HTTP Datagram PING
draft-schwartz-masque-h3-datagram-ping-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Benjamin M. Schwartz | ||
| Last updated | 2021-09-21 | ||
| Stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | plain text html xml htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-schwartz-masque-h3-datagram-ping-00
masque B. Schwartz
Internet-Draft Google LLC
Intended status: Standards Track 21 September 2021
Expires: 25 March 2022
HTTP Datagram PING
draft-schwartz-masque-h3-datagram-ping-00
Abstract
This draft defines an HTTP Datagram Format Type for measuring the
functionality of a Datagram path.
Discussion Venues
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
Discussion of this document takes place on the mailing list
(masque@ietf.org), which is archived at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/masque/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/bemasc/h3-datagram-ping.
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 25 March 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Schwartz Expires 25 March 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft HTTP Datagram PING September 2021
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 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. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. PING Datagram Format Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2. Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. Conventions and Definitions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. PING Datagram Format Type
PING is an HTTP Datagram Format Type
[I-D.draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram].
2.1. Format
PING Datagrams have the following format:
PING {
Sequence Number (i),
Opaque Data (..),
}
Figure 1: PING Datagram Format
The "Opaque Data" field contents are unconstrained.
Schwartz Expires 25 March 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft HTTP Datagram PING September 2021
2.2. Use
We define the "Requester" as the peer that registered this PING
Datagram Context, and the "Responder" as the other peer.
The Requester initiates a ping by sending a PING Datagram with any
"Sequence Number" and "Opaque Data". The Responder MUST reply with a
PING Datagram in the same context, with the same "Sequence Number"
and empty "Opaque Data".
Intermediaries MUST forward PING Datagrams without modification, just
like any other HTTP Datagram.
3. Use cases
PING Datagrams can be used to characterize the end-to-end HTTP
Datagram path associated with an HTTP request. For example, HTTP
endpoints can easily use PING Datagrams to estimate the round-trip
time and loss rate of the HTTP Datagram path.
PING Datagrams are also suitable for use as DPLPMTUD Probe Packets
[RFC8899]. This enables endpoints to estimate the HTTP Datagram MTU
of each Datagram path, in order to avoid sending HTTP Datagrams that
will be dropped.
Note that these path characteristics can differ from those inferred
from the underlying transport (e.g. QUIC), if the HTTP request
traverses one or more HTTP intermediaries (see Section 3.7 of
[I-D.draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics]).
4. IANA considerations
IANA is directed to add the following entry to the "HTTP Datagram
Format Types" registry:
* Type: PING
* Value: TBD
* Reference: (This document)
5. References
5.1. Normative References
[I-D.draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram]
Schinazi, D. and L. Pardue, "Using Datagrams with HTTP",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-masque-h3-
Schwartz Expires 25 March 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft HTTP Datagram PING September 2021
datagram-03, 12 July 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-masque-
h3-datagram-03>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
5.2. Informative References
[I-D.draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics]
Fielding, R. T., Nottingham, M., and J. Reschke, "HTTP
Semantics", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
httpbis-semantics-19, 12 September 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-
semantics-19>.
[RFC8899] Fairhurst, G., Jones, T., Tüxen, M., Rüngeler, I., and T.
Völker, "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery for
Datagram Transports", RFC 8899, DOI 10.17487/RFC8899,
September 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8899>.
Acknowledgments
TODO
Author's Address
Benjamin Schwartz
Google LLC
Email: bemasc@google.com
Schwartz Expires 25 March 2022 [Page 4]