e.g., a 64 or 128 bit datum to refer to the
content resource being shared among peers.
SUPER-NODE: A Super-Node is a special kind of Peer deployed by ISPs.
This kind of Peer is more stable with higher computing, storage and
bandwidth capabilities than normal Peers.
TRACKER: A Tracker refers to a directory service that maintains a
list of Peers participating in a specific audio/video channel or in
the distribution of a streaming file. Also, the Tracker answers Peer
List queries received from Peers. The Tracker is a logical component
which can be centralized or distributed.
TRANSACTION ID: The identifier of a REQUEST from the Peer to the
Tracker. Used to disambiguate RESPONSES that may arrive in a
different order of the corresponding REQUESTs.
VIDEO-ON-DEMAND (VoD): It refers to a scenario where different
audiences may watch different parts of the same recorded streaming
with downloaded content.
1.2 Design Overview
The functional entities related to PPSP protocols are the Client
Media Player, the service Portal, the Tracker and the Peers. The
complete description of Client Media Player and service Portal is not
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
discussed here, as not in the scope the specification. The
functional entities directly involved in the PPSP Tracker Protocol
are trackers and peers (which may support different capabilities).
The Client Media Player is a logical entity providing direct
interface to the end user at the client device, and includes the
functions to select, request, decode and render contents. The Client
Media Player may interface with the local peer application using
request and response standard formats for HTTP Request and Response
messages [RFC2616].
The service Portal is a logical entity typically used for client
enrollment and content information publishing, searching and
retrieval.
A Peer corresponds to a logical entity (typically in a user device)
that actually participates in sharing a media content. Peers are
organized in (various) swarms corresponding each swarm to the group
of peers streaming a certain content at any given time.
The Tracker is a logical entity that maintains the lists of peers
storing Chunks for a specific Live media channel or on-demand media
streaming content, answers queries from peers and collects
information on the activity of peers. While a Tracker may have an
underlying implementation consisting of more than one physical node,
logically the Tracker can most simply be thought of as a single
element, and in this document it will be treated as a single logical
entity.
The Tracker Protocol is not used to exchange actual content data
(either on-demand or Live streaming) with peers, but information
about which peers can provide the content.
1.2.1 Typical Use Cases
When a peer wants to receive streaming of a selected content (Leech
mode):
1. Peer connects to a Connection Tracker and joins a Swarm.
2. Peer acquires a list of other peers in the Swarm from the
Connection Tracker.
3. [Peer Protocol] Peer exchanges its content availability with the
peers on the obtained peer list.
4. [Peer Protocol] Peer identifies the peers with desired content.
5. [Peer Protocol] Peer requests content from the identified peers.
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 7]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
When a peer wants to share streaming contents (Seeder mode) with
other peers:
1. Peer connects to the Connection Tracker.
2. Peer sends information to the Connection Tracker about the swarms
it belongs to (joined swarms).
After having been disconnected due to some termination condition, a
Peer can resume previous activity by connecting and re-joining the
corresponding Swarm(s).
1.2.2 Enrollment and Bootstrap
In order to be able to bootstrap in the P2P network, a peer must
first obtain a Peer ID (identifier of the peer) and any required
security certificates or authorization tokens from an enrollment
service (end-user registration). The specification of the format of
the Peer ID is not in the scope of this document.
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +---------+ +--------+
| Player | | Peer_1 | | Portal | | Tracker | | Peer_2 |
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +---------+ +--------+
| | | | |
(a) |--Page request----------------->| | |
|<--------------Page with links--| | |
|--Select stream (MPD Request)-->| | |
|<--------------------OK+MPD(x)--| | |
(b) |--Start/Resume->|--CONNECT(join x)------------>| |
|<-----------OK--|<----------------OK+Peerlist--| |
| | | |
|--Get(Chunk)--->|<---------- (Peer protocol) ------------->|
|<--------Chunk--|<---------------------------------Chunks--|
: : : : :
| |--STAT_REPORT---------------->| |
| |<-------------------------OK--| |
: : : : :
| |--FIND----------------------->| |
| |<----------------OK+Peerlist--| |
: : : : :
|--Get(Chunk)--->|<---------- (Peer protocol) ------------->|
|<--------Chunk--|<---------------------------------Chunks--|
: : : : :
Figure 1: A typical PPSP session for streaming a content.
To join an existing P2P streaming service and to participate in
content sharing, any Peer must first locate a Tracker.
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 8]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
As illustrated in Figure 1, a P2P streaming session may be initiated
starting at point (a), with the Client Media Player browsing for the
desired content in order to request it (to the local Peer_1 in the
figure), or resume a previously initiated stream, but starting at
point (b). For this example, the Peer_1 is in mode LEECH.
At point (a) in Figure 1, the Client Media Player accesses the Portal
and selects the content of interest. The Portal returns the Media
Presentation Description (MPD) file that includes information about
the address of one or more Trackers (that can be grouped by tiers of
priority) which are controlling the Swarm x for that media content
(e.g., content x).
With the information from the MPD the Client Media Player is able to
trigger the start of the streaming session, requesting to the local
Peer_1 the Chunks of interest.
The PPSP streaming session is then started (or resumed) at Peer_1 by
sending a PPSP-TP CONNECT message to the Tracker in order to join
Swarm x. The Tracker will then return the OK response message
containing a peer list, if the CONNECT message is successfully
accepted. From that point onwards every Chunk request is addressed by
Peer_1 to its neighbors (Peer_2 in Figure 1) using the PPSP Peer
Protocol, returning the received Chunks to the Client Media Player.
Once CONNECTed, Peer_1 needs to periodically report its status and
statistics data to the Tracker using a PPSP-TP STAT_REPORT message.
If Peer_1 needs to refresh its neighborhood (for example, due to
churn) it will send a PPSP-TP FIND message (with the desired scope)
to the Tracker.
Peers that are only SEEDERs (i.e., serving contents to other peers),
as are the typical cases of service provider P2P edge caches and/or
Media Servers, trigger their P2P streaming sessions for contents x,
y, z... (Figure 2), not from Media Player signals, but from some
"Start" activation signal received from the service provider
provisioning mechanism. In this particular case the Peer starts or
resumes all its streaming sessions just by sending a PPSP-TP CONNECT
message to the Tracker (Figure 2), in order to "join" all the
requested swarms.
Periodically, the Peer also report its status and statistics data to
the Tracker using a PPSP-TP STAT_REPORT message.
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 9]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
+---------+ +---------+
| Seeder | | Tracker |
+---------+ +---------+
| |
Start->|--CONNECT (join x,y,z)-------->|
|<--------------------------OK--|
: :
| |
|--STAT_REPORT----------------->|
|<--------------------------Ok--|
: :
| |
|--STAT_REPORT----------------->|
|<--------------------------Ok--|
: :
Figure 2: A typical PPSP session for a streaming Seeder.
The specification of the mechanisms used by the Client Media Player
(or provisioning process) and the Peer to signal start/resume streams
or request media chunks, obtain a Peer ID, security certificates or
tokens are not in the scope of this document.
2 Protocol Architecture and Functional View
The PPSP Tracker Protocol architecture is intended to be compatible
with the web infrastructure. PPSP-TP is designed with a layered
approach i.e., a PPSP-TP Request/Response layer, a Message layer and
a Transport layer. The PPSP-TP Request/Response layer deals with the
interactions between Tracker and Peers using Request and Response
codes (see Figure 3).
+----------------------+
| Application |
+----------------------+
| Request/Response | PPSP-TP
|----------------------|
| (HTTP) Message |
+----------------------+
| TRANSPORT |
+----------------------+
Figure 3: Abstract layering of PPSP-TP.
The Message layer deals with the framing format, for encoding and
transmitting the data through the underlying transport protocol, as
well as the asynchronous nature of the interactions between Tracker
and peers.
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 10]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
The Transport layer is responsible for the actual transmission of
requests and responses over network transports, including the
determination of the connection to use for a request or response
message when using a connection-oriented transport like TCP
[RFC0793], or TLS [RFC5246] over it.
2.1 Messaging Model
The messaging model of PPSP-TP aligns with HTTP protocol and the
semantics of its messages, currently in version 1.1 [RFC2616], but
intended to support future versions of HTTP. The exchange of
messages of PPSP-TP is envisioned to be performed over a stream-
oriented reliable transport protocol, like TCP [RFC0793].
2.2 Request/Response model
PPSP-TP uses a REST-Like (Representational State Transfer) design
[Fielding] with the goal of leveraging current HTTP implementations
and infrastructure, as well as familiarity with existing REST-like
services in popular use. PPSP-TP messages use the UTF-8 character
set [RFC3629] and are either requests from peers to a tracker
service, or responses from a tracker service to peers. The Request
and Response semantics are carried as entities (header and body) in
messages which correspond to either HTTP request methods or HTTP
response codes, respectively.
PPSP-TP uses the HTTP POST method to send parameters in requests.
PPSP-TP messages use JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) [RFC7159] to
encode message bodies.
Requests are sent, and responses returned to these requests. A
single request generates a single response (neglecting fragmentation
of messages in transport).
The Request Messages of the base protocol are listed in Table 1:
+------------------------------+
| PPSP-TP/1.0 Request Messages |
+------------------------------+
| CONNECT |
| FIND |
| STAT_REPORT |
+------------------------------+
Table 1: Request Messages
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 11]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
CONNECT: This Request message is an "action signal" used when a Peer
registers in the Tracker (or if already registered) to notify it
about the participation in named swarm(s). The Tracker records
the Peer ID, connect-time (referenced to the absolute time), peer
IP addresses (and associated location information), link status
and Peer Mode for the named swarm(s). The Tracker also changes
the content availability of the valid named swarm(s), i.e.,
changes the peers lists of the corresponding swarm(s) for the
requester Peer ID. On receiving a CONNECT message, the Tracker
first checks the peer mode type (SEED/LEECH) for the specified
swarm(s) and then decides the next steps (more details are
referred in section 4.1)
FIND: This Request message is an "action signal" used by peers to
request to the Tracker, whenever needed, a list of peers active in
the named swarm. On receiving a FIND message, the Tracker finds
the peers, listed in content status of the specified swarm that
can satisfy the requesting peer's requirements, returning the list
to the requesting Peer. To create the peer list, the Tracker may
take peer status, capabilities and peers priority into
consideration. Peer priority may be determined by network
topology preference, operator policy preference, etc.
STAT_REPORT: This Request message is an "information signal" that
allows an active Peer to send status (and optionally statistic
data) to the Tracker to signal continuing activity. This request
message MUST be sent periodically to the Tracker while the Peer is
active in the system.
2.3 State Machines and Flows of the Protocol
The state machine for the tracker is very simple, as shown in
Figure 4. Peer ID registrations represent a dynamic piece of state
maintained by the network.
--------------------------------------------
/ \
| +------------+ +=========+ +======+ |
\-| TERMINATED |<---| STARTED |<---| INIT |<-/
+------------+ +=========+ +======+
(Transient) \- (start tracker)
Figure 4: Tracker State Machine
When there are no peers connected in the Tracker, the state machine
is in the INIT state.
When the "first" Peer connects for registration with its Peer ID, the
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 12]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
state machine moves from INIT to STARTED. As long as there is at
least one active registration of a Peer ID, the state machine remains
in the STARTED state. When the "last" Peer ID is removed, the state
machine transitions to TERMINATED. From there, it immediately
transitions back to the INIT state. Because of that, the TERMINATED
state here is transient.
Once in STARTED state, each Peer is instantiated (per Peer ID) in the
Tracker state machine with a dedicated transaction state machine
(Figure 5), which is deleted when the Peer ID is removed.
--------------------------------------------
/ \
| +------------+ +=========+ +======+ |
\-| TERMINATED |<---| STARTED |<---| INIT |<-/
+------------+ +=========+ +======+
(Transient) | (1) \- (start tracker)
V
+-----------+ +-------+ rcv CONNECT
(Transient) | TERMINATE | | START | --------------- (1)
+-----------+ +-------+ strt init timer
rcv FIND ^ |
rcv STAT_REPORT | |
on registration error | v
on action error | +------------+
---------------- (A) +<-----| PEER | (Transient)
stop init timer | | REGISTERED |
snd error | +------------+
| |
| | process swarm actions
| | --------------------- (2)
on CONNECT Error (B) | | snd OK (PeerList)
on timeout (C) | / stop init timer
---------------- | / strt track timer
stop track timer | /
clean peer info | |
del registration | | rcv FIND
snd error (B) \ | ---- --------------- (3)
---- \ | / \ snd OK (PeerList)
/ \ \ | | | rst track timer
rcv CONNECT | (4) | | | | |
----------- | v | v v | rcv STAT_REPORT
snd OK \ +==============+ / --------------- (3)
rst track timer ----| TRACKING |---- snd OK response
+==============+ rst track timer
Figure 5: Per-Peer-ID Transaction State Machine and Flow Diagram
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 13]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
Unlike the Tracker state machine, which exists even when no Peer IDs
are registered, the "per-Peer-ID" transaction state machine is
instantiated only when the Peer ID starts registration in the
tracker, and is deleted when the Peer ID is de-registered/removed.
This allows for an implementation optimization whereby the tracker
can destroy the objects associated with the "per-Peer-ID" transaction
state machine once it enters the TERMINATE state (Figure 5).
When a new Peer ID is added, the corresponding "per-Peer-ID" state
machine is instantiated, and it moves into the PEER REGISTERED state.
Because of that, the START state here is transient.
When the Peer ID is no longer bound to a registration, the "per-Peer-
ID" state machine moves to the TERMINATE state, and the state machine
is destroyed.
During the lifetime of streaming activity of a peer, the instantiated
"per-Peer-ID" transaction state machine progresses from one state to
another in response to various events. The events that may
potentially advance the state include:
o Reception of CONNECT, FIND and STAT_REPORT messages, or
o Timeout events.
The state diagram in Figure 5 illustrates state changes, together
with the causing events and resulting actions. Specific error
conditions are not shown in the state diagram.
2.3.1 Normal Operation
On normal operation the process consists of the following steps:
1) When a Peer wants to access the system it needs to register on a
tracker by sending a CONNECT message asking for the swarm(s) it
wants to join. This request from a new Peer ID triggers the
instantiation in the Tracker of a "per-Peer-ID" State Machine. In
the START state of the new "per-Peer-ID" SM, the Tracker registers
the Peer ID and associated information (IP addresses), starts the
"init timer" and moves to PEER REGISTERED state.
2) In PEER REGISTERED state, if Peer ID is valid, the Tracker either
a) processes the requested action(s) for the valid swarm
information contained in the CONNECT request and in case of
success the tracker stops the "init timer", starts the "track
timer" and sends the response to the Peer (the response MAY
contain the appropriate list of peers for the joining swarm(s), as
detailed in section 4.1, or b) moves the valid FIND request to
TRACKING state.
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 14]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
3) In TRACKING state, STAT_REPORT or FIND messages received from that
Peer ID will reset the "track timer" and are respectively
responded with a) a successful condition, b) a successful
condition containing the appropriate list of peers for the named
swarm (section 4.2).
4) While TRACKING, a CONNECT message received from that Peer ID with
valid swarm actions information (section 4.1.1) resets the "track
timer" and is responded with a successful condition.
2.3.2 Error Conditions
Peers MUST NOT generate protocol elements that are invalid.
However, several situations of a Peer may lead to abnormal
conditions in the interaction with the Tracker. The situations
may be related with Peer malfunction or communications errors. The
Tracker reacts to the abnormal situations depending on its current
state related to a Peer ID, as follows:
A) At PEER REGISTERED state, when a CONNECT Request only contains
invalid swarm actions (section 6.1.1), the Tracker responds with
error code 403 Forbidden, deletes the registration, transition to
TERMINATE state for that Peer ID and the SM is destroyed.
At the PEER REGISTERED state, if the Peer ID is considered invalid
(in the case of a CONNECT request or in the case of FIND or
STAT_REPORT requests received from an unregistered Peer ID), the
Tracker responds with either error codes authentication required
or Forbidden (described in section 4.3), transitions to TERMINATE
state for that Peer ID and the SM is destroyed.
B) At the TRACKING state (while the "track timer" has not expired)
receiving a CONNECT message from that Peer ID with invalid swarm
actions (section 5.1) is considered an error condition. The
Tracker responds with error code Forbidden (described in
section 4.3), stops the "track timer", deletes the registration,
transitions to TERMINATE state for that Peer ID and the SM is
destroyed.
C) In TRACKING state, without receiving messages from the Peer, on
timeout (track timer) the Tracker cleans all the information
associated with the Peer ID in all swarms it was joined, deletes
the registration, transitions to TERMINATE state for that Peer ID
and the SM is destroyed.
NOTE: These situations may correspond to malfunctions at the Peer or
to malicious conditions. As preventive measure, the Tracker proceeds
to TERMINATE state for that Peer ID.
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 15]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
3 Protocol Specification
3.1 Presentation Language
PPSP-TP uses a REST-Like design, encoding the requests and responses
using JSON [RFC7159]. For a generalization of the definition of
protocol elements and fields, their types and structures, this
document uses a C-style notation, similar to the presentation
language used to define TLS [RFC5246], turning the definitions for
JSON objects extensible.
A JSON object consists of name/value pairs. The JSON names of the
pairs are indicated with "". In this presentation language, comments
begin with "//", and the "ppsp_tp_string_t" and "ppsp_tp_integer_t"
types are used to indicate the JSON string and number, respectively.
Optional fields are enclosed in "[ ]" brackets. An array is
indicated by two numbers in angle brackets, <min..max>, where "min"
indicates the minimal number of values and "max" the maximum. An "*"
is used to denote a no upper bound value for "max".
3.2 Resource Element Types
This section details the format of PPSP-TP resource element types.
3.2.1 Version
For both requests and responses, the version of PPSP-TP being used
MUST be indicated by the attribute version, defined as follows:
ppsp_tp_integer_t ppsp_tp_version_t = 1
The defined value for ppsp_tp_version_t is listed in Table 2
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| ppsp_tp_version_t | Description |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| 0 | Reserved |
| 1 | Protocol specified in this document |
| 2-255 | Unassigned |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
Table 2: PPSP Tracker Protocol Version Numbers
3.2.2 Peer Number Element
The PeerNum element is a scope selector in requests and MAY contain
the attribute ability_nat to inform the Tracker on the preferred type
of peers to be returned in a peer list, related to their NAT
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 16]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
traversal situation.
The PeerNum element is a scope selector that MAY be present in
CONNECT and FIND requests.
This element contains the attribute peer_count to indicate the
maximum number of peers in the returned peer list. Peer_count should
be less than 30 in this specification. The other 4 attributes, i.e.,
ability_nat, concurrent_links, online_time and upload_bandwidth_level
MAY be also contained in this element to inform the Tracker on the
preferred type of peers to be returned in a peer list:
o ability_nat is used to indicate the preferred NAT traversal
situation of these peers.
o concurrent_links means the preferred concurrent connectivity level.
o online_time represents the preferred availability or online
duration degree for the requested peers.
o upload_bandwidth_level is the preferred upload bandwidth capability
of these peers.
The definition of the scope selector element and attributes is
defined as follows:
Object {
ppsp_tp_integer_t peer_count;
[ppsp_tp_string_t ability_nat = "NO_NAT"
| "STUN"
| "TURN";]
[ppsp_tp_string_t concurrent_links = "NORMAL"
| "LOW"
| "HIGH";]
[ppsp_tp_string_t online_time = "NORMAL" | "HIGH";]
[ppsp_tp_string_t upload_bandwidth_level = "NORMAL"
| "HIGH";]
} ppsp_tp_peer_num_t;
3.2.3 Swarm Action Element
The swarm action element identifies the action(s) to be taken in the
named swarm(s) as well as the corresponding Peer Mode (if the peer is
LEECH or SEEDER in that swarm).
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 17]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
Object {
ppsp_tp_string_t swarm_id; //Swarm Identifier
ppsp_tp_string_t action = "JOIN"
|"LEAVE"; // Action type of
// the CONNECT
// message
ppsp_tp_string_t peer_mode = "SEED"
| "LEECH"; // Mode of Peer
// participating
// in this swarm
} ppsp_tp_swarm_action_t;
3.2.4 Peer Information Elements
The Peer information elements provides network identification
information of peers. A Peer information consists of peer identifier
and the IP related addressing information.
Object {
ppsp_tp_string_t peer_id;
ppsp_tp_peer_addr_t peer_addr;
}ppsp_tp_peer_info_t;
The ppsp_tp_peer_addr_t element includes the IP address and port,
with a few optional attributes related with connection type and
network location (in terms of ASN) as well as, optionally, the
identifier of the Peer Protocol being used.
Object {
ppsp_tp_ip_address ip_address;
ppsp_tp_integer_t port;
ppsp_tp_integer_t priority;
ppsp_tp_string_t type = "HOST"
| "REFLEXIVE"
| "PROXY";
[ppsp_tp_string_t connection = "3G"
| "ADSL"
| "LTE"
| "ETHER";]
[ppsp_tp_string_t asn;]
[ppsp_tp_peer_protocol_t peer_protocol;]
} ppsp_tp_peer_addr_t;
The semantics of ppsp_tp_peer_addr_t attributes are listed in
Table 3:
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 18]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
+----------------------+----------------------------------+
| Element or Attribute | Description |
+----------------------+----------------------------------+
| ip_address | IP Address information |
| port | IP service port value |
| priority | The priority of this interface |
| type | Describes the address for NAT |
| | traversal, which can be HOST |
| | REFLEXIVE or PROXY |
| connection | Access type (3G, ADSL, etc.) |
| asn | Autonomous System Number |
| peerProtocol | PPSP Peer Protocol supported |
+----------------------+----------------------------------+
Table 3: Semantics of ppsp_tp_peer_addr_t.
In this document, IP address is specified as ppsp_tp_addr_value. The
exact characters and format depend on address_type:
o The IPv4 address is encoded as specified by the IPv4address rule in
Section 3.2.2 of [RFC3986].
o The IPv6 address is encoded as specified in section 4 of [RFC5952].
Object {
ppsp_tp_string_t address_type;
ppsp_tp_addr_value address;
} ppsp_tp_ip_address;
The Peer Information in responses is grouped in a
ppsp_tp_peer_group_t element:
Object {
ppsp_tp_peer_info_t peer_info<1..*>;
} ppsp_tp_peer_group_t;
3.2.5 Statistics and Status Information Element
The statistics element (stat) is used to describe several properties
relevant to the P2P network. These properties can be related with
stream statistics and peer status information. Each stat element
will correspond to a property type and several stat blocks can be
reported in a single STAT_REPORT message, corresponding to some or
all the swarms the peer is actively involved. This specification
only defines the property type "STREAM_STATS".
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 19]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
The definition of the statistic element and attributes is as follows:
Object {
ppsp_tp_string_t swarm_id;
ppsp_tp_integer_t uploaded_bytes;
ppsp_tp_integer_t downloaded_bytes;
ppsp_tp_integer_t available_bandwidth;
ppsp_tp_integer_t concurrent_links;
} stream_stats;
The semantics of stream_stats attributes are listed in Table 4:
+----------------------+----------------------------------+
| Element or Attribute | Description |
+----------------------+----------------------------------+
| swarm_id | Swarm Identifier |
| uploaded_bytes | Bytes sent to swarm |
| downloaded_bytes | Bytes received from swarm |
| available_bandwidth | Upstream Bandwidth available |
| concurrent_links | The number of concurrent links |
+----------------------+----------------------------------+
Table 4: Semantics of stream_stats.
The Stat Information is grouped in the ppsp_tp_stat_group_t element:
Object {
ppsp_tp_string_t type = "STREAM_STATS"; // property type
stream_stats stat<1..*>;
} ppsp_tp_stat_group_t
Other properties may be defined, related for example with incentives
and reputation mechanisms like "peer online time", or connectivity
conditions like physical "link status", etc.
For that purpose, the Stat element may be extended to provide
additional specific information for new properties, elements or
attributes (guidelines in section 7).
3.3 Requests and Responses
This section defines the structure of PPSP-TP requests and responses.
3.3.1 Request Types
The request type includes CONNECT, FIND and STAT_REPORT, defined as
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 20]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
follows:
ppsp_tp_string_t ppsp_tp_request_type_t = "CONNECT"
| "FIND"
| "STAT_REPORT";
3.3.2 Response Types
Response type corresponds to the response method type of the message,
defined as follows:
JSONValue ppsp_tp_response_type_t = 0x00 // SUCCESSFUL
| 0x01; // FAILED
3.3.3 Request Element
The Request element MUST be present in requests and corresponds to
the request method type for the message.
The generic definition of a request element is the following:
Object {
[ppsp_tp_peer_num_t peer_num;]
[ppsp_tp_peer_addr_t peer_addr<1..*>;]
ppsp_tp_swarm_action_t swarm_action<1..*>;
} ppsp_tp_request_connect;
Object {
ppsp_tp_string_t swarm_id;
[ppsp_tp_peer_num_t peer_num;]
} ppsp_tp_request_find;
Object {
ppsp_tp_version_t version;
ppsp_tp_request_type_t request_type;
ppsp_tp_string_t transaction_id;
ppsp_tp_string_t peer_id;
JSONValue request_data = ppsp_tp_req_connect connect
| ppsp_tp_req_find find
| ppsp_tp_stat_group_t stat_report;
} ppsp_tp_request;
A request element consists the version of PPSP tracker protocol, the
request type, a transaction identifier and the identifier of the
requesting peer, as well as the requesting body, i.e., request_data.
The request_data MUST be correctly set to the corresponding element
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 21]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
based on the request type (see Table 5).
+----------------------+----------------------+
| request_type | request_data |
+----------------------+----------------------+
| "CONNECT" | "connect" |
| "FIND" | "find" |
| "STAT_REPORT" | "stat_report" |
+----------------------+----------------------+
Table 5: The relationship between request_type and request_data.
3.3.4 Response Element
The generic definition of a response element is the following:
Object {
ppsp_tp_version_t version;
ppsp_tp_response_type_t response_type;
ppsp_tp_interger_t error_code;
ppsp_tp_string_t transaction_id;
[ppsp_tp_peer_addr_t peer_addr;]
[ppsp_tp_swarm_action_result_t swarm_result<1..*>;]
} ppsp_tp_response;
A response element consists the version of PPSP tracker protocol, the
response type, the error code, a transaction identifier, and
optionally the public address of the requesting peer and one or
multiple swarm action result elements. Normally, swarm action result
elements SHOULD be set and error_code MUST be set to 0 when
response_type is 0x00. Swarm action result elements SHOULD NOT be
set when error_code is 0x01. Detailed selection of error_code is
introduced in Section 4.3;
Object {
ppsp_tp_string_t swarm_id;
ppsp_tp_response_type_t result;
[ppsp_tp_peer_group_t peer_group;]
}ppsp_tp_swarm_action_result_t;
A swarm action result element is the result information for a peer to
request the tracker to have some actions towards the swarm. It
contains a swarm identifier which globally indicates the swarm, the
result for the peer of this action which it could be CONNECT ("JOIN"
or "LEAVE"), FIND or STAT_REQPORT, and optionally one peer group
element. The attribute result indicates the operation result of the
corresponding request. When the response element is corresponding to
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 22]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
the STAT_REPORT request, or the result attribute is set to 0x01, the
peer group element SHOULD NOT be set.
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 23]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
3.4 PPSP-TP Message Element
PPSP-TP messages (requests or responses) are designed to have a
similar structure with a root field named "PPSPTrackerProtocol"
containing meta information and data pertaining to a request or a
response.
The base type of PPSP-TP message is defined as follows:
Object {
JSONValue PPSPTrackerProtocol = ppsp_tp_request Request
| ppsp_tp_response Response;
} ppsp_tp_message_root;
4 Protocol Specification: Encoding and Operation
PPSP-TP is a message-oriented request/response protocol. PPSP-TP
messages use a text type encoding in JSON [RFC7159], which MUST be
indicated in the Content-Type field in HTTP/1.1 [RFC2616], specifying
the application/ppsp-tracker+json media type for all PPSP-TP request
parameters and responses.
Implementations MUST support the "https" URI scheme [RFC2818] and
Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC5246].
For deployment scenarios where Peer (Client) authentication is
desired at the Tracker, HTTP Digest Authentication MUST be supported,
with TLS Client Authentication as the preferred mechanism, if
available.
Upon reception, a message is examined to ensure that it is properly
formed. The receiver MUST check that the HTTP message itself is
properly formed, and if not, appropriate standard HTTP errors MUST be
generated.
PPSP-TP uses the HTTP POST method to send parameters in requests to
provide information resources that are the function of one or more of
those input parameters. Input parameters are encoded in JSON in the
HTTP entity body of the request.
The section describes the operation of the three types of Requests of
PPSP-TP and provides some examples of usage.
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 24]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
4.1 Requests and Responses
4.1.1 CONNECT Request
This method is used when a peer registers to the system and/or
requests swarm actions. The peer MUST properly set the Request type
to CONNECT, generate and set the transaction_ids, set the peer_id and
MUST include swarms the peer is interested in, followed by the
corresponding action type and peer mode.
o When a peer already possesses a content and agrees to share it to
others, it should set the action type to the value JOIN, as well as
set the peer mode to SEED during its start (or re-start) period.
o When a peer makes a request to join a swarm to consume content, it
should set the action type to the value JOIN, as well as set the
peer mode to LEECH during its start (or re-start) period.
In the above cases, the peer can provide optional information on the
addresses of its network interface(s), for example, the priority,
type, connection and ASN.
When a peer plans to leave a previously joined swarm, it should set
action type to LEAVE, regardless of the peer mode.
When receiving a well-formed CONNECT Request message, the Tracker
MAY, when applicable, start by pre-processing the peer authentication
information (provided as Authorization scheme and token in the HTTP
message) to check whether it is valid and that it can connect to the
service, then proceed to register the peer in the service and perform
the swarm actions requested. In case of success a Response message
with a corresponding response value of SUCCESSFUL will be generated.
The valid sets of number of swarms whose action type is combined with
peer mode for the CONNECT Request logic are enumerated in Table 6
(referring to the Tracker "per-Peer-ID" state machine in
Section 2.3).
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 25]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
+-----------+-----------+---------+----------+-----------+----------+
| Swarm | peer_mode | action | Initial | Final | Request |
| Number | value | value | State | State | validity |
+-----------+-----------+---------+----------+-----------+----------|
| 1 | LEECH | JOIN | START | TRACKING | Valid |
+-----------+-----------+---------+----------+-----------+----------+
| 1 | LEECH | LEAVE | START | TERMINATE | Invalid |
+-----------+-----------+---------+----------+-----------+----------+
| 1 | LEECH | LEAVE | TRACKING | TERMINATE | Valid |
+-----------+-----------+---------+----------+-----------+----------+
| 1 | LEECH | JOIN | START | TERMINATE | Invalid |
| 1 | LEECH | LEAVE | | | |
+-----------+-----------+---------+----------+-----------+----------+
| 1 | LEECH | JOIN | TRACKING | TRACKING | Valid |
| 1 | LEECH | LEAVE | | | |
+-----------+-----------+---------+----------+-----------+----------+
| N | SEED | JOIN | START | TRACKING | Valid |
+-----------+-----------+---------+----------+-----------+----------+
| N | SEED | JOIN | TRACKING | TERMINATE | Invalid |
+-----------+-----------+---------+----------+-----------+----------+
| N | SEED | LEAVE | TRACKING | TERMINATE | Valid |
+-----------+-----------+---------+----------+-----------+----------+
Table 6: Validity of action combinations in CONNECT Request.
In the CONNECT Request multiple swarm action elements
ppsp_tp_swarm_action_t could be contained. Each contains the request
for action and the peer_mode of the peer. The peer_mode attribute
MUST be set to the type of participation of the peer in the swarm
(SEED or LEECH).
The CONNECT message MAY contain multiple peer_addr elements with
attributes ip_address, port, priority and type (if PPSP-ICE [RFC5245]
NAT traversal techniques are used), and optionally connection, asn
and peer_protocol corresponding to each of the network interfaces the
peer wants to advertise.
The element peer_num indicates to the tracker the number of peers to
be returned in a list corresponding to the indicated properties,
being ability_nat for NAT traversal (considering that PPSP-ICE NAT
traversal techniques may be used), and optionally concurrent_links,
online_time and upload_bandwidth_level for the preferred
capabilities. If STUN-like function is enabled in the tracker, the
response MAY include the peer reflexive address.
The element transaction_id MUST be present in requests to uniquely
identify the transaction. Responses to completed transactions use
the same transaction_id as the request they correspond to.
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 26]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
The Response MUST include peer_addr data of the requesting peer
public IP address. If STUN-like function is enabled in the tracker,
the peer_addr includes the attribute type with a value of REFLEXIVE,
corresponding to the transport address "candidate" of the peer. The
swarm_result MAY also include peer_addr data corresponding to the
Peer IDs and public IP addresses of the selected active peers in the
requested swarm. The tracker MAY also include the attribute asn with
network location information of the transport address, corresponding
to the Autonomous System Number of the access network provider of the
referenced peer.
In case the peer_mode is SEED, the tracker responds with a SUCCESSFUL
response and enters the peer information into the corresponding swarm
activity. In case the peer_mode is LEECH (or if the peer Seeder
includes a peer_num element in the request) the tracker will search
and select an appropriate list of peers satisfying the conditions set
by the requesting peer. The peer list returned MUST contain the Peer
IDs and the corresponding IP Addresses. To create the peer list, the
tracker may take peer status and network location information into
consideration, to express network topology preferences or Operators'
policy preferences, with regard to the possibility of connecting with
other IETF efforts such as ALTO [RFC7285].
IMPLEMENTATION NOTE: If no peer_num attributes are present in the
request the tracker MAY return a random sample from the peer
population.
4.1.1.1 Example
The following example of a CONNECT Request corresponds to a peer that
wants to start (or re-start) sharing its previously streamed contents
(peerMode is of SEED).
Note for this case that the peer also requests from the Tracker an
appropriate list of peers (PeerNum element) already active in the
swarm, i.e., a list of 15 peers having STUN capabilities in terms of
NAT. In the case of a Super-Node peer of an ISP, the CONNECT request
would be similar but, optionally not including the peer_num element:
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 27]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
POST / HTTP/1.1
Host: tracker.example.com
Content-Length: 494
Content-Type: application/ppsp-tracker+json
Accept: application/ppsp-tracker+json
{
"PPSPTrackerProtocol": {
"version": 1,
"request_type": "CONNECT",
"transaction_id" "12345",
"peer_id": "656164657220",
"connect":{
"peer_num": {
"peer_count": 15,
"ability_nat": "STUN",
"concurrent_links": "NORMAL",
"online_time": "NORMAL",
"upload_bandwidth_level": "NORMAL"
},
"peer_addr": {
"ip_address": {
"address_type": "ipv4",
"address": "192.0.2.2"
},
"port": 80,
"priority": 1,
"type": "HOST",
"connection": "ETHER",
"asn": "45645"
},
"Swarm_action": {
"swarm_id": "1111",
"action": "JOIN",
"peer_mode": "SEED"
},
"Swarm_action": {
"swarm_id": "2222",
"action": "JOIN",
"peer_mode": "SEED"
}
}
}
}
Another example of the message-body of a CONNECT Request corresponds
to a peer (PeerMode is LEECH, meaning that the peer is not in
possession of the content) requesting join to a swarm, in order to
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 28]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
start receiving the stream, and providing optional information on the
addresses of its network interface(s):
{
"PPSPTrackerProtocol": {
"version": 1,
"request_type": "CONNECT",
"transaction_id" "12345.0",
"peer_id": "656164657221",
"connect":{
"peer_num": {
"peer_count": 5,
"ability_nat": "STUN",
"concurrent_links": "NORMAL",
"online_time": "NORMAL",
"upload_bandwidth_level": "NORMAL"
},
"peer_addr": {
"ip_address": {
"address_type": "ipv4",
"address": "192.0.2.2"
},
"port": 80,
"priority": 1,
"type": "HOST",
"connection": "ETHER",
"asn": "3256546"
},
"peer_addr": {
"ip_address":{
"address_type": "ipv6",
"address": "2001:db8::2"
},
"port": 80,
"priority": 2,
"type": "HOST",
"connection": "3G",
"asn": "34563456",
"peer_protocol": "PPSP-PP"
},
"swarm_action": {
"swarm_id": "1111",
"action": "JOIN",
"peer_mode": "LEECH"
}
}
}
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 29]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
The next example of a CONNECT Request corresponds to a peer "leaving"
a previously joined swarm and requesting join to a new swarm. This is
the typical example of a user watching a live channel but then
deciding to switch to a different one:
{
"PPSPTrackerProtocol": {
"version": 1,
"request_type": "CONNECT",
"TransactionID": "12345",
"peer_id": "656164657221",
"connect":{
"peer_num": {
"peer_count": 5,
"ability_nat": "STUN",
"concurrent_links": "NORMAL",
"online_time": "NORMAL",
"upload_bandwidth_level": "NORMAL"
},
"swarm_action": {
"swarm_id": "1111",
"action": "LEAVE",
"peer_mode": "LEECH"
},
"swarm_action": {
"swarm_id": "2222",
"action": "JOIN",
"@peer_mode": "LEECH"
}
}
}
The next example illustrates the Response for the previous example of
CONNECT Request where the peer requested two swarm actions and not
more than 5 other peers, receiving from the Tracker a peer list with
only 2 two other peers in the swarm "2222":
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 30]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Length: 1342
Content-Type: application/ppsp-tracker+json
{
"PPSPTrackerProtocol": {
"version": 1,
"response_type": 0x00,
"error_code": 0,
"transaction_id": "12345",
"peer_addr": {
"ip_address": {
"address_type": "ipv4",
"address": "198.51.100.1"
},
"port": 80,
"priority": 1,
"asn": "64496"
},
"swarm_result": {
"swarm_id": "2222",
"result": 0x00,
"peer_group": {
"peer_info": {
"peer_id": "956264622298",
"peer_addr": {
"ip_address": {
"address_type": "ipv4",
"address": "198.51.100.22"
},
"port": 80,
"priority": 2,
"type": "REFLEXIVE",
"connection": "ADSL",
"asn": "64496",
"peer_protocol": "PPSP-PP"
}
},
"peer_info": {
"peer_id": "3332001256741",
"peer_addr": {
"ip_address": {
"address_type": "ipv4",
"address": "198.51.100.201"
},
"port": 80,
"priority": 2,
"type": "REFLEXIVE",
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 31]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
"connection": "ADSL",
"asn": "64496",
"peer_protocol": "PPSP-PP"
}
}
}
}
}
4.1.2 FIND Request
This method allows peers to request to the tracker, whenever needed,
a new peer list for the swarm.
The FIND request MAY include a peer_number element to indicate to the
tracker the maximum number of peers to be returned in a list
corresponding to the indicated conditions set by the requesting peer,
being ability_nat for NAT traversal (considering that PPSP-ICE NAT
traversal techniques may be used), and optionally concurrent_links,
online_time and upload_bandwidth_level for the preferred
capabilities.
When receiving a well-formed FIND Request the tracker processes the
information to check if it is valid. In case of success a response
message with a Response value of SUCCESSFUL will be generated and the
tracker will search out the list of peers for the swarm and select an
appropriate peer list satisfying the conditions set by the requesting
peer. The peer list returned MUST contain the Peer IDs and the
corresponding IP Addresses.
The tracker may take peers' ability and popularity of the requested
content into consideration. For example, the tracker could select
peers with higher ability than the current peers that provide the
content if the content is relatively popular (see Section 5.1.1); and
the tracker could also select peers with lower ability than the
current peers that provide the content when the content is relatively
uncommon. The tracker may take network location information into
consideration as well, to express network topology preferences or
Operators' policy preferences, with regard to the possibility of
connecting with other IETF efforts such as ALTO [RFC7285].
The Response MUST include peer_group element that includes the public
IP addresses of the selected active peers in the swarm.
The peer_group list MUST contain the Peer IDs and the corresponding
IP Addresses, MAY also include the attribute asn with network
location information of the transport address, corresponding to the
Autonomous System Number of the access network provider of the
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 32]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
referenced peer.
The tracker MAY also include the attribute asn with network location
information of the transport addresses of the peers, corresponding to
the Autonomous System Numbers of the access network provider of each
peer in the list.
The response MAY also include peer_addr element that includes the
requesting peer public IP address. If STUN-like function is enabled
in the tracker, the peer_addr includes the attribute type with a
value of REFLEXIVE, corresponding to the transport address
"candidate" of the peer.
IMPLEMENTATION NOTE: If no peer_num attributes are present in the
request the tracker MAY return a random sample from the peer
population.
4.1.2.1 Example
An example of the message-body of a FIND Request, where the peer
requests to the Tracker an list of not more than 5 peers in the swarm
"1111" conforming to the characteristics expressed (concurrent links,
online time, and upload bandwidth level) is the following:
{
"PPSPTrackerProtocol": {
"version": 1,
"request_type": "FIND",
"transaction_id": "12345",
"peer_id": "656164657221",
"swarm_id": "1111",
"peer_num": {
"peer_count": 5,
"ability_nat": "STUN",
"concurrent_links": "HIGH",
"online_time": "NORMAL",
"upload_bandwidth_level": "NORMAL"
}
}
}
An example of the message-body of a Response for the above FIND
Request, including the requesting peer public IP address information,
is the following:
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 33]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
{
"PPSPTrackerProtocol": {
"version": 1,
"response_type": 0x00,
"error_code": 0,
"transaction_id": "12345",
"swarm_result": {
"swarm_id": "1111",
"result": 0x00,
"peer_group": {
"peer_info": {
"peer_id": "656164657221",
"peer_addr": {
"ip_address": {
"address_type": "ipv4",
"address": "198.51.100.1"
},
"port": 80,
"priority": 1,
"type": "REFLEXIVE",
"connection": "3G",
"asn": "64496"
}
},
"peer_info": {
"peer_id": "956264622298",
"peer_addr": {
"ip_address": {
"address_type": "ipv4",
"address": "198.51.100.22"
},
"port": 80,
"priority": 1,
"type": "REFLEXIVE",
"connection": "3G",
"asn": "64496"
}
},
"peer_info": {
"peer_id": "3332001256741",
"peer_addr": {
"ip_address": {
"address_type": "ipv4",
"address": "198.51.100.201"
},
"port": 80,
"priority": 1,
"type": "REFLEXIVE",
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 34]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
"connection": "3G",
"asn": "64496"
}
}
}
}
}
}
4.1.3 STAT_REPORT Request
This method allows peers to send status and statistic data to
trackers. The method is initiated by the peer, periodically while
active.
The peer MUST set the request_type to "STAT_REPORT", set the peer_id
with the identifier of the peer, and generate and set the
transaction_id.
The report MAY include multiple statistics elements describing
several properties relevant to a specific swarm. These properties
can be related with stream statistics and peer status information,
including uploaded_bytes, downloaded_bytes, available_bandwidth,
concurrent_links and etc.
Other properties may be defined (guidelines in Section 7.1) related
for example, with incentives and reputation mechanisms. In case no
Statistics Group is included, the STAT_REPORT is used as a "keep-
alive" message to prevent the tracker from de-registering the peer
when "track timer" expires.
If the request is valid the tracker processes the received
information for future use, and generates a response message with a
Response value of SUCCESSFUL.
The response MUST have the same transaction_id value as the request.
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 35]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
4.1.3.1 Example
An example of the message-body of a STAT_REPORT Request is:
{
"PPSPTrackerProtocol": {
"version": 1,
"request_type": "STAT_REPORT",
"transaction_id": "12345",
"peer_id": "656164657221",
"stat_report": {
"type": "STREAM_STATS",
"Stat": {
"swarm_id": "1111",
"uploaded_bytes": 512,
"downloaded_bytes": 768,
"available_bandwidth": 1024000,
"concurrent_links": 5
}
}
}
}
An example of the message-body of a Response for the START_REPORT
Request is:
{
"PPSPTrackerProtocol": {
"version": 1,
"response_type": 0x00,
"error_code": 0,
"transaction_id": "12345",
"swarm_result": {
"swarm_id": "1111",
"result": 0x00
}
}
}
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 36]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
4.2 Response element in response Messages
Table 7 indicates the response type and corresponding semantics.
+--------------------+---------------------+
| Response Type | Semantics |
| | |
+--------------------+---------------------+
| 0x00 | SUCCESSFUL |
| 0x01 | FAILED |
+--------------------+---------------------+
Table 7: Semantics for the Value of Response Type.
SUCCESSFUL: indicates that the request has been processed properly
and the desired operation has completed. The body of the response
message includes the requested information and MUST include the same
transaction_id of the corresponding request.
In CONNECT Request: returns information about the successful
registration of the peer and/or of each swarm action requested.
MAY additionally return the list of peers corresponding to the
action attribute requested.
In FIND Request: returns the list of peers corresponding to the
requested scope.
In STAT_REPORT Request: confirms the success of the requested
operation.
FAILED: indicates that the request has not been processed properly.
4.3 Error and Recovery conditions
If the peer fails to read the tracker response, the same Request with
identical content, including the same transaction_id, SHOULD be
repeated, if the condition is transient.
The transaction_id on a Request can be reused if and only if all of
the content is identical, including Date/Time information. Details
of the retry process (including time intervals to pause, number of
retries to attempt, and timeouts for retrying) are implementation
dependent.
The tracker SHOULD be prepared to receive a Request with a repeated
transaction_id.
Error situations resulting from the Normal Operation or from abnormal
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 37]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
conditions (Section 2.3.2) MUST be responded with response_type set
to 0x01 and with the adequate response codes, as described here:
o If the message is found to be incorrectly formed, the receiver MUST
respond with a 400 (Bad Request) error_code with an empty message-
body (no peer_addr and swarm_result attributes).
o If the version number of the protocol is for a version the receiver
does not supports, the receiver MUST respond with a 401
(Unsupported Version Number) error_code with an empty message-body
(no peer_addr and swarm_result attributes).
o In the PEER REGISTERED and TRACKING states of the tracker, certain
requests are not allowed (Section 2.3.2). The tracker MUST respond
with a 402 (Forbidden) error_code with an empty message-body (no
peer_addr and swarm_result attributes).
o If the tracker is unable to process a Request message due to
unexpected condition, it SHOULD respond with a 403 (Internal Server
Error) response with an empty message-body (no peer_addr and
swarm_result attributes).
o If the tracker is unable to process a Request message for being in
an overloaded state, it SHOULD respond with a 404 (Service
Unavailable) error_code with an empty message-body (no peer_addr
and swarm_result attributes).
o If authentication is required for the peer to make the request, the
tracker SHOULD respond with a 405 (Authentication Required)
error_code with an empty message-body (no peer_addr and
swarm_result attributes).
4.4 Parsing of Unknown Fields in Message-body
This document only details object fields used by this specification.
Extensions may include additional fields within JSON objects defined
in this document. PPSP-TP implementations MUST ignore unknown fields
when processing PPSP-TP messages.
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 38]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
5 Operations and Manageability
This section provides the operational and managements aspects that
are required to be considered in implementations of the PPSP Tracker
Protocol. These aspects follow the recommendations expressed in
RFC 5706 [RFC5706].
5.1 Operational Considerations
The PPSP-TP provides communication between trackers and peers and is
conceived as a "client-server" mechanism, allowing the exchange of
information about the participant peers sharing multimedia streaming
contents.
The "serving" component, i.e., the Tracker, is a logical entity that
can be envisioned as a centralized service (implemented in one or
more physical nodes), or a fully distributed service.
The "client" component can be implemented at each peer participating
in the streaming of contents.
5.1.1 Installation and Initial Setup
Content providers wishing to use PPSP for content distribution should
setup at least a PPSP Tracker and a service Portal (public web
server) to publish links of the content descriptions, for access to
their on-demand or live original contents sources. Content/Service
providers should also create conditions to generate Peer IDs and any
required security certificates, as well as Chunk IDs and Swarm IDs
for each streaming content. The configuration processes for the PPSP
Tracking facility, the service Portal and content sources are not
standardized, enabling all the flexibility for implementers.
The Swarm IDs of available contents, as well as the addresses of the
PPSP Tracking facility, can be distributed to end-users in various
ways, but it is common practice to include both the Swarm ID and the
corresponding PPSP Tracker addresses (as URLs) in the MPD of the
content, which is obtainable (a link) from the service Portal.
The available contents could have different importance attribute
values to indicate whether the content is popular or not. However,
it is a totally implementation design and outside of this
specification. For example, the importance attribute values of the
contents could be set by content providers when distributing them or
could be determined by the tracker based on the statistics of the
requests from the peers that request the content. The tracker could
set a upper threshold to decide that the content is popular enough
when the importance attribute value is higher than the upper
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 39]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
threshold. And the tracker could also set a lower threshold to
decide that the content is uncommon enough when the importance
attribute value is lower than the lower threshold.
End-users browse and search for the desired contents in the service
Portal, selecting by clicking the links of the corresponding MPDs.
This action typically launches the Client Media Player (with PPSP
awareness) which will then, using PPSP-TP, contact the PPSP Tracker
to join the corresponding swarm and obtain the transport addresses of
other PPSP peers in order to start streaming the content.
5.1.2 Migration Path
Since there is no previous standard protocol providing similar
functionality, this specification does not detail a migration path.
5.1.3 Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components
For security reasons, when using PPSP Peer protocol with PPSP-TP, the
mechanisms described in Section 6.1 should be observed.
5.1.4 Impact on Network Operation
As the messaging model of PPSP-TP aligns with HTTP protocol and the
semantics of its messages, the impact on Network Operation is similar
to using HTTP.
5.1.5 Verifying Correct Operation
The correct operation of PPSP-TP can be verified both at the Tracker
and at the peer by logging the behavior of PPSP-TP. Additionally,
the PPSP Tracker collects the status of the peers including peer's
activity, and such information can be used to monitor and obtain the
global view of the operation.
5.2 Management Considerations
The management considerations for PPSP-TP are similar to other
solutions using HTTP for large-scale content distribution. The PPSP
Tracker can be realized by geographically distributed tracker nodes
or multiple server nodes in a data center. As these nodes are akin
to WWW nodes, their configuration procedures, detection of faults,
measurement of performance, usage accounting and security measures
can be achieved by standard solutions and facilities.
5.2.1 Interoperability
Interoperability refers to allowing information sharing and
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 40]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
operations between multiple devices and multiple management
applications. For PPSP-TP, distinct types of devices host PPSP-TP
servers (Trackers) and clients (Peers). Therefore, support for
multiple standard schema languages, management protocols and
information models, suited to different purposes, was considered in
the PPSP-TP design. Specifically, management functionality for PPSP-
TP devices can be achieved with Simple Network Management Protocol
(SNMP) [RFC3410], syslog [RFC5424] and NETCONF [RFC6241].
5.2.2 Management Information
PPSP Trackers may implement SNMP management interfaces, namely the
Application Management MIB [RFC2564] without the need to instrument
the Tracker application itself. The channel, connections and
transaction objects of the the Application Management MIB can be used
to report the basic behavior of the PPSP Tracker service.
The Application Performance Measurement MIB (APM-MIB) [RFC3729] and
the Transport Performance Metrics MIB (TPM-MIB) [RFC4150] can be used
with PPSP-TP, providing adequate metrics for the analysis of
performance for transaction flows in the network, in direct
relationship to the transport of PPSP-TP.
The Host Resources MIB [RFC2790] can be used to supply information on
the hardware, the operating system, and the installed and running
software on a PPSP Tracker host.
The TCP-MIB [RFC4022] can additionally be considered for network
monitoring.
Logging is an important functionality for PPSP-TP server (Tracker)
and client (Peer), done via syslog [RFC5424].
5.2.3 Fault Management
As PPSP Tracker failures can be mainly attributed to host or network
conditions, the facilities previously described for verifying the
correct operation of PPSP-TP and the management of PPSP Tracker
servers, appear sufficient for PPSP-TP fault monitoring.
5.2.4 Configuration Management
PPSP Tracker deployments, when realized by geographically distributed
tracker nodes or multiple server nodes in a data center, may benefit
from a standard way of replicating atomic configuration updates over
a set of server nodes. This functionality can be provided via
NETCONF [RFC6241].
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 41]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
5.2.5 Accounting Management
PPSP-TP implementations, namely for content provider environments,
can benefit from accounting standardization efforts as defined in
[RFC2975], in terms of resource consumption data, for the purposes of
capacity and trend analysis, cost allocation, auditing, and billing.
5.2.6 Performance Management
Being transaction-oriented, PPSP-TP performance, in terms of
availability and responsiveness, can be measured with the facilities
of the APM-MIB [RFC3729] and the TPM-MIB [RFC4150].
5.2.7 Security Management
Standard SNMP notifications for PPSP Tracker management and syslog
messages [RFC5424] can be used, to alert operators to the conditions
identified in the security considerations (Section 6).
The statistics collected about the operation of PPSP-TP can be used
for detecting attacks, such as the receipt of malformed messages,
messages out of order, or messages with invalid timestamps.
6 Security Considerations
P2P streaming systems are subject to attacks by malicious/unfriendly
peers/trackers that may eavesdrop on signaling, forge/deny
information/knowledge about streaming content and/or its
availability, impersonating to be another valid participant, or
launch DoS attacks to a chosen victim.
No security system can guarantee complete security in an open P2P
streaming system where participants may be malicious or
uncooperative. The goal of security considerations described here is
to provide sufficient protection for maintaining some security
properties during the tracker-peer communication even in the face of
a large number of malicious peers and/or eventual distrustful
trackers (under the distributed tracker deployment scenario).
Since the protocol uses HTTP to transfer signaling most of the same
security considerations described in RFC 2616 also apply [RFC2616].
6.1 Authentication between Tracker and Peers
To protect the PPSP-TP signaling from attackers pretending to be
valid peers (or peers other than themselves) all messages received in
the tracker SHOULD be received from authorized peers. For that
purpose a peer SHOULD enroll in the system via a centralized
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 42]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
enrollment server. The enrollment server is expected to provide a
proper Peer ID for the peer and information about the authentication
mechanisms. The specification of the enrollment method and the
provision of identifiers and authentication tokens is out of scope of
this specification.
A channel-oriented security mechanism should be used in the
communication between peers and tracker, such as the Transport Layer
Security (TLS) to provide privacy and data integrity.
Due to the transactional nature of the communication between peers
and tracker the method for adding authentication and data security
services can be the OAuth 2.0 Authorization [RFC6749] with bearer
token, which provides the peer with the information required to
successfully utilize an access token to make protected requests to
the tracker [RFC6750].
6.2 Content Integrity protection against polluting peers/trackers
Malicious peers may declaim ownership of popular content to the
tracker but try to serve polluted (i.e., decoy content or even
virus/trojan infected contents) to other peers.
This kind of pollution can be detected by incorporating integrity
verification schemes for published shared contents. As content
chunks are transferred independently and concurrently, a
correspondent chunk-level integrity verification MUST be used,
checked with signed fingerprints received from authentic origin.
6.3 Residual attacks and mitigation
To mitigate the impact of Sybil attackers, impersonating a large
number of valid participants by repeatedly acquiring different peer
identities, the enrollment server SHOULD carefully regulate the rate
of peer/tracker admission.
There is no guarantee that peers honestly report their status to the
tracker, or serve authentic content to other peers as they claim to
the tracker. It is expected that a global trust mechanism, where the
credit of each peer is accumulated from evaluations for previous
transactions, may be taken into account by other peers when selecting
partners for future transactions, helping to mitigate the impact of
such malicious behaviors. A globally trusted tracker MAY also take
part of the trust mechanism by collecting evaluations, computing
credit values and providing them to joining peers.
6.4 Pro-incentive parameter trustfulness
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 43]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
Property types for STAT_REPORT messages may consider additional pro-
incentive parameters (guidelines for extension in Section 7), which
can enable the tracker to improve the performance of the whole P2P
streaming system. Trustworthiness of these pro-incentive parameters
is critical to the effectiveness of the incentive mechanisms.
Furthermore, both the amount of uploaded and downloaded data should
be reported to the tracker to allow checking if there is any
inconsistency between the upload and download report, and establish
an appropriate credit/trust system.
One such solution could be a reputation-incentive mechanism, based on
the notions of reputation, social awareness and fairness. The
mechanism would promote cooperation among participants (via each
peer's reputation) based on the history of past transactions, such
as, count of chunk requests (sent, received) in a swarm, contribution
time of the peer, cumulative uploaded and downloaded content, JOIN
and LEAVE timestamps, attainable rate, etc.
Alternatively, exchange of cryptographic receipts signed by receiving
peers can be used to attest to the upload contribution of a peer to
the swarm, as suggested in [Contracts].
7 Guidelines for Extending PPSP-TP
Extension mechanisms allow designers to add new features or to
customize existing features of a protocol for different operating
environments [RFC6709].
Extending a protocol implies either the addition of features without
changing the protocol itself or the addition of new elements creating
new versions of an existing schema and therefore new versions of the
protocol.
In PPSP-TP it means that an extension MUST NOT alter an existing
protocol schema as the changes would result in a new version of an
existing schema, not an extension of an existing schema, typically
non-backwards-compatible.
Additionally, a designer MUST remember that extensions themselves MAY
also be extensible.
Extensions MUST adhere to the principles described in this section in
order to be considered valid.
Extensions MAY be documented as Internet-Draft and RFC documents if
there are requirements for coordination, interoperability, and broad
distribution.
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 44]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
Extensions need not be published as Internet-Draft or RFC documents
if they are intended for operation in a closed environment or are
otherwise intended for a limited audience.
7.1 Forms of PPSP-TP Extension
In PPSP-TP two extension mechanisms can be used: a Request-Response
Extension or a Protocol-level Extension.
o Request-Response Extension: Adding elements or attributes to an
existing element mapping in the schema is the simplest form of
extension. This form should be explored before any other. This
task can be accomplished by extending an existing element mapping.
For example, an element mapping for the Statistics Group can be
extended to include additional elements needed to express status
information about the activity of the peer, such as OnlineTime for
the Stat element.
o Protocol-level Extension: If there is no existing element mapping
that can be extended to meet the requirements and the existing
PPSP-TP Request and Response message structures are insufficient,
then extending the protocol should be considered in order to
define new operational Requests and Responses.
For example, to enhance the level of control and the granularity
of the operations, a new version of the protocol with new messages
(JOIN, DISCONNECT), a retro-compatible change in semantics of an
existing CONNECT Request/Response and an extension in STAT_REPORT
could be considered.
As illustrated in Figure 6, the peer would use an enhanced CONNECT
Request to perform the initial registration in the system. Then
it would JOIN a first swarm as SEEDER, later JOIN a second swarm
as LEECH, and then DISCONNECT from the latter swarm but keeping as
SEEDER for the first one. When deciding to leave the system, the
peer DISCONNECTs gracefully from it:
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 45]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
+--------+ +---------+
| Peer | | Tracker |
+--------+ +---------+
| |
|--CONNECT--------------------->|
|<--------------------------OK--|
|--JOIN(swarm_a;SEED)---------->|
|<--------------------------OK--|
: :
|--STAT_REPORT(activity)------->|
|<--------------------------Ok--|
: :
|--JOIN(swarm_b;LEECH)--------->|
|<-----------------OK+PeerList--|
: :
|--STAT_REPORT(ChunkMap_b)----->|
|<--------------------------Ok--|
: :
|--DISCONNECT(swarm_b)--------->|
|<--------------------------Ok--|
: :
|--STAT_REPORT(activity)------->|
|<--------------------------Ok--|
: :
|--DISCONNECT------------------>|
|<---------------------Ok(BYE)--|
Figure 6: Example of a session for a PPSP-TP extended version.
7.2 Issues to Be Addressed in PPSP-TP Extensions
There are several issues that all extensions should take into
consideration.
- Overview of the Extension: It is RECOMMENDED that extensions to
PPSP-TP have a protocol overview section that discusses the basic
operation of the extension. The most important processing rules
for the elements in the message flows SHOULD also be mentioned.
- Backward Compatibility: One of the most important issues to
consider is whether the new extension is backward compatible with
the base PPST-TP.
- Syntactic Issues: Extensions that define new Request/Response
methods SHOULD use all capitals for the method name, keeping with
a long-standing convention in many protocols, such as HTTP. Method
names are case sensitive in PPSP-TP. Method names SHOULD be
shorter than 16 characters and SHOULD attempt to convey the
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 46]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
general meaning of the Request or Response.
- Semantic Issues: PPSP-TP extensions MUST clearly define the
semantics of the extensions. Specifically, the extension MUST
specify the behaviors expected from both the Peer and the Tracker
in processing the extension, with the processing rules in temporal
order of the common messaging scenario.
Processing rules generally specify actions to be taken on receipt
of messages and expiration of timers.
The extension SHOULD specify procedures to be taken in exceptional
conditions that are recoverable. Handling of unrecoverable errors
does not require specification.
- Security Issues: Being security an important component of any
protocol, designers of PPSP-TP extensions need to carefully
consider security requirements, namely authorization requirements
and requirements for end-to-end integrity.
- Examples of Usage: The specification of the extension SHOULD give
examples of message flows and message formatting and include
examples of messages containing new syntax. Examples of message
flows should be given to cover common cases and at least one
failure or unusual case.
8 IANA Considerations
8.1 MIME Type Registry
This document defines registry for application/ppsp-tracker+json
media types.
Type name: application
Subtype name: ppsp-tracker+json
Required parameters: n/a
Optional parameters: n/a
Encoding considerations: Encoding considerations are identical to
those specified for the "application/json" media type. See
[RFC7159].
Security considerations: See Section 6.
Interoperability considerations: This document specifies format of
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 47]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
conforming messages and the interpretation thereof.
Published specification: This document.
Applications that use this media type: PPSP trackers and peers
either stand alone or embedded within other applications.
Additional information:
Magic number(s): n/a
File extension(s): This document uses the MIME type to refer to
protocol messages, therefore it does not requires a file
extension.
Macintosh file type code(s): n/a
Person & email address to contact for further information: See
Authors' Addresses section.
Intended usage: COMMON
Restrictions on usage: none
Author: See Authors' Addresses section.
Change controller: IESG (iesg@ietf.org)
8.2 PPSP Tracker Protocol Version Number Registry
Registry name is "PPSP Tracker Protocol Version Number Registry".
Values are integers in the range 0-255, with initial assignments and
reservations given in Table 2.
9 Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank many people for for their help and
comments, particularly: Zhang Yunfei, Liao Hongluan, Roni Even, Dave
Cottlehuber, Bhumip Khasnabish, Wu Yichuan, Peng Jin, Chi Jing, Zong
Ning, Song Haibin, Chen Wei, Zhijia Chen, Christian Schmidt, Lars
Eggert, David Harrington, Henning Schulzrinne, Kangheng Wu, Martin
Stiemerling, Jianyin Zhang, Johan Pouwelse, Riccardo Petrocco and
Arno Bakker.
Rui Cruz, Mario Nunes and Joao Taveira were partially supported by
the SARACEN project [SARACEN], a research project of the European
Union 7th Framework Programme (contract no. ICT-248474).
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 48]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors
and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the
official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of
the SARACEN project, the European Commission, Huawei or China Mobile.
10 References
10.1 Normative References
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, September 1981.
[KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
10.2 Informative References
[RFC2564] Kalbfleisch, C., Krupczak, C., Presuhn, R., and J.
Saperia, "Application Management MIB", RFC 2564, May 1999.
[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
[RFC2790] Waldbusser, S. and P. Grillo, "Host Resources MIB",
RFC 2790, March 2000.
[RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.
[RFC2975] Aboba, B., Arkko, J., and D. Harrington, "Introduction to
Accounting Management", RFC 2975, October 2000.
[RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart,
"Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet-
Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410, December 2002.
[RFC3729] Waldbusser, S., "Application Performance Measurement MIB",
RFC 3729, March 2004.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, January 2005.
[RFC4022] Raghunarayan, R., Ed., "Management Information Base for
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 49]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)", RFC 4022, March
2005.
[RFC4122] Leach, P., Mealling, M., and R. Salz, "A Universally
Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace", RFC 4122, July
2005.
[RFC4150] Dietz, R. and R. Cole, "Transport Performance Metrics
MIB", RFC 4150, August 2005.
[RFC5245] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
(ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT)
Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245, April
2010.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.
[RFC5424] Gerhards, R., "The Syslog Protocol", RFC 5424, March 2009.
[RFC5706] Harrington, D., "Guidelines for Considering Operations and
Management of New Protocols and Protocol Extensions",
RFC 5706, November 2009.
[RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6
Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, August 2010.
[Fielding] Fielding, R., "Architectural Styles and the Design of
Network-based Software Architectures", University of
California, Irvine, Dissertation 2000, 2000.
[SARACEN] "SARACEN Project Website",
http://www.saracen-p2p.eu/.
[Contracts] Piatek, M., Venkataramani, A., Yang, R., Zhang, D. and A.
Jaffe, "Contracts: Practical Contribution Incentives for
P2P Live Streaming", in NSDI '10: USENIX Symposium on
Networked Systems Design and Implementation, April 2010.
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 50]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
Appendix A. Revision History
-00 2013-02-14 Initial version.
-01 2013-02-14 Minor revision.
-02 2013-10-21 Minor revision.
-03 2013-12-31 Major revision
+ Introduced a generalization of the protocol specification
using a C-style notation.
- removed all examples of protocol message encoding in XML
-04 2014-07-01 Minor Revision
- removed Appendix referencing the use of HTTP
+ refined the presentation language specification to include
protocol elements definitions.
-05 2014-07-04 Minor Revision
-06 2014-10-27 Minor Revision
-07 2014-12-12 Major Revision
+ introduced a text-based (JSON) protocol encoding with
examples for all the messages
+ corrections in the specifications of protocol elements
+ section 5 specification of protocol elements semantics
+ introduced a IANA MIME Type registry
-08 2015-01-08 Major Revision
* merge sections 5 and 4 with section 3; renumbered all other
+ refined the protocol elements definitions for consistency
with the JSON data structures
+ revised protocol messages encoding examples
+ additional IANA registry for protocol version
* editorial corrections
-09 (2015-3-27) Major Revision
+ Add concurrent_link in the stream_stats specification.
+ Remove "PROXY" value from "ability_nat" specification.
+ Dividing attributes by "," in the example
* editorial corrections
-10 (Current version) Major Revision
+ Update dates
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 51]
INTERNET DRAFT PPSP-TP/1.0 September 24, 2015
Authors' Addresses
Rui Santos Cruz
IST/INESC-ID/INOV
Phone: +351.939060939
Email: rui.cruz@ieee.org
Mario Serafim Nunes
IST/INESC-ID/INOV
Rua Alves Redol, n.9
1000-029 LISBOA, Portugal
Phone: +351.213100256
Email: mario.nunes@inov.pt
Rachel Huang
Huawei
Email: rachel.huang@huawei.com
Jinwei Xia
Huawei
Nanjing, Baixia District 210001, China
Phone: +86-025-86622310
Email: xiajinwei@huawei.com
Joao P. Taveira
IST/INOV
Email: joao.silva@inov.pt
Deng Lingli
China Mobile
Email: denglingli@chinamobile.com
Gu Yingjie
Email: guyingjie@gmail.com
Cruz, et al. Expires March 27, 2016 [Page 52]