< draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-01.txt   draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-02.txt >
alto M. Boucadair alto M. Boucadair
Internet-Draft Orange Internet-Draft Orange
Updates: 7285 (if approved) Q. Wu Updates: 7285 (if approved) Q. Wu
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Intended status: Standards Track Huawei
Expires: 13 October 2022 11 April 2022 Expires: 18 October 2022 16 April 2022
A Cost Mode Registry for the Application-Layer Traffic Optimization A Cost Mode Registry for the Application-Layer Traffic Optimization
(ALTO) Protocol (ALTO) Protocol
draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-01 draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-02
Abstract Abstract
This document creates a new IANA registry for tracking cost modes This document creates a new IANA registry for tracking cost modes
supported by the Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) supported by the Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO)
protocol. Also, this document relaxes a constraint that was imposed protocol. Also, this document relaxes a constraint that was imposed
by the ALTO specification on allowed cost mode values. by the ALTO specification on allowed cost mode values.
This document updates RFC 7285. This document updates RFC 7285.
skipping to change at page 1, line 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 37
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 13 October 2022. This Internet-Draft will expire on 18 October 2022.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Updates to RFC7285 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Updates to RFC7285 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Update to Section 6.1.2 of RFC7285 . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. Updates to Section 6.1.2 of RFC7285 . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Update to Section 10.5 of RFC7285 . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Updates to Section 10.5 of RFC7285 . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
skipping to change at page 2, line 46 skipping to change at page 2, line 46
"numerical": Indicates that numerical operations can be performed "numerical": Indicates that numerical operations can be performed
(e.g., normalization) on the returned costs (Section 6.1.2.1 of (e.g., normalization) on the returned costs (Section 6.1.2.1 of
[RFC7285]). [RFC7285]).
"ordinal": Indicates that the cost values in a cost map represent "ordinal": Indicates that the cost values in a cost map represent
ranking (relative to all other values in a cost map), not actual ranking (relative to all other values in a cost map), not actual
costs (Section 6.1.2.2 of [RFC7285]). costs (Section 6.1.2.2 of [RFC7285]).
Additional cost modes are required for specific ALTO deployment cases Additional cost modes are required for specific ALTO deployment cases
(e.g., [I-D.ietf-alto-path-vector]). In order to allow for such use (e.g., [I-D.ietf-alto-path-vector]). In order to allow for such use
cases, this document creates a new ALTO registry to track new cost cases, this document relaxes the constraint imposed by the base ALTO
mode values (Section 4) and relaxes the constraints imposed by the specification on allowed cost modes (Section 3) and creates a new
base ALTO specification on allowed cost mode values (Section 3). ALTO registry to track new cost modes (Section 4).
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
This document makes use of the terms defined in [RFC7285]. This document makes use of the terms defined in [RFC7285].
3. Updates to RFC7285 3. Updates to RFC7285
3.1. Update to Section 6.1.2 of RFC7285 3.1. Updates to Section 6.1.2 of RFC7285
This document updates Section 6.1.2 of [RFC7285] as follows: This document updates Section 6.1.2 of [RFC7285] as follows:
OLD: OLD:
The cost mode attribute indicates how costs should be interpreted. The cost mode attribute indicates how costs should be interpreted.
Specifically, the cost mode attribute indicates whether returned Specifically, the cost mode attribute indicates whether returned
costs should be interpreted as numerical values or ordinal rankings. costs should be interpreted as numerical values or ordinal rankings.
It is important to communicate such information to ALTO clients, as It is important to communicate such information to ALTO clients, as
certain operations may not be valid on certain costs returned by an certain operations may not be valid on certain costs returned by an
skipping to change at page 3, line 39 skipping to change at page 3, line 39
return a set of IP addresses with costs indicating a ranking of the return a set of IP addresses with costs indicating a ranking of the
IP addresses. Arithmetic operations that would make sense for IP addresses. Arithmetic operations that would make sense for
numerical values, do not make sense for ordinal rankings. ALTO numerical values, do not make sense for ordinal rankings. ALTO
clients may handle such costs differently. clients may handle such costs differently.
Cost modes are indicated in protocol messages as strings. Cost modes are indicated in protocol messages as strings.
NEW: NEW:
The cost mode attribute indicates how costs should be interpreted. The cost mode attribute indicates how costs should be interpreted.
This document defines two cost modes (numerical values or ordinal This document defines two cost modes (numerical values and ordinal
rankings), but additional cost modes can be defined in the future. rankings), but additional cost modes can be defined in the future.
It is important to communicate such information to ALTO clients, as It is important to communicate such information to ALTO clients, as
certain operations may not be valid on certain costs returned by an certain operations may not be valid on certain costs returned by an
ALTO server. For example, it is possible for an ALTO server to ALTO server. For example, it is possible for an ALTO server to
return a set of IP addresses with costs indicating a ranking of the return a set of IP addresses with costs indicating a ranking of the
IP addresses. Arithmetic operations that would make sense for IP addresses. Arithmetic operations that would make sense for
numerical values, do not make sense for ordinal rankings. ALTO numerical values, do not make sense for ordinal rankings. ALTO
clients may handle such costs differently. clients may handle such costs differently.
Cost modes are indicated in protocol messages as strings. Cost modes are indicated in protocol messages as strings.
Future documents that define a new cost mode SHOULD indicate whether Future documents that define a new cost mode SHOULD indicate whether
that new cost mode applies to all or a subset of cost metrics. that new cost mode applies to all or a subset of cost metrics. If
not explicitly indicated, the new cost mode applies to all cost
metrics.
3.2. Update to Section 10.5 of RFC7285 3.2. Updates to Section 10.5 of RFC7285
This document updates Section 10.5 of [RFC7285] as follows: This document updates Section 10.5 of [RFC7285] as follows:
OLD: OLD:
A cost mode is encoded as a string. The string MUST have a value of A cost mode is encoded as a string. The string MUST have a value of
either "numerical" or "ordinal". either "numerical" or "ordinal".
NEW: NEW:
A cost mode is encoded as a string. The string MUST be no more than A cost mode is encoded as a string. The string MUST be no more than
skipping to change at page 4, line 38 skipping to change at page 4, line 40
to be assigned to this document. to be assigned to this document.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
This document requests IANA to create a new subregistry entitled This document requests IANA to create a new subregistry entitled
"ALTO Cost Modes" under the "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization "ALTO Cost Modes" under the "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization
(ALTO) Protocol" registry available at [ALTO]. (ALTO) Protocol" registry available at [ALTO].
The registry is initially populated with the following values: The registry is initially populated with the following values:
+===========+=============================+=================+ +===========-+=============================+====================+
| Identifier| Description | Specification | | Identifier | Description | Intended Semantics |
+===========+=============================+=================+ +============+=============================+====================+
| numerical | Indicates that numerical | Section 6.1.2.1 | | numerical | Indicates that numerical | Section 6.1.2.1 |
| | operations can be performed | of RFC7285 | | | operations can be performed | of RFC7285 |
| | on the returned costs | | | | on the returned costs | |
+-----------+-----------------------------+-----------------+ +------------+-----------------------------+--------------------+
| ordinal | Indicates that the cost | Section 6.1.2.2 | | ordinal | Indicates that the cost | Section 6.1.2.2 |
| | values in a cost map | of RFC7285 | | | values in a cost map | of RFC7285 |
| | represent ranking | | | | represent ranking | |
+-----------+-----------------------------+-----------------+ +------------+-----------------------------+--------------------+
The assignment policy for this registry is "IETF Review" (Section 4.8 The assignment policy for this registry is "IETF Review" (Section 4.8
of [RFC8126]). of [RFC8126]).
Cost modes prefixed with "priv:" are reserved for Private Use Cost modes prefixed with "priv:" are reserved for Private Use
(Section 4.1 of [RFC8126]). (Section 4.1 of [RFC8126]).
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce new concerns other than those This document does not introduce new concerns other than those
already discussed in Section 15 of [RFC7285]. already discussed in Section 15 of [RFC7285].
 End of changes. 10 change blocks. 
24 lines changed or deleted 25 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/