Considerations in the Development of a QoS Architecture for CCNx-Like Information-Centric Networking Protocols
RFC 9064
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2021-06-30
|
06 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 9064, changed title to 'Considerations in the Development of a QoS Architecture for CCNx-Like Information-Centric … Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 9064, changed title to 'Considerations in the Development of a QoS Architecture for CCNx-Like Information-Centric Networking Protocols', changed abstract to 'This is a position paper. It documents the author's personal views on how Quality of Service (QoS) capabilities ought to be accommodated in Information-Centric Networking (ICN) protocols like Content-Centric Networking (CCNx) or Named Data Networking (NDN), which employ flow-balanced Interest/Data exchanges and hop-by-hop forwarding state as their fundamental machinery. It argues that such protocols demand a substantially different approach to QoS from that taken in TCP/IP and proposes specific design patterns to achieve both classification and differentiated QoS treatment on both a flow and aggregate basis. It also considers the effect of caches in addition to memory, CPU, and link bandwidth as resources that should be subject to explicitly unfair resource allocation. The proposed methods are intended to operate purely at the network layer, providing the primitives needed to achieve transport- and higher-layer QoS objectives. It explicitly excludes any discussion of Quality of Experience (QoE), which can only be assessed and controlled at the application layer or above. This document is not a product of the IRTF Information-Centric Networking Research Group (ICNRG) but has been through formal Last Call and has the support of the participants in the research group for publication as an individual submission.', changed pages to 23, changed standardization level to Informational, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2021-06-30, changed IRTF state to Published RFC) |
|
2021-06-30
|
06 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2021-06-23
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9064">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48 |
|
2021-06-22
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9064">AUTH48</a> |
|
2021-05-24
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
|
2021-04-16
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IANA Actions from In Progress |
|
2021-04-15
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
|
2021-04-15
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2021-04-15
|
06 | Colin Perkins | IRTF state changed to Sent to the RFC Editor from Waiting for IRTF Chair |
|
2021-04-15
|
06 | Colin Perkins | Sent request for publication to the RFC Editor |
|
2021-03-12
|
06 | David Oran | Tag IESG Review Completed set. |
|
2021-03-12
|
06 | David Oran | IRTF state changed to Waiting for IRTF Chair from Sent to the RFC Editor |
|
2021-03-09
|
06 | David Oran | IRTF state changed to Sent to the RFC Editor from In IESG Review |
|
2021-01-15
|
06 | Colin Perkins | Magnus Westerlund will do a conflict review for the IESG |
|
2021-01-15
|
06 | Colin Perkins | IRTF state changed to In IESG Review from Waiting for IRTF Chair |
|
2020-12-22
|
06 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
|
2020-12-22
|
06 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-eval@iana.org): IESG/Authors/ISE: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch-06 and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any registry … (Via drafts-eval@iana.org): IESG/Authors/ISE: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch-06 and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. Thank you, Amanda Baber Lead IANA Services Specialist |
|
2020-12-21
|
06 | Colin Perkins | IETF conflict review initiated - see <a href="/doc/conflict-review-oran-icnrg-qosarch/">conflict-review-oran-icnrg-qosarch</a> |
|
2020-11-22
|
06 | David Oran | Confirm with Mallory & Spencer that their comments on the IRSG ballot were adequately addressed by this version, and if so, it should be ready … Confirm with Mallory & Spencer that their comments on the IRSG ballot were adequately addressed by this version, and if so, it should be ready for IESG conflict review and on to RFCed for publication. |
|
2020-11-22
|
06 | David Oran | IRTF state changed to Waiting for IRTF Chair from Waiting for Document Shepherd |
|
2020-11-19
|
06 | (System) | Revised ID Needed tag cleared |
|
2020-11-19
|
06 | David Oran | New version available: draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch-06.txt |
|
2020-11-19
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-11-19
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: David Oran <daveoran@orandom.net> |
|
2020-11-19
|
06 | David Oran | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-10-12
|
05 | David Oran | Changed document external resources from: [] to: github_repo https://github.com/daveoran/draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch |
|
2020-10-12
|
05 | Colin Perkins | Revised draft needed to address IRSG ballot comments from Spencer and Mallory. |
|
2020-10-12
|
05 | Colin Perkins | Tag Revised I-D Needed set. |
|
2020-10-12
|
05 | Colin Perkins | IRTF state changed to Waiting for Document Shepherd from In IRSG Poll |
|
2020-10-12
|
05 | Colin Perkins | Closed "IRSG Approve" ballot |
|
2020-09-24
|
05 | Mallory Knodel | [Ballot comment] The draft includes a lot of meta narrative about the discussion of the draft and unresolved issues in the IRSG without simply resolving … [Ballot comment] The draft includes a lot of meta narrative about the discussion of the draft and unresolved issues in the IRSG without simply resolving those issues and presenting the research as a whole. Furthermore the "managed unfairness" framing sets a low bar when QoS should be primarily about defining the high bar. While it might be worth mapping the floor, I suggest it's real value for the IRTF would be achieved in conjunction with finding the ceiling. |
|
2020-09-24
|
05 | Mallory Knodel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Not Ready, has been recorded for Mallory Knodel |
|
2020-09-16
|
05 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] Thanks for writing this. I'm fine with it being published on the IRTF stream as a way of provoking thought. I have some … [Ballot comment] Thanks for writing this. I'm fine with it being published on the IRTF stream as a way of provoking thought. I have some nit-ish comments, but please do the right thing, whatever that is. I'm not an ICN guy, but I can translate all of the terms on both sides of Table 1, except for "flow balance". The term isn't mentioned anywhere else, except with a reference to I-D.oran-icnrg-flowbalance, which has a very clear definition in its abstract. This captures the idea that there is a one-to-one correspondence between requests for data, carried in Interest messages, and the responses with the requested data object, carried in Data messages. Would it make sense to include some or all of that definition earlier in the document, or just including a pointer to the discussion draft near where the term first appears? The current pointer to the discussion draft happens 14 pages into this draft, which doesn't seem helpful if a reader doesn't understand the term used on page 3. If everyone else knows what that means, please carry on :-) This text Further, accumulated experience seems to indicate that QoS is helpful in a fairly narrow range of network conditions: seems backwards to me, because the list of bullets that follows describe where QoS is NOT helpful: * If your resources are lightly loaded, you don't need it, as neither congestive loss nor substantial queueing delay occurs * If your resources are heavily oversubscribed, it doesn't save you. So many users will be unhappy that you are probably not delivering a viable service * Failures can rapidly shift your state from the first above to the second, in which case either: - your QoS machinery cannot respond quickly enough to maintain the advertised service quality continuously, or - resource allocations are sufficiently conservative to result in substantial wasted capacity under non-failure conditions Nevertheless, though not universally deployed, QoS is advantageous at least for some applications and some network environments. I think this text This may allow less pessimistic rate adjustment schemes than the Additive Increase, Multiplicative Decrease (AIMD) with .5 multiplier that is used on TCP/IP networks. is approximately correct today, but TSVWG is certainly trying to change that with ECT(1) experimentation as per https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8311. Perhaps "that is commonly used on TCP/IP networks"? I'm a bit uncomfortable with "likely to incur a mobility event within an RTT (or a few RTTs)", because really short-horizon distributed decisions seem to be problematic in a lot of path aware networking proposals. * A QoS treatment indicating a mobile consumer likely to incur a mobility event within an RTT (or a few RTTs). Such a treatment would allow a mobile network operator to preferentially cache the data at a forwarder positioned at a _join point_ or _rendezvous point_ of their topology. How badly do you need the text following "likely to incur a mobility event"? It seems like deleting it would be just as clear and accurate. |
|
2020-09-16
|
05 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
|
2020-09-16
|
05 | Eve Schooler | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Eve Schooler |
|
2020-09-16
|
05 | Dirk Kutscher | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Dirk Kutscher |
|
2020-09-11
|
05 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] The document states that is does only reflect the author's personal views and is not a product of the IRTF Information-Centric Networking Research … [Ballot comment] The document states that is does only reflect the author's personal views and is not a product of the IRTF Information-Centric Networking Research Group (ICNRG), as such it seems to me that the document would be the perfect candidate for publication on the ISE stream. |
|
2020-09-11
|
05 | Mirja Kühlewind | Ballot comment text updated for Mirja Kühlewind |
|
2020-09-11
|
05 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Mirja Kühlewind has been changed to No Objection from Not Ready |
|
2020-09-10
|
05 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] I would like to quickly discuss if this document is seen as appropriate for publication on the IRTF stream. The document states that … [Ballot comment] I would like to quickly discuss if this document is seen as appropriate for publication on the IRTF stream. The document states that is does only reflect the author's personal views and is not a product of the IRTF Information-Centric Networking Research Group (ICNRG), as such it seems to me that the document would be the perfect candidate for publication on the ISE stream. |
|
2020-09-10
|
05 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Not Ready, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
|
2020-09-08
|
05 | David Oran | [Ballot comment] I'm the author |
|
2020-09-08
|
05 | David Oran | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded for David Oran |
|
2020-09-06
|
05 | Colin Perkins | IRTF state changed to In IRSG Poll from Waiting for Document Shepherd |
|
2020-09-06
|
05 | Colin Perkins | Created IRSG Ballot |
|
2020-09-06
|
05 | Colin Perkins | 1) Summary This document is a position paper that describes how Quality of Service (QoS) capabilities ought to be accommodated in ICN protocols like CCNx … 1) Summary This document is a position paper that describes how Quality of Service (QoS) capabilities ought to be accommodated in ICN protocols like CCNx or NDN which employ flow-balanced Interest/Data exchanges and hop-by-hop forwarding state as their fundamental machinery. 2) Review and Consensus QoS in ICN is an important topic with a huge design space. ICNRG has been discussing different specific protocol mechanisms as well as conceptual approaches. This document presents architectural considerations for QoS, leveraging ICN properties instead of merely applying IP-QoS mechanisms - without defining a specific architecture or specific protocols mechanisms yet. However, there is consensus in ICNRG that this document, clarifying the author's views, could inspire such work and should hence be published as a position paper. The draft was reviewed for the IRSG by Eve Schooler. |
|
2020-08-24
|
05 | (System) | Revised ID Needed tag cleared |
|
2020-08-24
|
05 | David Oran | New version available: draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch-05.txt |
|
2020-08-24
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-08-24
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: David Oran <daveoran@orandom.net> |
|
2020-08-24
|
05 | David Oran | Uploaded new revision |
|
2020-08-10
|
04 | Colin Perkins | Eve Schooler review 2020-08-10; revised I-D needed |
|
2020-08-10
|
04 | Colin Perkins | Tag Revised I-D Needed set. |
|
2020-08-10
|
04 | Colin Perkins | IRTF state changed to Waiting for Document Shepherd from Awaiting IRSG Reviews |
|
2020-08-10
|
04 | Colin Perkins | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
|
2020-06-23
|
04 | Colin Perkins | Sent for IRSG review 2020-06-23 |
|
2020-06-23
|
04 | Colin Perkins | IRTF state changed to Awaiting IRSG Reviews from Waiting for IRTF Chair |
|
2020-06-23
|
04 | Colin Perkins | Changed consensus to No from Unknown |
|
2020-04-08
|
04 | Dirk Kutscher | IRTF state changed to Waiting for IRTF Chair from Waiting for Document Shepherd |
|
2020-04-08
|
04 | Dirk Kutscher | 1) Summary This document is a position paper that describes how Quality of Service (QoS) capabilities ought to be accommodated in ICN protocols like CCNx … 1) Summary This document is a position paper that describes how Quality of Service (QoS) capabilities ought to be accommodated in ICN protocols like CCNx or NDN which employ flow-balanced Interest/Data exchanges and hop-by-hop forwarding state as their fundamental machinery. 2) Review and Consensus QoS in ICN is an important topic with a huge design space. ICNRG has been discussing different specific protocol mechanisms as well as conceptual approaches. This document presents architectural considerations for QoS, leveraging ICN properties instead of merely applying IP-QoS mechanisms - without defining a specific architecture or specific protocols mechanisms yet. However, there is consensus in ICNRG that this document, clarifying the author's views, could inspire such work and should hence be published as a position paper. |
|
2020-04-08
|
04 | Dirk Kutscher | Notification list changed to Dirk Kutscher <ietf@dkutscher.net> |
|
2020-04-08
|
04 | Dirk Kutscher | Document shepherd changed to Dirk Kutscher |
|
2020-04-08
|
04 | Dirk Kutscher | agreed to publish without adoption as a position paper (Informational RFC) |
|
2020-04-08
|
04 | Dirk Kutscher | IRTF state changed to Waiting for Document Shepherd |
|
2020-04-08
|
04 | Dirk Kutscher | Notification list changed to none |
|
2020-04-08
|
04 | Dirk Kutscher | Changed group to Information-Centric Networking (ICNRG) |
|
2020-04-08
|
04 | Dirk Kutscher | Changed stream to IRTF |
|
2020-02-28
|
04 | David Oran | New version available: draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch-04.txt |
|
2020-02-28
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2020-02-28
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: David Oran <daveoran@orandom.net> |
|
2020-02-28
|
04 | David Oran | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-12-03
|
03 | David Oran | New version available: draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch-03.txt |
|
2019-12-03
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2019-12-03
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: David Oran <daveoran@orandom.net> |
|
2019-12-03
|
03 | David Oran | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-10-12
|
02 | David Oran | New version available: draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch-02.txt |
|
2019-10-12
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2019-10-12
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: David Oran <daveoran@orandom.net> |
|
2019-10-12
|
02 | David Oran | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-08-27
|
01 | David Oran | New version available: draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch-01.txt |
|
2019-08-27
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2019-08-27
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: David Oran <daveoran@orandom.net> |
|
2019-08-27
|
01 | David Oran | Uploaded new revision |
|
2019-08-09
|
00 | David Oran | New version available: draft-oran-icnrg-qosarch-00.txt |
|
2019-08-09
|
00 | (System) | New version approved |
|
2019-08-09
|
00 | David Oran | Request for posting confirmation emailed to submitter and authors: David Oran <daveoran@orandom.net> |
|
2019-08-09
|
00 | David Oran | Uploaded new revision |