[Search] [txt|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 rfc2372                                              
Internet-Draft                                                K. Evans
Expires in 6 months                                           J. Klein
                                                      Tandem Computers
                                                               J. Lyon
                                                             Microsoft
                                                           July 4 1997

             Transaction Internet Protocol - Requirements

                  <draft-evans-tip-functions-00.txt>

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft.  Internet-Drafts are working
   documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas,
   and its working groups.  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   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."

   To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the
   "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow
   Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe),
   munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or
   ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).

   Distribution of this document is unlimited. Please send comments to
   the authors at <JimLyon@Microsoft.Com>, <Evans_Keith@Tandem.Com>,
   or <Klein_Johannes@Tandem.Com>.

Abstract

   This document describes the purpose (usage scenarios) and
   requirements for the Transaction Internet Protocol [1]. It is
   intended to help qualify the necessary features and functions of
   the protocol.

Introduction

   Transactions are a very useful programming paradigm, greatly
   simplifying the writing of distributed applications. When
   transactions are employed, no matter how many distributed
   application components participate in a particular unit-of-work,
   the number of possible outcomes is reduced to only two; that is,
   either all of the work completed successfully, or none of it did
   (this characteristic is known as atomicity). Applications
   programming is therefore much less complex since the programmer
   does not have to deal with a multitude of possible failure
   scenarios. Typically, transaction semantics are provided by some
   underlying system infrastructure (usually in the form of products
   such as Transaction Processing Monitors, and/or Databases). This
   infrastructure deals with failures, and performs the necessary
   recovery actions to guarantee the property of atomicity. The use
   of transactions enables the development of reliable distributed

   applications which would otherwise be difficult, if not impossible.

   A key technology required to support distributed transactions is
   the two-phase commit protocol (2-pc). 2-pc protocols have been used
   in commercial Transaction Processing (TP) systems for many years,
   and are well understood (e.g. the LU6.2 2-pc (syncpoint) protocol
   was first implemented more than 12 years ago). Today a number of
   different 2-pc protocols are supported by a variety of TP monitor
   and database products. 2-pc is used between the components
   participating in a distributed unit-of-work (transaction) to
   ensure agreement by all parties regarding the outcome of that work
   (regardless of any failure).

   Today both standard and proprietary 2-pc protocols exist. These
   protocols typically employ a "one-pipe" model. That is, the
   transaction and application protocols are tightly-integrated,
   executing over the same communications channel. An application may
   use only the particular communications mechanism associated with
   the transaction protocol. The older standard protocols (OSI TP,
   LU6.2) are complex, with a large footprint and extensive
   configuration and administration requirements. For these reasons
   they are not very widely deployed. A new protocol, CORBA OTS, still
   adheres to the one-pipe model, and is tightly coupled with a
   particular application environment. The net of all this is
   restricted application flexibility and interoperability if
   transactions are to be used. Applications may wish to use a number
   of communications protocols for which there are no transactional
   variants (e.g. HTTP), and be deployed in very heterogeneous
   application environments.

   In summary, transactions greatly simplify the programming of
   distributed applications, and the 2-pc protocol is a key
   transactional technology. Current 2-pc protocols only offer
   transaction semantics to a limited set of applications, operating
   within a special-purpose (complex, homogeneous) infrastructure,
   using a particular set of intercommunication protocols. The
   restrictions thus imposed by current 2-pc protocols limits the
   widespread use of the transaction paradigm, thereby inhibiting the
   development of new distributed business applications.

   (See [2] for more information re transactions, atomicity, and
   two-phase commit protocols in general.)

The Transaction Internet Protocol (TIP)

   TIP is a 2-pc protocol which is intended to provide ubiquitous
   distributed transaction support, in a heterogeneous (networked)
   environment. TIP removes the restrictions of current 2-pc
   protocols and enables the development of new distributed business
   applications.

   This goal is achieved primarily by satisfying two key
   requirements:

   1. Keep the protocol simple (yet functionally sufficient). If the
      protocol is complex it will not be widely deployed or quickly
      adopted. Simplicity also means suitability to a wide range of

      application environments.

   2. Enable the protocol to be used with any applications
      communications protocol (e.g. HTTP). This ensures heterogeneous
      environments can participate in distributed work.

   TIP does not reinvent the 2-pc protocol itself, the well-known
   presumed-abort 2-pc protocol is used as a basis. Rather the novelty
   and utility of TIP is in its separation from the application
   communications protocol (the two-pipe model).

Scope

   Note that TIP does not describe how business transactions or
   electronic commerce are to be conducted on the internet, it
   specifies only the 2-pc transaction protocol (which is an aid in
   the development of such applications). TIP does not specify
   Application Programming Interfaces.

Anticipated Usage of TIP

   As described above, transactions are a very useful tool in
   simplifying the programming of distributed applications. TIP is
   therefore targeted at any application that involves distributed
   work. Such applications may comprise components executing within a
   single system, across a corporate intranet, across the internet, or
   any other distributed system configuration. The application
   may be of "enterprise" class (requiring high-levels of performance
   and availability), or be less demanding. TIP is intended to
   be generally applicable, meeting the requirements of any
   application type which would benefit from the provision of
   transaction semantics.

TIP Compliant Systems

   There are two classes of TIP compliant Transaction Manager system:

   1. Client-only systems. Those which provide an application
      interface to demarcate TIP transactions, but which do not offer
      access to local recoverable resources. Such a lightweight
      implementation is useful for systems which host client
      applications only (e.g. desktop machines). Such client systems
      may be unreliable, and are not appropriate as transaction
      coordinators (their unavailability might cause resources on
      other transaction participant systems to remain locked and
      unavailable). These so-called "volatile client" systems
      therefore delegate the responsibility to coordinate the
      transaction (and recover from failures), to other "full"
      (server) TIP system implementations. For these lightweight
      systems, only the TIP IDENTIFY, BEGIN, COMMIT, and ABORT
      commands are needed; no transaction log is required.

   2. Server systems. Those which offer the above support, plus TIP
      transaction coordination and recovery services. These systems
      may also provide access to recoverable resources
      (e.g. relational databases). Server systems support all TIP
      commands, and provide a recoverable transaction log.


   A TIP compliant Transaction Manager (TM), will also supply
   application programming interfaces to demarcate transactions
   (e.g. the X/Open TX interface [3]), plus commands to generate TIP
   URLs, to PUSH/PULL TIP transactions, and to set the current TIP
   transaction context. TIP support can be added to TMs with existing
   APIs and 2-pc protocols, and transactions may comprise both
   proprietary and TIP transaction branches (it is assumed existing TM
   implementations will provide "TIP gateway" facilities which will
   coordinate between TIP and other transaction protocols).

Relationship to the X/Open DTP Model

   The X/Open Distributed Transaction Processing (DTP) Model [4]
   defines four components: 1) Application Program (AP),
   2) Transaction Manager (TM), 3) Resource Manager (RM),
   and 4) Communications Resource Manager (CRM). In this model, TIP
   defines a TM to TM interoperability protocol, which is independent
   of application communications (there is no such equivalent protocol
   specified by X/Open, where all transaction and application
   communication occurs between CRMs (the one-pipe model)).
   Programmatic interfaces between the AP and TM/RM are unaffected by,
   and may be used with TIP. The TM to RM interaction is defined via
   the X/Open XA interface specification [5].  TIP is compatible with
   XA, and a TIP transaction may comprise applications accessing
   multiple RMs where the XA interface is being used to coordinate
   the RM transaction branches.

Example TIP Usage Scenario

   It is expected that a typical internet usage of TIP will involve
   applications using the agency model. In this model, the client node
   itself is not directly involved in the TIP protocol at all, and
   does not need the services of a local TIP TM. Instead, an agency
   (server) application handles the dialogue with the client, and is
   responsible for the coordination of the TIP transaction. The agency
   works with other service providers to deliver the service to the
   client. e.g. as a Travel Agency acts as an intermediate between
   airlines/hotels/etc and the customer. A big benefit of this model
   is that the agency is trusted by the service providers, and there
   are fewer such agencies (compared to user clients), so issues of
   security and performance are reduced.

   Consider a Travel Agency example. A client running a web browser
   on a network PC accesses the Travel Agency web page. Via pages
   served up by the agency (which may in turn may be constructed from
   pages provided by the airline and hotel servers), the client
   creates an itinerary involving flights and hotel choices. Finally,
   the client clicks the "make reservation" button. At this point the
   following sequence of events occurs (user-written application code
   is invoked by the various web servers, via any of the standard or
   proprietary techniques available (e.g. CGI)):

   1. The travel agency begins a local transaction, and gets a TIP URL
      for this transaction (both of these functions are performed
      using the API of the local TM). The TIP URL contains the
      listening endpoint IP address of the local TM and the
      transaction identifier of the current transaction.


  2. The travel agency application sends a request to the airline
      server (via some protocol (e.g. HTTP) specified via some URL),
      requesting the "book_flight" service, passing the flights
      selected by the client, and the TIP URL (obtained in 1. above).

   3. The request is received by the airline server which invokes the
      book_flight application. This application retrieves the TIP URL
      from the input data, and passes this on a "tip_pull" API request
      to its local TM. The tip_pull function causes the following to
      occur:

      a. the local TM creates a transaction branch (under which the
         work will be performed),

      b. if a TIP connection does not already exist to the superior
         (travel agency) TM (as identified via the IP address passed
         in the TIP URL), one is created and an IDENTIFY exchange
         occurs (if multiplexing is to be used on the connection, this
         is followed by a MULTIPLEX exchange),

      c. a PULL command is sent to the superior TM,

      d. in response to the PULL, the superior TM associates the
         subordinate (airline) TM with the transaction (by associating
         the connection with the transaction),

      e. the subordinate TM returns control to the book_flight
         application, which is now executing in the context of the
         newly created local transaction branch.

   4. The book_flight application does its work (which may involve
      access to a recoverable resource manager (e.g. an RDBMS), in
      which case the local TM will associate the RM with the
      transaction branch (via the XA interface or whatever)).

   5. The book_flight application returns to the travel agency
      application indicating success.

   6. Steps 2-5 are then repeated with the hotel server "book_room"
      application. At the conclusion of this, the superior TM has
      registered two subordinate TMs as participants in the
      transaction, there are TIP connections between the agency TM and
      the airline and hotel TMs, and there are inflight transactions
      at the airline and hotel servers. [Note that steps 2-5 and 6
      could be performed in parallel.]

   7. The travel agency application issues a "commit transaction"
      request (using the API of the local TM). The local TM sends a
      PREPARE command on the TIP connections to the airline and hotel
      TMs (as these are registered as subordinate transaction
      participants).

   8. The TMs at the airline and hotel servers perform the
      necessary steps to prepare their local recoverable resources
      (e.g. by issuing xa_prepare requests). If successful, the
      subordinate TMs change their TIP transaction state to Prepared,
      and log recovery information (e.g. local and superior

      transaction branch identifiers, and the IP address of the
      superior TM). The subordinate TMs then send PREPARED commands to
      the superior TM.

   9. If both subordinates respond PREPARED, the superior TM logs that
      the transaction is Committed, with recovery information
      (e.g. local and subordinate transaction identifiers, and
      subordinate TM IP addresses). The superior TM then sends COMMIT
      commands on the two subordinate TIP connections.

   10. The TMs at the airline and hotel servers perform the
       necessary steps to commit their local recoverable resources
       (e.g. by issuing xa_commit requests). The subordinate TMs
       forget the transaction. The subordinate TMs then send COMITTED
       commands to the superior TM.

   11. The superior TM forgets the transaction. The TIP connections
       between the superior and subordinate TMs return to Idle state
       (not associated with any transaction). The superior TM returns
       success to the travel agency application "commit transaction"
       request.

   12. The travel agency application returns "reservation made" to the
       client.

TIP Transaction Recovery

   Until the transaction reaches the Prepared state, any failure
   results in the transaction being aborted. If an error occurs once
   the transaction has reached the Prepared state, then transaction
   recovery must be performed. Recovery behaviour is different for
   superior and subordinate; the details depend upon the outcome of
   the transaction (committed or aborted), and the precise point at
   which failure occurs.

   In the travel agency application for example, if the connection to
   the hotel server fails before the COMMIT command has been received
   by the hotel TM, then (once the connection is restored):

   1. The superior (travel agency) TM sends a RECONNECT command
      (passing the subordinate transaction identifier (recovered from
      the transaction log if necessary)).

   2. The subordinate (hotel) TM responds RECONNECTED (since it never
      received the COMMIT command, and still has the transaction in
      Prepared state (if the failure had occurred after the
      subordinate had responded COMMITTED, then the subordinate would
      have forgotten the transaction, and responded NOTRECONNECTED to
      the RECONNECT command)).

   3. The superior TM sends a COMMIT command. The subordinate TM
      commits the transaction and responds COMMITTED. The transaction
      is now resolved.

   4. If the subordinate TM restores the connection to the superior TM
      before receiving a RECONNECT command, then it may send a QUERY
      command. In this case, the superior TM will respond

      QUERIEDEXISTS, and the subordinate TM should wait for the
      superior to send a RECONNECT command. If the transaction had
      been aborted, then the superior may respond QUERIEDNOTFOUND, in
      which case the subordinate should abort the transaction (note
      that the superior is not obliged to send a RECONNECT command for
      an aborted transaction (i.e. it could just forget the
      transaction after sending ABORT and before receiving an ABORTED
      response)).

Security

   The means by which applications communicate and perform distributed
   work are outside the scope of the TIP protocol. The mechanisms used
   for authentication and authorisation of clients to access programs
   and information on a particular system are part of the application
   communications protocol and the application execution
   infrastructure. Use of the TIP protocol does not affect these
   considerations.

   Security relates to the TIP protocol itself inasmuch that systems
   require to protect themselves from the receipt of unauthorised TIP
   commands, or the impersonation of a trusted partner TIP TM.
   Probably the worst consequence of this is the possibility of
   undetected data inconsistency resulting from violations of the TIP
   commitment protocol (e.g. a COMMIT command is injected on a TIP
   connection in place of an ABORT command). TIP implementations
   concerned about this kind of attack can use the Secure Socket Layer
   protocol [6] to restrict access to only trusted partners (i.e. to
   control from which remote endpoints TIP transactions will be
   accepted, and to verify that an end-point is genuine), and to
   encrypt TIP commands.

   TIP TM implementations will also likely provide local means to
   time-out and abort transactions which have not completed within
   some time period (thereby preventing unavailability of resources
   due to malicious intent).

TIP Requirements

   Most of these requirements stem from the primary objective of
   making transactions a ubiquitous system service, available to all
   application classes (much as TCP may be assumed to be available
   everywhere). In general this requires imposing as few restrictions
   regarding the use of TIP as possible (applications should not be
   required to execute in some "special" environment in order to use
   transactions), and keeping the protocol simple and efficient. This
   enables the widespread implementation of TIP (it's cheap to do), on
   a wide range of systems (it's cheap to run).

   1. Application Communications Protocol Independence

      The TIP protocol must be defined independently of the
      communications protocol used for transferring application data,
      to allow TIP usage in conjunction with any application protocol.
      It must be possible for applications using arbitrary
      communications protocols to begin, end, and propagate TIP
      transactions.


      This implies that the TIP protocol employ a 2-pipe model of
      operation. This model requires the separation of application
      communications and transaction coordination, into two discrete
      communication channels (pipes). This separation enables the use
      of the transaction coordination protocol (TIP), with any
      application communications protocol (e.g. HTTP, ODBC, plain
      TCP/UDP, etc).

   2. Support for Transaction Semantics

      The TIP protocol must provide the functionality of the de-facto
      standard presumed-abort 2-pc protocol, to guarantee
      transactional atomicity even in the event of failure. It should
      provide a means to construct the transaction tree, as well as
      provide commitment and recovery functions.

   3. Application Transaction Propagation and Interoperability

      In order to facilitate protocol independence, application
      interoperability, and provide a means for TIP transaction
      context propagation, a standard representation of the TIP
      transaction context information is required (in the form of a
      URL). This information must include the listening endpoint
      address of the partner TIP TM, and transaction identifier
      information.

   4. Ease of Implementation

      The TIP protocol must be simple to implement. It should support
      only those features necessary to provide a useful, performant
      2-pc protocol service. The protocol should not add complexity in
      the form of extraneous optimisations.

   5. Suitability for All Application Classes

      The TIP protocol should be complete and robust enough not only
      for electronic commerce on the web, but also for intranet
      applications and for traditional TP applications spanning
      heterogenous transaction manager environments. The protocol
      should be performant and scaleable enough to meet the needs of
      low to very high throughput applications.

      - the TIP protocol should support the concept of client-only
        transaction participants (useful for ultra-lightweight
        implementations on low-end platforms)

      - since some clients may be unreliable, TIP must provide support
        for delegation of transaction coordination (to a more reliable
        (trusted) node)

      - the TIP protocol must scale between 1 and n (> 1) concurrent
        transactions per TCP connection

      - TIP commands should be able to be concatenated (pipelined)

      - TIP should be compatible with the X/Open XA interface


   6. Security

      The TIP protocol must be compatible with existing security
      mechanisms, potentially including encryption, firewalls, and
      authorization mechanisms (e.g. SSL should be used to
      authenticate the sender of a TIP command, and for encryption of
      TIP commands). Nothing in the protocol definition should prevent
      TIP working within any security environment.

   7. TIP Protocol Transport Independence

      It would be beneficial to some applications (though not
      mandatory) to define the TIP protocol independently of the
      transport for the TIP protocol itself.  This would allow the TIP
      protocol to flow over multiple different transport protocols.
      The benefit is when using different transport protocols for the
      application data, the same transport can be used for the TIP 2PC
      protocol.

   8. Recovery

      Recovery semantics need to be defined sufficiently to avoid
      ambiguous results in the event of any type of communications
      transport failure.

References

   [1] Internet Draft "The Transaction Internet Protocol"
       J. Lyon et al.

   [2] Transaction Processing: Concepts and Techniques
       Morgan Kaufmann Publishers (ISBN 1-55860-190-2)
       J. Gray, A. Reuter.

   [3] X/Open CAE Specification, April 1995, Distributed Transaction
       Processing: The TX Specification (ISBN 1-85912-094-6)

   [4] X/Open Guide, November 1993, Distributed Transaction
       Processing: Reference Model Version 2 (ISBN 1-85912-019-9)

   [5] X/Open CAE Specification, December 1991, Distributed
       Transaction Processing: The XA Specification
       (ISBN 1-872630-24-3)

   [6] Internet Draft "The SSL Protocol Version 3.0"
       A. Freier, P. Karlton, P. Kocher.

Authors' Addresses

   Jim Lyon                           Keith Evans
   Microsoft Corporation              Tandem Computers Inc, LOC 252-30
   One Microsoft Way                  5425 Stevens Creek Blvd
   Redmond, WA  98052-6399, USA       Santa Clara, CA 95051-7200, USA

   Phone: +1 (206) 936 0867           Phone: +1 (408) 285 5314
   Fax:   +1 (206) 936 7329           Fax:   +1 (408) 285 5245
   Email: JimLyon@Microsoft.Com       Email: Evans_Keith@Tandem.Com

   Johannes Klein
   Tandem Computers Inc.
   10555 Ridgeview Court
   Cupertino, CA 95014-0789, USA

   Phone: +1 (408) 285 0453
   Fax:   +1 (408) 285 9818
   Email: Klein_Johannes@Tandem.Com