ICNRG                                                        C. Gündoğan
Internet-Draft                                               TC. Schmidt
Intended status: Experimental                                HAW Hamburg
Expires: 29 October 2022                                         D. Oran
                                     Network Systems Research and Design
                                                            M. Waehlisch
                                                    link-lab & FU Berlin
                                                           27 April 2022


 Alternative Delta Time Encoding for CCNx Using Compact Floating-Point
                               Arithmetic
                    draft-irtf-icnrg-ccnx-timetlv-00

Abstract

   CCNx utilizes delta time for a number of functions.  When using CCNx
   in environments with constrained nodes or bandwidth constrained
   networks, it is valuable to have a compressed representation of delta
   time.  In order to do so, either accuracy or dynamic range has to be
   sacrificed.  Since the current uses of delta time do not require both
   simultaneously, one can consider a logarithmic encoding such as that
   specified in [RFC5497] and [IEEE.754.2019].  This document updates
   _CCNx messages in TLV Format_ [RFC8609] to specify this alternative
   encoding.

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 29 October 2022.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.




Gündoğan, et al.         Expires 29 October 2022                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft              TimeTLV for CCNx                  April 2022


   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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Usage of Time Values in CCNx  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Relative Time in CCNx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  Absolute Time in CCNx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  A Compact Time Representation with Logarithmic Range  . . . .   4
   5.  Protocol Integration of the Compact Time Representation . . .   6
     5.1.  Interest Lifetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.2.  Recommended Cache Time  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Appendix A.  Test Vectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Appendix B.  Efficient Time Value Approximation . . . . . . . . .  11
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Introduction

   CCNx utilizes time values for a number of functions.  Some of these
   are expressed as absolute time, others as delta time.  CCNx is well
   suited for Internet of Things (IoT) applications [RFC7927].  When
   using CCNx in environments with constrained nodes or bandwidth
   constrained networks, it is valuable to have a compact representation
   of time values.  For example [RFC9139] and [ICNLOWPAN] specify a
   compression scheme useful over IEEE 802.15.4 networks.  However, any
   compact time representation has to sacrifice accuracy or dynamic
   range.  For some time uses this is relatively straightforward to
   achieve, for other uses, it is not.  This document discusses the
   various cases, and proposes a compact encoding that is easily
   accommodated for delta times.







Gündoğan, et al.         Expires 29 October 2022                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft              TimeTLV for CCNx                  April 2022


2.  Terminology

   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].

   This document uses the terminology of [RFC8569] and [RFC8609] for
   CCNx entities.

   The following terms are used in the document and defined as follows:

   byte:         synonym for octet

   time value:   a time offset measured in seconds

   time code:    an 8-bit encoded time value

3.  Usage of Time Values in CCNx

3.1.  Relative Time in CCNx

   CCNx, as currently specified in [RFC8569], utilizes delta time for
   only the lifetime of an Interest message (see sections 2.1, 2.2,
   2.4.2, 10.3 of [RFC8569]).  It is a hop-by-hop header value, and is
   currently encoded via the T_INTLIFE TLV as a 64-bit integer
   ([RFC8609] section 3.4.1).  While formally an optional TLV, in all
   but some corner cases every Interest message is expected to carry the
   Interest Lifetime TLV, and hence having compact encoding is
   particularly valuable for keeping Interest messages short.

   Since the current uses of delta time do not require both accuracy and
   dynamic range simultaneously, one can consider a logarithmic encoding
   such as that specified in [IEEE.754.2019] and outlined in Section 4.
   This document updates _CCNx messages in TLV Format_ [RFC8609] to
   permit this alternative encoding for selected time values.  See
   Section 6 for the specific actions needed to register this
   alternative compact representation of Interest Lifetime.

3.2.  Absolute Time in CCNx

   CCNx, as currently specified in [RFC8569], utilizes absolute time for
   various important functions.  Each of these absolute time usages
   poses a different challenge for a compact representation.  These are
   discussed in the following subsections.







Gündoğan, et al.         Expires 29 October 2022                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft              TimeTLV for CCNx                  April 2022


3.2.1.  Signature Time and Expiry Time

   _Signature Time_ is the time the signature of a content object was
   generated (sections 8.2-8.4 [RFC8569]).  _Expiry Time_ indicates the
   expiry time of a content object (section 4 [RFC8569]).  Both values
   are content message TLVs and represent absolute timestamps in
   milliseconds since the UTC epoch (i.e., an NTP timestamp).  They are
   currently encoded via the T_SIGTIME and T_EXPIRY TLVs as 64-bit
   unsigned integers (see section 3.6.4.1.4.5 and 3.6.2.2.2 [RFC8609]).

   Both time values could be in the past, or in the future, potentially
   by a large delta.  They are also included in the security envelope of
   the message.  Therefore, it seems there is no practical way to define
   an alternative compact encoding that preserves its semantics and
   security properties; hence we don't consider it further as a
   candidate.

3.2.2.  Recommended Cache Time

   _Recommended Cache Time_ (RCT) for a content object (see section 4
   [RFC8569]) is a hop-by-hop header stating the expiration time for a
   cached content object in milliseconds since the UTC epoch (i.e., an
   NTP timestamp).  It is currently encoded via the T_CACHETIME TLV as a
   64-bit unsigned integer (see section 3.4.2 [RFC8609]).

   A recommended cache time could be far in the future, but cannot be in
   the past and is likely to be a reasonably short offset from the
   current time.  Therefore, this document allows the recommended cache
   time to be interpreted as a relative time value rather than an
   absolute time, since the semantics associated with an absolute time
   value do not seem to be critical to the utility of this value.  This
   document therefore updates the recommended cache time with the
   following rule set:

   *  Use absolute time as per [RFC8609]

   *  Use relative time, if the compact time representation is used (see
      Section 4 and Section 5)

4.  A Compact Time Representation with Logarithmic Range

   This document uses the compact time representation of ICNLoWPAN (see
   section 7 of [RFC9139]) that is inspired by [RFC5497] and
   [IEEE.754.2019].  Its logarithmic encoding supports a representation
   ranging from milliseconds to years.  Figure 1 depicts the logarithmic
   nature of this time representation.





Gündoğan, et al.         Expires 29 October 2022                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft              TimeTLV for CCNx                  April 2022


    || |  |   |    |     |      |       |        |         |          |
    +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
    milliseconds                                                  years

       Figure 1: A logarithmic range representation allows for higher
       precision in the smaller time ranges and still supports large
                                time deltas.

   Time codes encode exponent and mantissa values in a single byte, but
   in contrast to the representation in [IEEE.754.2019], time codes only
   encode positive numbers and hence do not include an extra sign bit.
   Figure 2 shows the configuration of a time code: an exponent width of
   5 bits, and a mantissa width of 3 bits.

                 <---          one byte wide          --->
                 +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
                 |      exponent (b)      | mantissa (a) |
                 +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
                   0    1    2    3    4    5    6    7

        Figure 2: A time code with exponent and mantissa to encode a
                   logarithmic range time representation.

   The base unit for time values are seconds.  A time value is
   calculated using the following formula (adopted from [RFC5497] and
   [RFC9139]), where (a) represents the mantissa, (b) the exponent, and
   (C) a constant factor set to C := 1/32.

   Subnormal (b == 0):  (0 + a/8) * 2 * C

   Normalized (b > 0):  (1 + a/8) * 2^b * C

   The subnormal form provides a gradual underflow between zero and the
   smallest normalized number.  Eight time values exist in the subnormal
   range [0s,~0.054688s] with a step size of ~0.007812s between each
   time value.  This configuration also encodes the following convenient
   numbers in seconds: [1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, ...].  Appendix A
   further includes test vectors to illustrate the logarithmic range.

   An example algorithm to encode a time value into the corresponding
   exponent and mantissa is given as pseudo code in Figure 3.  Not all
   time values can be represented by a time code.  For these instances,
   the closest time code is chosen that is smaller than the value to
   encode.







Gündoğan, et al.         Expires 29 October 2022                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft              TimeTLV for CCNx                  April 2022


      input: float v    // time value
     output:   int a, b // mantissa, exponent of time code

     (a, b) encode (v):

         if (v == 0)
             return (0, 0)

         if (v < 2 * C)                              // subnormal
             a = floor (v * 4 / C)                   // round down
             return (a, 0)
         else                                        // normalized
             if (v > (1 + 7/8) * 2^31 * C)           // check bounds
                 return (7, 31)                      // return maximum
             else
                 b = floor (log2(v / C))             // round down
                 a = floor ((v / (2^b * C) - 1) * 8) // round down
                 return (a, b)

                    Figure 3: Algorithm in pseudo code.

   As an example: No specific time code for 0.063 exists, but this
   algorithm maps to the closest valid time code that is smaller, i.e.,
   exponent 1 and mantissa 0 (the same as for time value 0.0625).

5.  Protocol Integration of the Compact Time Representation

   A straightforward way to accommodate the compact time approach is to
   use a 1-byte length field to indicate this alternative encoding while
   retaining the existing TLV registry entries.  This approach has
   backward compatibility problems, but may still be considered for the
   following reasons:

   *  Both CCNx RFCs are experimental and not Standards Track, hence
      expectations for forward and backward compatibility are not as
      stringent.  "Flag day" upgrades of deployed CCNx networks, while
      inconvenient, are still feasible.

   *  The major use case for these compressed encodings are smaller-
      scale IoT and/or sensor networks where the population of
      consumers, producers, and forwarders is reasonably small.

   *  Since the current TLVs have hop-by-hop semantics, they are not
      covered by any signed hash and hence may be freely re-encoded by
      any forwarder.  That means a forwarder supporting the new encoding
      can translate freely between the two encodings.





Gündoğan, et al.         Expires 29 October 2022                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft              TimeTLV for CCNx                  April 2022


   *  The alternative of assigning new TLV registry values does not
      substantially mitigate the interoperability problems anyway.

   The following lists alternative approaches of integrating the compact
   time representation for time offsets in CCNx messages.  A further
   analysis, discussion, and decision on the best suited approach will
   be added as the document progresses.

   1.  Relative time TLVs (e.g., T_INTLIFETIME) include nested TLVs to
       hint at the used encoding.  This approach allows for versatility
       in defining new time encodings, but adds a TLV overhead that
       negates the benefits of the compact time representation.

   2.  A new TLV type for the compact time representation is defined
       (T_INTLIFETIME_COMPACT).  The packet header grammar from
       [RFC8609] is updated to allow for T_INTLIFETIME_COMPACT at the
       same level of the currently defined T_INTLIFETIME.

5.1.  Interest Lifetime

   The Interest Lifetime definition in [RFC8609] allows for a variable-
   length lifetime representation, where a length of 1 encodes the
   linear range [0,255] in milliseconds.  This document changes the
   definition to always encode 1-byte Interest lifetime values in the
   compact time value representation (Figure 4).

                        1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
   |           T_INTLIFE           |           Length = 1          |
   +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
   | COMPACT_TIME  |
   +---------------+
                        1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
   |           T_INTLIFE           |           Length > 1          |
   +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
   /                                                               /
   /                      Lifetime (Length octets)                 /
   /                                                               /
   +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+

     Figure 4: Changes to the definition of the Interest Lifetime TLV.







Gündoğan, et al.         Expires 29 October 2022                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft              TimeTLV for CCNx                  April 2022


   A note on legacy forwarders: A forwarder that does not support this
   compact time representation will interpret the time value as an
   Interest lifetime between 0 and 255 milliseconds.  This may lead to a
   degradation of network performance, since Pending Interest
   Table (PIT) entries timeout quicker than expected.

5.2.  Recommended Cache Time

   The Recommended Cache Time definition in [RFC8609] specifies an
   absolute time representation that is of a length fixed to 8 bytes.
   This document changes the definition to always encode 1-byte
   Recommended Cache Time values in the compact relative time value
   representation (Figure 5).

                        1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
   |          T_CACHETIME          |           Length = 1          |
   +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
   | COMPACT_TIME  |
   +---------------+
                        1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
   |          T_CACHETIME          |           Length = 8          |
   +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
   /                                                               /
   /                    Recommended Cache Time                     /
   /                                                               /
   +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+

     Figure 5: Changes to the definition of the Recommended Cache Time
                                    TLV.

   The packet processing is adapted to calculate an absolute time from
   the relative time code based on the absolute reception time.  On
   transmission, a new relative time code is calculated based on the
   current system time.

   A note on legacy forwarders: A forwarder that does not support this
   compact time representation is expected to consider a Recommended
   Cache Time with length 1 as a structural or syntactical error and
   discard the packet.  Otherwise, a forwarder interprets the compact
   1-byte time value as an absolute time far in the past, which impacts
   cache utilization.






Gündoğan, et al.         Expires 29 October 2022                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft              TimeTLV for CCNx                  April 2022


6.  IANA Considerations

   Based on the approach of integration, certain TLV registries from
   [RFC8609] need to be updated.

7.  Security Considerations

   This document makes no semantic changes to [RFC8569], nor to any of
   the security properties of the message encodings of [RFC8609], and
   hence has the same security considerations as those two existing
   documents.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [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/info/rfc2119>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [ICNLOWPAN]
              Gündoğan, C., Kietzmann, P., Schmidt, T., and M. Wählisch,
              "Designing a LoWPAN convergence layer for the Information
              Centric Internet of Things", Computer Communications, Vol.
              164, No. 1, p. 114–123, Elsevier, December 2020,
              <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comcom.2020.10.002>.

   [IEEE.754.2019]
              Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, C/MSC -
              Microprocessor Standards Committee, "Standard for
              Floating-Point Arithmetic", June 2019,
              <https://standards.ieee.org/content/ieee-standards/en/
              standard/754-2019.html>.

   [RFC5497]  Clausen, T. and C. Dearlove, "Representing Multi-Value
              Time in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs)", RFC 5497,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5497, March 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5497>.

   [RFC7927]  Kutscher, D., Ed., Eum, S., Pentikousis, K., Psaras, I.,
              Corujo, D., Saucez, D., Schmidt, T., and M. Waehlisch,
              "Information-Centric Networking (ICN) Research
              Challenges", RFC 7927, DOI 10.17487/RFC7927, July 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7927>.




Gündoğan, et al.         Expires 29 October 2022                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft              TimeTLV for CCNx                  April 2022


   [RFC8569]  Mosko, M., Solis, I., and C. Wood, "Content-Centric
              Networking (CCNx) Semantics", RFC 8569,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8569, July 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8569>.

   [RFC8609]  Mosko, M., Solis, I., and C. Wood, "Content-Centric
              Networking (CCNx) Messages in TLV Format", RFC 8609,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8609, July 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8609>.

   [RFC9139]  Gündoğan, C., Schmidt, T., Wählisch, M., Scherb, C.,
              Marxer, C., and C. Tschudin, "Information-Centric
              Networking (ICN) Adaptation to Low-Power Wireless Personal
              Area Networks (LoWPANs)", RFC 9139, DOI 10.17487/RFC9139,
              November 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9139>.

Appendix A.  Test Vectors

   The test vectors in Table 1 show sample time codes and their
   corresponding time values according to the algorithm outlined in
   Section 4.

                   +===========+======================+
                   | Time Code | Time Value (seconds) |
                   +===========+======================+
                   |    0x00   |             0.000000 |
                   +-----------+----------------------+
                   |    0x01   |             0.007812 |
                   +-----------+----------------------+
                   |    0x04   |             0.031250 |
                   +-----------+----------------------+
                   |    0x08   |             0.062500 |
                   +-----------+----------------------+
                   |    0x15   |             0.203125 |
                   +-----------+----------------------+
                   |    0x28   |             1.000000 |
                   +-----------+----------------------+
                   |    0x30   |             2.000000 |
                   +-----------+----------------------+
                   |    0xF8   |      67108864.000000 |
                   +-----------+----------------------+
                   |    0xFF   |     125829120.000000 |
                   +-----------+----------------------+

                          Table 1: Test Vectors






Gündoğan, et al.         Expires 29 October 2022               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft              TimeTLV for CCNx                  April 2022


Appendix B.  Efficient Time Value Approximation

   A forwarder frequently converts compact time into milliseconds to
   compare Interest lifetimes and the duration of cache entries.  On
   many architectures, multiplication and division perform slower than
   addition, subtraction, and bit shifts.  The following equations
   approximate the formulas in Section 4, and scale from seconds into
   the milliseconds range by applying a factor of 2^10 instead of 10^3.
   This results in an error of 2.4%.

   b == 0:   2^10 * a * 2^-3 * 2^1 * 2^-5
             = a << 3

   b > 0:    (2^10 + a * 2^-3 * 2^10) * 2^b * 2^-5
             = (1 << 5 + a << 2) << b

Acknowledgments

   We would like to thank the active members of the ICNRG research group
   for constructive thoughts.  In particular, we thank Marc Mosko and
   Ken Calvert for their valuable feedback on the encoding scheme and
   the protocol integration.

Authors' Addresses

   Cenk Gündoğan
   HAW Hamburg
   Berliner Tor 7
   D-20099 Hamburg
   Germany
   Phone: +4940428758067
   Email: cenk.guendogan@haw-hamburg.de
   URI:   http://inet.haw-hamburg.de/members/cenk-gundogan


   Thomas C. Schmidt
   HAW Hamburg
   Berliner Tor 7
   D-20099 Hamburg
   Germany
   Email: t.schmidt@haw-hamburg.de
   URI:   http://inet.haw-hamburg.de/members/schmidt









Gündoğan, et al.         Expires 29 October 2022               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft              TimeTLV for CCNx                  April 2022


   Dave Oran
   Network Systems Research and Design
   4 Shady Hill Square
   Cambridge, MA 02138
   United States of America
   Email: daveoran@orandom.net


   Matthias Waehlisch
   link-lab & FU Berlin
   Hoenower Str. 35
   D-10318 Berlin
   Germany
   Email: mw@link-lab.net
   URI:   http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/~waehl




































Gündoğan, et al.         Expires 29 October 2022               [Page 12]