| TOC |
|
Today, networked applications typically make use of name-oriented network abstractions. There is a myriad of application development frameworks who provide abstracted APIs allowing applications to refer to their peers by name. These abstractions normally only provide application-layer protocol functionality. They are normally uni-lateral solutions, the support for the protocol used is implied by the service accessed on the remote peer(s).
We suggest a unified API for networked applications. Isomorphic to the existing name-based solutions, but with added network-related functionality. Providing an existing application-layer protocols with network features such as mobility, multi-homing, IPv4/IPv6 interoperability, NAT-traversal and so on...
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 http://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 June 4, 2011.
Copyright (c) 2010 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 (http://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.
1.
Conventions
2.
Terminology
3.
Motivation
4.
Name-based API
5.
Bi-lateral requirements
6.
Security Considerations
7.
IANA Considerations
8.
Contributors
9.
References
9.1.
Normative References
9.2.
Informative References
9.3.
URL References
Appendix A.
Change Log
Appendix B.
Open Issues
| TOC |
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] (Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” March 1997.).
| TOC |
Locator - A topological address with which a host can be reached. E.g. IPv4/IPv6 or MAC-addresses.
Multi-home - A host which is reachable through multiple locators.
Name - Something with which a host (or service) can be named. E.g. a FQDN, a peer-id in a DHT or any other structure from.
| TOC |
Applications and application-frameworks today typically deal with locators directly. The resolution: name -> locator is done by directly by the application or it is done framework (e.g. Java). This severely limits the functionality the operating system may provide.
The alternative is using shim-layer solutions, where the OS presents a pseudo-address to the application and deals with locator management internally in the network-layer
Names Names IP
| | |
| | |
| | |
.-------+-------. .-------+-------. |
| | | Application | |
| | +-------+-------' |
| Application | Names --> | |
| | .-------+-------. |
| | | Application | |
| | | Framework | |
'---------------' '-------+-------' |
| <-- IP --> | |
.-------+--------------------+------------------+----.
| .------. | |
| Operating System |IP->IP| | |
| '------+-' |
'-------+--------------------+----------------+------'
| | |
.-------+--------------------+----------------+------.
| IP / Ethernet / other... |
'----------------------------+-----------------------'
|
V
Figure 1
| TOC |
An API which allows the applications or application-frameworks to address their peers by name in a simple manner still providing the interface parts required to leverage the network functions. It should be complete but as far as possible be optional.
Where the actual translation to locators should happen is an open question, and it seems likely that this should be a variable. Comparable how BSD sockets may vary its 'layer' by e.g. SOCK_STREAM/SOCK_DGRAM, SOCK_RAW with or without setsockopt(HDRINCL).
Name
|
.--------+------------------.
| Application |
+------------------+--------'
| Transport | |
+---------+--------' Locator
| Network | | |
+---------' Locator V
| | .---------.
Locator V | Transp |
| .--------+---------+
V | Network |
.--------+------------------+
| Ethernet |
'--------+------------------'
|
V
Figure 2
| TOC |
I the application-frameworks today, the common element between peers is the service used. This implies the application protocol used. For network based functions a mechanism to check for support at the remote peer is needed. This function should be backwards compatible.
| TOC |
| TOC |
| TOC |
| TOC |
| TOC |
| [RFC2119] | Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997 (TXT, HTML, XML). |
| TOC |
| TOC |
| TOC |
Note to RFC Editor: if this document does not obsolete an existing RFC, please remove this appendix before publication as an RFC.
| TOC |
Note to RFC Editor: please remove this appendix before publication as an RFC.
| TOC |
| Javier Ubillos | |
| Swedish Institute of Computer Science | |
| Kistagangen 16 | |
| Kista 164 29 | |
| Sweden | |
| Phone: | +46767647588 |
| EMail: | jav@sics.se |