HTTP Datagram PING
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]