Reliable Server Pooling (rserpool) Concluded WG
Note: The data for concluded WGs is occasionally incorrect.
|WG||Name||Reliable Server Pooling|
|Area||Transport Area (tsv)||State||Concluded|
|Dependencies||Document dependency graph (SVG)|
Charter for Working Group
The purpose of the WG is to develop an architecture and protocols for
the management and operation of server pools supporting highly reliable
applications, and for client access mechanisms to a server pool.
The WG will define architecture and requirements for management and
access to server pools, including requirements from a variety of
applications, building blocks and interfaces, different styles of
pooling, security requirements and performance requirements, such as
failover times and coping with heterogeneous latencies. This will be
documented in an Informational RFC.
The working group will focus on supporting high availability and
scalability of applications through the use of pools of servers. This
requires both a way to keep track of what servers are in the pool
and are able to receive requests and a way for the client to bind to
a desired server.
The Working Group will NOT address:
1) reliable multicast protocols - the use of multicast for reliable
server pooling is optional. Reliable multicast protocols will be
developed by the RMT WG.
2) synchronization/consistency of data between server pool elements,
e.g. shared memory
3) mechanisms for sharing state information between server pool
4) Transaction failover. If a server fails during processing of a
transaction this transaction may be lost. Some services may provide
a way to handle the failure, but this is not guaranteed.
The WG will address client access mechanisms for server pools,
1) An access mechanism that allows geographically dispersed servers in
2) A client-server binding mechanism that allows dynamic assignment of
client to servers based on load balancing or application specific
3) Support of automatic reconfiguration of the client/server binding in
case of server failure or administrative changes.
To the extent that new protocols are necessary to support the
requirements for server pooling, these will be documented in a
Standards Track RFC on client access to a binding service (i.e. name
The WG will also address use of proxying to interwork existing client
access mechanisms to any new binding service.
The WG will address server pool management and a distributed service to
support client/server binding, including:
1) A scalable mechanism for tracking server pool membership (incl.
2) A scalable protocol for performing node failure detection,
reconfiguration and failover, and otherwise managing the server pool
(supporting caching, membership, query, authentication,
3) A distributed service to support binding of clients to servers,
based on information specific to the server pool. Given that this
service is essential to access the server pool, a high degree of
availability is necessary.
4) A means for allowing flexible load assignment and balancing policies
The protocols and procedures for server pool management will be
documented in a Standards Track RFC.
The WG will address:
- transport protocol(s) that would be supported (eg. UDP, SCTP, TCP)
- any new congestion management issues
- relationship to existing work such as URI resolution mechanisms
Rserpool will consult with other IETF working groups such as Reliable
multicast, DNS extensions, AAA, URN, WREC and Sigtran as appropriate
and will not duplicate any of these efforts.
|Done||Overview, Threat Analysis and Protocol specifications submitted to IESG for Informational, Informational and Experimental respectively.|
|Done||WG last call on protocol specifications, Threats Analysis and Overview document|
|Done||WG discussion on any outstanding issues.|
|Done||Updated drafts submitted based on review comments|
|Done||Threats Analysis updated to align with specification|
|Done||Finished review cycle with at least 2 external reviewers|
|Done||Revised versions of protocol specification drafts|
|Done||Initial draft of RSERPOOL Overview document|
|Done||Submit Threat Analysis to IESG for Informational RFC|
|Done||Submit Architecture draft to IESG for Informational RFC|
|Done||Initial draft of Applicability Statement|
|Done||Initial draft of TCP Mapping document|
|Done||Initial draft of Resrpool Requirements document|
|Done||Submit Comparison document to IESG for Informational RFC|
|Done||Submit Requirements document to IESG for Informational RFC|
|Done||Initial draft of Binding Service document|
|Done||Initial draft of Rserpool Architecture document|
|Done||Initial draft of Pool Management document|
|Done||Initial draft of Rserpool Services document|
|Done||Initial draft of MIB|
|Done||Initial draft of Threat Analysis|
|Done||Initial draft of Protocol Comparison|