idnits 2.17.1 draft-ivancic-scf-testing-requirements-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The document has an IETF Trust Provisions (28 Dec 2009) Section 6.c(i) Publication Limitation clause. 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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (December 13, 2013) is 3785 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ivancic-scf-problem-statement' is defined on line 170, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4838' is defined on line 181, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5050' is defined on line 185, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-01) exists of draft-ivancic-scf-problem-statement-00 == Outdated reference: A later version (-01) exists of draft-ivancic-scf-requirements-expectations-00 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group W. Ivancic 3 Internet-Draft NASA GRC 4 Intended status: Informational W. Eddy 5 Expires: June 16, 2014 MTI Systems 6 A. Hylton 7 D. Iannicca 8 J. Ishac 9 NASA GRC 10 December 13, 2013 12 Store, Carry and Forward Testing Requirements 13 draft-ivancic-scf-testing-requirements-01 15 Abstract 17 This document provides guidelines and requirements for testing Store, 18 Carry and Forward (SCF) systems and protocols. 20 The Testing Requirements document is one of three that fully describe 21 the SCF system. The other two are the SCF Problem Statement and the 22 SCF Requirements and Expectations document. 24 This initial document is currently just a skeletal outline, published 25 so the other two SCF documents can reference it. 27 Status of This Memo 29 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 30 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 32 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 33 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 34 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 35 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 37 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 38 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 39 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 40 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 42 This Internet-Draft will expire on June 16, 2014. 44 Copyright Notice 46 Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 47 document authors. All rights reserved. 49 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 50 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 51 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 52 publication of this document. Please review these documents 53 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 54 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 55 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 56 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 57 described in the Simplified BSD License. 59 This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not 60 be created, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to 61 translate it into languages other than English. 63 Table of Contents 65 1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 66 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 67 3. Test System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 68 4. Test Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 71 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 72 8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 73 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 75 1. Terminology 77 Detailed terminology is given in the SCF Requirements and 78 Expectations document [I-D.ivancic-scf-requirements-expectations] and 79 will not be repeated here. 81 2. Introduction 83 As background, the SCF Problem Statement and SCF Requirements and 84 Expectations documents are suggested reading. The SCF Problem 85 Statement describes the core SCF problem and gives an assessment of 86 the ability to use existing technologies as solutions. In addition, 87 it provides a number of SCF deployment scenarios. 89 In RFC760, one can find what has become know as Postel's Law or the 90 Robustness Principle, "In general, an implementation should be 91 conservative in its sending behavior, and liberal in its receiving 92 behavior." This rule was originally targeting protocol 93 implementation. A corresponding rule for testing may be, "If you 94 claim the protocol can do it, you have to prove it - test it." 96 Conversely, being able to simply ping an end system does not indicate 97 the network is fully functional. It just means that there is 98 connectivity and the potential for the network to be fully 99 functional. 101 The primary motivation for developing this document is to establish 102 thorough, repeatable, tests that will fully exercise a SCF system. 103 Past experience has shown that testing of SCF systems is too often 104 inadequate. For example, tests have been performed on SCF systems in 105 fully-connected, high-bandwidth networks where only forwarding would 106 be exercised, or the traffic would be so minimal as to never tax the 107 storage or queueing. Such tests are valid as a starting point, but 108 insufficient to determine that a protocol or implementation will 109 working properly in a reasonably-scaled deployment. 111 A secondary motivation is to improve implementations by providing a 112 known test environment. Knowing some possible ways that the protocol 113 and system will be evaluated may help establish how the code is 114 developed, as well as identifying hooks for monitoring particular 115 processes. 117 3. Test System 119 Figure 1 illustrates a generic testbed for testing may aspects of the 120 SCF protocol. The systems consists of 12 SCF agents and 16 links. 121 Any or all of the links may be disconnected at any given time. Even 122 though the system is simple, some complexity is necessary because the 123 system must accommodate testing of aggregation, deaggregation, and 124 fragmentation with multiple container flows of various sizes and 125 priorities. 127 +------+ +------+ +------+ 128 |SCF-1 | /|SCF-5 |`. ./|SCF-10| 129 +------+\ / +------+ \ .-' /+------+ 130 \ / `. +------+.' / 131 `. .' `.|SCF-8 |`. / 132 \ / .'+------+\ `+. 133 +------+ \+------+/ +------+ .-' \/ `.+------+ 134 |SCF-2 |......|SCF-4 |.......|SCF-6 |:: |\ |SCF-11| 135 +------+ /+------+\ +------+ \ / | .'+------+ 136 / \ `. +------+/ .+' 137 / \ ::|SCF-9 |.' \ 138 .' `. / +------+`. \ 139 +------+/ \ +------+ .' `-. \+------+ 140 |SCF-3 | \|SCF-7 |.' `.|SCF-12| 141 +------+ +------+ +------+ 143 SCF Test Network/postamble 145 Figure 1 147 4. Test Requirements 149 List requirements and test for each of the protocol requirements in 150 the "SCF Requirements and Expectations" document . 152 5. Security Considerations 154 This document is informative and provides guidelines and Requirements 155 for testing SCF systems and protocols. There are no security 156 considerations. 158 6. IANA Considerations 160 This document neither creates nor updates any registries or 161 codepoints, so there are no IANA Considerations. 163 7. Acknowledgements 165 Work on this document at NASA's Glenn Research Center was funded by 166 the NASA Glenn Research Center Innovation Funds. 168 8. Informative References 170 [I-D.ivancic-scf-problem-statement] 171 Ivancic, W., Eddy, W., Iannicca, D., and J. Ishac, "Store, 172 Carry and Forward Problem Statement", draft-ivancic-scf- 173 problem-statement-00 (work in progress), July 2012. 175 [I-D.ivancic-scf-requirements-expectations] 176 Ivancic, W., Eddy, W., Iannicca, D., and J. Ishac, "Store, 177 Carry and Forward Requirements and Expectations", draft- 178 ivancic-scf-requirements-expectations-00 (work in 179 progress), July 2012. 181 [RFC4838] Cerf, V., Burleigh, S., Hooke, A., Torgerson, L., Durst, 182 R., Scott, K., Fall, K., and H. Weiss, "Delay-Tolerant 183 Networking Architecture", RFC 4838, April 2007. 185 [RFC5050] Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, "Bundle Protocol 186 Specification", RFC 5050, November 2007. 188 Authors' Addresses 190 William Ivancic 191 NASA Glenn Research Center 192 21000 Brookpark Road 193 Cleveland, Ohio 44135 194 United States 196 Phone: +1-216-433-3494 197 Email: william.d.ivancic@nasa.gov 199 Wesley M. Eddy 200 MTI Systems 202 Email: wes@mti-systems.com 204 Alan G. Hylton 205 NASA Glenn Research Center 206 21000 Brookpark Road 207 Cleveland, Ohio 44135 208 United States 210 Phone: +1-216-433-6045 211 Email: alan.g.hylton@nasa.gov 212 Dennis C. Iannicca 213 NASA Glenn Research Center 214 21000 Brookpark Road 215 Cleveland, Ohio 44135 216 United States 218 Phone: +1-216-433-6493 219 Email: dennis.c.iannicca@nasa.gov 221 Joseph A. Ishac 222 NASA Glenn Research Center 223 21000 Brookpark Road 224 Cleveland, Ohio 44135 225 United States 227 Phone: +1-216-433-6587 228 Email: jishac@nasa.gov