idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-wrec-res-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Missing expiration date. The document expiration date should appear on the first and last page. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about 6 months document validity -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard 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.) ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. ** There are 3 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 7 characters in excess of 72. == There are 9 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 (March 22, 1999) is 9164 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: 'WWW' is defined on line 313, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'TCP' is defined on line 316, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'POLICY' is defined on line 333, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'LDAP' is defined on line 339, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'NDS' is defined on line 342, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'BORDER' is defined on line 346, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'NRS' is defined on line 350, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'X509' is defined on line 354, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'SSL' is defined on line 359, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'IPSEC' is defined on line 363, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'WWW' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 793 (ref. 'TCP') (Obsoleted by RFC 9293) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'CODA' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'SONAR' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'I2-DSI' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'POLICY' ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2551 (ref. 'LDAP') -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'NDS' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'BORDER' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'NRS' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'X509' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'SSL' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IPSEC' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'WREC-TAX' Summary: 8 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 12 warnings (==), 14 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 INTERNET-DRAFT Joe Touch 3 WREC Working Group ISI 4 draft-ietf-wrec-res-00.txt March 22, 1999 5 Expires: Sept. 22, 1999 7 Web Caching and Replication -- Research Issues 9 Status of this Memo 11 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 12 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 except that the right to 13 produce derivative works is not granted. 15 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 16 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 17 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 18 Drafts. 20 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 21 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 22 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference 23 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 25 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 26 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 28 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 31 NOTE [Ed. - included in the I-D only] 33 This is a working document. Not all sections are complete, or will 34 necessarily be included in the final drafts. The editor and 35 contributors of individual sections should not be taken as endorsing 36 any of the solutions proposed here. 38 Contributors of new items or items listed but lacking contacts are 39 encouraged to send the template in the Appendix to the editor of this 40 document (touch@isi.edu). 42 Send comments on individual sections to the contact of that section, 43 and CC touch@isi.edu, please. 45 Abstract 47 This document summarizes open research issues in the support 48 distributed caching and replication of web objects. The potential 49 solutions and mechanisms described are preliminary. This document 51 Touch Web Cach. and Repl. -- Research Issues March 22, 1999 53 does not endorse the suitability of these mechanisms for use in the 54 Internet, or in private networks. This document focuses on the 55 research issues, and mentions candidate solutions only in the context 56 of these issues. 58 This document is a product of the IETF Web Caching and Replication 59 (WREC) WG. Comments are solicited and should be addressed to the 60 author. 62 Table of Contents 64 ?? 66 1. Introduction 68 This document summarizes the research issues of web caching and 69 replication. It focuses on issues whose solutions are either unknown 70 or are under current development, and not yet ready for standardiza- 71 tion. This document is intended to define the unsolved or incom- 72 pletely solved issues, to give the community a uniform basis for the 73 development of mechanisms to address these issues in the future. 75 The principle of this document is to focus on the research issues 76 themselves, rather than to focus on candidate solutions in particu- 77 lar. Solutions will be described only insofar as they can be shown to 78 address a definite issue. 80 The document is organized as follows: 82 Background: common background for the discussions 84 Template description: defines a common template format 85 for the presentation of the issues 87 Research Issues: a list of the research issues, 88 in the common template format 90 issues are presented in arbitrary order 91 [Ed. - unless we find a better order] 93 2. Background 95 (to be completed) 97 Touch Web Cach. and Repl. -- Research Issues March 22, 1999 99 3. Template Description 101 Each item in this section will consist of the following template: 103 2.3.1. Name: 104 2.3.1.1. Definition: 105 2.3.1.2. Goal: 106 2.3.1.3. Layers: 107 2.3.1.3. Indications: 108 2.3.1.4. Contraindications: 109 2.3.1.5. Components: 110 2.3.1.6. Proposed solutions: 111 2.3.1.7. Security Issues: 112 2.3.1.8. Contact: 114 The following is a discussion of the component sections: 116 3.1. Name 118 The name is a brief label suitable to uniquely identify the issue in 119 other text discussions. It should be brief enough to use repeatedly 120 in text, or include a suitable acronym if not. The words described 121 must be in common use, or as defined in the web caching and replica- 122 tions taxonomy [WREC-TAX]. The name should not be longer than five 123 (5) simple words, and compound words and adjectives should be used 124 sparingly. 126 3.2. Definition 128 The definition is a terse description of the issue, suitable to 129 uniquely identify the key features of the issue. It should be 130 minimal, providing only necessary and sufficient terms to identify 131 the issue. The definition should refer to published work, where pos- 132 sible, providing additional information. 134 3.3. Goal 136 The goal is a terse description of the reason for seeking a solution 137 to the issue, in terms of objectively measurable gains. The gains, if 138 not manifest, should also be justified. 140 3.4. Layers 142 This item describes the layer at which the issue is predominant. It 143 must be a subset of only the following terms: LINK, NETWORK, TRAN- 144 SPORT, MIDDLEWARE, and APPLICATION. Link, network, transport, and 146 Touch Web Cach. and Repl. -- Research Issues March 22, 1999 148 application are as commonly referred to in the ISO standard reference 149 model. Middleware is hereby defined as "common layered services 150 between the traditional application and transport layers", i.e., the 151 sum of services provided by the traditional ISO session and presenta- 152 tion layers, or anything else considered below the application, but 153 above the transport layers. 155 3.5. Indications 157 This item specifies the conditions where solutions to the issue are 158 of significant, measurable benefit, vs. not addressing the issue. The 159 specification should be terse, and necessary and sufficient. The 160 benefits should not depend on a particular solution, but rather apply 161 most generally to any viable solution to the issue. 163 3.6. Contraindications 165 This item specifies the conditions where solutions to the issue are 166 if significant, measurable detriment, vs. not addressing the issue. 167 The description is subject to the same qualifications as 'Indica- 168 tions'. 170 3.7. Components: 172 This item is a brief description of the key components of the issue. 173 The components may be subordinate issues described elsewhere in this 174 document, or key mechanisms required to address the issue. The com- 175 ponent issues should be necessary and sufficient. 177 3.8. Proposed solutions: 179 This item is a brief description of candidate solutions. It should be 180 sufficient to indicate which solutions there are, and to define their 181 important aspects only. This section is not intended to replace a 182 published reference for a solution, and should not itself be suffi- 183 cient as a reference for a solution. It should only describe what the 184 solutions are, and how they differ. 186 3.9. Security Issues: 188 This item should address the unique security considerations of the 189 issue only. It should be limited to security issues that necessarily 190 occur as a result of any solution to the issue, rather than address- 191 ing the security of any particular proposed solution. 193 3.10. Contact: 195 The submitter must provide a contact name, address, and e-mail, for 197 Touch Web Cach. and Repl. -- Research Issues March 22, 1999 199 feedback during the revision process. 201 [Ed. - to be decided whether these names will be co-authors, or also 202 listed as section authors, rather than just contacts] 204 4. Research Issues 206 The following is a preliminary (alphabetical) list of issues and con- 207 tacts. If a contact is not listed, we are looking for volunteers :-). 209 ------------------------------------------------------------ 211 Client to Replica Communication 212 ? 214 Common Policy Management 215 ? 217 Common Security 218 ? 220 Inter-replica communication 221 Demand Driven Acceleration Mirror Replication 222 [CODA] CODA 223 ? 225 Object distribution 226 Leandro Navarro's Object Distribution Network 227 Leandro Navarro, leandro@ac.upc.es 229 Object selection 230 Leandro Navarro's Object Routing Network 231 SONAR [SONAR] [I2-DSI] 232 Internet-Draft draft-moore-sonar-03.txt, Work in progress 233 LSAM / REF 234 ? 236 Multicast 237 LSAM's mcast groups 238 Joe Touch, touch@isi.edu 240 Multimedia 241 ? 243 Priorities / Differentiated Service 244 LSAM's prioritized service 246 Touch Web Cach. and Repl. -- Research Issues March 22, 1999 248 Lars Eggert, larse@isi.edu 250 Push (unsolicited response) 251 LSAM, LOWLAT 252 Ivan Lovric (ivan.lovric@cnet.francetelecom.fr) 253 cache pre-filling extensions to ICP 254 ? 256 Routing 257 Leandro Navarro's (leandro@ac.upc.es) Object Routing Network 259 Topology 260 Leandro Navarro's (leandro@ac.upc.es) Object Topology Network 261 topology-d (katia@isi.edu) 263 ------------------------------------------------------------ 265 [Ed. - Placeholder] 267 4.1. Name: (placeholder) 269 4.1.1. Definition: 271 (REQUIRED - even if preliminary -- separate paragraphs with single 272 blank lines) 274 4.1.2. Goal: 276 (to be completed) 278 4.1.3. Components: 280 (to be completed) 282 4.1.4. Proposed solutions: 284 (to be completed) 286 4.1.5. Security Issues: 288 (to be completed) 290 4.1.6. Contact: 292 (REQUIRED) 294 Touch Web Cach. and Repl. -- Research Issues March 22, 1999 296 (PUT REFERENCES HERE, MANUALLY NUMBERED) 298 5. Security Considerations 300 Security considerations are addressed in the individual discussions 301 of each research issue. 303 [Ed. - this section should have an additional summary of the main 304 security considerations, i.e., to indicate the predominant issues. As 305 such, it should be updated later.] 307 6. Acknowledgements 309 [Ed. - to be completed later.] 311 7. References 313 [WWW] Berners-Lee, T., et al., "The World-Wide Web," Communications 314 of the ACM, V37, Aug. 1994, pp. 76-82. 316 [TCP] Postel, Jon, "Transmission Control Protocol," Network Working 317 Group RFC-793/STD-7, ISI, Sept. 1981. 319 [CODA] Carnegie Melon University. Coda Overview and Background. 320 Available from 321 http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/project/coda/Web/docs- 322 coda.html 323 [Ed. - we need an archival source for this reference] 325 [SONAR] Moore, K., Cox, J., Green, S. "SONAR - A Network Proximity 326 Service," (work in progress). 328 [I2-DSI] Beck, M., Moore, T., "The Internet 2 Distributed Storage 329 Infrastructure Project: An Architecture for Internet Content 330 Channels," http://www.cs.utk.edu/~mbeck/i2-dsi-channels.html 331 [Ed. - we need an archival source for this reference] 333 [POLICY] IETF. Policy Framework (policy) working group. 334 http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/policy-charter.html 335 [Ed. - is only the output of a WG is 'citeable'?] 337 Touch Web Cach. and Repl. -- Research Issues March 22, 1999 339 [LDAP] Wahl, M., Howes, T., Kille, S., "Lightweight Directory Access 340 Protocol (v3)". RFC-2551, Dec. 1997. 342 [NDS] Novell Inc. Novell Directory Services (NDS). 343 http://www.novell.com/catalog/qr/sne14310.html 344 [Ed. - we need an archival source for this reference] 346 [BORDER] Novell, Inc. BorderManager FastCache Services. 347 http://www.novell.com/catalog/qr/sne34192.html 348 [Ed. - we need an archival source for this reference] 350 [NRS] Novell Inc. Novell Replication Services (NRS). 351 http://www.novell.com/catalog/qr/sne24120.html 352 [Ed. - we need an archival source for this reference] 354 [X509] IETF. Public-Key Infrastructure (X.509)(pkix) working group. 355 Available from http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/pkix- 356 charter.html 357 [Ed. - is only the output of a WG is 'citeable'?] 359 [SSL] A. Frier, P. Karlton, and P. Kocher, "The SSL 3.0 Protocol", 360 Netscape Communications Corp., Nov 18, 1996. 361 [Ed. - is there a tech report number??] 363 [IPSEC] IETF. IP Security Protocol (ipsec) working group. 364 http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ipsec-charter.html 365 [Ed. - is only the output of a WG is 'citeable'?] 367 [WREC-TAX] Melve, I., ??, "(WREC Taxonomy Document)," (work in pro- 368 gress). 370 Author's Address 372 Joe Touch 373 University of Southern California/Information Sciences Institute 374 4676 Admiralty Way 375 Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695 376 USA 377 Phone: +1 310-822-1511 x151 378 Fax: +1 310-823-6714 379 URL: http://www.isi.edu/touch 380 Email: touch@isi.edu 382 8. Appendix: Note to contributors (in I-D only) 384 Contributors of new items or items listed but lacking contacts are 386 Touch Web Cach. and Repl. -- Research Issues March 22, 1999 388 encouraged to send the following template, filled-in, to 389 touch@isi.edu. Send comments on individual sections to the contact of 390 that section, and CC touch@isi.edu, please. 392 Some recommendations: 393 Entries should focus on the issue, rather particular solutions. 395 Descriptions should be general, and avoid solution-specific 396 constraints. 398 Entries should be kept as brief as possible. 400 Entries must be in __plain text__ (no formatting), 401 with blank lines separating paragraphs. 403 Entries should include their own references. See the 404 suffix of this document for samples. Note that only 405 appropriate references, in the proper form, should 406 be included - see RFC2026. 408 ------------------------------------------------------------ 409 Name: short name (3-5 words) 410 Definition: define the issue 411 Goal: define the reason to solve the issue 412 Layers: specify which layers the issue resides 413 Indications: state conditions where issue solutions help 414 Contraindications: state conditions where issue solutions hurt 415 Components: define the key aspects of the issue 416 Proposed solutions: summarize candidate solutions 417 Security Issues: address the security considerations 418 Contact: contact name and e-mail for this section 419 ------------------------------------------------------------ 421 Feel free to submit a placeholder with the following 422 fields completed: 424 Name 425 Definition (preliminary) 426 Layers 427 Contact 429 If there are multiple submitters for a section, or if there 430 is overlap, we will coordinate among the submitters to collaborate 431 on the section. 433 The following nroff source template should used for contributions. 434 Remember to edit out the Internet Draft page headers and footers. 436 Touch Web Cach. and Repl. -- Research Issues March 22, 1999 438 ------------------------------ cut here ------------------------------ 439 .in 0 440 .NH 2 441 Name: (REQUIRED - short name, 3-5 words) 442 .XS 443 (copy short name here) 444 .XE 445 .LP 446 .in 0 447 .NH 3 448 Definition: 449 .LP 450 .in 3 451 (REQUIRED - even if preliminary -- separate paragraphs with single blank lines) 452 .in 0 453 .NH 3 454 Goal: 455 .LP 456 .in 3 457 (to be completed) 458 .in 0 459 .NH 3 460 Layers: 461 .LP 462 .in 3 463 (REQUIRED: - one of "link, network, transport, middleware, application") 464 .in 0 465 .NH 3 466 Indications: 467 .LP 468 .in 3 469 (to be completed) 470 .in 0 471 .NH 3 472 Contraindications: 473 .LP 474 .in 3 475 (to be completed) 476 .in 0 477 .NH 3 478 Components: 479 .LP 480 .in 3 481 (to be completed) 482 .in 0 483 .NH 3 484 Proposed solutions: 485 .LP 486 Touch Web Cach. and Repl. -- Research Issues March 22, 1999 488 .in 3 489 (to be completed) 490 .in 0 491 .NH 3 492 Security Issues: 493 .LP 494 .in 3 495 (to be completed) 496 .in 0 497 .NH 3 498 Contact: 499 .LP 500 .in 3 501 (REQUIRED) 503 (PUT REFERENCES HERE, MANUALLY NUMBERED) 504 ------------------------------ cut here ------------------------------ 505 Touch Web Cach. and Repl. -- Research Issues March 22, 1999 506 Table of Contents 508 Introduction ...................................................... 2 509 Background ........................................................ 2 510 Template Description .............................................. 3 511 Research Issues ................................................... 5 512 (placeholder) ..................................................... 6 513 Security Considerations ........................................... 7 514 Acknowledgements .................................................. 7 515 References ........................................................ 7 516 Appendix: Note to contributors (in I-D only) ...................... 8