A Vocabulary of Path Properties
draft-irtf-panrg-path-properties-06

PANRG                                                        T. Enghardt
Internet-Draft                                                   Netflix
Intended status: Informational                             C. Krähenbühl
Expires: 26 March 2023                                        ETH Zürich
                                                       22 September 2022

                    A Vocabulary of Path Properties
                  draft-irtf-panrg-path-properties-06

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
   endpoints.  This document defines and categorizes path properties.
   Furthermore, the document specifies several path properties which
   might be useful to endpoints or other entities, e.g., for selecting
   between paths or for invoking some of the provided services.

Discussion Venues

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Discussion of this document takes place on the "Path-Aware Networking
   Research Group" mailing list (PANRG), which is archived at
   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/panrg/.  Subscription
   information is at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/panrg/.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/panrg/path-properties/.

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 26 March 2023.

Enghardt & Krähenbühl     Expires 26 March 2023                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties              September 2022

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 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 include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Terminology usage for specific technologies . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Use Cases for Path Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  Path Selection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Protocol Selection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.3.  Service Invocation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  Examples of Path Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

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 [RFC9217],
   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 [RFC9217].

Enghardt & Krähenbühl     Expires 26 March 2023                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties              September 2022

   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.

2.  Terminology

   Entity:  A physical or virtual device or function, or a collection of
      devices or functions, which plays a role related to path-aware
      networking for particular paths and flows.  An entity can be on-
      path or off-path: On the path, an entity may participate in
      forwarding the flow, i.e., what may be called data plane
      functionality.  On or off the path, an entity may influence
      aspects of how the flow is forwarded, i.e., what may be called
      control plane functionality, such as Path Selection or Service
      Invocation.  An entity influencing forwarding aspects is usually
      aware of path properties, e.g., by observing or measuring them or
      by learning them from another entity.

   Node:  An on-path 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).

   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

Enghardt & Krähenbühl     Expires 26 March 2023                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties              September 2022

      be transmitted, starting and ending with a node.

      Paths are unidirectional and time-dependent, i.e., the sequence of
      path elements over which packets are sent from one node to another
      may change.

      The representation of a path and its properties may depend on the
      entity considering the path.  On the one hand, the representation
      may differ due to entities having partial visibility of path
      elements comprising a path or their visibility changing over time.
      On the other hand, the representation may differ due to treating
      path elements at different levels of abstraction.  For example, a
      path may be given as a sequence of physical nodes and the links
      connecting these nodes, a sequence of logical nodes such as a
      sequence of ASes or an Explicit Route Object (ERO), or only
      consist of a specific source and destination which is known to be
      reachable from that source.

      A multicast or broadcast setting, where a packet is sent by one
      node and received by multiple nodes, is described by multiple
      paths over which the packet is sent, one path for each combination
      of sending and receiving node; these paths do not have to be
      disjoint.

   Endpoint:  The endpoints of a path are the first and the last node on
      the path.  For example, an endpoint can be a host as defined in
      [RFC1122], which can be a client (e.g., a node running a web
      browser) or a server (e.g., a node running a web server).

   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

Enghardt & Krähenbühl     Expires 26 March 2023                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties              September 2022

      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,
      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.

   Target property:  An objective that is set for a property over a path
      element, subpath, or path.  Note that a target property can be set
      for observed properties, such as one-way delay, but also for
      properties that cannot be observed by the entity setting the
      target, such as inclusion of certain nodes on a path.

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

Enghardt & Krähenbühl     Expires 26 March 2023                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties              September 2022

   Architecture ([RFC1122]) or as a collection of entities not tied to a
   specific layer, such as an AS or an ERO.  Even within a single path-
   aware technology, specific definitions might differ depending on the
   context in which they are used.  For example, the endpoints might be
   the communicating hosts in the context of the transport layer, ASes
   that contain the hosts in the context of routing, or specific
   applications in the context of the application layer.

3.  Use Cases for Path Properties

   When a path-aware network exposes path properties to endpoints 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
   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
   endpoints a better-than-random peer selection).  Entities may select
   their paths to fulfill a specific goal by specifying target
   properties for their selected paths, e.g., related to performance or
   security.

   Target properties relating to network performance typically refer to
   observed properties, such as One-Way Delay, One-Way Packet Loss, and
   Link Capacity.  Entities then select paths based on their target
   property and the assessed property of the available paths that best
   match the application requirements.  For such performance-related
   target properties, the observed property is similar to a service
   level indicator (SLI) and the assessed property is similar to a
   service level objective (SLO) for IETF network slices
   [I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices].  As an example path selection

Enghardt & Krähenbühl     Expires 26 March 2023                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties              September 2022

   strategy, for sending a small delay-sensitive query, an 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.

   It is also possible for an entity to set target properties which it
   cannot (directly) observe, similar to service level expectations
   (SLEs) for IETF network slices [I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices].
   For example, this can apply to security-related target properties and
   path selection, such as allowing or disallowing sending flows over
   paths that involve specific networks or nodes to enforce traffic
   policies or mandating that all enterprise traffic goes through a
   specific firewall.

   Care needs to be taken when selecting paths based on observed 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.  Also, 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.  For example, an endpoint may cache state on whether
   a path allows the use of QUIC [RFC9000] 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 & Krähenbühl     Expires 26 March 2023                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties              September 2022

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 [RFC8803] will be involved
   in a path only when invoked by an endpoint; such invocation will lead
   to the use of MPTCP [RFC8684] or TCPinc [RFC8547] [RFC8548]
   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.  An endpoint 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,
   an endpoint 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 endpoint and the path element(s).  A path
   property can be defined relative to individual path elements, a
   sequence of path elements, or "end-to-end", i.e., relative to a path
   that comprises of two endpoints and a single virtual link connecting
   them.

   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
   momentarily observed dynamic path propety may diminish greatly as
   time goes on, e.g., it is possible for the observed values of One-Way
   Delay to change on timescales which are shorter than the One-Way
   Delay between the measurement point and an entity making a decision
   such as Path Selection, which may cause the measurement to be
   outdated when it reaches the decision-making entity.  Therefore,
   consumers of dynamic path properties need to apply caution when using
   them, e.g., by aggregating them appropriately or dampening their
   changes to avoiding oscillation.  In contrast, the observed value of

Enghardt & Krähenbühl     Expires 26 March 2023                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties              September 2022

   a less 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
      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 A on a flow F, the node

Enghardt & Krähenbühl     Expires 26 March 2023                 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties              September 2022

      is transparent to F with respect to some (meta-)information M if
      the node performs A independently of M.  M can for example be the
      existence of a protocol (header) in a packet or the content of a
      protocol header, payload, or both.  For example, A can be blocking
      packets or reading and modifying (other protocol) headers or
      payloads.  Transparency can be modeled using a function f, which
      takes as input F and M and outputs the action taken by the node.
      If a taint analysis shows that the output of f is not tainted
      (impacted) by M or if the output of f is constant for arbitrary
      values of M, then the node is considered to be transparent.  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 endpoints, 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 identity of an individual or an
      organization that owns a path element (or several path elements).
      Examples of administrative domains are an IGP area, an AS, or a
      service provider network.

   Routing Domain Identifier:  An identifier indicating the routing
      domain of a path element.  Path elements in the same routing
      domain are in the same administrative domain and use a common
      routing protocol to communicate with each other.  An example of a
      routing domain identifier is the globally unique autonomous system
      number (ASN) as defined in [RFC1930].

   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.

   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

Enghardt & Krähenbühl     Expires 26 March 2023                [Page 10]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties              September 2022

      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 observed or assessed, e.g., by endpoints 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] and [RFC9097] 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] and [RFC9097] 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.

   One-Way Delay Variation:  The variation of the one-way delays within

Enghardt & Krähenbühl     Expires 26 March 2023                [Page 11]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties              September 2022

      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 entities 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, entities may need to establish a trust relationship
   or be able to verify the authenticity, integrity, and correctness of
   path properties received from another entity.

   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 entities 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

Enghardt & Krähenbühl     Expires 26 March 2023                [Page 12]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties              September 2022

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

   [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", Work
              in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-alto-performance-
              metrics-28, 21 March 2022,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-alto-
              performance-metrics-28>.

   [I-D.ietf-idr-performance-routing]
              Xu, X., Hegde, S., Talaulikar, K., Boucadair, M., and C.
              Jacquenet, "Performance-based BGP Routing Mechanism", Work
              in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-performance-
              routing-03, 22 December 2020,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-
              performance-routing-03>.

   [I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices]
              Farrel, A., Drake, J., Rokui, R., Homma, S., Makhijani,
              K., Contreras, L. M., and J. Tantsura, "Framework for IETF
              Network Slices", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices-14, 3 August 2022,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-
              ietf-network-slices-14>.

   [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/rfc/rfc1122>.

   [RFC1930]  Hawkinson, J. and T. Bates, "Guidelines for creation,
              selection, and registration of an Autonomous System (AS)",
              BCP 6, RFC 1930, DOI 10.17487/RFC1930, March 1996,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1930>.

   [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/rfc/rfc1940>.

Enghardt & Krähenbühl     Expires 26 March 2023                [Page 13]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties              September 2022

   [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/rfc/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/rfc/rfc3357>.

   [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/rfc/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/rfc/rfc4271>.

   [RFC5136]  Chimento, P. and J. Ishac, "Defining Network Capacity",
              RFC 5136, DOI 10.17487/RFC5136, February 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/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/rfc/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/rfc/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/rfc/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/rfc/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/rfc/rfc7680>.

Enghardt & Krähenbühl     Expires 26 March 2023                [Page 14]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties              September 2022

   [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/rfc/rfc8175>.

   [RFC8547]  Bittau, A., Giffin, D., Handley, M., Mazieres, D., and E.
              Smith, "TCP-ENO: Encryption Negotiation Option", RFC 8547,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8547, May 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8547>.

   [RFC8548]  Bittau, A., Giffin, D., Handley, M., Mazieres, D., Slack,
              Q., and E. Smith, "Cryptographic Protection of TCP Streams
              (tcpcrypt)", RFC 8548, DOI 10.17487/RFC8548, May 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8548>.

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

   [RFC8684]  Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., Bonaventure, O., and C.
              Paasch, "TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with
              Multiple Addresses", RFC 8684, DOI 10.17487/RFC8684, March
              2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8684>.

   [RFC8803]  Bonaventure, O., Ed., Boucadair, M., Ed., Gundavelli, S.,
              Seo, S., and B. Hesmans, "0-RTT TCP Convert Protocol",
              RFC 8803, DOI 10.17487/RFC8803, July 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8803>.

   [RFC9000]  Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
              Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9000>.

   [RFC9097]  Morton, A., Geib, R., and L. Ciavattone, "Metrics and
              Methods for One-Way IP Capacity", RFC 9097,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9097, November 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9097>.

   [RFC9217]  Trammell, B., "Current Open Questions in Path-Aware
              Networking", RFC 9217, DOI 10.17487/RFC9217, March 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9217>.

Enghardt & Krähenbühl     Expires 26 March 2023                [Page 15]
Internet-Draft               Path Properties              September 2022

Acknowledgments

   Thanks to the Path-Aware Networking Research Group for the discussion
   and feedback.  Specifically, thanks to Mohamed Boucadair for the
   detailed review and various text suggestions, thanks to Brian
   Trammell for suggesting the flow definition, thanks to Adrian Perrig
   and Matthias Rost for the detailed feedback, thanks to Paul Hoffman
   for the editorial changes, thanks to Luis M.  Contreras and Jake
   Holland for the reviews, and thanks to Spencer Dawkins for the
   comments and suggestions.

Authors' Addresses

   Theresa Enghardt
   Netflix
   Email: ietf@tenghardt.net

   Cyrill Krähenbühl
   ETH Zürich
   Email: cyrill.kraehenbuehl@inf.ethz.ch

Enghardt & Krähenbühl     Expires 26 March 2023                [Page 16]