Skip to main content

LMAP Protocol Selection Criteria
draft-starkcarey-lmap-protocol-criteria-00

The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
Authors Barbara Stark , Tim Carey
Last updated 2015-01-15
RFC stream (None)
Formats
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-starkcarey-lmap-protocol-criteria-00
Large-Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance                B. Stark
Internet-Draft                                                      AT&T
Intended status: Informational                                  T. Carey
Expires: July 19, 2015                                    Alcatel-Lucent
                                                        January 15, 2015

                    LMAP Protocol Selection Criteria
               draft-starkcarey-lmap-protocol-criteria-00

Abstract

   This draft identifies criteria to be used in evaluating and selecting
   Control and Reporting Protocols described by
   [I-D.ietf-lmap-framework].

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 http://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 July 19, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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
   (http://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.

Stark & Carey             Expires July 19, 2015                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft      LMAP Protocol Selection Criteria        January 2015

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Control Protocol Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     2.1.  Mandatory Criteria  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     2.2.  Comparative Criteria  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Report Protocol Criteria  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Mandatory Criteria  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Comparative Criteria  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   This draft identifies criteria to be used in evaluating and selecting
   Control and Reporting Protocols described by
   [I-D.ietf-lmap-framework].  Both mandatory and comparative criteria
   are identified for these protocols.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2.  Control Protocol Criteria

2.1.  Mandatory Criteria

   Following is a list of criteria that a Control Protocol is required
   to support.  Protocols that do not support these criteria will not be
   considered appropriate for selection as a Control Protocol.  Note
   that although the protocol may support the criterion, it is not
   necessarily the case that the criterion is mandatory to implement
   according to the protocol specification.

   CP-MUST-1  There must be a mechanism that allows a Controller to
              cause a session to be established with a MA.

   CP-MUST-2  There must be a mechanism that allows a MA to cause a
              session to be established with a Controller.

Stark & Carey             Expires July 19, 2015                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft      LMAP Protocol Selection Criteria        January 2015

   CP-MUST-3  The protocol session must be capable of being secured
              using certificates, as described in
              [I-D.ietf-lmap-framework].

2.2.  Comparative Criteria

   Following is a list of criteria that can be used to differentiate
   among Control Protocol candidates.  For each criterion, it is also
   indicated what is considered "better" for a candidate protocol to
   support.

   CP-DIFF-1   How many exchanges are required to send a complete
               instruction set? (less is better)

   CP-DIFF-2   How many exchanges are required to send a status update?
               (less is better)

   CP-DIFF-3   Is it possible to provide partial updates? (yes is
               better)

   CP-DIFF-4   Are there any special mechanisms (other than STUN/TURN/
               ICE or using port forwarding pinholes, PCP, UPnP IGD,
               etc.) for NAT/firewall traversal?  (asked out of
               curiosity, but not expecting anything)

   CP-DIFF-5   How many bytes of overhead are required to send a
               complete instruction set? (less is better)

   CP-DIFF-6   How many bytes of overhead are required to send a status
               update? (less is better)

   CP-DIFF-7   How widely used is the protocol and/or its protocol
               elements in mass market devices? (widely is better)

   CP-DIFF-8   What mechanisms exist to ensure interoperability of MA
               and Controller implementations? (existence of something
               is better)

   CP-DIFF-9   Are the components of the protocol available as open
               source? (yes is better)

   CP-DIFF-10  What ecosystem of tools exists for developers
               implementing the protocol (include tools for data model
               creation)? (existence of useful tools is better)

   CP-DIFF-11  Is the protocol versionable? (yes is better, or is this
               mandatory?)

Stark & Carey             Expires July 19, 2015                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft      LMAP Protocol Selection Criteria        January 2015

   CP-DIFF-12  If yes, what is the process for extending the protocol?
               (for information)

   CP-DIFF-13  What are the encodings supported by the protocol (SOAP,
               JSON, XML, etc.)? (for information)

3.  Report Protocol Criteria

3.1.  Mandatory Criteria

   Following is a list of criteria that a Report Protocol is required to
   support.  Protocols that do not support these criteria will not be
   considered appropriate for selection as a Report Protocol.  Note that
   although the protocol may support the criterion, it is not
   necessarily the case that the criterion is mandatory to implement
   according to the protocol specification.

   RP-MUST-1  There must be a mechanism that allows a MA to cause a
              session to be established with a Collector.

   RP-MUST-2  The protocol session must be capable of being secured
              using certificates, as described in
              [I-D.ietf-lmap-framework].

3.2.  Comparative Criteria

   Following is a list of criteria that can be used to differentiate
   among Report Protocol candidates.  For each criterion, it is also
   indicated what is considered "better" for a candidate protocol to
   support.

   RP-DIFF-1   How many exchanges are required to send a report? (less
               is better)

   RP-DIFF-2   Does it allow for sending multiple reports in a session?
               (yes is better)

   RP-DIFF-3   Is there a capability for long-lived sessions. (yes is
               better)

   RP-DIFF-4   Is compression supported? (yes is better, or is this
               mandatory?)

   RP-DIFF-5   How many bytes of overhead are required to send a report?
               (less is better)

   RP-DIFF-6   How widely used is the protocol and/or its protocol
               elements in mass market devices? (widely is better)

Stark & Carey             Expires July 19, 2015                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft      LMAP Protocol Selection Criteria        January 2015

   RP-DIFF-7   What mechanisms exist to ensure interoperability of MA
               and Collector implementations? (existence of something is
               better)

   RP-DIFF-8   Are the components of the protocol available as open
               source? (yes is better)

   RP-DIFF-9   What ecosystem of tools exists for developers
               implementing the protocol (include tools for data model
               creation)? (existence of useful tools is better)

   RP-DIFF-10  Is the protocol versionable? (yes is better, or is this
               mandatory?)

   RP-DIFF-11  If yes, what is the process for extending the protocol?
               (for information)

   RP-DIFF-12  What are the encodings supported by the protocol (SOAP,
               JSON, XML, etc.)? (for information)

4.  Acknowledgements

   Members of LMAP WG.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.

6.  Security Considerations

   Candidate Control and Report protocols are required to meet security
   requirements identified in [I-D.ietf-lmap-framework].

7.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-lmap-framework]
              Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T.,
              Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A framework for large-scale
              measurement platforms (LMAP)", draft-ietf-lmap-
              framework-09 (work in progress), December 2014.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

Stark & Carey             Expires July 19, 2015                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft      LMAP Protocol Selection Criteria        January 2015

Authors' Addresses

   Barbara Stark
   AT&T
   1057 Lenox Park Blvd NE
   Atlanta, GA  30319
   US

   Phone: +1-404-499-6424
   Email: bs7652@att.com

   Timothy Carey
   Alcatel-Lucent
   TX
   US

Stark & Carey             Expires July 19, 2015                 [Page 6]