idnits 2.17.1 draft-dreibholz-rserpool-asap-hropt-03.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 15. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on line 203. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 214. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 221. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 227. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119 keyword, line 89: '...andle Resolution MAY be used once in a...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 104: '...ue; this default MUST be used if there...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 105: '... The ENRP server SHOULD try to fulfil...' Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (October 4, 2008) is 5681 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'RFC5351' is defined on line 122, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5352' is defined on line 126, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5353' is defined on line 130, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5355' is defined on line 139, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5356' is defined on line 144, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'Infocom2005' is defined on line 171, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5351 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental RFC: RFC 5352 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental RFC: RFC 5353 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental RFC: RFC 5354 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5355 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental RFC: RFC 5356 Summary: 10 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 7 warnings (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group T. Dreibholz 3 Internet-Draft University of Duisburg-Essen 4 Intended status: Standards Track October 4, 2008 5 Expires: April 7, 2009 7 Handle Resolution Option for ASAP 8 draft-dreibholz-rserpool-asap-hropt-03.txt 10 Status of this Memo 12 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 13 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 14 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 15 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 17 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 18 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 19 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 20 Drafts. 22 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 23 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 24 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 25 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 27 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 28 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 30 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 31 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 33 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 7, 2009. 35 Abstract 37 This document describes the Handle Resolution option for the ASAP 38 protocol. 40 Table of Contents 42 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 43 1.1. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 44 1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 45 2. Handle Resolution Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 46 2.1. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 47 2.2. Reference Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 48 3. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 49 3.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 50 3.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 51 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 52 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 6 54 1. Introduction 56 Reliable Server Pooling defines protocols for providing highly 57 available services. The Aggregate Server Access Protocol (ASAP) 58 provides session management and server selection for applications. 59 Upon request for a server selection -- denoted as handle resolution 60 -- an ENRP server returns a list of selected PE identities. The 61 number of PE identities to be returned is not specified by RSerPool. 62 Furthermore the ASAP protocol does not contain a way for letting the 63 requesting instance specify it. 65 As shown in [Dre2006], [IJHIT2008], selecting too many entries does 66 not make sense for the application, but on the other hand also result 67 in significant processing and network overhead. Furthermore, it has 68 been shown in [LCN2005] that the number of requested elements is 69 usually 1, but there are application cases where more PE identities 70 have to be returned. That is, there should be a possibility to 71 specify the number of requested PE items upon a handle resolution. 73 1.1. Scope 75 The Handle Resolution option defined in this draft simply defines an 76 option to let the PU-side specify the desired number of PE identities 77 from the ENRP server. 79 1.2. Terminology 81 The terms are commonly identified in related work and can be found in 82 the Aggregate Server Access Protocol and Endpoint Handlespace 83 Redundancy Protocol Common Parameters document RFC 5354 [RFC5354] 85 2. Handle Resolution Option 87 2.1. Definition 89 The Handle Resolution MAY be used once in an ASAP Handle Resolution 90 message sent from a PU to an ENRP server. It is defined as follows. 92 0 1 2 3 93 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 94 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 95 | Type = 0x803f | Length=8 | 96 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 97 | Items | 98 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 100 Items: 32 bits (unsigned integer) 101 Contains the number of PE identities to be selected by the ENRP 102 server. Setting it to 0xffffffff denotes to obtain as many PE 103 identities as possible. A setting of 0 denotes to use the ENRP 104 server's default value; this default MUST be used if there is no 105 Handle Resolution option given. The ENRP server SHOULD try to fulfil 106 the request for the given number of items. 108 Note, that the high-order bits of the type field are set to 10, which 109 means "skip this parameter and continue processing" if this parameter 110 type is not supported by the ENRP server. This allows for 111 interoperability with old implementations. 113 2.2. Reference Implementation 115 The reference implementation based on the RSerPool prototype rsplib 116 can be found at [RSerPoolPage]. 118 3. References 120 3.1. Normative References 122 [RFC5351] Lei, P., Ong, L., Tuexen, M., and T. Dreibholz, "An 123 Overview of Reliable Server Pooling Protocols", RFC 5351, 124 September 2008. 126 [RFC5352] Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Stillman, M., and M. Tuexen, 127 "Aggregate Server Access Protocol (ASAP)", RFC 5352, 128 September 2008. 130 [RFC5353] Xie, Q., Stewart, R., Stillman, M., Tuexen, M., and A. 131 Silverton, "Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy Protocol 132 (ENRP)", RFC 5353, September 2008. 134 [RFC5354] Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Stillman, M., and M. Tuexen, 135 "Aggregate Server Access Protocol (ASAP) and Endpoint 136 Handlespace Redundancy Protocol (ENRP) Parameters", 137 RFC 5354, September 2008. 139 [RFC5355] Stillman, M., Gopal, R., Guttman, E., Sengodan, S., and M. 140 Holdrege, "Threats Introduced by Reliable Server Pooling 141 (RSerPool) and Requirements for Security in Response to 142 Threats", RFC 5355, September 2008. 144 [RFC5356] Dreibholz, T. and M. Tuexen, "Reliable Server Pooling 145 Policies", RFC 5356, September 2008. 147 3.2. Informative References 149 [RSerPoolPage] 150 Dreibholz, T., "Thomas Dreibholz's RSerPool Page", URL: 151 http://tdrwww.exp-math.uni-essen.de/dreibholz/rserpool/. 153 [Dre2006] Dreibholz, T., "Reliable Server Pooling -- Evaluation, 154 Optimization and Extension of a Novel IETF Architecture", 155 Ph.D. Thesis University of Duisburg-Essen, Faculty of 156 Economics, Institute for Computer Science and Business 157 Information Systems, URL: http:// 158 duepublico.uni-duisburg-essen.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/ 159 Derivate-16326/Dre2006-final.pdf, March 2007. 161 [LCN2005] Dreibholz, T. and E. Rathgeb, "On the Performance of 162 Reliable Server Pooling Systems", Proceedings of the 30th 163 IEEE Local Computer Networks Conference, November 2005. 165 [IJHIT2008] 166 Dreibholz, T. and E. Rathgeb, "An Evalulation of the Pool 167 Maintenance Overhead in Reliable Server Pooling Systems", 168 International Journal of Hybrid Information Technology 169 (IJHIT) Volume 1, Number 2, April 2008. 171 [Infocom2005] 172 Dreibholz, T. and E. Rathgeb, "An Application 173 Demonstration of the Reliable Server Pooling Framework", 174 Proceedings of the 24th IEEE Infocom, March 2005. 176 Author's Address 178 Thomas Dreibholz 179 University of Duisburg-Essen, Institute for Experimental Mathematics 180 Ellernstrasse 29 181 45326 Essen, Nordrhein-Westfalen 182 Germany 184 Phone: +49-201-1837637 185 Fax: +49-201-1837673 186 Email: dreibh@iem.uni-due.de 187 URI: http://www.iem.uni-due.de/~dreibh/ 189 Full Copyright Statement 191 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 193 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 194 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 195 retain all their rights. 197 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 198 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 199 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 200 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 201 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 202 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 203 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 205 Intellectual Property 207 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 208 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 209 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 210 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 211 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 212 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 213 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 214 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 216 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 217 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 218 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 219 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 220 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 221 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 223 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 224 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 225 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 226 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 227 ietf-ipr@ietf.org.