idnits 2.17.1 draft-dreibholz-rserpool-score-01.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 16. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on line 374. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 385. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 392. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 398. 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 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.) 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 (June 5, 2007) is 6168 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: '1' is defined on line 282, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '3' is defined on line 288, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '5' is defined on line 296, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '6' is defined on line 300, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '7' is defined on line 304, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '8' is defined on line 308, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '9' is defined on line 313, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '10' is defined on line 318, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '11' is defined on line 322, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '12' is defined on line 329, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '13' is defined on line 332, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-21) exists of draft-ietf-rserpool-asap-15 == Outdated reference: A later version (-21) exists of draft-ietf-rserpool-enrp-15 == Outdated reference: A later version (-18) exists of draft-ietf-rserpool-common-param-11 == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of draft-ietf-rserpool-policies-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-ietf-rserpool-threats-06 == Outdated reference: A later version (-36) exists of draft-dreibholz-rserpool-applic-distcomp-02 == Outdated reference: A later version (-20) exists of draft-coene-rserpool-applic-ipfix-03 == Outdated reference: A later version (-35) exists of draft-dreibholz-rserpool-applic-mobility-01 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 20 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: Informational M. Tuexen 5 Expires: December 7, 2007 Univ. of Applied Sciences Muenster 6 June 5, 2007 8 Reliable Server Pooling (RSerPool) Bakeoff Scoring 9 draft-dreibholz-rserpool-score-01.txt 11 Status of this Memo 13 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 14 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 15 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 16 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 18 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 19 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 20 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 21 Drafts. 23 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 24 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 25 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 26 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 28 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 31 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 7, 2007. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 40 Abstract 42 This memo describes some of the scoring to be used in the testing of 43 Reliable Server Pooling protocols ASAP and ENRP at upcoming bakeoffs. 45 1. Introduction 47 This document will be used as a basis for point scoring at upcoming 48 RSerPool bakeoffs. Its purpose is similar to that described in 49 RFC1025. It is hoped that a clear definition of where and how to 50 score points will further the development of RSerPool. 52 Note that while attending a bakeoff no one else will score your 53 points for you. We trust that all implementations will faithfully 54 record their points that are received honestly. Note also that these 55 scores are NOT to be used for marketing purposes. They are for the 56 use of the implementations to know how well they are doing. The only 57 reporting that will be done is a basic summary to the Reliable Server 58 Pooling Working Group but please note that NO company or 59 implementation names will be attached. 61 2. Aggregate Server Access Protocol 63 The ASAP protocol is described in the follwing documents: 65 o draft-ietf-rserpool-asap [2] 67 o draft-ietf-rserpool-common-param [4] 69 2.1. Pool Element Communication 71 These points will be scored for EACH peer implementation that you 72 successfully communicate with. 74 o 2 Successful ASAP Registration Request of a PE in a pool using 75 Round Robin policy and handling of ASAP Registration Response. 77 o 2 Failing ASAP Registration Request of a PE requesting Least Used 78 policy in a pool using Round Robin policy and appropriate handling 79 of ASAP Registration Response (e.g. printing error message, but 80 not retrying registration). 82 o 2 Successful re-registration of a PE in a pool using Round Robin 83 policy. 85 o 2 Successful ASAP Deregistration Request of the PE from its pool 86 and handling of ASAP Deregistration Response. 88 o 2 Successful handling of ASAP Endpoint Keep-Alive without Home bit 89 set, i.e. answering with ASAP Endpoint Keep-Alive Ack. 91 o 5 Successful handling of ASAP Endpoint Keep-Alive with Home bit 92 set: respond with ASAP Endpoint Keep-Alive Ack and use new ENRP 93 server for re-registration. 95 o 5 Successful connection to and registration at an ENRP server 96 announcing itself via multicast ASAP Announces. 98 o 1 Successful registration into pool using Least Used policy. 100 o 1 Successful registration into pool using Weighted Round Robin 101 policy. 103 o 1 Successful registration into pool using Random policy. 105 o 1 Successful registration into pool using Weighted Random policy. 107 2.2. Pool User Communication 109 These points will be scored for EACH peer implementation that you 110 successfully communicate with. 112 o 5 Successful ASAP Handle Resolution in a pool using Round Robin 113 policy, correct handling of ASAP Handle Resolution Response. 115 o 2 Successful failure reporting using ASAP Endpoint Unreachable. 117 o 5 Successful connection to and handle resolution at ENRP server 118 announcing itself via multicast ASAP Announces. 120 o 1 Successful handle resolution in a pool using Least Used policy. 122 o 1 Successful handle resolution in a pool using Weighted Round 123 Robin policy. 125 o 1 Successful handle resolution in a pool using Random policy. 127 o 1 Successful handle resolution in a pool using Weighted Random 128 policy. 130 2.3. ENRP Server Communication 132 These points will be scored for EACH peer implementation that you 133 successfully communicate with. 135 o 2 Successful handling of an ASAP Registration Request into a pool 136 using Round Robin policy (ENRP server answers with successful ASAP 137 Registration Response). 139 o 2 Rejecting registration of a PE requesting Round Robin policy 140 into a pool using Least Used policy. 142 o 5 Rejecting registration of a PE with all addresses *not* being 143 part of the ASAP association. 145 o 5 Successful registration of a PE with some addresses *not* being 146 part of the ASAP association. The invalid addresses may *not* go 147 into the handlespace. 149 o 5 Successful handling of ASAP Endpoint Unreachable messages. The 150 ENRP server must remove the given PE after MAX-BAD-PE-REPORTS=3 151 unreachability reports. 153 o 2 Sending regular ASAP Endpoint Keep-Alives to its PEs. 155 o 2 Removing PE not answering to ASAP Endpoint Keep-Alive. 157 3. Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy Protocol 159 The ENRP protocol is described in the follwing documents: 161 o draft-ietf-rserpool-enrp [2] 163 o draft-ietf-rserpool-common-param [4] 165 3.1. Peer Management 167 These points will be scored for EACH peer implementation that you 168 successfully communicate with. 170 o 2 Sending ENRP Presence to a new ENRP server. 172 o 2 Sending ENRP Presences in the interval given by PEER-HEARTBEAT- 173 CYCLE. 175 o 5 Requesting peer list from new ENRP server using ENRP Peer List 176 Request, handling ENRP Peer List Response and adding entries to 177 its own peer list. 179 o 2 Handling ENRP Peer List Request and replying with own peer list 180 in ENRP Peer List Response. 182 o 5 Requesting handlespace from new ENRP server using ENRP Handle 183 Table Request, handling ENRP Handle Table Response (without M-bit 184 set) and inserting entries into its own handlespace copy. 186 o 5 Requesting handlespace from new ENRP server using ENRP Handle 187 Table Request, handling ENRP Handle Table Response with M-bit set, 188 requesting more entries and inserting entries into its own 189 handlespace copy. 191 o 2 Handling ENRP Handle Table Request and replying own handlespace 192 in ENRP Handle Table Response (without M-bit). 194 o 10 Handling ENRP Handle Table Request and replying own handlespace 195 in ENRP Handle Table Response with M-bit set, remembering point to 196 continue from, responding next block of handlespace entries upon 197 following ENRP Handle Table Request, etc. until transfer of 198 handlespace data is complete. 200 o 5 Successful addition of new ENRP server announcing itself via 201 multicast ENRP Presence (including association establishment as 202 well as download of peer list and handlespace). 204 3.2. Update 206 These points will be scored for EACH peer implementation that you 207 successfully communicate with. 209 o 2 Handling an ENRP Handle Update adding a PE. 211 o 2 Handling an ENRP Handle Update updating a PE. The changes must 212 be entered into the local handlespace copy. 214 o 2 Handling an ENRP Handle Update removing a PE. 216 3.3. Synchronization 218 These points will be scored for EACH peer implementation that you 219 successfully communicate with. 221 o 5 Successful detection of different handlespace checksums upon 222 reception of ENRP Presence (due to additional PE), request of 223 Handle Table with W-bit set, integration of missing PE into local 224 handlespace copy and reporting the correct checksum in own ENRP 225 Presence. 227 o 5 Successful detection of different handlespace checksums upon 228 reception of ENRP Presence (due to out-of-date PE), request of 229 Handle Table with W-bit set, removal of PE from local handlespace 230 copy and reporting the correct checksum in own ENRP Presence. 232 o 10 Successful detection of different handlespace checksums upon 233 reception of ENRP Presence (due to multiple new and out-of-date PE 234 identities; size of PE identities is larger than maximum ENRP 235 message size), request of Handle Table with W-bit set, handling of 236 ENRP Handle Table Responses with M-bit set, removal of out-of-date 237 PEs, integration of new PEs into the local handlespace copy and 238 reporting correct checksum in own ENRP Presence. 240 3.4. Takeover 242 These points will be scored for EACH peer implementation that you 243 successfully communicate with. The setup contains your ENRP server 244 plus a set of peers running another implementation. 246 o 5 Successfully detecting the failure of a remote peer and 247 initiating a takeover procedure. 249 o 5 Acknowledging another peer's takeover and aborting own takeover 250 procedure. 252 o 10 Correctly handling a remote peer's Takeover Server message, 253 including ownership change for the remote peer's PEs. 255 o 10 Successfully taking over a dead peer, including ownership 256 change and informing the PEs taken over. 258 4. Bonus Points 260 You can also earn Bonus Points: 262 o 20 points for the ENRP server handling the largest number of PEs. 264 o 20 points for the ENRP server achieving the highest handle 265 resolution throughput for a pool containing 100 (should this be 266 larger?) PEs. 268 Please note that the whole period of the bakeoff is relevant. 270 5. Security Considerations 272 This document does only describe test scenarios and therefore does 273 not introduce any new security issues. 275 For security considerations of the protocols see 276 draft-ietf-rserpool-asap [2], draft-ietf-rserpool-enrp [2], and 277 draft-ietf-rserpool-common-param [4]. 279 6. References 280 6.1. Normative References 282 [1] Tuexen, M., "Architecture for Reliable Server Pooling", 283 draft-ietf-rserpool-arch-12 (work in progress), November 2006. 285 [2] Stewart, R., "Aggregate Server Access Protocol (ASAP)", 286 draft-ietf-rserpool-asap-15 (work in progress), January 2007. 288 [3] Stewart, R., "Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy Protocol (ENRP)", 289 draft-ietf-rserpool-enrp-15 (work in progress), January 2007. 291 [4] Stewart, R., "Aggregate Server Access Protocol (ASAP) and 292 Endpoint Handlespace Redundancy Protocol (ENRP) Parameters", 293 draft-ietf-rserpool-common-param-11 (work in progress), 294 October 2006. 296 [5] Tuexen, M. and T. Dreibholz, "Reliable Server Pooling 297 Policies", draft-ietf-rserpool-policies-04 (work in progress), 298 March 2007. 300 [6] Conrad, P. and P. Lei, "Services Provided By Reliable Server 301 Pooling", draft-ietf-rserpool-service-02 (work in progress), 302 October 2005. 304 [7] Silverton, A., "Reliable Server Pooling Sockets API 305 Extensions", draft-ietf-rserpool-api-00 (work in progress), 306 October 2005. 308 [8] Stillman, M., "Threats Introduced by Rserpool and Requirements 309 for Security in response to Threats", 310 draft-ietf-rserpool-threats-06 (work in progress), 311 November 2006. 313 [9] Dreibholz, T., "Applicability of Reliable Server Pooling for 314 Real-Time Distributed Computing", 315 draft-dreibholz-rserpool-applic-distcomp-02 (work in progress), 316 August 2006. 318 [10] Coene, L., "Reliable Server Pooling Applicability for IP Flow 319 Information Exchange", draft-coene-rserpool-applic-ipfix-03 320 (work in progress), August 2006. 322 [11] Dreibholz, T. and J. Pulinthanath, "Applicability of Reliable 323 Server Pooling for SCTP-Based Endpoint Mobility", 324 draft-dreibholz-rserpool-applic-mobility-01 (work in progress), 325 August 2006. 327 6.2. Informative References 329 [12] Dreibholz, T., "Thomas Dreibholz's RSerPool Page", 330 URL: http://tdrwww.exp-math.uni-essen.de/dreibholz/rserpool/. 332 [13] Dreibholz, T., "Reliable Server Pooling -- Evaluation, 333 Optimization and Extension of a Novel IETF Architecture", Ph.D. 334 Thesis University of Duisburg-Essen, Faculty of Economics, 335 Institute for Computer Science and Business Information 336 Systems, URL: http://duepublico.uni-duisburg-essen.de/servlets/ 337 DerivateServlet/Derivate-16326/Dre2006-final.pdf, March 2007. 339 Authors' Addresses 341 Thomas Dreibholz 342 University of Duisburg-Essen, Institute for Experimental Mathematics 343 Ellernstrasse 29 344 45326 Essen, Nordrhein-Westfalen 345 Germany 347 Phone: +49-201-1837637 348 Fax: +49-201-1837673 349 Email: dreibh@exp-math.uni-essen.de 350 URI: http://www.exp-math.uni-essen.de/~dreibh/ 352 Michael Tuexen 353 University of Applied Sciences Muenster 354 Stegerwaldstrasse 39 355 48565 Steinfurt, Nordrhein-Westfalen 356 Germany 358 Email: tuexen@fh-muenster.de 360 Full Copyright Statement 362 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 364 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 365 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 366 retain all their rights. 368 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 369 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 370 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 371 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 372 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 373 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 374 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 376 Intellectual Property 378 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 379 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 380 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 381 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 382 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 383 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 384 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 385 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 387 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 388 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 389 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 390 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 391 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 392 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 394 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 395 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 396 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 397 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 398 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 400 Acknowledgment 402 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF 403 Administrative Support Activity (IASA).