Internet DRAFT - draft-khan-object-naming
draft-khan-object-naming
Internet Research Task Force Imran Khan
Internet Draft TELECOM SudParis
Intended status: Informational Gyu Myoung Lee
Expires: August 25, 2013 TELECOM SudParis
Noel Crespi
TELECOM SudParis
February 24, 2013
Object Naming Framework for the Future Internet
draft-khan-object-naming-02.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain material
from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly
available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the
copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF
Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the
IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from
the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this
document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and
derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards
Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
translate it into languages other than English.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 25, 2013.
Khan, et al. Expires August 25, 2013 [Page 1]
Object Naming Framework for the Future Internet February 2013
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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.
Khan, et al. Expires August 25, 2013 [Page 2]
Object Naming Framework for the Future Internet February 2013
Abstract
This document explains the concept of object to object communications
and describes object identification for the Future Internet. In order
to develop protocols for object to object communications, this
document provides the naming architecture according to mapping
relationships between host and object(s). In addition, considerations
of protocols for naming object are specified.
Conventions used in this document
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.
Khan, et al. Expires August 25, 2013 [Page 3]
Object Naming Framework for the Future Internet February 2013
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................ 5
2. Objects - Basics ............................................ 6
2.1. Definition of object.................................... 6
2.2. Object identity......................................... 6
2.3. Types of objects........................................ 6
3. Object identification........................................ 8
3.1. Identification Mechanisms............................... 8
3.2. Examples of object identification ...................... 8
3.2.1. RFID .............................................. 8
3.2.2. Content ID......................................... 9
3.2.3. Object Identifier (OID)............................ 9
3.2.4. Named Data Objects (NDO)........................... 9
3.3. Classification of network entities to be identified..... 9
3.4. Requirements for naming using object identification..... 10
4. Object to object communications ............................. 11
5. Object Naming Framework ..................................... 11
5.1. The mapping relationships between host and object(s).... 11
5.1.1. Host = Object (one to one mapping) ................ 11
5.1.2. Host =! Object (one to many mapping) .............. 11
5.2. The Mapping relationships without hosts ................ 13
5.3. The stack architecture ................................. 14
5.4. Object mapping schemes ................................. 15
5.5. Providing connectivity to objects ...................... 17
6. Object Naming Usage.......................................... 19
7. Considerations of Protocols for Naming Objects .............. 19
7.1. Security association ................................... 19
7.2. Support of DNS ......................................... 20
7.3. Protocol overhead ...................................... 20
7.4. Common identifier for object ........................... 20
7.5. Services using named objects ........................... 20
8. Naming of mobile objects..................................... 21
9. Security Considerations ..................................... 21
10. IANA Considerations......................................... 22
11. References ................................................. 22
11.1. Normative References................................... 22
11.2. Informative References ................................ 22
Author's Addresses ............................................. 23
Khan, et al. Expires August 25, 2013 [Page 4]
Object Naming Framework for the Future Internet February 2013
1. Introduction
The one of new capabilities for the Future Internet will be the
ubiquitous networking such as the Internet of things. This networking
capability should support "Any Time, Any Where, Any Service, Any
Network and Any Object (so-called "5-Any")" operation. The naming of
objects is crucial to this new paradigm.
Traditional communication regime revolves around the end hosts. It
is necessary that in this host centric communication paradigm, any
user/application, trying to access a resource, is be able to connect
to that particular host holding the resource. However a new
communication paradigm [1], based on the concept of information and
content, takes away the central role from the end hosts and instead
puts resources (information elements/content/data) in the lead role.
Examples of such resources include a news item, a sensor/RFID tag,
multimedia content, document file among many others.
Each of these resources can be represented as an independent object.
In order to discover, publish and connect to these objects using
heterogeneous networks, a simple, ubiquitous, independent,
unobtrusive and cost-effective system of object identification is
crucial. In emerging Future Internet paradigm, objects not only
represent the hosts (e.g., PC, Servers, Mobile Phones and Tablets
etc.) but also represent information elements, content and data
contained by these hosts. Hence a proper object naming mechanism is
required to present these objects in a transparent way and allow
their discovery, publication and other necessary operations.
This document describes the framework for object naming for the
Future Internet. For identification of network entities, we consider
new type of identifiers (e.g., OID, RFID code, content ID) for
objects and propose specific requirements for object identification
from naming point of view.
For architectural aspects, this document shows a generic framework
for identity processing and mapping relationships between several
identities with conceptual diagram. Also stack architecture of
relationships and object mapping schemes are discussed.
Compared to several alternative architectures for object naming, this
document aims to provide requirements and right direction towards
realization of object naming.
Khan, et al. Expires August 25, 2013 [Page 5]
Object Naming Framework for the Future Internet February 2013
2. Objects - Basics
2.1. Definition of object
Anything in some world, generally the world of telecommunications and
information processing or some part thereof, which is identifiable
(can be named) and may be registered [ITU-T X.660]. An object is
distinct from other objects and is characterized by its behavior,
properties and relationship with other objects.
An object is informally said to perform functions and offer services
(an object which performs a function available to other entities
and/or objects is said to offer a service). For modeling purposes,
these functions and services are specified in terms of the behavior
of the object and of its interfaces. An object can perform more than
one function. A function can be performed with the cooperation of
several objects. An object interacts with its environment including
other objects at its interaction points thus forming a relationship.
NOTE - Objects include terminal devices (e.g., used by a person to
access the network such as mobile phones, personal computers, etc.),
remote monitoring devices (e.g., cameras, sensors, etc.), information
devices (e.g., content delivery server), products, contents,
resources and information elements (e.g., video, audio files,
documents, webpages, etc.).
NOTE - the above definition was quoted from ITU-T [Y.2002].
2.2. Object identity
Identity defines uniqueness or oneness of an object, helping it to be
distinguished from other objects. But different notions of identity
exist for different levels of abstraction, therefore, identity is
crucial to define that what an object stands for [2].
2.3. Types of objects
In the context of Future Internet anything (physical or virtual) that
fulfills the definition given in Section 2.1 is considered as an
object.
Regarding physical objects, there are many different types of devices
connecting to networks supporting ubiquitous networking for Future
Internet. RFID tag, sensors, actuator, smart cards, medical devices,
navigation devices, vehicles as well as the existing personal devices
such as PC and Smartphones are examples of these. This document
considers the end points which are not always humans but may be
Khan, et al. Expires August 25, 2013 [Page 6]
Object Naming Framework for the Future Internet February 2013
objects such as devices/machines, and then expanding to small objects
and parts of objects. In this regard the object means any device that
has the communication capabilities and is able to connect to the
network. It includes almost everything around us such as utility,
personal and information devices/machines/contents etc.
Information elements, contents and even the data itself can be
described as virtual objects. Examples of virtual objects include
(but are not limited to) video and audio content, movies, documents
files, image files, webpages, meaningful information/data like sports
news.
Figure 1 shows the relationship between humans and objects and its
connection with Internet. The types of objects on the end-user side
include the following: personal devices, information devices,
RFID/sensors, contents, appliances, vehicles, etc.
Objects
+--------------------------------------+
| +--------------+ |
| | +---------+ | +--------------+ |
| | |Personal | | | Contents | |
| | |Devices | | | | |
| | +---------+ | +--------------+ |
| H | | | Providing -------
| u | +---------+ | +--------------+ | Connectivity / \
| m | |Info. | | | Appliances | | | |
| a | |Devices | | | | | | |
| n | +---------+ | +--------------+ |-------------- | Internet |
| | | | | |
| | +---------+ | +--------------+ | | |
| | |RFID/ | | |Transportation| | \ /
| | |Sensors | | | vehicles | | -------
| | +---------+ | +--------------+ |
| +--------------+ |
+--------------------------------------+
Figure 1 Communications with objects through Internet
Khan, et al. Expires August 25, 2013 [Page 7]
Object Naming Framework for the Future Internet February 2013
3. Object identification
3.1. Identification Mechanisms
Identification of all objects for providing end-to-end connectivity
in ubiquitous networking environment is crucial. An identifier is
capable of uniquely identifying an associated object and facilitates
objects-to-objects communications. In particular, a globally unique
identifier enables a lot of applications including item tracking,
access control, and protection, etc. [3]. A unique identifier can
also help in verifying the authenticity of an object.
There are many kinds of identifiers such as E.164 numbering plan,
Extended Unique Identifier (EUI)-64, Media Access Control (MAC)
address, Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)/ Uniform Resource Locator
(URL), etc.
These identifiers can be classified as follows.
o Object IDs: include RFID, Content ID, telephone number, URL/URI,
etc.
o Communication IDs: include session/protocol ID, IP address, MAC
address, etc.
This document basically considers an "Object ID" which generally
takes the form of an application-specific integer or pointer that
uniquely identifies an object.
3.2. Examples of object identification
3.2.1. RFID
The identification codes, so-called Electronic Product Code (EPC),
for RFID/sensors are very important in ubiquitous networking
environment. An EPC is simply a number assigned to an RFID tag
representative of an actual electronic product code. Their value is
carefully characterized and categorized, so that it can convey a
certain meanings within their structure. Each number is encoded with
a header, identifying the particular EPC version used for coding the
entire EPC number. An EPC manager number is defined, allowing
individual companies or organizations to be uniquely identifiable; an
object class number is present, identifying objects used within this
organization, such as product types. Finally, there is a serial
number that, allows the unique identification of each individual
object tagged by the organization [4]. The key service, that allows
mapping between the EPC and information corresponding to the object
Khan, et al. Expires August 25, 2013 [Page 8]
Object Naming Framework for the Future Internet February 2013
is, Object Naming Service (ONS). ONS works much like Domain Name
System (DNS) and has similar hierarchical architecture as DNS.
3.2.2. Content ID
The Content ID is a unique identifier that can specify and
distinguish any kind of digital contents that are distributed. As a
unique code attached to a content object, the Content ID serves well
enough as an identifier. However, it is also the key to a complete
set of attribute information about a content object stored as
metadata including the nature of the contents, rights-related
information, information about distribution, and more. The Content ID
provides the key enabling metadata to be uniquely associated with a
particular digital object [4].
3.2.3. Object Identifier (OID)
OID is a tree based scheme standardized by ITU-T and is capable to
uniquely name an object, but instead OID is used to identify a type
of identifier and then actual resolution is delegated to another
identifier mechanism. OID can be used as a meta-identifier to locate
the proper identification service [RFC6253].
3.2.4. Named Data Objects (NDO)
NDO is the basis of several Future Internet architectures and
research projects focused on Information Centric Networking (ICN). An
object has a verifiable binding between itself and its name to ensure
authenticity. The name of the object can be human readable as well as
some ID generated through some mechanism. Two naming schemes are
popular for NDOs. One is hierarchical and other is flat namespace.
The hierarchical scheme is similar to current URL structure. Flat
namespace scheme is without any hierarchical structure and works by
either embedding the hash of the object or public key of the
publisher in its name [1].
3.3. Classification of network entities to be identified
There are several network entities in a network. These network
entities have a layered architecture and are used for naming,
addressing and routing. Following are examples of these network
entities.
o Services (i.e., information related to applications/services)
o End points (i.e., global unique identifier)
Khan, et al. Expires August 25, 2013 [Page 9]
Object Naming Framework for the Future Internet February 2013
o Location (i.e., IP address)
o Path (i.e., routing)
o Information elements (i.e., video and audio files, document files,
image files)
3.4. Requirements for naming using object identification
In order to enable object to object communication in Future Internet,
how to map/bind Communication IDs (e.g., IP address) with Object IDs
(e.g., content IDs) for providing end-to-end IP connectivity is a
challenging issue.
Additionally, the following features MUST be provided using naming
capability through object identification.
o Considering the amount of information objects currently available
on the Internet, by conservative estimates any object naming
scheme should be able to support 10^15 objects, this estimate does
not include the physical devices/machines. It is imperative to use
name spaces that can support these huge number of devices.
o Protection of object (including right management) using
appropriate security mechanism(s).
o Ownership Identification: To track the original owner/creator of
the object.
o Object authentication and verification to eliminate the Denial of
Service (DoS) attacks.
o Providing the connectivity to end device without additional
equipment such as Network Address Translator using object
identification.
o Service and location discovery through performing two functions;
Routing using network prefix information and identification code
using object IDs.
o Application Programming Interface to allow producers and consumers
of the content to publish and receive their objects.
Khan, et al. Expires August 25, 2013 [Page 10]
Object Naming Framework for the Future Internet February 2013
4. Object to object communications
For ubiquitous networking [Y.2002], Future Internet will require the
extensions of networking functionalities to all objects. New
networking concept will be considered for networking capabilities to
support various classes of applications/services which support "Any
Time, Any Where, Any Service, Any Network and Any Object" operation
using Internet. This networking capability should support human-to-
human, human-to-object (e.g., device, content and/or machine) and
object-to-object communications.
5. Object Naming Framework
5.1. The mapping relationships between host and object(s)
In this document, host means a device that communicates using the
Internet protocols (i.e., IP addresses).
5.1.1. Host = Object (one to one mapping)
In case a host is equal to an object, there is one to one mapping
relationship between host and object. Most of information devices
such as PC, smartphones are included in this case.
5.1.2. Host =! Object (one to many mapping)
In case a host is not equal to an object, there is one to many
mapping relationship between host and object(s). Content server, NDOs,
RFID tags/Reader etc. are included in this case.
There are two cases of one to many mapping as follows (see Figure 2):
o As shown in Figure 2 (a) host including objects such as a content
server, a host includes many objects and these objects MUST be
identified using content ID, object name etc.
o As shown in Figure 2 (b) host with remote objects such as RFID
tags, a host has many remote objects and these objects MUST be
identified using appropriate mechanism (e.g., RFID code). In this
case, each object might be non IP.
Khan, et al. Expires August 25, 2013 [Page 11]
Object Naming Framework for the Future Internet February 2013
+--------------------------+
| |
| +--------+ |
| | Object | |
| +--------+ |
| |
| +--------+ |
| | Object | |
| +--------+ |
| . |
| . |
| . |
| |
| +--------+ |
| | Object | |
| +--------+ |
| |
| Host |
| |
+--------------------------+
(a) Host including objects (e.g., content server)
+-------+
-----------------| Object |
/ +--------+
/ .
/ .
+------+ +--------+
| Host | ------------------ | Object |
+------+ +--------+
\ .
\ .
\ +--------+
----------------| Object |
+-------+
Remote objects
(non IP)
(b) Host with remote objects (e.g., RFID tags/Reader)
Khan, et al. Expires August 25, 2013 [Page 12]
Object Naming Framework for the Future Internet February 2013
+------------------+ +------++++
---| Representation 1 |---| Copy ||||
/ +------------------+ +------++++
/
/
+------+ +------------------+ +------+++
| NDO | ------------| Representation 2 |---| Copy |||
+------+ +------------------+ +------+++
\
\
\ +------------------+ +------++
---| Representation 3 |---| Copy ||
+------------------+ +------++
(c) Host with remote objects (e.g., RFID tags/Reader)
Figure 2 Mapping between host (IP address), objects (object IDs) and
NDO representations
5.2. The Mapping relationships without hosts
An upcoming view of Future Internet is information centric rather than
host centric. This is popularly known as ICN. There is no concept of
host devices and objects are accessible using their names. This is
obviously beneficial as the objects can be accessed even when host
change their location. The objects will reside in the host machines but
there will be no need for the resolution of host address to retrieve
them. While host centric approach is used today, it is envisioned that
ICN will overtake it in near future. Figure 2 (c) shows the mapping of
NDO to its multiple representations and multiple copies that are
accessible to users.
Layered architecture for identity processing
As shown in Figure 3, the layered architecture of identity processing
requires specific processing capabilities at each layer. Each
user/object in applications has an identity like name with a set of
attributes. An attribute can be termed of as metadata that belongs to
a specific entity in a specific context, some of which could to be
highly private or sensitive. The identity should be associated with
object IDs through identification and authorization. Each object ID
also should be associated with communication IDs through
mapping/binding mechanisms [Y.2055].
Khan, et al. Expires August 25, 2013 [Page 13]
Object Naming Framework for the Future Internet February 2013
Identity Processing Identifiers
------------ +------------------+
+ User Name + |Logical identities |
+ (Attributes) + | for services |
+ + | |
------------ +-------------------+
^ |
| +----------------+ |
----- |----- |Identification/ |------------------ |-----------
| |Authorization | |
| +----------------+ |
| |
| |
------------- +------------------+
+ Object IDs + | RFID,Content ID, |
+ (Physical & + |Telephone number, |
+ logical IDs) + | URL/URI, etc |
------------- +------------------+
^ |
| +---------------+ |
----- |----- | Mapping/ |------------------- |-----------
| | Binding | |
| +---------------+ |
| +---------------------+
| | Session/Protocol ID |
| +---------------------+
| |
| +---------------------+
-------------- | IP address |
+ Communication + +---------------------+
+ IDs + |
+ + +---------------------+
-------------- | MAC address |
+---------------------+
Figure 3 Layered architecture for identity processing
5.3. The stack architecture
The stack architecture shows the mapping relationships between host
and object(s).
Khan, et al. Expires August 25, 2013 [Page 14]
Object Naming Framework for the Future Internet February 2013
o As shown in Figure 4 (a) objects in a host (case #1), the end
point is a host itself. Each object at the service layer SHOULD be
identified by a host using mapping protocol for the object.
o As shown in Figure 4 (b) remote objects (case #2), each object
will be the end point. This means that host location is different
from end point(s). Thus, a host SHOULD be able to support several
end points. From object information in service layer, each object
identity should be defined.
5.4. Object mapping schemes
For host centric networking there are two kinds of object mapping
schemes using one to many mapping relationship as follows:
o Direct mapping (Figure 4 (a))
An object at application layer is directly reachable to host
entity at network attachment point where IP is terminated. An
object is located on top of TCP/IP protocol stack. For example, a
host, such as content server, includes many objects and these
objects MUST be identified using content ID, etc.
o Indirect mapping (Figure 4 (b))
An object at application layer is remotely reachable through non-
IP interface to host entity at network attachment point where IP
is terminated. An object is located outside of physical network
attachment where IP is terminated. For example, a host has many
remote objects, such as RFID tags. These objects MUST be
identified using appropriate mechanism e.g. RFID code, etc. In
this case, each object might be non IP.
Khan, et al. Expires August 25, 2013 [Page 15]
Object Naming Framework for the Future Internet February 2013
Host (e.g., content server)
+----------------------------+
| +----+ |
| | | Object IDs |
| +----+ |
| | |
| +----+ |
| | | IP address |
| +----+ |
| | |
| +----+ |
| | | Network |
| +----+ attachment |
+----------------------------+
IP interface |
-----------------------+
(a) Case #1: Objects in a host (host location = end points)
Object IDs
+----+
| |
Host (e.g., RFID reader) +----+
+---------------------------+ |
| | |
| +----+ | |
| | | IP address | |
| +----+ | |
| | | |
| +----+ | |
| | | Network | |
| +----+ attachment | |
+---------------------------+ |
IP interface | | non-IP interface |
---------------------+ +-------------------------+
(b) Case #2: Remote objects (host location =! end points)
Figure 4 Extension of stack architecture
Khan, et al. Expires August 25, 2013 [Page 16]
Object Naming Framework for the Future Internet February 2013
For ICN, there is only one mapping option possible where an object is
named and accessed with the same name without taking into
consideration of host identity or address.
5.5. Providing connectivity to objects
For providing connectivity to objects using object identification,
the Figure 5 shows object mapping/ binding with IP address for IP
connectivity to all objects on end-user side. This scheme can provide
the global Internet connectivity to objects through the association
(e.g., mapping/binding) between identifier for object and IP address.
Khan, et al. Expires August 25, 2013 [Page 17]
Object Naming Framework for the Future Internet February 2013
Host Object
+-------------------- /--------------+
| -------------- /-- |
| / --- / \ +==+| | -------------
| | + + -----------| | | + +
| | --- --- | | |IP address | + +
| | + + ------------|--------| |---- | + +
| | --- --- | | | \ | + +
| | + + --------------| | \ | + +
| \ --- / +==+| \ | + +
| ----------------- | \ | + +
+------------------------------------+ ------ + +
| + +
Object + Internet +
/ -- + +
------------- /- / | + +
/ --- / \ / | + +
| + + ------- / | + +
| --- --- | \+-------+ / | + +
| + + -----------------| \ | / | + +
| --- | |\ \ +==+| / | + +
| --- | * | \ \| |-- | + +
| + + --------*-|----| | IP address | + +
| --- |******| /| | | + +
| --- | * / +==+| | + +
| + + ---------------*-|-- | | --------------
| --- | * +--------+ |
\ / * Gateway IP interface
--------------- *
non-IP
interface
+-----------+ Mapping +-----------+ -------------
+Identifier + -------- + IP + ==== / Global \
+for object + Binding + Address + | Connectivity |
+-----------+ +-----------+ \ with Internet/
-------------
-------------
Figure 5 Conceptual diagram for providing connectivity to objects
Figure 6 shows the conceptual diagram for providing connectivity to
object in ICN
Khan, et al. Expires August 25, 2013 [Page 18]
Object Naming Framework for the Future Internet February 2013
+-----------+ Mapping +---------------+ -------------
+ Object + ------ +Unique + ==== / Global \
+ + Binding +Persistent Name+ |Connectivity |
+-----------+ +---------------+ \with Internet/
-------------
Figure 6 Conceptual diagram of mapping an Object and its Name
6. Object Naming Usage
It is important to highlight the use of object naming and its
benefits through examples use cases. [ICNSec] presents different
scenarios pertinent to information-centric networking. However we
present here the existing work in the context of smart vehicles in a
smart city scenario that uses NDOs to illustrate the usefulness of
the object naming framework.
The concept of smart city is a broad one and covers many aspects of
urban life. From e-government to smart street lights and smart
vehicles, the vision of a smart city is to utilize the ICT
technologies to make a better living experience for the city
residents and to provide managed and smart services by reducing time,
effort and cost.
The authors in [7] present traffic information dissemination
application which works by using NDOs. Their earlier work [8]
discusses a case study and provides vehicular communication using
NDOs instead of using traditional IP. In their case study the
vehicles act as producers and consumers of the information about road
events. Traffic related information is propagated using NDOs instead
of the IP address which is the current norm.
7. Considerations of Protocols for Naming Objects
7.1. Security association
It is critical to provide security association for secure binding
between object identity and IP address and between object and its
name in the context of ICN. Similarly access to attribute information
of objects MUST be identified and authorized. Mechanisms must be used
to ensure that the object is authenticated before transmitting it to
the end user. Traditionally host authentication was enough to
authenticate the content/object itself but in ICN the absence of host
removes this option. Reference [6] provides a good overview of this
issue.
Khan, et al. Expires August 25, 2013 [Page 19]
Object Naming Framework for the Future Internet February 2013
7.2. Support of DNS
An ID resolution server such as Domain Name System (DNS) can provide
functionality to translate the object identifier into service
/communication ID to access networking services. This will also
support hierarchical naming schemes of ICN.
In order to support existing infrastructure, including DNS, it is
required to define DNS resource records. The newly defined DNS
resource records should include information on object IDs.
7.3. Protocol overhead
Because of Real time communications and due to limitations of power
and packet size, lightweight identity handshake for datagram
transactions SHOULD be taken into consideration.
7.4. Common identifier for object
Most of identifiers for objects are specified with different format
according to applications. However, in order to contain information
of all objects in protocol message and because of global
interoperability, it is required to specify common identifier and
rules to accommodate all objects with unified format.
7.5. Services using named objects
The proposed named objects can provide an integrated solution for
personal location and management through identification /naming
/addressing including ID registration, location tracking, dynamic
mobility control, and security using the following networking
services:
o Identity management (IdM) services for the management of the
identity life cycle of objects including managing unique IDs,
attributes, credentials, entitlements to consistently enforce
business and security policies.
Khan, et al. Expires August 25, 2013 [Page 20]
Object Naming Framework for the Future Internet February 2013
o Location management services for real-time location tracking,
monitoring, and information processing of moving objects similar
with Supply Chain Management.
o Networked ID (N-ID) services for providing communication service
which is triggered by an identification process started via
reading an identifier from identifier storage such as RFID tag,
barcode label, smartcard, etc.
o Home networking services for the management of multiple object
identities in a host and/or remote host using RFID tag, ubiquitous
sensor, etc.
o Content distribution services allowing users to find their desired
content (movies, documents, photos, etc.) using its name. This
will allow efficient content caching near the users thus
offloading the single content provider from overhead of millions
of users accessing its content simultaneously. The traditional
barrier of host address is also removed and it becomes easy to
shift content from one host to another without worrying about host
address.
8. Naming of mobile objects
As in Future Internet large number of devices will be mobile e.g.
smartphones, vehicles etc. In such a scenario it is critical to come
up with a mechanism to name these mobile objects according to their
location. As the location of object(s) frequently changes in mobile
environment, the object ID should be used along with the location
information of the object.
But in ICN movement of an object does not have any effect on the
object access mechanism. In ICN object can be named without any
consideration of its current or future location. Location effectively
becomes irrelevant in ICN and that one of its biggest advantages.
9. Security Considerations
This document has specific security considerations as described in
Section 6 and aligns with the security requirements in [RFC4423] and
[RFC5201].
Khan, et al. Expires August 25, 2013 [Page 21]
Object Naming Framework for the Future Internet February 2013
10. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
None
11.2. Informative References
[RFC4423] R. Moskowitz, P. Nikander, "Host Identity Protocol (HIP)
Architecture", RFC 4423, May 2006.
[RFC5201] R. Moskowitz, P. Nikander, P. Jokela, T. Henderson, "Host
Identity Protocol", RFC 5201, April 2008.
[RFC6253] T. Heer, S. Varjonen, "Host Identity Protocol Certificates",
RFC 6253, May 2011.
[ITU-T Y.2002] ITU-T Y.2002, "Overview of ubiquitous networking and
of its support in NGN", November 2009.
[ITU-T Y.2055]ITU-T Y.2055, "Framework of Object Mapping using IPv6
in NGN", March 2011.
[ITU-T X.660]ITU-T X.660, "Information technology - Procedures for
the operation of object identifier registration
authorities: General procedures and top arcs of the
international object identifier tree" July 2011.
[ICNSec] Pentikousis et al., "ICN Baseline Scenarios", draft-
pentikousis-icn-scenarios-01, "work in progress", expires
Aug 2013.
[1] Ahlgren, Bengt, et al. "A survey of information-centric
networking." Communications Magazine, IEEE 50.7 (2012): 26-36.
[2] Sousa, P.; Silva, A.R.; Marques, J.A.; "Object identifiers and
identity: a naming issue," Fourth International Workshop
on Object-Orientation in Operating Systems, 1995., pp.127-129,
14-15 Aug 1995
Khan, et al. Expires August 25, 2013 [Page 22]
Object Naming Framework for the Future Internet February 2013
[3] Gyu Myoung Lee, Jun Kyun Choi, Taesoo Chung, Doug Montgomery,
"Standardization for ubiquitous networking in IPv6-based NGN",
ITU-T Kaleidoscope Event - Innovations in NGN, pp.351-357, May
2008.
[4] EPCglobal, "EPCglobal Object Name Service (ONS) 1.0.1", May
2008.
[5] Content ID Forum (cIDf), "cIDf Specification 2.0", April 2007.
[6] Ghodsi, Ali, Teemu Koponen, Jarno Rajahalme, Pasi Sarolahti,
and Scott Shenker. "Naming in content-oriented architectures."
In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM workshop on Information-
centric networking, pp. 1-6. ACM, 2011.
[7] Wang, Lucas, et al. "Rapid traffic information dissemination
using named data." Proceedings of the 1st ACM workshop on
Emerging Name-Oriented Mobile Networking Design-Architecture,
Algorithms, and Applications. ACM, 2012.
[8] Wang, Lucas, et al. "Data naming in vehicle-to-vehicle
communications." Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM
WKSHPS), 2012 IEEE Conference on. IEEE, 2012.
Author's Addresses
Imran Khan
Institut Mines-TELECOM, TELECOM SudParis
9 rue Charles Fourier, 91011, Evry, France
Phone: +33 (0)1 60 76 43 34
Email: imran.khan@mines-telecom.fr
Gyu Myoung Lee
Institut Mines-TELECOM, TELECOM SudParis
9 rue Charles Fourier, 91011, Evry, France
Phone: +33 (0)1 60 76 41 19
Email: gm.lee@it-sudparis.eu
Khan, et al. Expires August 25, 2013 [Page 23]
Object Naming Framework for the Future Internet February 2013
Noel Crespi
Institut Mines-TELECOM, TELECOM SudParis
9 rue Charles Fourier, 91011, Evry, France
Phone: +33 (0)1 60 76 46 23
Email: noel.crespi@it-sudparis.eu
Khan, et al. Expires August 25, 2013 [Page 24]
