Internet DRAFT - draft-jhong-icnrg-nrs-requirements
draft-jhong-icnrg-nrs-requirements
ICN Research Group J. Hong
Internet-Draft ETRI
Intended status: Informational L. Dong
Expires: January 3, 2019 Huawei
T. You
ETRI
C. Westphal
Huawei
Y-G. Hong
ETRI
GQ. Wang
Huawei
J. Wang
City University Hong Kong
July 2, 2018
Requirements for Name Resolution Service in ICN
draft-jhong-icnrg-nrs-requirements-04
Abstract
This document discusses the motivation and requirements for Name
Resolution Service (NRS) in ICN. The NRS in ICN is to translate an
object name into some other information such as locator and another
name which is used for forwarding the object request.
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 January 3, 2019.
Hong, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Requirements for NRS July 2018
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
(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. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Name Resolution Service in ICN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Standalone name resolution approach . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Name based routing approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Hybrid approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. Comparisons of name resolution approaches . . . . . . . . 5
4. Motivation of NRS in ICN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Heterogeneous names in ICN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Dynamism in ICN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Routing system in ICN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. Use cases of NRS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4.1. Flat name based routing support . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4.2. Producer mobility support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4.3. Scalable routing support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4.4. Off-Path cache support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4.5. Nameless object support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4.6. Menifest support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Requirements for NRS in ICN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. Requirements as a service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1.1. Delay sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1.2. Accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1.3. Resolution guarantee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. Requirements as a system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2.1. Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2.2. Manageability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2.3. Deployability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2.4. Fault tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3. Requirements on Security aspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3.1. Accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3.2. Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Hong, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Requirements for NRS July 2018
5.3.3. Data confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3.4. Dat privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction
The current Internet is a host-centric networking, where hosts are
uniquely identified with IP addresses and communication is possible
between any pair of hosts. Thus, information in the current Internet
is identified by the name of host where the information is stored.
In contrast to the host-centric networking, the primary communication
objects in Information-centric networking (ICN) are the named data
objects (NDOs) and they are uniquely identified by the location-
independent names. Thus, ICN aiming to the efficient dissemination
and retrieval of the NDOs in a global scale has been identified and
acknowledged as a promising technology for the future Internet
architecture to overcome the limitations of the current Internet such
as scalability, mobility, etc.[Ahlgren] [Xylomenos]. ICN also has
been emerged as a candidate architecture for IoT environment since
IoT focuses on data and information rather than end-to-end
communications [Baccelli] [Amadeo] [Quevedo] [Amadeo2] [ID.Zhang2].
Since naming data independently from the current location where it is
stored is a primary concept of ICN, how to find the NDO using the
location-independent name is one of the most important design
challenges in ICN. Such ICN routing may comprise three steps
[RFC7927] :
o Name resolution : matches/translates a content name to locators of
providers/sources that can provide the content.
o Content discovery : routes the content request towards the content
either based on its name or locator.
o Content delivery : transfers the content to the requester.
In three steps of ICN routing, this document focuses only the name
resolution step which translates a content name to its locators. In
addition, this document considers all other types of name resolution
in ICN such as name to name, name to manifest.
Hong, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Requirements for NRS July 2018
Thus, this document presents the definition of the Name Resolution
Service (NRS) in ICN and discusses the motivation and the
requirements in designing the NRS for ICN.
2. Conventions and 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 [RFC2119].
3. Name Resolution Service in ICN
The Name Resolution Service (NRS) in ICN is defined as the service
that provides the name resolution function translating an object name
into some other information such as locator and another name that is
used for forwarding the object request. In other words, the NRS is
the service that shall be provided by ICN infrastructure to help a
consumer to reach a specific piece of content, service, or host using
a persistent name when the name resolution is needed.
The name resolution is a necessary process in ICN routing although
the name resolution either can be separated from the content
discovery as a standalone process or can be integrated with the
content discovery as one combined process. The former is referred as
standalone name resolution approach, the latter is referred as name
based routing approach in this document.
3.1. Standalone name resolution approach
The NRS could take the standalone name resolution approach to return
the client with the locators of the content, which will be used by
the underlying network as the identifier to route the client's
request to one of the producers. There are several ICN projects that
use the standalone name resolution approach such as DONA[Koponen],
PURSUIT [PURSUIT], SAIL [SAIL], MobilityFirst [MF], IDNet [Jung],
etc.
3.2. Name based routing approach
The NRS could take the name based routing approach, which integrates
the name resolution with the content request message routing as in
NDN [NDN]/CCN [CCN].
In the case that the content request also specifies the reverse path,
as in NDN/CCN, the name resolution mechanism also determines the
routing path for the data. This adds a requirement on the name
resolution service to propagate request in a way that is consistent
with the subsequent data forwarding. Namely, the request must select
Hong, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Requirements for NRS July 2018
a path for the data based upon the finding the copy of the content,
but also properly delivering the data.
3.3. Hybrid approach
The NRS could also take hybrid approach which can perform name based
routing approach from the beginning, when it fails at certain router,
the router can go back to the standalone name resolution approach.
The alternative hybrid NRS approach also works, which can perform
standalone name resolution approach to find locators of routers which
can carry out the name based routing of the client's request.
A hybrid approach would combine name resolution as a subset of
routers on the path with some tunneling in between (say, across an
administrative domain) so that only a few of the nodes in the
architecture perform name resolution in the name-based routing
approach.
3.4. Comparisons of name resolution approaches
The following compares the standalone name resolution and name based
routing approaches from different aspects:
o Update message overhead : The update message overhead is due to
the change of content reachability, which may include content
caching or expiration, content producer mobility etc. The name
based routing approach may require to flood part of the network
for update propagation. In the worst case, the name based routing
approach may flood the whole network (but mitigating techniques
may be used to scope the flooding). The standalone name
resolution approach only requires to update propagation in part of
the name resolution overlay.
o Resolution capability : The standalone name resolution approach
can guarantee the resolution of any content in the network if it
is registered to the name resolution overlay (assuming the content
is being broadcast in the overlay after it is registered). On the
other hand, the name based routing approach can only promise a
high probability of content resolution, depending on the flooding
scope of the content availability information (i.e. content
publishing message and name based routing table).
o Node failure impact : Nodes involved in the standalone name
resolution approach are the name resolution overlay servers (e.g.
Resolution Handlers in DONA), while the nodes involved in the name
based routing approach are routers which route messages based on
locally maintained name based routing tables (e.g. NDN routers).
Node failures in the standalone name resolution approach may cause
Hong, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Requirements for NRS July 2018
some content resolution to fail even though the content is
available. This problem does not exist in the name based routing
approach because other alternative paths can be discovered to
bypass the failed ICN routers, given the assumption that the
network is still connected.
o Maintained databases : The storage usage for the standalone name
resolution approach is different from that of the name based
routing approach. The standalone name resolution approach
typically needs to maintain two databases: name to locator mapping
in the name resolution overlay and routing tables in the routers
on the data forwarding plane. The name based routing approach
needs to maintain different databases: name routing table and
optionally breadcrumbs for reverse routing of content back to the
requester.
4. Motivation of NRS in ICN
This section presents the motivation and use cases of NRS in ICN.
4.1. Heterogeneous names in ICN
In ICN design, a name is used to identify an entity, such as named
data content, a device, an application, a service. ICN requires
uniqueness and persistency of the name of any entity to ensure the
reachability of the entity within certain scope and with proper
authentication and trust guarantees. The name does not change with
the mobility and multi-home of the corresponding entity. A client
can always use this name to retrieve the content from network and
verify the binding of the content and the name.
Ideally, a name can include any form of identifier, which can be
flat, hierarchical, and human readable or non-readable.
There are heterogeneous content naming schemes [ID.Zhang] [RFC1498]
and name resolution approaches from different ICN architectures. For
example:
o Names in DONA [Koponen] consist of the cryptographic hash of the
principal's public key P and a label L uniquely identifying the
information with respect to the principal. Name resolution in
DONA is provided by specialized servers called Resolution Handlers
(RHs).
o Content in PURSUIT [PURSUIT] is identified by a combination of a
scope ID and a rendezvous ID. The scope ID represents the
boundaries of a defined dissemination strategy for the content it
contain. The rendezvous ID is the actual identity for a
Hong, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Requirements for NRS July 2018
particular content. Name resolution in PURSUIT is handled by a
collection of Rendezvous Nodes (RNs), which are implemented as a
hierarchical Dynamic Hash Table (DHT)[Rajahalme] [Katsaros].
o Names in NDN [NDN] and CCN [CCN] are hierarchical and may be
similar to URLs. Each name component can be anything, including a
dotted human-readable string or a hash value. NDN/CCN adopts the
name based routing. The NDN router forwards the request by doing
the longest-match lookup in the Forwarding Information Base (FIB)
based on the content name and the request is stored in the Pending
Interest Table (PIT).
o In MobilityFirst [MF], every network entity, content has a Global
Unique Identifier (GUID). GUIDs are flat 160-bit strings with no
semantic structure. Name Resolution in MobilityFirst is carried
out via a Global Name Resolution Service (GNRS).
Although the existing naming schemes are different, they all need to
provide basic functions for identifying a content, supporting trust
provenance, content lookup and routing. The NRS may combine the
advantages of different mechanisms. The NRS may be able to provide a
generic naming schema to resolve any type of content name, either it
is flat or hierarchical.
4.2. Dynamism in ICN
In ICN literature, it is said that mobility can be achieved in
fundamental feature of ICN. Especially, consumer or client mobility
can be achieved by allowing information requests to basic procedure
from different interfaces or through attachment point of the new
network. Moreover, seamless mobility service in ICN ensures that
content reception continues without any disruption in ICN
application, so in consumer point of view, seamless mobility can be
easily supported.
However, producer or publisher mobility in ICN is more complicated to
be supported. If a publisher moves into different authority domain
or network location, then the request for a content published by the
moving publisher with origin name would be hardly forwarded to the
moving publisher. Especially in a hierarchical name scheme,
publisher mobility support is much harder than in a flat name scheme
since the routing tables related in broad area should be updated
according to the publisher movement. Therefore, various ICN
literatures would adopt NRS to achieve the publisher mobility, where
NRS can be implemented in different ways such as rendezvous
mechanism, mapping, etc.
Hong, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Requirements for NRS July 2018
Besides mobility, ICN has challenge to support the dynamism features
like multi-homing, migration, and replication of named resources such
as content, devices, services, etc. and NRS may help to support the
dynamism features.
4.3. Routing system in ICN
In ICN, data objects must be identified by names regardless their
location or container [RFC7927] and the names are divided into two
types of schemes: hierarchical and flat namespaces. A hierarchical
scheme used in CCN and NDN architectures has a structure similar to
current URIs, where the hierarchy improves scalability of routing
system. It is because the hierarchy enables aggregation of the name
resulting in reducing the size of RIB or FIB as similar to IP routing
system. In a flat scheme, on the other hand, name routing is not
easy since names in a flat namespace cannot be aggregated anymore,
which would cause more the scalability problem in routing system. In
order to address such problem, a flat name can be resolved to some
information which is routable through NRS.
In ICN, application names identifying contents are used directly for
packet delivery, so ICN routers run a name-based routing protocol to
build name-based routing and forwarding tables. Regardless of name
scheme, if non-aggregated name prefixes are injected to the Default
Route Free Zone (DFZ) of ICN, then they would be driving the growth
of the DFZ routing table size, which is the same as the scalability
issue of IP routing. Thus a solution to keep the routing table size
under control is needed, which can be done by defining indirection
layer.
4.4. Use cases of NRS
This subsection describes NRS used in many other ways in ICN
literature.
4.4.1. Flat name based routing support
In PURSUIT [PURSUIT], names are flat and the rendezvous functions are
defined for NRS, which is implemented by a set of Rendezvous Nodes
(RNs), the Rendezvous Network (RENE). Thus a name consisted of a
sequence of scope IDs and a single rendezvous ID is routed by RNs in
RENE. Thus, PURSUIT decouples name resolution and data routing,
where NRS is performed by the RENE.
In MobilityFirst [MF], a name called a global unique Identifier
(GUID) derived from a human-readable name via a global naming service
is flat typed 160-bits strings with self-certifying function. Thus,
MobilityFirst defines a global name resolution service (GNRS) which
Hong, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Requirements for NRS July 2018
resolves GUIDs to network addresses and decouples name resolution and
data routing as similar to PURSUIT.
4.4.2. Producer mobility support
In NDN [Zhang2], for producer mobility support, rendezvous mechanisms
have been proposed to build interests rendezvous (RV) with data
generated by a mobile producer (MP). There can be classified two
approaches such as chase mobile producer and rendezvous data.
Regarding MP chasing, rendezvous acts as a mapping service that
provides the mapping from the name of the data produced by the MP to
the MP's current point of attachment (PoA) name. Alternatively, the
RV serves as a home agent like as IP mobility support, so the RV
enables consumer's interest message to tunnel towards the MP at the
PoA. Regarding rendezvous data, moving the data produced by the MP
have been hosting at data depot instead of forwarding interest
messages. Thus a consumer's interest message can be forwarded to
stationary place as called data rendezvous, so it would either return
the data or fetch it using another mapping solution. Therefore, RV
or other mapping functions are in the role of NRS in NDN.
In [Ravindran], forwarding-label (FL) object is referred to enable
identifier (ID) and locator (LID) namespaces to be split in ICN.
Generally, IDs are managed by applications, while locators are
managed by a network administrator, so that IDs are mapping to
heterogeneous name schemes and LIDs are mapping to network domains or
specific network elements. Thus the proposed FL object acts as a
locator (LID) and provides the flexibility to forward Interest
messages through mapping service between IDs and LIDs. Therefore,
the mapping service in control plane infrastructure can be considered
as NRS in this draft.
In MobilityFirst [MF], both consumer and publisher mobility can be
primarily handled by the global name resolution service (GNRS) which
resolves GUIDs to network addresses. Thus, the GNRS must be updated
for mobility support when a network attached object changes its point
of attachment, which differs from NDN/CCN.
4.4.3. Scalable routing support
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
provide a simple and secure namespace mapping solution. In the
proposed map-and-encap design, data whose name prefixes do not exist
in the DFZ forwarding table can be retrieved by a distributed mapping
system called NDNS, which maintains and lookups the mapping
information from a name to its globally routed prefixes, where NDNS
is a kind of NRS.
Hong, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Requirements for NRS July 2018
4.4.4. Off-Path cache support
Caching in-network is considered to be a basic architectural
component of an ICN architecture. It may be used to provide a
Quality-of-Service (QoS) experience to users, reduce the overall
network traffic, prevent network congestion and Denial-of-Service
(DoS) attacks and increase availability. Caching approaches can be
categorized into off-path caching and on-path caching based on the
location of caches in relation to the forwarding path from a original
server to a consumer. Off-path caching, also referred as content
replication or content storing, aims to replicate content within a
network in order to increase availability, regardless of the
relationship of the location to the forwarding path. Thus, finding
off-path cached objects is not trivial in name based routing of ICN.
In order to support off-path caches, replicas are usually advertised
into a name- based routing system or into NRS.
In [Bayhan], a NRS used to find off-path copies in the network, which
may not be accessible via content discovery mechanisms. Such
capability is essential for an Autonomous System (AS) to avoid the
costly inter-AS traffic for external content, to yield higher
bandwidth efficiency for intra-AS traffic, and to decrease the data
access latency for a pleasant user experience.
4.4.5. Nameless object support
In CCNx 1.0 [Mosko2], the concept of "Nameless Objects" that are a
Content Object without a Name is introduced to provide a means to
move Content between storage replicas without having to rename or re-
sign the content objects for the new name. Nameless Objects can be
addressed by the ContentObjectHash that is to restrict Content Object
matching by using SHA-256 hash.
An Interest message would still carry a Name and a ContentObjectHash,
where a Name is used for routing, while a ContentObjectHash is used
for matching. However, on the reverse path, if the Content Object's
name is missing, it is a "Nameless Object" and only matches against
the ContentObjectHash. Therefore, a consumer needs to resolve proper
name and hashes through an outside system, which can be considered as
NRS.
4.4.6. Menifest support
In collection of data objects which were organized as large and file
like contents [FLIC], the manifests are used as data structures to
transport this information. Thus, the manifests may contain hash
digests of signed content objects or other manifests, so that large
Hong, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Requirements for NRS July 2018
content objects which represent large piece of application data can
be collected by using the manifest.
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 name can be represented by a nameless root manifest, so that
outside system may be involved to give this information to the
consumer. Therefore, NRS can be considered as a kind of mapping
database system.
5. Requirements for NRS in ICN
This section presents the requirements for designing NRS in ICN in
terms of service, system and security aspects, respectively.
5.1. Requirements as a service
This subsection presents the requirements for NRS as a service.
5.1.1. Delay sensitivity
The name resolution process provided by the NRS must be completed
within a minimum delay. If the name resolution takes too long, then
the content request packet may get dropped or it will yield the high
content retrieval time for content requestor. Thus, the content
retrieval time has to be content requestor-tolerant.
5.1.2. Accuracy
The NRS must provide accurate and up-to-date information on how to
discover the requested content with minimum overhead in propagating
the update information. For example, a content can be moved from one
domain to another domain due to the mobility of the producer, then
the old name record should be deleted from the NRS system and a new
name record should be added and updated with minimum delay.
5.1.3. Resolution guarantee
The NRS must ensure the name resolution success if the matching
content exists in the network, regardless of its popularity, number
of cached copies.
5.2. Requirements as a system
This subsection presents the requirements for NRS as a system.
Hong, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Requirements for NRS July 2018
5.2.1. Scalability
The NRS system must be extremely scalable to support a large number
of content objects as well as billions of users, who may access the
system through various connection methods and devices. Especially in
IoT applications, the data size is small but frequently generated by
sensors. Message forwarding and processing, routing table building-
up and name records propagation must be efficient and scalable.
5.2.2. Manageability
The NRS system must be manageable since some parts of the system may
grow or shrink dynamically and a NRS system node may be added or
deleted.
5.2.3. Deployability
The NRS system must be deployable since deployability is important
for a real world system. If the NRS system can be deployed from the
edges, then the deployment can be simplified.
5.2.4. Fault tolerance
The NRS system must ensure resilience to node failures. After a NRS
node fails, the NRS system must be able to restore the name records
stored in the NRS node.
5.3. Requirements on Security aspect
This subsection presents the requirements for NRS on security aspect
for both node and data in the NRS system.
5.3.1. Accessibility
The name records must have proper access rights such that the
information contained in the name record would not be revealed to
unauthorized users. In other words, The NRS system must be prevented
from the malicious users attempting to hijack or corrupt name
records.
5.3.2. Authentication
Users/nodes that register themselves in the NRS system must require
the authentication to ensure who claims to be. For example, the
attacker can act as a fake NRS server which causes disruption or
intercepts the data.
Hong, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Requirements for NRS July 2018
5.3.3. Data confidentiality
NRS must keep the data confidentiality to prevent a lot of sensitive
data from reaching unauthorized data requestor such as in IoT
environment.
5.3.4. Dat privacy
When a private data is registered in the system, the NRS system must
support the privacy to avoid the information leaking. Otherwise,
unauthorized entity may disclose the privacy.
6. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations related to this document.
7. Security Considerations
[TBD]
8. Acknowledgements
[TBD]
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7927] Kutscher, D., Ed., Eum, S., Pentikousis, K., Psaras, I.,
Corujo, D., Saucez, D., Schmidt, T., and M. Waehlisch,
"Information-Centric Networking (ICN) Research
Challenges", RFC 7927, DOI 10.17487/RFC7927, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7927>.
9.2. Informative References
[Ahlgren] Ahlgren, B., Dannewitz, C., Imbrenda, C., Kutscher, D.,
and B. Ohlman, "A Survey of Information-Centric
Networking", IEEE Communications Magarzine Vol.50, Issue
7, 2012.
Hong, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Requirements for NRS July 2018
[Xylomenos]
Xylomenos, G., Ververidis, C., Siris, V., Fotiou, N.,
Tsilopoulos, C., Vasilako, X., Katsaros, K., and G.
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
data networking for IoT: An architectural perspective",
European Conference on Networks and Communications
(EuCNC) , 2014.
[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
internet of things: challenges and opportunitiesve", IEEE
Network vol. 30, no. 2, July 2016.
[ID.Zhang2]
Zhang, Y., "Design Considerations for Applying ICN to
IoT", draft-zhang-icnrg-icniot-01 , June 2017.
[Koponen] Koponen, T., Chawla, M., Chun, B., Ermolinskiy, A., Kim,
K., Shenker, S., and I. Stoica, "A Data-Oriented (and
Beyond) Network Architecture", ACM SIGCOMM 2007 pp.
181-192, 2007.
[PURSUIT] "FP7 PURSUIT project.",
http://www.fp7-pursuit.eu/PursuitWeb/ .
[SAIL] "FP7 SAIL project.", http://www.sail-project.eu/ .
[NDN] "NSF Named Data Networking project.",
http://www.named-data.net .
[CCN] "Content Centric Networking project.",
https://wiki.fd.io/view/Cicn .
[MF] "NSF Mobility First project.",
http://mobilityfirst.winlab.rutgers.edu/ .
Hong, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Requirements for NRS July 2018
[Jung] Jung, H. et al., "IDNet: Beyond All-IP Network", ETRI
Jouranl vol. 37, no. 5, October 2015.
[Jacobson]
Jacobson, V., Smetters, D., Thornton, J., Plass, M.,
Briggs, N., and R. Braynard, "Networking Named Content",
ACM CoNEXT , 2009.
[Baid] Baid, A., Vu, T., and D. Raychaudhuri, "Comparing
Alternative Approaches for Networking of Named Objects in
the Future Internet", IEEE Workshop on Emerging Design
Choices in Name-Oriented Networking (NOMEN) , 2012.
[Bari] Bari, M., Chowdhury, S., Ahmed, R., Boutaba, R., and B.
Mathieu, "A Survey of Naming and Routing in Information-
Centric Networks", IEEE Communications Magazine Vol. 50,
No. 12, P.44-53, 2012.
[Rajahalme]
Rajahalme, J., Sarela, M., Visala, K., and J. Riihijarvi,
"On Name-based Inter-domain Routing", Computer
Networks Vol. 55, No. 4, P. 975-986, March 2011.
[Katsaros]
Katsaros, K., Fotiou, N., Vasilakos, X., Ververidis, C.,
Tsilopoulos, C., Xylomenos, G., and G. Polyzos, "On Inter-
Domain Name Resolution for Information-Centric Networks",
Proc.IFIP-TC6 Networking Conference , 2012.
[ID.Wang] Wang, J., Li, S., and C. Wetphal, "Namespace Resolution in
Future Internet Architectures", draft-wang-fia-
namespace-01 , October 2015.
[ID.Zhang]
Zhang, X., Ravindran, R., Xie, H., and G. Wang, "PID: A
Generic Naming Schema for Information-centric Network",
draft-zhang-icnrg-pid-naming-scheme-03 , August 2013.
[D.Zhang] Zhang, D. and H. Liu, "Routing and Name Resolution in
Information-Centric Networks", 22nd International
Conference on Computer Communications and Networks
(ICCCN) , 2013.
[Sevilla] Sevilla, S., Mahadevan, P., and J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves,
"iDNS: Enabling Information Centric Networking Through The
DNS", Name Oriented Mobility (workshop co-located with
Infocom 2014) , 2014.
Hong, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Requirements for NRS July 2018
[RFC1498] Saltzer, J., "On the Naming and Binding of Network
Destinations", RFC 1498, DOI 10.17487/RFC1498, August
1993, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1498>.
[oneM2M] "oneM2M Functional Architecture TS 0001.",
http://www.onem2m.org/technical/published-documents. .
[RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.
[ID.Shelby]
Shelby, Z., "CoRE Resource Directory", draft-ietf-core-
resource-directory-10 , March 2017.
[CoRE] "Constrained RESTful Environments, CoRE",
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/core/charter/ , March
2013.
[Westphal]
Westphal, C. and E. Demirors, "An IP-based Manifest
Architecture for ICN", ACM ICN , 2015.
[Mosko] Mosko, M., Scott, G., Solis, I., and C. Wood, "CCNx
Manifest Specification", draft-wood-icnrg-
ccnxmanifests-00 , July 2015.
[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.
[RFC6833] Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation
Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6833, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6833>.
[Zhang] Zhang, L. et al., "Named data networking", ACM SIGCOMM
Computer Communication Review vol. 44, no. 3, July 2014.
[Zhang2] Zhang, Y., "A Survey of Mobility Support in Named Data
Networking", NAMED-ORIENTED MOBILITY: ARCHITECTURES,
ALGORITHMS, AND APPLICATIONS(NOM) , 2016.
Hong, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Requirements for NRS July 2018
[Dannewitz]
Dannewitz, C. et al., "Network of Information (NetInf)-An
information centric networking architecture", Computer
Communications vol. 36, no. 7, April 2013.
[Seskar] Seskar, I., Nagaraja, K., Nelson, S., and D. Raychaudhuri,
"MobilityFirst Future Internet Architecture Project", 7th
Asian Internet Engineering Conference , November 2011.
[Dannewitz2]
Dannewitz, C., DAmbrosio, M., and V. Vercellone,
"Hierarchical DHT-based name resolution for Information-
Centric Networks", Computer Communications vol. 36, no. 7,
April 2013.
[Vu] Vu, T. et al., "DMap: A Shared Hosting Scheme for Dynamic
Identifier to Locator Mapping in the Global Internet",
IEEE 32nd International Conference on Distributed
Computing Systems , 2012.
[Hong] Hong, J., Chun, W., and H. Jung, "Demonstrating a Scalable
Name Resolution System for Information-Centric
Networking", ACM ICN , September 2015.
[Ravindran]
Ravindran, R. et al., "Forwarding-Label support in CCN
Protocol", draft-ravi-icnrg-ccn-forwarding-label-01 , July
2017.
[Afanasyev]
Afanasyev, A. et al., "SNAMP: Secure Namespace Mapping to
Scale NDN Forwarding", IEEE Global Internet Symposium ,
April 2015.
[Mosko2] Mosko, M., "Nameless Objects", , July 2015.
[Bayhan] Bayhan, S. et al., "On Content Indexing for Off-Path
Caching in Information-Centric Networks", ACM ICN ,
September 2016.
[FLIC] Tschudin, C. and C. Wood, "File-Like ICN Collection
(FLIC)", draft-irtf-icnrg-flic-01, , June 2018.
Authors' Addresses
Hong, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Requirements for NRS July 2018
Jungha Hong
ETRI
218 Gajeong-ro, Yuseung-Gu
Daejeon 34129
Korea
Phone: +82 42 860 0926
Email: jhong@etri.re.kr
Lijun Dong
Huawei
10180 Telesis Court
San Diego, CA 92121
USA
Email: lijun.dong@huawei.com
Tae-Wan You
ETRI
218 Gajeong-ro, Yuseung-Gu
Daejeon 34129
Korea
Phone: +82 42 860 0642
Email: twyou@etri.re.kr
Cedric Westphal
Huawei
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95050
USA
Email: cedric.westphal@huawei.com
Yong-Geun Hong
ETRI
218 Gajeong-ro, Yuseung-Gu
Daejeon 34129
Korea
Phone: +82 42 860 6557
Email: yghong@etri.re.kr
Hong, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Requirements for NRS July 2018
GQ Wang
Huawei
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95050
USA
Email: gq.wang@huawei.com
Jianping Wang
City University Hong Kong
Email: jianwang@cityu.edu.hk
Hong, et al. Expires January 3, 2019 [Page 19]
