Intentional Naming in DTN
draft-pbasu-dtnrg-naming-00
Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Prithwish Basu , Daniel R. L. Brown , Stephen Polit , Rajesh Krishnan | ||
Last updated | 2009-05-22 | ||
RFC stream | (None) | ||
Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
Formats | |||
Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
Telechat date | (None) | ||
Responsible AD | (None) | ||
Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
This document describes an extension to the naming mechanism of disruption tolerant networks (RFC4838) to support intentional naming. Intentional naming is a means by which a source node specifies the destination node(s) for a bundle in terms of predicates on attributes of the node(s), instead of by a canonical endpoint identifier (EID) of the node. Intentional naming is closely tied to the concept of binding, as described in RFC 4838. Since information required to route an intentionally named bundle may not be available at the source node, this information must be supplied at one or more subsequent nodes along the bundle's path toward its destination(s). The architecture required for an intentional naming capability in a DTN must support the notion that a bundle can make progress toward its destination(s) in the absence of complete binding information. In this document we describe a framework for intentional naming in a DTN, propose a syntax for intentional names, and describe a distributed procedure for late or partial binding. We also present sample use cases for late binding and a notional name binding algorithm, called GRAIN, that can deliver bundles to intentional names with geographic and role attributes, e.g. "first responders within a kilometer of a specified location." Finally, we discuss the limitations in our current ability to field an ideal intentional naming system (i.e., one that can support generic intentional names), and we suggest a somewhat restrictive framework that is both useful and feasible to deploy.
Authors
Prithwish Basu
Daniel R. L. Brown
Stephen Polit
Rajesh Krishnan
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)