Path Signals
draft-iab-path-signals-01

Document Type Active Internet-Draft
Last updated 2018-09-27 (latest revision 2018-09-25)
Replaces draft-hardie-path-signals
Stream IAB
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream IAB state (None)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
Network Working Group                                     T. Hardie, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                        September 25, 2018
Intended status: Informational
Expires: March 29, 2019

                              Path Signals
                       draft-iab-path-signals-01

Abstract

   This document discusses the nature of signals seen by on-path
   elements, contrasting implicit and explicit signals.  For example,
   TCP's state mechanics uses a series of well-known messages that are
   exchanged in the clear.  Because these are visible to network
   elements on the path between the two nodes setting up the transport
   connection, they are often used as signals by those network elements.
   In transports that do not exchange these messages in the clear, on-
   path network elements lack those signals.  This document recommends
   that explict signals be used by transports which encrypt their state
   mechanics.  It also recommends that a signal be exposed to the path
   only when the signal's originator intends that it be used by the
   network elements on the path.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   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
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 29, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents

Hardie                   Expires March 29, 2019                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                Path Signals                September 2018

   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components 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

   1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Signals Type Inferred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Session Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       3.1.1.  Session Identity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       3.1.2.  Routability and Consent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       3.1.3.  Flow Stability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       3.1.4.  Resource Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Network Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.2.1.  Path Latency  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.2.2.  Path Reliability and Consistency  . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Do Not Restore These Signals  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.2.  Replace These With Network Layer Signals  . . . . . . . .   6
     4.3.  Replace These With Per-Transport Signals  . . . . . . . .   6
     4.4.  Create a Set of Signals Common to Multiple Transports . .   6
   5.  Recommendation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2.  Introduction

   This document discusses the nature of signals seen by on-path
   elements, contrasting implicit and explicit signals.  For example,
   TCP's state mechanics uses a series of well-known messages that are
   exchanged in the clear.  Because these are visible to network
   elements on the path between the two nodes setting up the transport
Show full document text