rfc9138.original | rfc9138.txt | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
ICN Research Group J. Hong | Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) J. Hong | |||
Internet-Draft T. You | Request for Comments: 9138 T. You | |||
Intended status: Informational ETRI | Category: Informational ETRI | |||
Expires: 29 January 2022 L. Dong | ISSN: 2070-1721 L. Dong | |||
C. Westphal | C. Westphal | |||
Futurewei Technologies Inc. | Futurewei Technologies Inc. | |||
B. Ohlman | B. Ohlman | |||
Ericsson | Ericsson | |||
28 July 2021 | November 2021 | |||
Design Considerations for Name Resolution Service in ICN | Design Considerations for Name Resolution Service in Information-Centric | |||
draft-irtf-icnrg-nrs-requirements-06 | Networking (ICN) | |||
Abstract | Abstract | |||
This document provides the functionalities and design considerations | This document provides the functionalities and design considerations | |||
for a Name Resolution Service (NRS) in ICN. An NRS in ICN is to | for a Name Resolution Service (NRS) in Information-Centric Networking | |||
translate an object name into some other information such as a | (ICN). The purpose of an NRS in ICN is to translate an object name | |||
locator, another name, etc. for forwarding the object request. This | into some other information such as a locator, another name, etc. in | |||
document is a product of the Information-Centric Networking Research | order to forward the object request. This document is a product of | |||
Group (ICNRG). | the Information-Centric Networking Research Group (ICNRG). | |||
Status of This Memo | Status of This Memo | |||
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is | |||
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | published for informational purposes. | |||
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | ||||
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | ||||
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | ||||
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | ||||
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | This document is a product of the Internet Research Task Force | |||
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | (IRTF). The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-related research | |||
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | and development activities. These results might not be suitable for | |||
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | deployment. This RFC represents the consensus of the Information- | |||
Centric Networking Research Group of the Internet Research Task Force | ||||
(IRTF). Documents approved for publication by the IRSG are not | ||||
candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC | ||||
7841. | ||||
This Internet-Draft will expire on 29 January 2022. | Information about the current status of this document, any errata, | |||
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at | ||||
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9138. | ||||
Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | |||
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. | (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | |||
publication of this document. Please review these documents | ||||
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights | carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect | |||
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components | to this document. | |||
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text | ||||
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are | ||||
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. | ||||
Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 1. Introduction | |||
2. Name Resolution Service in ICN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 2. Name Resolution Service in ICN | |||
2.1. Explicit name resolution approach . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 2.1. Explicit Name Resolution Approach | |||
2.2. Name-based routing approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 2.2. Name-Based Routing Approach | |||
2.3. Hybrid approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 2.3. Hybrid Approach | |||
2.4. Comparisons of name resolution approaches . . . . . . . . 5 | 2.4. Comparisons of Name Resolution Approaches | |||
3. Functionalities of NRS in ICN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 3. Functionalities of NRS in ICN | |||
3.1. Support heterogeneous name types . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 3.1. Support Heterogeneous Name Types | |||
3.2. Support producer mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 3.2. Support Producer Mobility | |||
3.3. Support scalable routing system . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 3.3. Support Scalable Routing System | |||
3.4. Support off-path caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 3.4. Support Off-Path Caching | |||
3.5. Support nameless object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 3.5. Support Nameless Object | |||
3.6. Support manifest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 3.6. Support Manifest | |||
3.7. Support metadata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 3.7. Support Metadata | |||
4. Design considerations for NRS in ICN . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 4. Design Considerations for NRS in ICN | |||
4.1. Resolution response time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 4.1. Resolution Response Time | |||
4.2. Response accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 4.2. Response Accuracy | |||
4.3. Resolution guarantee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 4.3. Resolution Guarantee | |||
4.4. Resolution fairness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 4.4. Resolution Fairness | |||
4.5. Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 4.5. Scalability | |||
4.6. Manageability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 4.6. Manageability | |||
4.7. Deployed system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 4.7. Deployed System | |||
4.8. Fault tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 4.8. Fault Tolerance | |||
4.9. Security and privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 4.9. Security and Privacy | |||
4.9.1. Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 4.9.1. Confidentiality | |||
4.9.2. Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 4.9.2. Authentication | |||
4.9.3. Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 4.9.3. Integrity | |||
4.9.4. Resiliency and availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 4.9.4. Resiliency and Availability | |||
5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 5. Conclusion | |||
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 6. IANA Considerations | |||
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 7. Security Considerations | |||
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 8. References | |||
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 8.1. Normative References | |||
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 8.2. Informative References | |||
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | Acknowledgements | |||
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | Authors' Addresses | |||
1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
The current Internet is based upon a host-centric networking | The current Internet is based upon a host-centric networking | |||
paradigm, where hosts are identified with IP addresses and | paradigm, where hosts are identified with IP addresses and | |||
communication is possible between any pair of hosts. Thus, | communication is possible between any pair of hosts. Thus, | |||
information in the current Internet is identified by the name of the | information in the current Internet is identified by the name of the | |||
host (or server) where information is stored. In contrast to host- | host (or server) where the information is stored. In contrast to | |||
centric networking, the primary communication objects in Information- | host-centric networking, the primary communication objects in | |||
centric networking (ICN) are the named data objects (NDOs) and they | Information-Centric Networking (ICN) are the named data objects | |||
are uniquely identified by location-independent names. Thus, ICN | (NDOs), and they are uniquely identified by location-independent | |||
aims for the efficient dissemination and retrieval of NDOs at a | names. Thus, ICN aims for the efficient dissemination and retrieval | |||
global scale, and has been identified and acknowledged as a promising | of NDOs at a global scale and has been identified and acknowledged as | |||
technology for a future Internet architecture to overcome the | a promising technology for a future Internet architecture to overcome | |||
limitations of the current Internet such as scalability and mobility | the limitations of the current Internet, such as scalability and | |||
[Ahlgren] [Xylomenos]. ICN also has emerged as a candidate | mobility [Ahlgren] [Xylomenos]. ICN also has emerged as a candidate | |||
architecture in the IoT environment since IoT focuses on data and | architecture in the Internet of Things (IoT) environment since IoT | |||
information [Baccelli] [Amadeo] [Quevedo] [Amadeo2] [ID.Zhang2]. | focuses on data and information [Baccelli] [Amadeo] [Quevedo] | |||
[Amadeo2] [ID.Zhang2]. | ||||
Since naming data independently from its current location (where it | Since naming data independently from its current location (where it | |||
is stored) is a primary concept of ICN, how to find any NDO using a | is stored) is a primary concept of ICN, how to find any NDO using a | |||
location-independent name is one of the most important design | location-independent name is one of the most important design | |||
challenges in ICN. Such ICN routing may comprise three steps | challenges in ICN. Such ICN routing may comprise three steps | |||
[RFC7927]: | [RFC7927]: | |||
* Name resolution: matches/translates a content name to the locator | (1) Name resolution: matches/translates a content name to the | |||
of content producer or source that can provide the content. | locator of the content producer or source that can provide the | |||
content. | ||||
* Content request routing: routes the content request towards the | (2) Content request routing: routes the content request towards the | |||
content's location either based on its name or locator. | content's location based either on its name or locator. | |||
* Content delivery: transfers the content to the requester. | (3) Content delivery: transfers the content to the requester. | |||
Among the three steps of ICN routing, this document investigates only | Among the three steps of ICN routing, this document investigates only | |||
the name resolution step which translates a content name to the | the name resolution step, which translates a content name to the | |||
content locator. In addition, this document covers various possible | content locator. In addition, this document covers various possible | |||
types of name resolution in ICN such as one name to another name, | types of name resolution in ICN such as one name to another name, | |||
name to locator, name to manifest, name to metadata, etc. | name to locator, name to manifest, name to metadata, etc. | |||
The focus of this document is a Name Resolution Service (NRS) itself | The focus of this document is a Name Resolution Service (NRS) itself | |||
as a service or a system in ICN and it provides the functionalities | as a service or a system in ICN, and it provides the functionalities | |||
and the design considerations for an NRS in ICN as well as the | and the design considerations for an NRS in ICN as well as the | |||
overview of the NRS approaches in ICN. On the other hand, its | overview of the NRS approaches in ICN. On the other hand, its | |||
companion document [NRSarch] describes considerations from the | companion document [NRSarch] describes considerations from the | |||
perspective of ICN architecture and routing system when using an NRS | perspective of the ICN architecture and routing system when using an | |||
in ICN. | NRS in ICN. | |||
This document represents the consensus of the Information-Centric | This document represents the consensus of the Information-Centric | |||
Networking Research Group (ICNRG). It has been reviewed extensively | Networking Research Group (ICNRG). It has been reviewed extensively | |||
by the Research Group (RG) members who are actively involved in the | by the Research Group (RG) members who are actively involved in the | |||
research and development of the technology covered by this document. | research and development of the technology covered by this document. | |||
It is not an IETF product and is not a standard. | It is not an IETF product and is not a standard. | |||
2. Name Resolution Service in ICN | 2. Name Resolution Service in ICN | |||
A Name Resolution Service (NRS) in ICN is defined as the service that | A Name Resolution Service (NRS) in ICN is defined as the service that | |||
provides the name resolution function for translating an object name | provides the name resolution function for translating an object name | |||
into some other information such as a locator, another name, | into some other information such as a locator, another name, | |||
metadata, next hop info, etc. that is used for forwarding the object | metadata, next-hop info, etc. that is used for forwarding the object | |||
request. In other words, an NRS is a service that can be provided by | request. In other words, an NRS is a service that can be provided by | |||
the ICN infrastructure to help a consumer to reach a specific piece | the ICN infrastructure to help a consumer reach a specific piece of | |||
of information (or named data object). The consumer provides an NRS | information (or named data object). The consumer provides an NRS | |||
with a persistent name and the NRS returns a name or locator (or | with a persistent name, and the NRS returns a name or locator (or | |||
potentially multiple names and locators) that can reach a current | potentially multiple names and locators) that can reach a current | |||
instance of the requested object. | instance of the requested object. | |||
The name resolution is a necessary process in ICN routing although | The name resolution is a necessary process in ICN routing, although | |||
the name resolution either can be separated from the content request | the name resolution either can be separated from the content request | |||
routing as an explicit process or can be integrated with the content | routing as an explicit process or can be integrated with the content | |||
request routing as an implicit process. The former is referred as | request routing as an implicit process. The former is referred to as | |||
explicit name resolution approach, the latter is referred as name- | an "explicit name resolution approach", and the latter is referred to | |||
based routing approach in this document. | as a "name-based routing approach" in this document. | |||
2.1. Explicit name resolution approach | 2.1. Explicit Name Resolution Approach | |||
An NRS could take the explicit name resolution approach to return the | An NRS could take the explicit name resolution approach to return the | |||
locators of the content to the client, which will be used by the | locators of the content to the client, which will be used by the | |||
underlying network as the identifier to route the client's request to | underlying network as the identifier to route the client's request to | |||
one of the producers or to a copy of the content. There are several | one of the producers or to a copy of the content. There are several | |||
ICN projects that use the explicit name resolution approach such as | ICN projects that use the explicit name resolution approach, such as | |||
DONA [Koponen], PURSUIT [PURSUIT], NetInf [SAIL], MobilityFirst [MF], | Data-Oriented Network Architecture (DONA) [Koponen], PURSUIT | |||
IDNet [Jung], etc. In addition, the explicit name resolution | [PURSUIT], Network of Information (NetInf) [SAIL], MobilityFirst | |||
[MF], IDNet [Jung], etc. In addition, the explicit name resolution | ||||
approach has been allowed for 5G control planes [SA2-5GLAN]. | approach has been allowed for 5G control planes [SA2-5GLAN]. | |||
2.2. Name-based routing approach | 2.2. Name-Based Routing Approach | |||
An NRS could take the name-based routing approach, which integrates | An NRS could take the name-based routing approach, which integrates | |||
the name resolution with the content request message routing as in | name resolution with content request message routing as in Named Data | |||
NDN [NDN]/CCNx [CCNx]. | Networking / Content-Centric Networking (NDN/CCNx) [NDN] [CCNx]. | |||
In the case that the content request also specifies the reverse path, | In cases where the content request also specifies the reverse path, | |||
as in NDN/CCNx, the name resolution mechanism also derives the | as in NDN/CCNx, the name resolution mechanism also derives the | |||
routing path for the data. This adds a requirement on the name | routing path for the data. This adds a requirement to the name | |||
resolution service to propagate request in a way that is consistent | resolution service to propagate the request in a way that is | |||
with the subsequent data forwarding. Namely, the request must select | consistent with the subsequent data forwarding. Namely, the request | |||
a path for the data based upon finding a copy of the content, but | must select a path for the data based upon finding a copy of the | |||
also properly delivering the data. | content but also properly delivering the data. | |||
2.3. Hybrid approach | 2.3. Hybrid Approach | |||
An NRS could also take hybrid approach. For instance, it can attempt | An NRS could also take hybrid approach. For instance, it can attempt | |||
the name-based routing approach first. If this fails at a certain | the name-based routing approach first. If this fails at a certain | |||
router, the router can go back to the explicit name resolution | router, the router can go back to the explicit name resolution | |||
approach. The hybrid NRS approach also works the other way around by | approach. The hybrid NRS approach also works the other way around: | |||
performing explicit name resolution first to find locators of | first by performing explicit name resolution to find the locators of | |||
routers. And then it can carry out the name-based routing approach | routers, then by routing the client's request using the name-based | |||
of the client's request. | routing approach. | |||
A hybrid approach would combine name resolution over a subset of | A hybrid approach would combine name resolution over a subset of | |||
routers on the path with some tunneling in between (say, across an | routers on the path with some tunneling in between (say, across an | |||
administrative domain) so that only a few of the nodes in the ICN | administrative domain) so that only a few of the nodes in the ICN | |||
network perform name resolution in the name-based routing approach. | network perform name resolution in the name-based routing approach. | |||
2.4. Comparisons of name resolution approaches | 2.4. Comparisons of Name Resolution Approaches | |||
The following compares the explicit name resolution and the name- | The following compares the explicit name resolution and the name- | |||
based routing approaches for several aspects: | based routing approaches in several aspects: | |||
* Overhead due to the maintenance of the content location: The | * Overhead due to the maintenance of the content location: The | |||
content reachability is dynamic and includes new content being | content reachability is dynamic and includes new content being | |||
cached or content being expired from a cache, content producer | cached or content being expired from a cache, content producer | |||
mobility, etc. Maintaining a consistent view of the content | mobility, etc. Maintaining a consistent view of the content | |||
location across the network requires some overhead that differs | location across the network requires some overhead that differs | |||
for the name resolution approaches. The name-based routing | for the name resolution approaches. The name-based routing | |||
approach may require flooding parts of the network for update | approach may require flooding parts of the network for update | |||
propagation. In the worst case, the name-based routing approach | propagation. In the worst case, the name-based routing approach | |||
may flood the whole network (but mitigating techniques may be used | may flood the whole network (but mitigating techniques may be used | |||
to scope the flooding). However, the explicit name resolution | to scope the flooding). However, the explicit name resolution | |||
approach only requires updating propagation in part of the name | approach only requires updating propagation in part of the name | |||
resolution system (which could be an overlay with a limited number | resolution system (which could be an overlay with a limited number | |||
of nodes). | of nodes). | |||
* Resolution capability: The explicit name resolution approach, if | * Resolution capability: The explicit name resolution approach, if | |||
designed and deployed with sufficient robustness, can offer at | designed and deployed with sufficient robustness, can offer at | |||
least weak guarantees that resolution will succeed for any content | least weak guarantees that resolution will succeed for any content | |||
name in the network if it is registered to the name resolution | name in the network if it is registered to the name resolution | |||
overlay. In the name-based routing approach, content resolution | overlay. In the name-based routing approach, content resolution | |||
depends on the flooding scope of the content names (i.e. content | depends on the flooding scope of the content names (i.e., content | |||
publishing message and the resulting name-based routing tables). | publishing message and the resulting name-based routing tables). | |||
For example, when a content is cached, the router may only notify | For example, when content is cached, the router may only notify | |||
this information to its direct neighbors. Thus, only those | its direct neighbors of this information. Thus, only those | |||
neighboring routers can build a named based entry for this cached | neighboring routers can build a name-based entry for this cached | |||
content. But if the neighboring routers continue to propagate | content. But if the neighboring routers continue to propagate | |||
this information, the other nodes are able to direct to this | this information, the other nodes are able to direct to this | |||
cached copy as well. | cached copy as well. | |||
* Node failure impact: Nodes involved in the explicit name | * Node failure impact: Nodes involved in the explicit name | |||
resolution approach are the name resolution overlay servers (e.g. | resolution approach are the name resolution overlay servers (e.g., | |||
Resolution Handlers in DONA), while the nodes involved in the | resolution handlers in DONA), while the nodes involved in the | |||
name-based routing approach are routers which route messages based | name-based routing approach are routers that route messages based | |||
on the name-based routing tables (e.g. NDN routers). Node | on the name-based routing tables (e.g., NDN routers). Node | |||
failures in the explicit name resolution approach may cause some | failures in the explicit name resolution approach may cause some | |||
content request routing to fail even though the content is | content request routing to fail even though the content is | |||
available. This problem does not exist in the name-based routing | available. This problem does not exist in the name-based routing | |||
approach because other alternative paths can be discovered to | approach because other alternative paths can be discovered to | |||
bypass the failed ICN routers, given the assumption that the | bypass the failed ICN routers, given the assumption that the | |||
network is still connected. | network is still connected. | |||
* Maintained databases: The storage usage for the explicit name | * Maintained databases: The storage usage for the explicit name | |||
resolution approach is different from that of the name-based | resolution approach is different from that of the name-based | |||
routing approach. The explicit name resolution approach typically | routing approach. The explicit name resolution approach typically | |||
needs to maintain two databases: name to locator mapping in the | needs to maintain two databases: name-to-locator mapping in the | |||
name resolution overlay and routing tables in the routers on the | name resolution overlay and routing tables in the routers on the | |||
data forwarding plane. The name-based routing approach needs to | data forwarding plane. The name-based routing approach needs to | |||
maintain only the name-based routing tables. | maintain only the name-based routing tables. | |||
Additionally, some other intermediary step may be included in the | Additionally, some other intermediary step may be included in the | |||
name resolution, namely the mapping of one name to other names, in | name resolution -- namely, the mapping of one name to other names -- | |||
order to facilitate the retrieval of named content, by way of a | in order to facilitate the retrieval of named content by way of a | |||
manifest [Westphal] [Mosko]. The manifest is resolved using one of | manifest [Westphal] [RFC8569]. The manifest is resolved using one of | |||
the two above approaches, and it may include further mapping of names | the two above approaches, and it may include further mapping of names | |||
to content and location. The steps for name resolution then become: | to content and location. The steps for name resolution then become | |||
first translate the manifest name into a location of a copy of the | the following: first, translate the manifest name into a location of | |||
manifest; the manifest includes further names of the content | a copy of the manifest, which includes further names of the content | |||
components, and potentially locations for the content. The content | components and potentially locations for the content, then retrieve | |||
is then retrieved by using these names and/or location, potentially | the content by using these names and/or location, potentially | |||
resulting in additional name resolutions. | resulting in additional name resolutions. | |||
Thus, no matter which approach is taken by an NRS in ICN, the name | Thus, no matter which approach is taken by an NRS in ICN, the name | |||
resolution is the essential function that shall be provided by the | resolution is the essential function that shall be provided by the | |||
ICN infrastructure. | ICN infrastructure. | |||
3. Functionalities of NRS in ICN | 3. Functionalities of NRS in ICN | |||
This section presents the functionalities of an NRS in ICN. | This section presents the functionalities of an NRS in ICN. | |||
3.1. Support heterogeneous name types | 3.1. Support Heterogeneous Name Types | |||
In ICN, a name is used to identify data object and is bound to it | In ICN, a name is used to identify the data object and is bound to it | |||
[RFC7927]. ICN requires uniqueness and persistency of the name of | [RFC7927]. ICN requires uniqueness and persistency of the name of | |||
data object to ensure the reachability of the object within a certain | the data object to ensure the reachability of the object within a | |||
scope. There are heterogeneous approaches to designing ICN naming | certain scope. There are heterogeneous approaches to designing ICN | |||
schemes [Bari]. Ideally, a name can include any form of identifier, | naming schemes [Bari]. Ideally, a name can include any form of | |||
which can be flat or hierarchical, and human readable or non- | identifier, which can be flat or hierarchical, human readable or non- | |||
readable. | readable. | |||
Although there are diverse types of naming schemes proposed in | Although there are diverse types of naming schemes proposed in the | |||
literature, they all need to provide basic functions for identifying | literature, they all need to provide basic functions for identifying | |||
data object, supporting named data lookup and routing. An NRS may | a data object, supporting named data lookup, and routing. An NRS may | |||
combine the better aspects of different schemes. Basically, an NRS | combine the better aspects of different schemes. Basically, an NRS | |||
should be able to support a generic naming schema so that it can | should be able to support a generic naming schema so that it can | |||
resolve any type of content name, irrespective of whether it is flat, | resolve any type of content name, irrespective of whether it is flat, | |||
hierarchical, attribute-based or anything else. | hierarchical, attribute based, or anything else. | |||
In PURSUIT [PURSUIT], names are flat and the rendezvous functions are | In PURSUIT [PURSUIT], names are flat, and the rendezvous functions | |||
defined for an NRS, which is implemented by a set of Rendezvous Nodes | are defined for an NRS, which is implemented by a set of rendezvous | |||
(RNs), the Rendezvous Network (RENE). Thus, a name consists of a | nodes (RNs), known as the rendezvous network (RENE). Thus, a name | |||
sequence of scope IDs and a single rendezvous ID is routed by the RNs | consists of a sequence of scope IDs, and a single rendezvous ID is | |||
in RENE. Thus, PURSUIT decouples name resolution and data routing, | routed by the RNs in RENE. Thus, PURSUIT decouples name resolution | |||
where the NRS is performed by the RENE. | and data routing, where the NRS is performed by the RENE. | |||
In MobilityFirst [MF], a name called a Global Unique IDentifier | In MobilityFirst [MF], a name known as a "Global Unique Identifier | |||
(GUID) derived from a human-readable name via a global naming service | (GUID)", derived from a human-readable name via a global naming | |||
is a flat typed 160-bits string with self-certifying properties. | service, is a flat typed 160-bit string with self-certifying | |||
Thus, MobilityFirst defines a Global Name Resolution Service (GNRS) | properties. Thus, MobilityFirst defines a Global Name Resolution | |||
which resolves GUIDs to network addresses and decouples name | Service (GNRS), which resolves GUIDs to network addresses and | |||
resolution and data routing similarly to PURSUIT. | decouples name resolution and data routing similarly to PURSUIT. | |||
In NetInf [Dannewitz], information objects are named using ni-naming | In NetInf [Dannewitz], information objects are named using Named | |||
[RFC6920], which consist of an authority part and digest part | Information (NI) names [RFC6920], which consist of an authority part | |||
(content hash). The ni names can be flat as the authority part is | and digest part (content hash). The NI names can be flat as the | |||
optional. Thus, the NetInf architecture also includes a Name | authority part is optional. Thus, the NetInf architecture also | |||
Resolution System (NRS) which can be used to resolve ni-names to | includes a Name Resolution System (NRS), which can be used to resolve | |||
addresses in an underlying routable network layer. | NI names to addresses in an underlying routable network layer. | |||
In NDN [NDN] and CCNx [CCNx], names are hierarchical and may be | In NDN [NDN] and CCNx [CCNx], names are hierarchical and may be | |||
similar to URLs. Each name component can be anything, including a | similar to URLs. Each name component can be anything, including a | |||
human-readable string or a hash value. NDN/CCNx adopts the name- | human-readable string or a hash value. NDN/CCNx adopts the name- | |||
based routing approach. The NDN router forwards the request by doing | based routing approach. The NDN router forwards the request by doing | |||
the longest-match lookup in the Forwarding Information Base (FIB) | the longest-match lookup in the Forwarding Information Base (FIB) | |||
based on the content name and the request is stored in the Pending | based on the content name, and the request is stored in the Pending | |||
Interest Table (PIT). | Interest Table (PIT). | |||
3.2. Support producer mobility | 3.2. Support Producer Mobility | |||
ICN natively supports mobility management. Namely, consumer or | ICN inherently supports mobility by consumers. Namely, consumer or | |||
client mobility is handled by re-requesting the content in case the | client mobility is handled by re-requesting the content in case the | |||
mobility event (say, handover) occurred before receiving the | mobility event (say, handover) occurred before receiving the | |||
corresponding content from the network. Since ICN can ensure that | corresponding content from the network. Since ICN can ensure that | |||
content reception continues without any disruption in ICN | content reception continues without any disruption in ICN | |||
applications, seamless mobility from the consumer's point of view can | applications, seamless mobility from the consumer's point of view can | |||
be easily supported. | be easily supported. | |||
However, producer mobility does not emerge naturally from the ICN | However, producer mobility does not emerge naturally from the ICN | |||
forwarding model as does consumer mobility. If a producer moves into | forwarding model as does consumer mobility. If a producer moves into | |||
a different network location or a different name domain, which is | a different network location or a different name domain, which is | |||
assigned by another authoritative publisher, it would be difficult | assigned by another authoritative publisher, it would be difficult | |||
for the mobility management to update RIB and FIB entries in ICN | for the mobility management to update Routing Information Base (RIB) | |||
routers with the new forwarding path in a very short time. | and FIB entries in ICN routers with the new forwarding path in a very | |||
Therefore, various ICN architectures in the literature have proposed | short time. Therefore, various ICN architectures in the literature | |||
to adopt an NRS to achieve the producer or publisher mobility, where | have proposed adopting an NRS to achieve the producer or publisher | |||
the NRS can be implemented in different ways such as rendezvous | mobility, where the NRS can be implemented in different ways such as | |||
points and/or overlay mapping systems. | rendezvous points and/or overlay mapping systems. | |||
In NDN [Zhang2], for producer mobility support, rendezvous mechanisms | In NDN [Zhang2], for producer mobility support, rendezvous mechanisms | |||
have been proposed to build interests rendezvous (RV) with data | have been proposed to build interest rendezvous (RV) with data | |||
generated by a mobile producer (MP). This can be classified into two | generated by a mobile producer (MP). This can be classified into two | |||
approaches: chase mobile producer; and rendezvous data. Regarding MP | approaches: chase mobile producer and rendezvous data. Regarding MP | |||
chasing, rendezvous acts as a mapping service that provides the | chasing, rendezvous acts as a mapping service that provides the | |||
mapping from the name of the data produced by the MP to the name of | mapping from the name of the data produced by the MP to the name of | |||
the MP's current point of attachment (PoA). Alternatively, the RV | the MP's current point of attachment (PoA). Alternatively, the RV | |||
serves as a home agent as in IP mobility support, so the RV enables | serves as a home agent as in IP mobility support, so the RV enables | |||
consumer's interest message to tunnel towards the MP at the PoA. | the consumer's Interest message to tunnel towards the MP at the PoA. | |||
Regarding rendezvous data, the solution involves moving the data | Regarding rendezvous data, the solution involves moving the data | |||
produced by the MP to a data depot instead of forwarding interest | produced by the MP to a data depot instead of forwarding Interest | |||
messages. Thus, a consumer's interest message can be forwarded to | messages. Thus, a consumer's Interest message can be forwarded to | |||
stationary place as called data rendezvous, so it would either return | stationary place called a "data rendezvous", so it would either | |||
the data or fetch it using another mapping solution. Therefore, RV | return the data or fetch it using another mapping solution. | |||
or other mapping functions are in the role of an NRS in NDN. | Therefore, RV or other mapping functions are in the role of an NRS in | |||
NDN. | ||||
In [Ravindran], forwarding-label (FL) object is referred to enable | In [Ravindran], the forwarding label (FL) object is used to enable | |||
identifier (ID) and locator (LID) namespaces to be split in ICN. | identifier (ID) and locator (LID) namespaces to be split in ICN. | |||
Generally, IDs are managed by applications, while locators are | Generally, IDs are managed by applications, while locators are | |||
managed by a network administrator, so that IDs are mapping to | managed by a network administrator so that IDs are mapped to | |||
heterogeneous name schemes and LIDs are mapping to the network | heterogeneous name schemes and LIDs are mapped to the network domains | |||
domains or to specific network elements. Thus, the proposed FL | or to specific network elements. Thus, the proposed FL object acts | |||
object acts as a locator (LID) and provides the flexibility to | as a locator (LID) and provides the flexibility to forward Interest | |||
forward Interest messages through mapping service between IDs and | messages through a mapping service between IDs and LIDs. Therefore, | |||
LIDs. Therefore, the mapping service in control plane infrastructure | the mapping service in control plane infrastructure can be considered | |||
can be considered as an NRS in this draft. | as an NRS in this draft. | |||
In MobilityFirst [MF], both consumer and publisher mobility can be | In MobilityFirst [MF], both consumer and publisher mobility can be | |||
primarily handled by the global name resolution service (GNRS) which | primarily handled by the global name resolution service (GNRS), which | |||
resolves GUIDs to network addresses. Thus, the GNRS must be updated | resolves GUIDs to network addresses. Thus, the GNRS must be updated | |||
for mobility support when a network attached object changes its point | for mobility support when a network-attached object changes its point | |||
of attachment, which differs from NDN/CCNx. | of attachment, which differs from NDN/CCNx. | |||
In NetInf [Dannewitz], mobility is handled by an NRS in a very | In NetInf [Dannewitz], mobility is handled by an NRS in a very | |||
similar way to MobilityFirst. | similar way to MobilityFirst. | |||
Besides the consumer and producer mobility, ICN also has to face | Besides the consumer and producer mobility, ICN also faces challenges | |||
challenges to support the other dynamic features such as multi- | to support the other dynamic features such as multi-homing, | |||
homing, migration, and replication of named resources such as | migration, and replication of named resources such as content, | |||
content, devices, and services. Therefore, an NRS can help to | devices, and services. Therefore, an NRS can help to support these | |||
support these dynamic features. | dynamic features. | |||
3.3. Support scalable routing system | 3.3. Support Scalable Routing System | |||
In ICN, the name of data objects is used for routing by either a name | In ICN, the name of data objects is used for routing by either a name | |||
resolution step or a routing table lookup. Thus, routing information | resolution step or a routing table lookup. Thus, routing information | |||
for each data object should be maintained in the routing base, such | for each data object should be maintained in the routing base, such | |||
as Routing Information Base (RIB) and Forwarding Information Base | as RIB and FIB. Since the number of data objects would be very | |||
(FIB). Since the number of data objects would be very large, the | large, the size of information bases would be significantly larger as | |||
size of information bases would be significantly larger as well | well [RFC7927]. | |||
[RFC7927]. | ||||
The hierarchical namespace used in CCNx [CCNx] and NDN [NDN] | The hierarchical namespace used in CCNx [CCNx] and NDN [NDN] | |||
architectures reduces the size of these tables through name | architectures reduces the size of these tables through name | |||
aggregation and improves the scalability of the routing system. A | aggregation and improves the scalability of the routing system. A | |||
flat naming scheme, on the other hand, would aggravate the | flat naming scheme, on the other hand, would aggravate the | |||
scalability problem of the routing system. The non-aggregated name | scalability problem of the routing system. The non-aggregated name | |||
prefixes injected to the Default Route Free Zone (DFZ) of ICN would | prefixes injected into the Default Route Free Zone (DFZ) of ICN would | |||
create more serious scalability problem when compared to the | create a more serious scalability problem when compared to the | |||
scalability issues of the IP routing system. Thus, an NRS may play | scalability issues of the IP routing system. Thus, an NRS may play | |||
an important role in the reduction of the routing scalability problem | an important role in the reduction of the routing scalability problem | |||
regardless of the types of namespaces. | regardless of the types of namespaces. | |||
In [Afanasyev], in order to address the routing scalability problem | In [Afanasyev], in order to address the routing scalability problem | |||
in NDN's DFZ, a well-known concept of Map-and-Encap is applied to | in NDN's DFZ, a well-known concept called "map-and-encap" is applied | |||
provide a simple and secure namespace mapping solution. In the | to provide a simple and secure namespace mapping solution. In the | |||
proposed map-and-encap design, data whose name prefixes do not exist | proposed map-and-encap design, data whose name prefixes do not exist | |||
in the DFZ forwarding table can be retrieved by a distributed mapping | in the DFZ forwarding table can be retrieved by a distributed mapping | |||
system called NDNS, which maintains and lookups the mapping | system called NDNS, which maintains and looks up the mapping | |||
information from a name to its globally routed prefixes, where NDNS | information from a name to its globally routed prefixes, where NDNS | |||
is a kind of an NRS. | is a kind of an NRS. | |||
3.4. Support off-path caching | 3.4. Support Off-Path Caching | |||
Caching in-network is considered to be a basic architectural | Caching in-network is considered to be a basic architectural | |||
component of an ICN architecture. It may be used to provide a level | component of an ICN architecture. It may be used to provide a level | |||
of Quality-of-Service (QoS) experience to users, to reduce the | of quality-of-service (QoS) experience to users to reduce the overall | |||
overall network traffic, to prevent network congestion and Denial-of- | network traffic, to prevent network congestion and denial-of-service | |||
Service (DoS) attacks and to increase availability. Caching | (DoS) attacks, and to increase availability. Caching approaches can | |||
approaches can be categorized into off-path caching and on-path | be categorized into off-path caching and on-path caching based on the | |||
caching based on the location of caches in relation to the forwarding | location of caches in relation to the forwarding path from the | |||
path from the original server to the consumer. Off-path caching, | original server to the consumer. Off-path caching, also referred to | |||
also referred as content replication or content storing, aims to | as "content replication" or "content storing", aims to replicate | |||
replicate content within a network in order to increase availability, | content within a network in order to increase availability, | |||
regardless of the relationship of the location to the forwarding | regardless of the relationship of the location to the forwarding | |||
path. Thus, finding off-path cached objects is not trivial in name- | path. Thus, finding off-path cached objects is not trivial in name- | |||
based routing of ICN. In order to support off-path caches, replicas | based routing of ICN. In order to support off-path caches, replicas | |||
are usually advertised into a name-based routing system or into an | are usually advertised into a name-based routing system or into an | |||
NRS. | NRS. | |||
In [Bayhan], an NRS is used to find off-path copies in the network, | In [Bayhan], an NRS is used to find off-path copies in the network, | |||
which may not be accessible via name-based routing mechanisms. Such | which may not be accessible via name-based routing mechanisms. Such | |||
capability can be helpful for an Autonomous System (AS) to avoid the | a capability can be helpful for an Autonomous System (AS) to avoid | |||
costly inter-AS traffic for external content more, to yield higher | the costly inter-AS traffic for external content more, to yield | |||
bandwidth efficiency for intra-AS traffic, and to decrease the data | higher bandwidth efficiency for intra-AS traffic, and to decrease the | |||
access latency for a pleasant user experience. | data access latency for a pleasant user experience. | |||
3.5. Support nameless object | 3.5. Support Nameless Object | |||
In CCNx 1.0 [Mosko2], the concept of "Nameless Objects" that are a | In CCNx 1.0 [Mosko2], the concept of a "Nameless Object", which is a | |||
Content Object without a Name is introduced to provide a means to | Content Object without a name, is introduced to provide a means to | |||
move Content between storage replicas without having to rename or re- | move content between storage replicas without having to rename or re- | |||
sign the content objects for the new name. Nameless Objects can be | sign the Content Objects for the new name. Nameless Objects can be | |||
addressed by the ContentObjectHash that is to restrict Content Object | addressed by the ContentObjectHash, which is to restrict Content | |||
matching by using SHA-256 hash. | Object matching by using a SHA-256 hash. | |||
An Interest message would still carry a Name and a ContentObjectHash, | An Interest message would still carry a name and a ContentObjectHash, | |||
where a Name is used for routing, while a ContentObjectHash is used | where a name is used for routing, while a ContentObjectHash is used | |||
for matching. However, on the reverse path, if the Content Object's | for matching. However, on the reverse path, if the Content Object's | |||
name is missing, it is a "Nameless Object" and only matches against | name is missing, it is a "Nameless Object" and only matches against | |||
the ContentObjectHash. Therefore, a consumer needs to resolve proper | the ContentObjectHash. Therefore, a consumer needs to resolve the | |||
name and hashes through an outside system, which can be considered as | proper name and hashes through an outside system, which can be | |||
an NRS. | considered as an NRS. | |||
3.6. Support manifest | 3.6. Support Manifest | |||
For collections of data objects which are organized as large and file | For collections of data objects that are organized as large and file- | |||
like contents [FLIC], manifests are used as data structures to | like contents [FLIC], manifests are used as data structures to | |||
transport this information. Thus, manifests may contain hash digests | transport this information. Thus, manifests may contain hash digests | |||
of signed content objects or other manifests, so that large content | of signed Content Objects or other manifests so that large Content | |||
objects which represent large piece of application data can be | Objects that represent a large piece of application data can be | |||
collected by using such manifest. | collected by using such a manifest. | |||
In order to request content objects, a consumer needs to know a | In order to request Content Objects, a consumer needs to know a | |||
manifest root name to acquire the manifest. In case of FLIC, a | manifest root name to acquire the manifest. In the case of File-Like | |||
manifest name can be represented by a nameless root manifest, so that | ICN Collections (FLIC), a manifest name can be represented by a | |||
outside system such as an NRS may be involved to give this | nameless root manifest so that an outside system such as an NRS may | |||
information to the consumer. | be involved to give this information to the consumer. | |||
3.7. Support metadata | 3.7. Support Metadata | |||
When resolving the name of a content object, NRS could return a rich | When resolving the name of a Content Object, NRS could return a rich | |||
set of metadata in addition to returning a locator. The metadata | set of metadata in addition to returning a locator. The metadata | |||
could include alternative object locations, supported object transfer | could include alternative object locations, supported object transfer | |||
protocol(s), caching policy, security parameters, data format, hash | protocol(s), caching policy, security parameters, data format, hash | |||
of object data, etc. The consumer could use this metadata for | of object data, etc. The consumer could use this metadata for the | |||
selection of object transfer protocol, security mechanism, egress | selection of object transfer protocol, security mechanism, egress | |||
interface, etc. An example of how metadata can be used in this way | interface, etc. An example of how metadata can be used in this way | |||
is provided by the NEO ICN architecture [NEO]. | is provided by the Networked Object (NEO) ICN architecture [NEO]. | |||
4. Design considerations for NRS in ICN | 4. Design Considerations for NRS in ICN | |||
This section presents the design considerations for NRS in ICN. | This section presents the design considerations for NRS in ICN. | |||
4.1. Resolution response time | 4.1. Resolution Response Time | |||
The name resolution process should provide a response within a | The name resolution process should provide a response within a | |||
reasonable amount of time. The response should be either a proper | reasonable amount of time. The response should be either a proper | |||
mapping of the name to a copy of the content, or an error message | mapping of the name to a copy of the content or an error message | |||
stating that no such object exists. If the name resolution does not | stating that no such object exists. If the name resolution does not | |||
map to a location, the system may not issue any response, and the | map to a location, the system may not issue any response, and the | |||
client should set a timer when sending a request, so as to consider | client should set a timer when sending a request so as to consider | |||
the resolution incomplete when the timer expires. | the resolution incomplete when the timer expires. | |||
The acceptable response delay could be of the order of a round trip | The acceptable response delay could be of the order of a round-trip | |||
time between the client issuing the request and the NRS servers that | time between the client issuing the request and the NRS servers that | |||
provides the response. While this RTT may vary greatly depending on | provide the response. While this RTT may vary greatly depending on | |||
the proximity between the two end points, some upper bound need be | the proximity between the two end points, some upper bound needs to | |||
used. Especially, in some delay-sensitive scenarios such as | be used. Especially in some delay-sensitive scenarios such as | |||
industrial Internet and telemedicine, the upper bound of the response | industrial Internet and telemedicine, the upper bound of the response | |||
delay must be guaranteed. | delay must be guaranteed. | |||
The response time includes all the steps of the resolution, including | The response time includes all the steps of the resolution, including | |||
potentially a hop-by-hop resolution or a hierarchical forwarding of | potentially a hop-by-hop resolution or a hierarchical forwarding of | |||
the resolution request. | the resolution request. | |||
4.2. Response accuracy | 4.2. Response Accuracy | |||
An NRS must provide an accurate response, namely a proper binding of | An NRS must provide an accurate response -- namely, a proper binding | |||
the requested name (or prefix) with a location. The response can be | of the requested name (or prefix) with a location. The response can | |||
either a (prefix, location) pair, or the actual forwarding of a | be either a (prefix, location) pair or the actual forwarding of a | |||
request to a node holding the content, which is then transmitted in | request to a node holding the content, which is then transmitted in | |||
return. | return. | |||
An NRS must provide an up-to-date response, namely an NRS should be | An NRS must provide an up-to-date response -- namely, an NRS should | |||
updated within a reasonable time when new copies of the content are | be updated within a reasonable time when new copies of the content | |||
being stored in the network. While every transient cache addition/ | are being stored in the network. While every transient cache | |||
eviction should not trigger an NRS update, some origin servers may | addition/eviction should not trigger an NRS update, some origin | |||
move and require the NRS to be updated. | servers may move and require the NRS to be updated. | |||
An NRS must provide mechanisms to update the mapping of the content | An NRS must provide mechanisms to update the mapping of the content | |||
with its location. Namely, an NRS must provide a mechanism for a | with its location. Namely, an NRS must provide a mechanism for a | |||
content provider to add new content, revoke old/dated/obsolete | content provider to add new content, revoke old/dated/obsolete | |||
content, and modify existing content. Any content update should then | content, and modify existing content. Any content update should then | |||
be propagated through the NRS system within reasonable delay. | be propagated through the NRS system within reasonable delay. | |||
Content that is highly mobile may require to specify some type of | Content that is highly mobile may require specifying some type of | |||
anchor that is kept at the NRS, instead of the content location. | anchor that is kept at the NRS instead of the content location. | |||
4.3. Resolution guarantee | 4.3. Resolution Guarantee | |||
An NRS must ensure that the name resolution is successful with high | An NRS must ensure that the name resolution is successful with high | |||
probability if the name matching content exists in the network, | probability if the name-matching content exists in the network, | |||
regardless of its popularity and number of cached copies existing in | regardless of its popularity and the number of cached copies existing | |||
the network. As per Section 4.1, some resolution may not occur in a | in the network. Per Section 4.1, some resolutions may not occur in a | |||
timely manner. However, the probability of such event should be | timely manner. However, the probability of such an event should be | |||
minimized. The NRS system may provide a probability (say, five 9s, | minimized. The NRS system may provide a probability (five 9s or five | |||
or five sigmas for instance) that a resolution will be satisfied. | sigmas, for instance) that a resolution will be satisfied. | |||
4.4. Resolution fairness | 4.4. Resolution Fairness | |||
An NRS could provide this service for all content in a fair manner, | An NRS could provide this service for all content in a fair manner, | |||
independently of the specific content properties (content producer, | independently of the specific content properties (content producer, | |||
content popularity, availability of copies, content format, etc.). | content popularity, availability of copies, content format, etc.). | |||
Fairness may be defined as a per request delay to complete the NRS | Fairness may be defined as a per-request delay to complete the NRS | |||
steps that is not agnostic to the properties of the content itself. | steps that is agnostic to the properties of the content itself. | |||
Fairness may be defined as well as the number of requests answered | Fairness may be defined as well as the number of requests answered | |||
per unit of time. | per unit of time. | |||
However, it is notable that content (or their associated producer) | However, it is notable that content (or their associated producer) | |||
may request a different level of QoS from the network (see [RFC9064] | may request a different level of QoS from the network (see [RFC9064], | |||
for instance), and this may include the NRS as well, in which case | for instance), and this may include the NRS as well, in which case | |||
considerations of fairness may be restricted to content within the | considerations of fairness may be restricted to content within the | |||
same class of service. | same class of service. | |||
4.5. Scalability | 4.5. Scalability | |||
The NRS system must scale up to support a very large user population | The NRS system must scale up to support a very large user population | |||
(including human users as well as machine-to-machine communications). | (including human users as well as machine-to-machine communications). | |||
As an idea of the scale, it is expected that 50 billion devices will | As an idea of the scale, it is expected that 50 billion devices will | |||
be connected in 2025 (per ITU projections). The system must be able | be connected in 2025 (per ITU projections). The system must be able | |||
to respond to a very large number of requests per unit of time. | to respond to a very large number of requests per unit of time. | |||
Message forwarding and processing, routing table building-up and name | Message forwarding and processing, routing table buildup, and name | |||
records propagation must be efficient and scalable. | record propagation must be efficient and scalable. | |||
The NRS system must scale up with the number of pieces of content | The NRS system must scale up with the number of pieces of content | |||
(content names) and should be able to support a content catalog that | (content names) and should be able to support a content catalog that | |||
is extremely large. Internet traffic is of the order of the | is extremely large. Internet traffic is of the order of zettabytes | |||
zettabytes per year (10^21 bytes). Since NRS is associated with | per year (10^21 bytes). Since NRS is associated with actual traffic, | |||
actual traffic, the number of pieces of content should scale with the | the number of pieces of content should scale with the amount of | |||
amount of traffic. Content size may vary from a few bytes to several | traffic. Content size may vary from a few bytes to several GB, so | |||
GB, so the NRS should be expected scale up to catalog of the size of | the NRS should be expected scale up to a catalog of the size of 10^21 | |||
10^21 in the near future, and larger beyond. | in the near future, and larger beyond. | |||
The NRS system must be able to scale up, namely to add NRS servers to | The NRS system must be able to scale up -- namely, to add NRS servers | |||
the NRS system, in a way that is transparent to the users. Addition | to the NRS system in a way that is transparent to the users. The | |||
of a new server should have limited negative impact on the other NRS | addition of a new server should have a limited negative impact on the | |||
servers (or should have a negative impact on only a small subset of | other NRS servers (or should have a negative impact on only a small | |||
the NRS servers). The impact of adding new servers may induce some | subset of the NRS servers). The impact of adding new servers may | |||
overhead at the other servers to rebuild a hierarchy or to exchange | induce some overhead at the other servers to rebuild a hierarchy or | |||
messages to include the new server within the service. Further, data | to exchange messages to include the new server within the service. | |||
may be shared among the new servers, for load balancing or tolerance | Further, data may be shared among the new servers for load balancing | |||
to failure. These steps should not disrupt the service provided by | or tolerance to failure. These steps should not disrupt the service | |||
the NRS and should in the long run improve the quality of the | provided by the NRS and should improve the quality of the service in | |||
service. | the long run. | |||
The NRS system may support access from a heterogeneity of connection | The NRS system may support access from a heterogeneity of connection | |||
methods and devices. In particular, the NRS system may support | methods and devices. In particular, the NRS system may support | |||
access from constrained devices and interactions with the NRS system | access from constrained devices, and interactions with the NRS system | |||
would not be too costly. An IoT node for instance should be able to | would not be too costly. An IoT node, for instance, should be able | |||
access the NRS system as well as a more powerful node. | to access the NRS system as well as a more powerful node. | |||
The NRS system should scale up in its responsiveness to the increased | The NRS system should scale up in its responsiveness to the increased | |||
request rate that is expected from applications such as IoT or M2M, | request rate that is expected from applications such as IoT or | |||
where data is being frequently generated and/or frequently requested. | machine-to-machine (M2M), where data is being frequently generated | |||
and/or requested. | ||||
4.6. Manageability | 4.6. Manageability | |||
The NRS system must be manageable since some parts of the system may | The NRS system must be manageable since some parts of the system may | |||
grow or shrink dynamically and an NRS system node may be added or | grow or shrink dynamically and an NRS system node may be added or | |||
deleted frequently. | deleted frequently. | |||
The NRS system may support an NRS management layer that allows for | The NRS system may support an NRS management layer that allows for | |||
adding or subtracting NRS nodes. In order to infer the circumstance, | adding or subtracting NRS nodes. In order to infer the circumstance, | |||
the management layer can measure network status. | the management layer can measure the network status. | |||
4.7. Deployed system | 4.7. Deployed System | |||
The NRS system must be deployable since deployability is important | The NRS system must be deployable since deployability is important | |||
for a real-world system. The NRS system must be deployable in | for a real-world system. The NRS system must be deployable in | |||
network edges and cores so that the consumers as well as ICN routers | network edges and cores so that the consumers as well as ICN routers | |||
can perform name resolution in a very low latency. | can perform name resolution in a very low latency. | |||
4.8. Fault tolerance | 4.8. Fault Tolerance | |||
The NRS system must ensure resiliency in the event of NRS server | The NRS system must ensure resiliency in the event of NRS server | |||
failures. The failure of a small subset of nodes should not impact | failures. The failure of a small subset of nodes should not impact | |||
the NRS performance significantly. | the NRS performance significantly. | |||
After an NRS server fails, the NRS system must be able to recover | After an NRS server fails, the NRS system must be able to recover | |||
and/or restore the name records stored in the NRS server. | and/or restore the name records stored in the NRS server. | |||
4.9. Security and privacy | 4.9. Security and Privacy | |||
On utilizing an NRS in ICN, there are some security considerations | On utilizing an NRS in ICN, there are some security considerations | |||
for the NRS servers/nodes and name mapping records stored in the NRS | for the NRS servers/nodes and name mapping records stored in the NRS | |||
system. This subsection describes them. | system. This subsection describes them. | |||
4.9.1. Confidentiality | 4.9.1. Confidentiality | |||
The name mapping records in the NRS system must be assigned with | The name mapping records in the NRS system must be assigned with | |||
proper access rights such that the information contained in the name | proper access rights such that the information contained in the name | |||
mapping records would not be revealed to unauthorized users. | mapping records would not be revealed to unauthorized users. | |||
skipping to change at page 15, line 14 ¶ | skipping to change at line 661 ¶ | |||
The NRS system may support obfuscation and/or encryption mechanisms | The NRS system may support obfuscation and/or encryption mechanisms | |||
so that the content of a resolution request may not be accessible by | so that the content of a resolution request may not be accessible by | |||
third parties outside of the NRS system. | third parties outside of the NRS system. | |||
The NRS system must keep confidentiality to prevent sensitive name | The NRS system must keep confidentiality to prevent sensitive name | |||
mapping records from being reached by unauthorized data requesters. | mapping records from being reached by unauthorized data requesters. | |||
This is more required in IoT environments where a lot of sensitive | This is more required in IoT environments where a lot of sensitive | |||
data is produced. | data is produced. | |||
The NRS system must also keep confidentiality of meta-data as well as | The NRS system must also keep confidentiality of metadata as well as | |||
NRS usage to protect the privacy of the users. For instance, a | NRS usage to protect the privacy of the users. For instance, a | |||
specific user's NRS requests should not be shared outside the NRS | specific user's NRS requests should not be shared outside the NRS | |||
system (with the exception of legal intercept). | system (with the exception of legal intercept). | |||
4.9.2. Authentication | 4.9.2. Authentication | |||
* NRS server authentication: Authentication of the new NRS servers/ | * NRS server authentication: Authentication of the new NRS servers/ | |||
nodes that want to be registered with the NRS system must be | nodes that want to be registered with the NRS system must be | |||
required so that only authenticated entities can store and update | required so that only authenticated entities can store and update | |||
name mapping records. The NRS system should detect an attacker | name mapping records. The NRS system should detect an attacker | |||
skipping to change at page 15, line 41 ¶ | skipping to change at line 688 ¶ | |||
content producers are actually valid and that content producers | content producers are actually valid and that content producers | |||
are authorized to modify (or revoke) these records or add new | are authorized to modify (or revoke) these records or add new | |||
records. | records. | |||
* Mapping record authentication: The NRS should verify new mapping | * Mapping record authentication: The NRS should verify new mapping | |||
records that are being registered so that it cannot be polluted | records that are being registered so that it cannot be polluted | |||
with falsified information or invalid records. | with falsified information or invalid records. | |||
4.9.3. Integrity | 4.9.3. Integrity | |||
The NRS system must be prevented from malicious users attempting to | The NRS system must be protected from malicious users attempting to | |||
hijack or corrupt the name mapping records. | hijack or corrupt the name mapping records. | |||
4.9.4. Resiliency and availability | 4.9.4. Resiliency and Availability | |||
The NRS system should be resilient against denial of service attacks | The NRS system should be resilient against denial-of-service attacks | |||
and other common attacks to isolate the impact of the attacks and | and other common attacks to isolate the impact of the attacks and | |||
prevent collateral damage to the entire system. Therefore, if a part | prevent collateral damage to the entire system. Therefore, if a part | |||
of the NRS system fails, the failure should only affect a local | of the NRS system fails, the failure should only affect a local | |||
domain. And fast recovery mechanisms need to be in place to bring | domain. And fast recovery mechanisms need to be in place to bring | |||
the service back to normal. | the service back to normal. | |||
5. Conclusion | 5. Conclusion | |||
ICN routing may comprise three steps: name resolution, content | ICN routing may comprise three steps: name resolution, content | |||
request routing, and content delivery. This document investigates | request routing, and content delivery. This document investigates | |||
the name resolution step, which is the first and most important to be | the name resolution step, which is the first and most important to be | |||
achieved for ICN routing to be successful. A Name Resolution Service | achieved for ICN routing to be successful. A Name Resolution Service | |||
(NRS) in ICN is defined as the service that provides such a function | (NRS) in ICN is defined as the service that provides such a function | |||
of name resolution for translating an object name into some other | of name resolution for translating an object name into some other | |||
information such as a locator, another name, metadata, next hop info, | information such as a locator, another name, metadata, next-hop info, | |||
etc. that is used for forwarding the object request. | etc. that is used for forwarding the object request. | |||
This document classifies and analyzes the NRS approaches according to | This document classifies and analyzes the NRS approaches according to | |||
whether the name resolution step is separated from the content | whether the name resolution step is separated from the content | |||
request routing as an explicit process or not. This document also | request routing as an explicit process or not. This document also | |||
explains the NRS functions used to support heterogeneous name types, | explains the NRS functions used to support heterogeneous name types, | |||
producer mobility, scalable routing system, off-path caching, | producer mobility, scalable routing system, off-path caching, | |||
nameless object, manifest, and metadata. Finally, this document | nameless object, manifest, and metadata. Finally, this document | |||
presents design considerations for NRS in ICN, which include | presents design considerations for NRS in ICN, which include | |||
resolution response time and accuracy, resolution guarantee, | resolution response time and accuracy, resolution guarantee, | |||
resolution fairness, scalability, manageability, deployed system, and | resolution fairness, scalability, manageability, deployed system, and | |||
fault tolerance. | fault tolerance. | |||
6. IANA Considerations | 6. IANA Considerations | |||
There are no IANA considerations related to this document. | This document has no IANA actions. | |||
7. Security Considerations | 7. Security Considerations | |||
A discussion of security guidelines was provided in section 4.9. | A discussion of security guidelines is provided in Section 4.9. | |||
8. References | 8. References | |||
8.1. Normative References | 8.1. Normative References | |||
[RFC7927] Kutscher, D., Ed., Eum, S., Pentikousis, K., Psaras, I., | [RFC7927] Kutscher, D., Ed., Eum, S., Pentikousis, K., Psaras, I., | |||
Corujo, D., Saucez, D., Schmidt, T., and M. Waehlisch, | Corujo, D., Saucez, D., Schmidt, T., and M. Waehlisch, | |||
"Information-Centric Networking (ICN) Research | "Information-Centric Networking (ICN) Research | |||
Challenges", RFC 7927, DOI 10.17487/RFC7927, July 2016, | Challenges", RFC 7927, DOI 10.17487/RFC7927, July 2016, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7927>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7927>. | |||
8.2. Informative References | 8.2. Informative References | |||
[Afanasyev] | ||||
Afanasyev, A. et al., "SNAMP: Secure Namespace Mapping to | ||||
Scale NDN Forwarding", 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer | ||||
Communications Workshops, | ||||
DOI 10.1109/INFCOMW.2015.7179398, April 2015, | ||||
<https://doi.org/10.1109/INFCOMW.2015.7179398>. | ||||
[Ahlgren] Ahlgren, B., Dannewitz, C., Imbrenda, C., Kutscher, D., | [Ahlgren] Ahlgren, B., Dannewitz, C., Imbrenda, C., Kutscher, D., | |||
and B. Ohlman, "A Survey of Information-Centric | and B. Ohlman, "A Survey of Information-Centric | |||
Networking", IEEE Communications Magarzine Vol.50, Issue | Networking", IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol. 50, Issue | |||
7, 2012. | 7, DOI 10.1109/MCOM.2012.6231276, July 2012, | |||
<https://doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.2012.6231276>. | ||||
[Xylomenos] | ||||
Xylomenos, G., Ververidis, C. N., Siris, V. A., Fotiou, | ||||
N., Tsilopoulos, C., Vasilako, X., Katsaros, K. V., and G. | ||||
C. Polyzos, "A Survey of Information-Centric Networking | ||||
Research,Communications Surveys and Tutorials", IEEE | ||||
Communications Surveys and Tutorials vol. 16, no. 2, 2014. | ||||
[Baccelli] Baccelli, E., Mehlis, C., Hahm, O., Schmidt, T., and M. | ||||
Wahlisch, "Information Centric Networking in the IoT: | ||||
Experiments with NDN in the Wild", ACM ICN 2014, 2014. | ||||
[Amadeo] Amadeo, M., Campolo, C., Iera, A., and A. Molinaro, "Named | [Amadeo] Amadeo, M., Campolo, C., Iera, A., and A. Molinaro, "Named | |||
data networking for IoT: An architectural perspective", | data networking for IoT: An architectural perspective", | |||
European Conference on Networks and Communications | European Conference on Networks and Communications | |||
(EuCNC) , 2014. | (EuCNC), DOI 10.1109/EuCNC.2014.6882665, June 2014, | |||
<https://doi.org/10.1109/EuCNC.2014.6882665>. | ||||
[Quevedo] Quevedo, J., Corujo, D., and R. Aguiar, "A case for ICN | ||||
usage in IoT environments", IEEE GLOBECOM , 2014. | ||||
[Amadeo2] Amadeo, M. et al., "Information-centric networking for the | [Amadeo2] Amadeo, M. et al., "Information-centric networking for the | |||
internet of things: challenges and opportunitiesve", IEEE | internet of things: challenges and opportunities", IEEE | |||
Network vol. 30, no. 2, July 2016. | Network, Vol. 30, No. 2, DOI 10.1109/MNET.2016.7437030, | |||
March 2016, <https://doi.org/10.1109/MNET.2016.7437030>. | ||||
[ID.Zhang2] | [Baccelli] Baccelli, E., Mehlis, C., Hahm, O., Schmidt, T., and M. | |||
Ravindran, R. et al., "Design Considerations for Applying | Wählisch, "Information Centric Networking in the IoT: | |||
ICN to IoT", draft-zhang-icnrg-icniot-03 , May 2019. | Experiments with NDN in the Wild", ACM-ICN 2014, | |||
DOI 10.1145/2660129.2660144, 2014, | ||||
<https://doi.org/10.1145/2660129.2660144>. | ||||
[Koponen] Koponen, T., Chawla, M., Chun, B., Ermolinskiy, A., Kim, | [Bari] Bari, M.F., Chowdhury, S.R., Ahmed, R., Boutaba, R., and | |||
K. H., Shenker, S., and I. Stoica, "A Data-Oriented (and | B. Mathieu, "A Survey of Naming and Routing in | |||
Beyond) Network Architecture", ACM SIGCOMM 2007 pp. | Information-Centric Networks", IEEE Communications | |||
181-192, 2007. | Magazine, Vol. 50, No. 12, pp. 44-53, | |||
DOI 10.1109/MCOM.2012.6384450, December 2012, | ||||
<https://doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.2012.6384450>. | ||||
[PURSUIT] "FP7 PURSUIT project.", | [Bayhan] Bayhan, S. et al., "On Content Indexing for Off-Path | |||
http://www.fp7-pursuit.eu/PursuitWeb/ . | Caching in Information-Centric Networks", ACM-ICN 2016, | |||
DOI 10.1145/2984356.2984372, September 2016, | ||||
<https://doi.org/10.1145/2984356.2984372>. | ||||
[SAIL] "FP7 SAIL project.", http://www.sail-project.eu/ . | [CCNx] "CICN", <https://wiki.fd.io/view/Cicn>. | |||
[NDN] "NSF Named Data Networking project.", | [Dannewitz] | |||
http://www.named-data.net . | Dannewitz, C. et al., "Network of Information (NetInf) - | |||
An information-centric networking architecture", Computer | ||||
Communications, Vol. 36, Issue 7, | ||||
DOI 10.1016/j.comcom.2013.01.009, April 2013, | ||||
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comcom.2013.01.009>. | ||||
[CCNx] "Content Centric Networking project.", | [FLIC] Tschudin, C., Wood, C. A., Mosko, M., and D. Oran, "File- | |||
https://wiki.fd.io/view/Cicn . | Like ICN Collections (FLIC)", Work in Progress, Internet- | |||
Draft, draft-irtf-icnrg-flic-03, 7 November 2021, | ||||
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-icnrg- | ||||
flic-03>. | ||||
[MF] "NSF Mobility First project.", | [ID.Zhang2] | |||
http://mobilityfirst.winlab.rutgers.edu/ . | Ravindran, R., Zhang, Y., Grieco, L. A., Lindgren, A., | |||
Burke, J., Ahlgren, B., and A. Azgin, "Design | ||||
Considerations for Applying ICN to IoT", Work in Progress, | ||||
Internet-Draft, draft-irtf-icnrg-icniot-03, 2 May 2019, | ||||
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-icnrg- | ||||
icniot-03>. | ||||
[Jung] Jung, H. et al., "IDNet: Beyond All-IP Network", ETRI | [Jung] Jung, H. et al., "IDNet: Beyond All-IP Network", ETRI | |||
Jouranl vol. 37, no. 5, October 2015. | Journal, Vol. 37, Issue 5, DOI 10.4218/etrij.15.2415.0045, | |||
October 2015, | ||||
<https://doi.org/10.4218/etrij.15.2415.0045>. | ||||
[SA2-5GLAN] | [Koponen] Koponen, T., Chawla, M., Chun, B., Ermolinskiy, A., Kim, | |||
3gpp-5glan, "SP-181129, Work Item Description, | K.H., Shenker, S., and I. Stoica, "A Data-Oriented (and | |||
Vertical_LAN(SA2), 5GS Enhanced Support of Vertical and | Beyond) Network Architecture", ACM SIGCOMM 2007, pp. | |||
LAN Services", 3GPP , | 181-192, DOI 10.1145/1282380.1282402, August 2007, | |||
http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_sa/TSG_SA/TSGS_82/Docs/SP- | <https://doi.org/10.1145/1282380.1282402>. | |||
181120.zip. | ||||
[Bari] Bari, M. F., Chowdhury, S. R., Ahmed, R., Boutaba, R., and | [MF] "MobilityFirst Future Internet Architecture Project | |||
B. Mathieu, "A Survey of Naming and Routing in | Overview", <http://mobilityfirst.winlab.rutgers.edu>. | |||
Information-Centric Networks", IEEE Communications | ||||
Magazine Vol. 50, No. 12, P.44-53, 2012. | ||||
[Westphal] Westphal, C. and E. Demirors, "An IP-based Manifest | [Mosko2] Mosko, M., "Nameless Objects", IRTF ICNRG, January 2016, | |||
Architecture for ICN", ACM ICN , 2015. | <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2016-icnrg- | |||
01/materials/slides-interim-2016-icnrg-1-7.pdf>. | ||||
[Mosko] Mosko, M., Scott, G., Solis, I., and C. Wood, "CCNx | [NDN] "Named Data Networking", <http://www.named-data.net>. | |||
Manifest Specification", draft-wood-icnrg- | ||||
ccnxmanifests-00 , July 2015. | ||||
[RFC6920] Farrell, S., Kutscher, D., Dannewitz, C., Ohlman, B., | [NEO] Eriksson, A. and A.M. Malik, "A DNS-based information- | |||
Keranen, A., and P. Hallam-Baker, "Naming Things with | centric network architecture open to multiple protocols | |||
Hashes", RFC6920, DOI 10.17487/RFC6920, | for transfer of data objects", 21st Conference on | |||
https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6920.txt , April 2013. | Innovation in Clouds, Internet and Networks and Workshops | |||
(ICIN), pp. 1-8, DOI 10.1109/ICIN.2018.8401595, February | ||||
2018, <https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIN.2018.8401595>. | ||||
[Zhang2] Zhang, Y. et al., "A Survey of Mobility Support in Named | [NRSarch] Hong, J., You, T., and V. Kafle, "Architectural | |||
Data Networking", IEEE Conference on Computer | Considerations of ICN using Name Resolution Service", Work | |||
Communications Workshops , 2016. | in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-irtf-icnrg-nrsarch- | |||
considerations-06, 12 February 2021, | ||||
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-icnrg- | ||||
nrsarch-considerations-06>. | ||||
[Dannewitz] | [PURSUIT] "FP7 PURSUIT", <https://www.fp7-pursuit.eu/>. | |||
Dannewitz, C. et al., "Network of Information (NetInf)-An | ||||
information centric networking architecture", Computer | [Quevedo] Quevedo, J., Corujo, D., and R. Aguiar, "A case for ICN | |||
Communications vol. 36, no. 7, April 2013. | usage in IoT environments", IEEE GLOBECOM, | |||
DOI GLOCOM.2014.7037227, December 2014, | ||||
<https://doi.org/GLOCOM.2014.7037227>. | ||||
[Ravindran] | [Ravindran] | |||
Ravindran, R. et al., "Forwarding-Label support in CCN | Ravindran, R., Chakraborti, A., and A. Azgin, "Forwarding | |||
Protocol", draft-ravi-icnrg-ccn-forwarding-label-02 , | Label support in CCN Protocol", Work in Progress, | |||
March 2018. | Internet-Draft, draft-ravi-icnrg-ccn-forwarding-label-02, | |||
5 March 2018, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/ | ||||
draft-ravi-icnrg-ccn-forwarding-label-02>. | ||||
[Afanasyev] | [RFC6920] Farrell, S., Kutscher, D., Dannewitz, C., Ohlman, B., | |||
Afanasyev, A. et al., "SNAMP: Secure Namespace Mapping to | Keranen, A., and P. Hallam-Baker, "Naming Things with | |||
Scale NDN Forwarding", IEEE Global Internet Symposium , | Hashes", RFC 6920, DOI 10.17487/RFC6920, April 2013, | |||
April 2015. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6920>. | |||
[Mosko2] Mosko, M., "Nameless Objects", IRTF ICNRG , January 2016. | [RFC8569] Mosko, M., Solis, I., and C. Wood, "Content-Centric | |||
Networking (CCNx) Semantics", RFC 8569, | ||||
DOI 10.17487/RFC8569, July 2019, | ||||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8569>. | ||||
[Bayhan] Bayhan, S. et al., "On Content Indexing for Off-Path | [RFC9064] Oran, D., "Considerations in the Development of a QoS | |||
Caching in Information-Centric Networks", ACM ICN , | Architecture for CCNx-Like Information-Centric Networking | |||
September 2016. | Protocols", RFC 9064, DOI 10.17487/RFC9064, June 2021, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9064>. | ||||
[FLIC] Tschudin, C. et al., "File-Like ICN Collection (FLIC)", | [SA2-5GLAN] | |||
draft-irtf-icnrg-flic-02 , November 2019. | 3GPP, "New WID: 5GS Enhanced support of Vertical and LAN | |||
Services", TSG SA Meeting #SP-82, December 2018, | ||||
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_sa/TSG_SA/TSGS_82/Docs/SP- | ||||
181120.zip>. | ||||
[NEO] Eriksson, A. and A. M. Malik, "A DNS-based information- | [SAIL] "Scalable and Adaptive Internet Solutions (SAIL)", | |||
centric network architecture open to multiple protocols | <http://www.sail-project.eu/>. | |||
for transfer of data objects", 21st Conference on | ||||
Innovation in Clouds, Internet and Networks and Workshops | ||||
(ICIN), pp. 1-8, 2018. | ||||
[NRSarch] Hong, J. et al., "Architectural Considerations of ICN | [Westphal] Westphal, C. and E. Demirors, "An IP-Based Manifest | |||
using Name Resolution Service", draft-irtf-icnrg-nrsarch- | Architecture for ICN", ACM-ICN 2015, | |||
considerations-06 , February 2021. | DOI 10.1145/2810156.2812614, September 2015, | |||
<https://doi.org/10.1145/2810156.2812614>. | ||||
[RFC9064] Oran, D., "Considerations in the development of a QoS | [Xylomenos] | |||
Architecture for CCNx-like ICN protocols", RFC9064, | Xylomenos, G., Ververidis, C., Siris, V., Fotiou, N., | |||
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9064/ , June 2021. | Tsilopoulos, C., Vasilakos, X., Katsaros, K., and G. | |||
Polyzos, "A Survey of Information-Centric Networking | ||||
Research", IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials, Vol. | ||||
16, Issue 2, DOI 10.1109/SURV.2013.070813.00063, 2014, | ||||
<https://doi.org/10.1109/SURV.2013.070813.00063>. | ||||
[Zhang2] Zhang, Y. et al., "A Survey of Mobility Support in Named | ||||
Data Networking", IEEE Conference on Computer | ||||
Communications Workshops, | ||||
DOI 10.1109/INFCOMW.2016.7562050, April 2016, | ||||
<https://doi.org/10.1109/INFCOMW.2016.7562050>. | ||||
Acknowledgements | Acknowledgements | |||
The authors would like to thank Dave Oran, Dirk Kutscher, Ved Kafle, | The authors would like to thank Dave Oran, Dirk Kutscher, Ved Kafle, | |||
Vincent Roca, Marie-Jose Montpetit, Stephen Farrell, Mirja Kuhlewind, | Vincent Roca, Marie-Jose Montpetit, Stephen Farrell, Mirja Kühlewind, | |||
and Colin Perkins for very useful reviews, comments and improvement | and Colin Perkins for very useful reviews, comments, and improvements | |||
on the document. | to the document. | |||
Authors' Addresses | Authors' Addresses | |||
Jungha Hong | Jungha Hong | |||
ETRI | ETRI | |||
218 Gajeong-ro, Yuseung-Gu | Yuseung-Gu | |||
218 Gajeong-ro | ||||
Daejeon | Daejeon | |||
34129 | ||||
Republic of Korea | ||||
Email: jhong@etri.re.kr | Email: jhong@etri.re.kr | |||
Tae-Wan You | Tae-Wan You | |||
ETRI | ETRI | |||
218 Gajeong-ro, Yuseung-Gu | Yuseung-Gu | |||
218 Gajeong-ro | ||||
Daejeon | Daejeon | |||
34129 | ||||
Republic of Korea | ||||
Email: twyou@etri.re.kr | Email: twyou@etri.re.kr | |||
Lijun Dong | Lijun Dong | |||
Futurewei Technologies Inc. | Futurewei Technologies Inc. | |||
10180 Telesis Court | 10180 Telesis Court | |||
San Diego, CA 92121 | San Diego, CA 92121 | |||
United States of America | United States of America | |||
Email: lijun.dong@futurewei.com | Email: lijun.dong@futurewei.com | |||
Cedric Westphal | Cedric Westphal | |||
Futurewei Technologies Inc. | Futurewei Technologies Inc. | |||
2330 Central Expressway | 2330 Central Expressway | |||
Santa Clara, CA 95050 | Santa Clara, CA 95050 | |||
United States of America | United States of America | |||
Email: cedric.westphal@futurewei.com | Email: cedric.westphal@futurewei.com | |||
Borje Ohlman | Börje Ohlman | |||
Ericsson Research | Ericsson Research | |||
S-16480 Stockholm | SE-16480 Stockholm | |||
Sweden | Sweden | |||
Email: Borje.Ohlman@ericsson.com | Email: Borje.Ohlman@ericsson.com | |||
End of changes. 144 change blocks. | ||||
399 lines changed or deleted | 444 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ |