idnits 2.17.1 draft-schwartz-masque-h3-datagram-ping-01.txt: -(164): Line appears to be too long, but this could be caused by non-ascii characters in UTF-8 encoding Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == There are 2 instances of lines with non-ascii characters in the document. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an Introduction section. ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (4 October 2021) is 928 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram-03 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 masque B. Schwartz 3 Internet-Draft Google LLC 4 Intended status: Standards Track 4 October 2021 5 Expires: 7 April 2022 7 HTTP Datagram PING 8 draft-schwartz-masque-h3-datagram-ping-01 10 Abstract 12 This draft defines an HTTP Datagram Format Type for measuring the 13 functionality of a Datagram path. 15 Discussion Venues 17 This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC. 19 Discussion of this document takes place on the mailing list 20 (masque@ietf.org), which is archived at 21 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/masque/. 23 Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at 24 https://github.com/bemasc/h3-datagram-ping. 26 Status of This Memo 28 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 29 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 31 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 32 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 33 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 34 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 36 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 37 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 38 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 39 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 41 This Internet-Draft will expire on 7 April 2022. 43 Copyright Notice 45 Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 46 document authors. All rights reserved. 48 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 49 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ 50 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. 51 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 52 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components 53 extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text 54 as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are 55 provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 57 Table of Contents 59 1. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 60 2. PING Datagram Format Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 61 2.1. Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 62 2.2. Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 3. Use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 4. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 67 5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 71 1. Conventions and Definitions 73 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 74 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 75 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in 76 BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 77 capitals, as shown here. 79 2. PING Datagram Format Type 81 PING is an HTTP Datagram Format Type 82 [I-D.draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram]. It has no Additional Data. 84 2.1. Format 86 PING Datagrams have the following format: 88 PING { 89 Sequence Number (i), 90 Opaque Data (..), 91 } 93 Figure 1: PING Datagram Format 95 All Sequence Number and Opaque Data values are potentially valid. 97 2.2. Use 99 The sender emits a PING Datagram with any even Sequence Number and 100 any Opaque Data. Upon receiving a PING Datagram with an even 101 Sequence Number, the recipient MUST reply with a PING Datagram whose 102 Sequence Number is one larger, with empty Opaque Data. 104 Intermediaries MUST forward PING Datagrams without modification, just 105 like any other HTTP Datagram. 107 3. Use cases 109 PING Datagrams can be used to characterize the end-to-end HTTP 110 Datagram path associated with an HTTP request. For example, HTTP 111 endpoints can easily use PING Datagrams to estimate the round-trip 112 time and loss rate of the HTTP Datagram path. 114 PING Datagrams are also suitable for use as DPLPMTUD Probe Packets 115 [RFC8899]. This enables endpoints to estimate the HTTP Datagram MTU 116 of each Datagram path, in order to avoid sending HTTP Datagrams that 117 will be dropped. 119 Note that these path characteristics can differ from those inferred 120 from the underlying transport (e.g. QUIC), if the HTTP request 121 traverses one or more HTTP intermediaries (see Section 3.7 of 122 [I-D.draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics]). 124 4. IANA considerations 126 IANA is directed to add the following entry to the "HTTP Datagram 127 Format Types" registry: 129 * Type: PING 131 * Value: TBD 133 * Reference: (This document) 135 5. References 137 5.1. Normative References 139 [I-D.draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram] 140 Schinazi, D. and L. Pardue, "Using Datagrams with HTTP", 141 Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-masque-h3- 142 datagram-03, 12 July 2021, 143 . 146 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 147 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 148 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 149 . 151 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 152 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 153 May 2017, . 155 5.2. Informative References 157 [I-D.draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics] 158 Fielding, R. T., Nottingham, M., and J. Reschke, "HTTP 159 Semantics", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf- 160 httpbis-semantics-19, 12 September 2021, 161 . 164 [RFC8899] Fairhurst, G., Jones, T., Tüxen, M., Rüngeler, I., and T. 165 Völker, "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery for 166 Datagram Transports", RFC 8899, DOI 10.17487/RFC8899, 167 September 2020, . 169 Acknowledgments 171 Thanks to Alex Chernyakhovsky for constructive input. 173 Author's Address 175 Benjamin Schwartz 176 Google LLC 178 Email: bemasc@google.com