A Vocabulary of Path Properties
draft-irtf-panrg-path-properties-03

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (panrg RG)
Authors Theresa Enghardt  , Cyrill Krähenbühl 
Last updated 2021-07-09
Replaces draft-enghardt-panrg-path-properties
Stream Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream IRTF state (None)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
PANRG                                                        T. Enghardt
Internet-Draft                                                   Netflix
Intended status: Informational                           C. Kraehenbuehl
Expires: January 10, 2022                                    ETH Zuerich
                                                           July 09, 2021

                    A Vocabulary of Path Properties
                  draft-irtf-panrg-path-properties-03

Abstract

   Path properties express information about paths across a network and
   the services provided via such paths.  In a path-aware network, path
   properties may be fully or partially available to entities such as
   hosts.  This document defines and categorizes path properties.
   Furthermore, the document specifies several path properties which
   might be useful to hosts or other entities, e.g., for selecting
   between paths or for invoking some of the provided services.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 10, 2022.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must

Enghardt & Kraehenbuehl Expires January 10, 2022                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties                   July 2021

   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Terminology usage for specific technologies . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Use Cases for Path Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Path Selection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Protocol Selection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.3.  Service Invocation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  Examples of Path Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction

   The current Internet architecture does not explicitly support
   endpoint discovery of forwarding paths through the network as well as
   the discovery of properties and services associated with these paths.
   Path-aware networking, as defined in Section 1.1 of
   [I-D.irtf-panrg-questions], describes "endpoint discovery of the
   properties of paths they use for communication across an
   internetwork, and endpoint reaction to these properties that affects
   routing and/or data transfer".  This document provides a generic
   definition of path properties, addressing the first of the questions
   in path-aware networking [I-D.irtf-panrg-questions].

   As terms related to paths have been used with different meanings in
   different areas of networking, first, this document provides a common
   terminology to define paths, path elements, and flows.  Based on
   these terms, the document defines path properties.  Then, this
   document provides some examples of use cases for path properties.
   Finally, the document lists several path properties that may be
   useful for the mentioned use cases.

   Note that this document does not assume that any of the listed path
   properties are actually available to any entity.  The question of how
   entities can discover and distribute path properties in a trustworthy
   way is out of scope for this document.

Enghardt & Kraehenbuehl Expires January 10, 2022                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties                   July 2021

2.  Terminology

   Entity:  A physical or virtual device or function, or a collection of
      devices or functions, which can, for example, process packets,
      measure path properties, or access information about paths.  With
      respect to a given communication, an entity may be on the data
      plane or control plane, and it may be on-path or off-path.

   Node:  An entity which processes packets, e.g., sends, receives,
      forwards, or modifies them.  A node may be physical or virtual,
      e.g., a physical device, a service function provided as a virtual
      element, or even a single queue within a switch.  A node may also
      be an entity which consists of a collection of devices or
      functions, e.g., an entire Autonomous System (AS).

   Host:  A node that generally executes application programs on behalf
      of user(s), employing network and/or Internet communication
      services in support of this function, as defined in [RFC1122].
      Note that hosts include both client nodes (e.g., running a web
      browser) and server nodes (e.g., running a web server).

   Link:  A medium or communication facility that connects two or more
      nodes with each other.  A link enables a node to send packets to
      other nodes.  Links can be physical, e.g., a Wi-Fi network which
      connects an Access Point to stations, or virtual, e.g., a virtual
      switch which connects two virtual machines hosted on the same
      physical machine.  A link is unidirectional.  As such,
      bidirectional communication can be modeled as two links between
      the same nodes in opposite directions.

   Path element:  Either a node or a link.  For example, a path element
      can be an Abstract Network Element (ANE) as defined in
      [I-D.ietf-alto-path-vector].

   Path:  A sequence of adjacent path elements over which a packet can
      be transmitted, starting and ending with a node.  A path is
      unidirectional.  Paths are time-dependent, i.e., the sequence of
      path elements over which packets are sent from one node to another
      may change.  A path is defined between two nodes.  For multicast
      or broadcast, a packet may be sent by one node and received by
      multiple nodes.  In this case, the packet is sent over multiple
      paths at once, one path for each combination of sending and
      receiving node; these paths do not have to be disjoint.  Note that
      an entity may have only partial visibility of the path elements
      that comprise a path and visibility may change over time.
      Different entities may have different visibility of a path and/or
      treat path elements at different levels of abstraction.  For
      example, a path may be given as a sequence of physical nodes and

Enghardt & Kraehenbuehl Expires January 10, 2022                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties                   July 2021

      the links connecting these nodes, or it may be given as a sequence
      of logical nodes such as a sequence of ASes or an Explicit Route
      Object (ERO).  Similarly, the representation of a path and its
      properties, as it is known to a specific entity, may be more
      complex and include details about the physical layer technology,
      or it may be more abstract and only consist of a specific source
      and destination which is known to be reachable from that source.

   Reverse Path:  The path that is used by a remote node in the context
      of bidirectional communication.

   Subpath:  Given a path, a subpath is a sequence of adjacent path
      elements of this path.

   Flow:  One or multiple packets to which the traits of a path or set
      of subpaths may be applied in a functional sense.  For example, a
      flow can consist of all packets sent within a TCP session with the
      same five-tuple between two hosts, or it can consist of all
      packets sent on the same physical link.

   Property:  A trait of one or a sequence of path elements, or a trait
      of a flow with respect to one or a sequence of path elements.  An
      example of a link property is the maximum data rate that can be
      sent over the link.  An example of a node property is the
      administrative domain that the node belongs to.  An example of a
      property of a flow with respect to a subpath is the aggregated
      one-way delay of the flow being sent from one node to another node
      over this subpath.  A property is thus described by a tuple
      containing the path element(s), the flow or an empty set if no
      packets are relevant for the property, the name of the property
      (e.g., maximum data rate), and the value of the property (e.g.,
      1Gbps).

   Aggregated property:  A collection of multiple values of a property
      into a single value, according to a function.  A property can be
      aggregated over multiple path elements (i.e., a subpath), e.g.,
      the MTU of a path as the minimum MTU of all links on the path,
      over multiple packets (i.e., a flow), e.g., the median one-way
      latency of all packets between two nodes, or over both, e.g., the
      mean of the queueing delays of a flow on all nodes along a path.
      The aggregation function can be numerical, e.g., median, sum,
      minimum, it can be logical, e.g., "true if all are true", "true if
      at least 50\% of values are true", or an arbitrary function which
      maps multiple input values to an output value.

   Observed property:  A property that is observed for a specific path
      element, subpath, or path, e.g., using measurements.  For example,

Enghardt & Kraehenbuehl Expires January 10, 2022                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties                   July 2021

      the one-way delay of a specific packet transmitted from one node
      to another node can be measured.

   Assessed property:  An approximate calculation or assessment of the
      value of a property.  An assessed property includes the
      reliability of the calculation or assessment.  The notion of
      reliability depends on the property.  For example, a path property
      based on an approximate calculation may describe the expected
      median one-way latency of packets sent on a path within the next
      second, including the confidence level and interval.  A non-
      numerical assessment may instead include the likelihood that the
      property holds.

2.1.  Terminology usage for specific technologies

   The terminology defined in this document is intended to be general
   and applicable to existing and future path-aware technologies.  Using
   this terminology, a path-aware technology can define and consider
   specific path elements and path properties on a specific level of
   abstraction.  For instance, a technology may define path elements as
   IP routers, e.g., in source routing ([RFC1940]).  Alternatively, it
   may consider path elements on a different layer of the Internet
   Architecture ([RFC1122]) or as a collection of entities not tied to a
   specific layer, such as an AS or an ERO.

3.  Use Cases for Path Properties

   When a path-aware network exposes path properties to hosts or other
   entities, these entities may use this information to achieve
   different goals.  This section lists several use cases for path
   properties.

   Note that this is not an exhaustive list, as with every new
   technology and protocol, novel use cases may emerge, and new path
   properties may become relevant.  Moreover, for any particular
   technology, entities may have visibility of and control over
   different path elements and path properties, and consider them on
   different levels of abstraction.  Therefore, a new technology may
   implement an existing use case related to different path elements or
   on a different level of abstraction.

3.1.  Path Selection

   Nodes may be able to send flows via one (or a subset) out of multiple
   possible paths, and an entity may be able to influence the decision
   which path(s) to use.  Path Selection may be feasible if there are
   several paths to the same destination (e.g., in case of a mobile
   device with two wireless interfaces, both providing a path), or if

Enghardt & Kraehenbuehl Expires January 10, 2022                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties                   July 2021

   there are several destinations, and thus several paths, providing the
   same service (e.g., Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO)
   [RFC5693], an application layer peer-to-peer protocol allowing hosts
   a better-than-random peer selection).  Care needs to be taken when
   selecting paths based on path properties, as path properties that
   were previously measured may not be helpful in predicting current or
   future path properties and such path selection may lead to unintended
   feedback loops.

   Entities may select their paths to fulfill a specific goal, e.g.,
   related to security or performance.  As an example of security-
   related path selection, an entity may allow or disallow sending flows
   over paths involving specific networks or nodes to enforce traffic
   policies.  In an enterprise network where all traffic has to go
   through a specific firewall, a path-aware entity can implement this
   policy using path selection.  As an example of performance-related
   path selection, an entity may prefer paths with performance
   properties that best match application requirements.  For example,
   for sending a small delay sensitive query, the entity may select a
   path with a short One-Way Delay, while for retrieving a large file,
   it may select a path with high Link Capacities on all links.  Note,
   there may be trade-offs between path properties (e.g., One-Way Delay
   and Link Capacity), and entities may influence these trade-offs with
   their choices.  As a baseline, a path selection algorithm should aim
   to not perform worse than the default case most of the time.

   Path selection can be done either by the communicating node(s) or by
   other entities within the network: A network (e.g., an AS) can adjust
   its path selection for internal or external routing based on path
   properties.  In BGP, the Multi Exit Discriminator (MED) attribute is
   used in the decision-making process to select which path to choose
   among those having the same AS PATH length and origin [RFC4271]; in a
   path-aware network, instead of using this single MED value, other
   properties such as Link Capacity or Link Usage could additionally be
   used to improve load balancing or performance
   [I-D.ietf-idr-performance-routing].

3.2.  Protocol Selection

   Before sending data over a specific path, an entity may select an
   appropriate protocol or configure protocol parameters depending on
   path properties.  A host may cache state on whether a path allows the
   use of QUIC [I-D.ietf-quic-transport] and if so, first attempt to
   connect using QUIC before falling back to another protocol when
   connecting over this path again.  A video streaming application may
   choose an (initial) video quality based on the achievable data rate
   or the monetary cost of sending data (e.g., volume-base or flat-rate
   cost model).

Enghardt & Kraehenbuehl Expires January 10, 2022                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties                   July 2021

3.3.  Service Invocation

   In addition to path or protocol selection, an entity may choose to
   invoke additional functions in the context of Service Function
   Chaining [RFC7665], which may influence what nodes are on the path.
   For example, a 0-RTT Transport Converter [I-D.ietf-tcpm-converters]
   will be involved in a path only when invoked by a host; such
   invocation will lead to the use of MPTCP or TCPinc capabilities while
   such use is not supported via the default forwarding path.  Another
   example is a connection which is composed of multiple streams where
   each stream has specific service requirements.  A host may decide to
   invoke a given service function (e.g., transcoding) only for some
   streams while others are not processed by that service function.

4.  Examples of Path Properties

   This Section gives some examples of path properties which may be
   useful, e.g., for the use cases described in Section 3.

   Within the context of any particular technology, available path
   properties may differ as entities have insight into and are able to
   influence different path elements and path properties.  For example,
   a host may have some visibility into path elements that are on a low
   level of abstraction and close, e.g., individual nodes within the
   first few hops, or it may have visibility into path elements that are
   far away and/or on a higher level of abstraction, e.g., the list of
   ASes traversed.  This visibility may depend on factors such as the
   physical or network distance or the existence of trust or contractual
   relationships between the host and the path element(s).

   Path properties may be relatively dynamic, e.g., the one-way delay of
   a packet sent over a specific path, or non-dynamic, e.g., the MTU of
   an Ethernet link which only changes infrequently.  Usefulness over
   time differs depending on how dynamic a property is: The merit of a
   momentary measurement of a dynamic path property diminishes greatly
   as time goes on, e.g. the merit of an RTT measurement from a few
   seconds ago is quite small, while a non-dynamic path property might
   stay relevant for a longer period of time, e.g. a NAT typically stays
   on a specific path during the lifetime of a connection involving
   packets sent over this path.

   Access Technology:  The physical or link layer technology used for
      transmitting or receiving a flow on one or multiple path elements.
      If known, the Access Technology may be given as an abstract link
      type, e.g., as Wi-Fi, Wired Ethernet, or Cellular.  It may also be
      given as a specific technology used on a link, e.g., 2G, 3G, 4G,
      or 5G cellular, or 802.11a, b, g, n, or ac Wi-Fi.  Other path
      elements relevant to the access technology may include nodes

Enghardt & Kraehenbuehl Expires January 10, 2022                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties                   July 2021

      related to processing packets on the physical or link layer, such
      as elements of a cellular backbone network.  Note that there is no
      common registry of possible values for this property.

   Monetary Cost:  The price to be paid to transmit or receive a
      specific flow across a network to which one or multiple path
      elements belong.

   Service function:  A service function that a path element applies to
      a flow, see [RFC7665].  Examples of abstract service functions
      include firewalls, Network Address Translation (NAT), and TCP
      optimizers.  Some stateful service functions, such as NAT, need to
      observe the same flow in both directions, e.g., by being an
      element of both the path and the reverse path.

   Transparency:  When a node performs an action on a flow, the node is
      transparent to the flow with respect to some (meta-)information if
      the node performs this action independently of the given
      (meta-)information.  (Meta-)information can for example be the
      existence of a protocol (header) in a packet or the content of a
      protocol header, payload, or both.  Actions can for example be
      blocking packets or reading and modifying (other protocol) headers
      or payloads.  An IP router could be transparent to transport
      protocol headers such as TCP/UDP but not transparent to IP headers
      since its forwarding behavior depends on the IP headers.  A
      firewall that only allows outgoing TCP connections by blocking all
      incoming TCP SYN packets regardless of their IP address is
      transparent to IP but not to TCP headers.  Finally, a NAT that
      actively modifies IP and TCP/UDP headers based on their content is
      not transparent to either IP or TCP/UDP headers.  Note that
      according to this definition, a node that modifies packets in
      accordance with the hosts, such as a transparent HTTP proxy, as
      defined in [RFC2616], and a node listening and reacting to
      implicit or explicit signals, see [RFC8558], are not considered
      transparent.

   Administrative Domain:  The administrative domain, e.g., the IGP
      area, AS, or Service provider network to which a path element
      belongs.

   Disjointness:  For a set of two paths or subpaths, the number of
      shared path elements can be a measure of intersection (e.g.,
      Jaccard coefficient, which is the number of shared elements
      divided by the total number of elements).  Conversely, the number
      of non-shared path elements can be a measure of disjointness
      (e.g., 1 - Jaccard coefficient).  A multipath protocol might use
      disjointness as a metric to reduce the number of single points of
      failure.

Enghardt & Kraehenbuehl Expires January 10, 2022                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties                   July 2021

   Symmetric Path:  Two paths are symmetric if the path and its reverse
      path consist of the same path elements on the same level of
      abstraction, but in reverse order.  For example, a path which
      consists of layer 3 switches and links between them and a reverse
      path with the same path elements but in reverse order are
      considered "routing" symmetric, as the same path elements on the
      same level of abstraction (IP forwarding) are traversed in the
      opposite direction.

   Path MTU:  The maximum size, in octets, of an IP packet that can be
      transmitted without fragmentation.

   Transport Protocols available:  Whether a specific transport protocol
      can be used to establish a connection over a path or subpath,
      e.g., whether the path is QUIC-capable or MPTCP-capable, based on
      cached knowledge.

   Protocol Features available:  Whether a specific protocol feature is
      available over a path or subpath, e.g., Explicit Congestion
      Notification (ECN), or TCP Fast Open.

   Some path properties express the performance of the transmission of a
   packet or flow over a link or subpath.  Such transmission performance
   properties can be measured or approximated, e.g., by hosts or by path
   elements on the path, or they may be available as cost metrics, see
   [I-D.ietf-alto-performance-metrics].  Transmission performance
   properties may be made available in an aggregated form, such as
   averages or minimums.  Properties related to a path element which
   constitutes a single layer 2 domain are abstracted from the used
   physical and link layer technology, similar to [RFC8175].

   Link Capacity:  The link capacity is the maximum data rate at which
      data that was sent over a link can correctly be received at the
      node adjacent to the link.  This property is analogous to the link
      capacity defined in [RFC5136] but not restricted to IP-layer
      traffic.

   Link Usage:  The link usage is the actual data rate at which data
      that was sent over a link is correctly received at the node
      adjacent to the link.  This property is analogous to the link
      usage defined in [RFC5136] but not restricted to IP-layer traffic.

   One-Way Delay:  The one-way delay is the delay between a node sending
      a packet and another node on the same path receiving the packet.
      This property is analogous to the one-way delay defined in
      [RFC7679] but not restricted to IP-layer traffic.

Enghardt & Kraehenbuehl Expires January 10, 2022                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties                   July 2021

   One-Way Delay Variation:  The variation of the one-way delays within
      a flow.  This property is similar to the one-way delay variation
      defined in [RFC3393] but not restricted to IP-layer traffic and
      defined for packets on the same flow instead of packets sent
      between a source and destination IP address.

   One-Way Packet Loss:  Packets sent by a node but not received by
      another node on the same path after a certain time interval are
      considered lost.  This property is analogous to the one-way loss
      defined in [RFC7680] but not restricted to IP-layer traffic.
      Metrics such as loss patterns [RFC3357] and loss episodes
      [RFC6534] can be expressed as aggregated properties.

5.  Security Considerations

   If nodes are basing policy or path selection decisions on path
   properties, they need to rely on the accuracy of path properties that
   other devices communicate to them.  In order to be able to trust such
   path properties, nodes may need to establish a trust relationship or
   be able to verify the authenticity, integrity, and correctness of
   path properties received from another node.

   Security related properties such as confidentiality and integrity
   protection of payloads are difficult to characterize since they are
   only meaningful with respect to a threat model which depends on the
   use case, application, environment, and other factors.  Likewise,
   properties for trust relations between nodes cannot be meaningfully
   defined without a concrete threat model, and defining a threat model
   is out of scope for this draft.  Properties related to
   confidentiality, integrity, and trust are orthogonal to the path
   terminology and path properties defined in this document.  Such
   properties are tied to the communicating nodes and the protocols they
   use (e.g., client and server using HTTPS, or client and remote
   network node using VPN) while the path is typically oblivious to
   them.  Intuitively, the path describes what function the network
   applies to packets, while confidentiality, integrity, and trust
   describe what function the communicating parties apply to packets.

6.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

7.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-alto-path-vector]
              Gao, K., Lee, Y., Randriamasy, S., Yang, Y. R., and J. J.
              Zhang, "ALTO Extension: Path Vector", draft-ietf-alto-
              path-vector-14 (work in progress), February 2021.

Enghardt & Kraehenbuehl Expires January 10, 2022               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties                   July 2021

   [I-D.ietf-alto-performance-metrics]
              Wu, Q., Yang, Y. R., Lee, Y., Dhody, D., Randriamasy, S.,
              and L. M. Contreras, "ALTO Performance Cost Metrics",
              draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-15 (work in progress),
              February 2021.

   [I-D.ietf-idr-performance-routing]
              Xu, X., Hegde, S., Talaulikar, K., Boucadair, M., and C.
              Jacquenet, "Performance-based BGP Routing Mechanism",
              draft-ietf-idr-performance-routing-03 (work in progress),
              December 2020.

   [I-D.ietf-quic-transport]
              Iyengar, J. and M. Thomson, "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed
              and Secure Transport", draft-ietf-quic-transport-34 (work
              in progress), January 2021.

   [I-D.ietf-tcpm-converters]
              Bonaventure, O., Boucadair, M., Gundavelli, S., Seo, S.,
              and B. Hesmans, "0-RTT TCP Convert Protocol", draft-ietf-
              tcpm-converters-19 (work in progress), March 2020.

   [I-D.irtf-panrg-questions]
              Trammell, B., "Current Open Questions in Path Aware
              Networking", draft-irtf-panrg-questions-09 (work in
              progress), April 2021.

   [RFC1122]  Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
              Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.

   [RFC1940]  Estrin, D., Li, T., Rekhter, Y., Varadhan, K., and D.
              Zappala, "Source Demand Routing: Packet Format and
              Forwarding Specification (Version 1)", RFC 1940,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1940, May 1996,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1940>.

   [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,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2616, June 1999,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2616>.

   [RFC3357]  Koodli, R. and R. Ravikanth, "One-way Loss Pattern Sample
              Metrics", RFC 3357, DOI 10.17487/RFC3357, August 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3357>.

Enghardt & Kraehenbuehl Expires January 10, 2022               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties                   July 2021

   [RFC3393]  Demichelis, C. and P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation
              Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 3393,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3393, November 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3393>.

   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
              Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.

   [RFC5136]  Chimento, P. and J. Ishac, "Defining Network Capacity",
              RFC 5136, DOI 10.17487/RFC5136, February 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5136>.

   [RFC5693]  Seedorf, J. and E. Burger, "Application-Layer Traffic
              Optimization (ALTO) Problem Statement", RFC 5693,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5693, October 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5693>.

   [RFC6534]  Duffield, N., Morton, A., and J. Sommers, "Loss Episode
              Metrics for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 6534,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6534, May 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6534>.

   [RFC7665]  Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
              Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7665>.

   [RFC7679]  Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., and A. Morton,
              Ed., "A One-Way Delay Metric for IP Performance Metrics
              (IPPM)", STD 81, RFC 7679, DOI 10.17487/RFC7679, January
              2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7679>.

   [RFC7680]  Almes, G., Kalidindi, S., Zekauskas, M., and A. Morton,
              Ed., "A One-Way Loss Metric for IP Performance Metrics
              (IPPM)", STD 82, RFC 7680, DOI 10.17487/RFC7680, January
              2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7680>.

   [RFC8175]  Ratliff, S., Jury, S., Satterwhite, D., Taylor, R., and B.
              Berry, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)", RFC 8175,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8175, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8175>.

   [RFC8558]  Hardie, T., Ed., "Transport Protocol Path Signals",
              RFC 8558, DOI 10.17487/RFC8558, April 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8558>.

Enghardt & Kraehenbuehl Expires January 10, 2022               [Page 12]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties                   July 2021

Acknowledgments

   Thanks to the Path-Aware Networking Research Group for the discussion
   and feedback.  Specifically, thanks to Mohamed Boudacair for the
   detailed review and various text suggestions, thanks to Brian
   Trammell for suggesting the flow definition, and thanks to Adrian
   Perrig and Matthias Rost for the detailed feedback.  Thanks to Paul
   Hoffman for the editorial changes.

Authors' Addresses

   Theresa Enghardt
   Netflix

   Email: ietf@tenghardt.net

   Cyrill Kraehenbuehl
   ETH Zuerich

   Email: cyrill.kraehenbuehl@inf.ethz.ch

Enghardt & Kraehenbuehl Expires January 10, 2022               [Page 13]