[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 RFC 3941

RMT Working Group                                        B.  Adamson/NRL
INTERNET-DRAFT                                      C.  Bormann/Tellique
draft-ietf-rmt-bb-norm-03.txt                          M.  Handley/ACIRI
Expires: May 2002                                         J.  Macker/NRL
                                                           November 2001


     NACK-Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM) Protocol Building Blocks

Status of this Memo


      This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
      all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

      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 docu-
      ments 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.

      Copyright Notice

      Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

      This memo describes issues related to the creation of negative-
      acknowledgment (NACK) oriented reliable multicast (NORM) protocols.
      The general goals and  assumptions for NORM are defined.  The tech-
      nical challenges related to NACK-oriented (and in some cases gen-
      eral) reliable multicast protocol design are identified.  These
      challenges are resolved into a set of applicable "building blocks"
      which are described in further detail.  It is anticipated that
      these building blocks (as they are further refined and defined in
      future revisions of this document) will be useful in generating
      different instantiations of reliable multicast protocols.



Adamson, Bormann, et al.    Expires May 2002                    [Page 1]


Internet Draft            NORM Building Blocks             November 2001


1.0 Background

      Reliable multicast transport is a desirable technology for the
      efficient and reliable distribution of data to a group on the
      Internet.  The complexities of group communication paradigms neces-
      sitate different protocol types and instantiations to meet the
      range of performance and scalability requirements of different
      potential reliable multicast applications and users [Mankin98].
      Properly designed negative-acknowledgement (NACK) oriented reliable
      multicast (NORM) protocols offer scalability advantages for appli-
      cations and/or network topologies where, for  various reasons, it
      is prohibitive to construct a higher order  delivery infrastructure
      above the basic Layer 3 IP multicast service (e.g.  unicast or
      hybrid unicast/multicast data distribution trees).  Additionally,
      the scalability property of NACK-oriented protocols [Pingali93,
      Levine96] may be applicable where broad "fanout" is expected for a
      single network hop (e.g.  cable-TV data delivery, satellite, or
      other broadcast communication communication services).  Further-
      more, the simplicity of a protocol based on "flat" group-wide mul-
      ticast distribution may offer advantages for a broad range of dis-
      tributed services or dynamic networks and applications.

      While different protocol instantiations may be required to meet
      specific application and network architecture demands [Clark90],
      there are a number of fundamental components which may be common to
      these different instantiations.  This document describes the frame-
      work and  common "building block" components relevant to multicast
      protocols based primarily on NACK operation for reliable transport.

2.0 Applicability

      Each potential protocol instantiation using the building blocks
      presented here (and other applicable building block documents) will
      have specific criteria which will influence individual protocol
      design.  To support the development of applicable building blocks,
      it is useful to identify and summarize driving general protocol
      design goals and assumptions.  These are areas which each protocol
      instantiation will need to address in detail.  Each building block
      description in this document will include a discussion of the
      impact of these design criteria.  The categories of design criteria
      considered here include:

        1)   Data content model
        2)   Group membership dynamics
        3)   Sender/receiver relationships
        4)   Group size
        5)   Data delivery performance
        6)   Network topology



Adamson, Bormann, et al.    Expires May 2002                    [Page 2]


Internet Draft            NORM Building Blocks             November 2001


        3)   Router/intermediate system assistance

      In some cases, a building block may be designed to address a wide
      range of assumptions while in other cases there will be trade-offs
      required to meet different application needs.  Where necessary,
      building block features will designed to be parametric to meet dif-
      ferent requirements.  Of course, an underlying goal will be to min-
      imize design complexity and to at least recommend default values
      for any such parameters which meet a general purpose "bulk data
      transfer" requirement in a typical Internet environment.

2.1 Data content model

      The implicit goal of a reliable multicast protocol is the reliable
      delivery of "data" among a group of members communicating through
      IP multicast datagram service.  However, the nature of the data
      content and the service the application is attempting to provide
      can impact design decisions.  The service model may range from
      long-lived transfer sessions of bulk  quantities of data (file
      broadcast) to more interactive exhanges of  small messages (e.g.
      white-boarding, text chat).  And within those  different models
      there are other issues such as the sender's ability  to cache
      transmitted data (or state referencing it) for retransmission or
      repair.  The needs for ordering and/or causality in the sequence of
      transmissions and receptions among members in the group may be dif-
      ferent depending upon data content.  The group communication
      paradigm differs significantly from the point-to-point model in
      that, depending upon the data content type, some receivers may com-
      plete reception of a portion of data content and be able to act
      upon it before other members have received the content.  This may
      be acceptable (or even desirable) for some applications but not for
      others.  These varying requirements drives the need for a number of
      different protocol instantiation designs.

      A significant challenge in developing generally useful building
      block mechanisms is accommodating even a limited range of these
      capabilities without defining specific application-level details.
      Note that this particular building block "guideline" may be gener-
      ally applicable beyond the realm of NACK-oriented reliable multi-
      cast.

2.2 Group membership dynamics

      Group communication can differ from point-to-point communications
      with respect to the fact that even if the composition of the group
      changes, the "thread" of communication can still exist.  This con-
      trasts with the point-to-point communication model where, if either
      of the two parties leave, the communication process (exchange of



Adamson, Bormann, et al.    Expires May 2002                    [Page 3]


Internet Draft            NORM Building Blocks             November 2001


      data) is terminated (or at least paused).  Depending upon  applica-
      tion goals, senders and receivers participating in a reliable  mul-
      ticast transport "session" may be able to join late, leave, and/or
      potentially rejoin while the ongoing group communication "thread"
      still remains functional and useful.

      Also note that this can impact protocol message content.  If "late
      joiners" are supported, some amount of additional information may
      be placed in  message headers to accommodate this functionality.
      Alternatively, the information may be sent in its own message (on
      demand or intermittently) if the impact to the overhead of typical
      message transmissions is deemed too great.  Group dynamics can also
      impact other protocol mechanisms such as NACK or other timing, con-
      gestion control operation, etc.

2.3 Sender/receiver relationships

      The relationship of senders and receivers among group members
      requires consideration.  In some applications, there may be a sin-
      gle  sender multicasting to a group of receivers.  In other cases,
      there  may be more than one sender or the potential for everyone in
      the  group to be a sender _and_ receiver of data may exist.

2.4 Group size

      Native IP multicast [Deering89] may scale to extremely large group
      sizes.  It may be desirable for some applications to be able to
      scale along with the multicast infrastructure's ability to scale.
      In its simplest form, there are limits to the group size to which a
      NACK-oriented protocol can apply without NACK implosion problems.
      However, the potential for router assistance or other non-linear
      NACK suppression mechanisms may enable these protocols to scale to
      very large group sizes.  In large scale cases, it may be pro-
      hibitive for members to maintain state on all other members (in
      particular, other receivers) in the group.  The impact of group
      size needs to be considered in the development of generally appli-
      cable building blocks.

2.5 Data delivery performance

      There is a trade-off between scalability and data delivery latency
      when designing NACK-oriented protocols.  If NACK suppression is to
      be used, there will be some delays built into the NACK generation
      and repair transmission process to allow suppression to occur and
      for the sender of data to identify appropriate content for effi-
      cient repair transmission.  For example, backoff timeouts can be
      used to ensure efficient NACK suppression and repair transmission,
      but this comes at a cost of increased delivery latency and



Adamson, Bormann, et al.    Expires May 2002                    [Page 4]


Internet Draft            NORM Building Blocks             November 2001


      increased buffering requirements for both senders and receivers.
      The building blocks should allow applications to establish bounds
      for data delivery performance.  Note that application designers
      must be aware of the scalabilty trade-off which is made when such
      bounds are applied.

2.6 Network topology

      The Internet Protocol has historically assumed a role of providing
      service across heterogeneous network topologies.  It is desirable
      that a reliable multicast protocol be capable of effectively oper-
      ating across a wide range of the networks to which general purpose
      IP service applies.  The bandwidth available on the links between
      the members of a single group today may vary between  low numbers
      of kbit/s for wireless links and multiple Gbit/s for high speed LAN
      connections, with varying degrees of contention from other flows.
      Recently, a number of asymmetric network services including
      56K/ADSL modems, CATV Internet service, satellite and other wire-
      less communication services have begun to proliferate.   Many of
      these are inherently broadcast media with potentially large
      "fanouts" to which IP multicast service is highly applicable.

      Additionally, policy and/or technical issues may result in topolo-
      gies where multicast connectivity is limited to a single logical
      direction from a specific source or set of sources to the group at
      large.  Receivers in the group may be restricted to unicast feed-
      back for NACKs and other messages.  Consideration must be given, in
      building block development and protocol design, to the nature of
      the underlying networks over which the protocols may be operating.

2.7 Router/Intermediate System Assistance

      While intermediate assistance from devices/systems with direct
      knowledge of the underlying network topology may used to leverage
      the performance and scalability of reliable multicast protocols,
      there will continue to be a number of instances where this is not
      available or practical.  Any building block components for NACK-
      oriented reliable multicast should be capable of operating without
      such assistance but should also be capable of utilizing these fea-
      tures when available.

3.0 Building Block Areas

      The previous section has presented in general what building blocks
      are intended to be and some of the criteria which may affect build-
      ing block identification/design. This section describes different
      building block areas applicable to  NACK-oriented reliable multi-
      cast protocols.  Some of these areas are  specific to NACK-oriented



Adamson, Bormann, et al.    Expires May 2002                    [Page 5]


Internet Draft            NORM Building Blocks             November 2001


      protocols.  Detailed descriptions of such  areas are provided
      below.  In other cases, the areas (e.g.  node  identifiers, FEC,
      etc) may be generally applicable to other forms of  reliable multi-
      cast.  In those cases, the discussion below describes requirements
      placed on those other general building block areas from  the stand-
      point of NACK-oriented reliable multicast.

      For the individual building blocks to be incorporated as part of a
      specific protocol instantiation, it is expected that a description
      of some notional "interface" to the building blocks' functionality
      be provided.  For example, a building block component may require
      some  form of "input" from another building block component or
      other source  in order to perform its function.  Any "inputs"
      required by each  building block component and/or any resultant
      "output" provided by the building block will be defined and
      described as the building  block component's interface definition.

      The following building block areas are described below:

      (NACK-Oriented Components)
        1)   Sender transmission
        2)   NACK-oriented Repair Process
        3)   "Late-joining" Receiver Policies and Mechanisms

      (Generally-applicable Components)
        4)   Node (member) Identification
        5)   Data Content Identification
        6)   Forward Error Correction
        7)   Round-trip Timing Collection
        8)   Group Size Determination/Estimation
        9)   Congestion Control Operation
        10)  Router/Intermediate System Assistance
        11)  Additional Protocol Mechanisms

      Figure 1 provides an pictoral overview of these building block
      areas and their relationships.  For example, the content of the
      data messages that sender initially transmits depends upon the
      "Node Identification", Data Content Identification", "FEC" , and
      "Congestion Control components (Note that the rate of message
      transmission will generally depend upon the "Congestion Control"
      component).  Subsequently, the receivers response to these trans-
      missions (e.g. NACKing for repair) will depend upon the content of
      these transmissions and inputs from other building block compo-
      nents.  Then, the sender's processing of these responses will feed
      back into its transmission strategy.

                                            Application Data
                                                  |



Adamson, Bormann, et al.    Expires May 2002                    [Page 6]


Internet Draft            NORM Building Blocks             November 2001


                                                  V
     .---------------------.            .-----------------------.
     | Node Identification |----------->|  Sender Transmission  |<------.
     `---------------------'       _.-' `-----------------------'       |
     .---------------------.   _.-' .'            |                     |
     | Data Identification |--'   .''             | ("Join" Policy)     |
     `---------------------'    .' '              V                     |
     .---------------------.  .'  '     .------------------------.      |
  .->| Congestion Control  |-'   '      | Receiver NACK-oriented |      |
  |  `---------------------'   .'       | Repair Process         |      |
  |  .---------------------. .'         | .------------------.   |      |
  |  |        FEC          |'.          | | NACK Initiation  |   |      |
  |  `---------------------'` `._       | `------------------'   |      |
  |  .---------------------. ``. `-._   | .------------------.   |      |
  `--|    RTT Collection   |._` `    `->| | NACK Content     |   |      |
     `---------------------' .`- `      | `------------------'   |      |
     .---------------------.   `-`._   | .------------------.   |      |
     |    Group Size Est.  |---.-`---`->| | NACK Suppression |   |      |
     `---------------------'`.  ` `     | `------------------'   |      |
     .---------------------.  `  ` `    `------------------------'      |
     |       Other         |   `  ` `             |                     |
     `---------------------'    `  ` `            | (Router Assistance) |
                                 `. ` `           V                     |
                                   `.`' .-------------------------.     |
                                      `>| Sender NACK Processing  |_____/
                                        | and Repair Response     |
                                        `-------------------------'

                     ^                         ^
                     |                         |
                   .-----------------------------.
                   |         (Security)          |
                   `-----------------------------'

                  Fig. 1 - NORM Building Block Framework

The components on the left side of this figure represent the components
which may be generally applicable beyond NORM and those on the right are
specific to NORM protocols.  Some components (e.g. "Security") will
impact many aspects of the protocol and others such as "Router Assis-
tance" may be more transparent to the core protocol processing.  The
sections below discuss issues with regards to these building block com-
ponents and their relationships.  Where applicable, specific technical
recommendations are made for mechanisms which will properly satisfy the
goals of reliable multicast bulk transport for the Internet.

3.1 Sender transmission




Adamson, Bormann, et al.    Expires May 2002                    [Page 7]


Internet Draft            NORM Building Blocks             November 2001


Senders will transmit data content to the multicast session.  The data
content will be application dependent.  The sender will transmit data
content at a rate and with packet sizes determined by application and/or
network architecture requirements.  When congestion control mechanisms
are used (recommended), the transmission rate will be controlled by the
congestion control mechanism.  It is recommended that all data transmis-
sions from senders be subject to rate limitations determined by the
application or congestion control algorithm.  The sender's transmissions
should make good utlization of the available capacity (which may be lim-
ited by the application and/or by congestion control).  As a result, it
is expected there will be overlap and multiplexing of new data content
transmission with repair content.

In addition to data content, other sender messages or commands may be
employed as part of protocol operation.  For NACK-oriented operation,
the reliability of any such commands may depend upon redundant transmis-
sion.  Other factors related to NACK-oriented operation may determine
sender transmission formats and methods.  Some consideration needs to be
given to the sender's behavior during intermittent idle periods when it
has no data to transmit.  While many aspects may be protocol-specific,
there are techniques which may be generally applicable to NACK-oriented
reliable multicast.  For example, the periodicity of redundant transmis-
sion of command messages issued by a sender should be dependent upon the
greatest round trip timing estimate and the resultant NACK operation.
More specifically, a command message might be redundantly transmitted by
a sender to indicate that it is temporarily (or permanently) halting
transmission.  At this time, it may be appropriate for receivers to
respond with NACKs for any outstanding repairs they require following
the rules of the NACK process described below.  For efficiency, the
sender should allow sufficient time between redundant transmissions to
receive any NACK-oriented responses from the receiver set to this com-
mand.  Other protocol components may benefit from a similar approach.

Inputs:

        1)   Data content
        2)   Segmentation size
        3)   Transmission rate
        4)   Application controls

      Outputs:

        1)   Rate-controlled stream of packets with headers uniquely
             identifying data or repair content within the context of the
             reliable multicast session.
        2)   Commands indicating sender's status or other transport con-
             trol actions to be taken.




Adamson, Bormann, et al.    Expires May 2002                    [Page 8]


Internet Draft            NORM Building Blocks             November 2001


3.2 NACK-oriented repair process

      The most critical component of the NACK-oriented reliable multicast
      protocol building block is the NACK repair process.  There are four
      primary elements of a general NACK repair process:

        1)   Method for determining when receivers will initiate the NACK
             process in response to sender transmission for which they
             need repair.
        2)   NACK message content.
        3)   NACK suppression mechanisms to promote scalability of the
             protocol.
        4)   Sender NACK reception, aggregation, and repair response.

3.2.1 NACK Process Initiation

      The NACK process (cycle) will be initiated by receivers who detect
      they require repair transmissions from a specific sender at defined
      opportunities.  When FEC is applied, a NACK cycle should only be
      initiated when it is known by the receiver that its repair require-
      ments exceed the amount of FEC pending transmission for a given
      coding block of packets.  This may be determined by the receiver if
      the sender's transmission advertises the quantity of repair packets
      it is already planning to send for a block, and/or at the end of
      the current transmission block (if it is indicated) or at the start
      of subsequent coding block for packets transmitted within the con-
      text of a designed data content set (See object/stream data content
      identifier discussion below).

      Allowing receivers to initiate NACK cycles at any time they detect
      their repair needs have exceeded pending repair transmissions may
      result in slightly quicker repair cycles.  However, it may be use-
      ful to limit the initiation opportunities to specific events such
      as at the end-of-transmission of an FEC coding block (or alterna-
      tively at detection of subsequent coding blocks).  This can  allow
      receivers to aggregate NACK content into a smaller number of NACK
      messages.  In either case, the NACK cycle should begin with
      receivers observing backoff timeouts to facilitate NACK suppression
      as described below.

      Interface Description

      Inputs:

        1)   Object/stream data content and sequencing identifiers from
             sender transmissions.

      Outputs:



Adamson, Bormann, et al.    Expires May 2002                    [Page 9]


Internet Draft            NORM Building Blocks             November 2001


        1)   NACK Process Initiation Decision

3.2.2 NACK Content

      The content of NACK messages generated by reliable multicast
      receivers will include information detailing the current repair
      needs of each receiver.  The specific information depends on the
      use and type of FEC in the NORM repair process.  The identification
      of repair needs is dependent upon the data content identification
      (See Section 3.5 below).  At the highest level the NACK content
      will identify the data transport object (or stream) within the mul-
      ticast session which needs repair.  For the indicated transport
      entity, the NACK content will then identify the specific coding
      blocks and/or segments of coding blocks it needs to reconstruct the
      transmitted data.  This content may consist of FEC block erasure
      counts and/or explicit indication of missing blocks or segments of
      data and FEC content.

3.2.2 NACK Content Strategies

      Where FEC-based repair is used, the NACK message content will mini-
      mally need to identify the coding block(s) for which repair is
      needed and a count of erasures (missing packets) for the coding
      block.  Note that this assumes the FEC algorithm is capable of
      repairing _any_ loss combination within the coding block and that
      the quantity of unique FEC parity packets the server has available
      to transmit is essentially unlimited (i.e. the server will always
      be able to provide new parity packets in response to anysubsequent
      repair requests for the same coding block).  In other cases, the
      NACK content will need to also _explicitly_ identify which packets
      (information and/or parity) the receiver requires to successfully
      reconstruct the content of the coding block.  This will be true of
      many applicable small to medium size block codes (e.g. Reed
      Solomon).

      When FEC is not used as part of the repair process or the protocol
      instantiation is required to provide reliability even when the
      sender has transmitted all available parity for a given coding
      block (or the sender's ability to buffer transmission history is
      exceeded by the delay*bandwidth*loss characteristics of the network
      topology), the NACK content will need to contain _explicit_  coding
      block and/or packet loss information so that the sender can provide
      appropriate repair packets and/or data retransmissions.  Explicit
      loss information in NACK content may also potentially serve other
      purposes.  For example, it may be useful for decorrelating loss
      characteristics among a group of receivers to help differentiate
      candidate congestion control bottlenecks among the receiver set.




Adamson, Bormann, et al.    Expires May 2002                   [Page 10]


Internet Draft            NORM Building Blocks             November 2001


      For cases where the amount of loss is very small with respect to
      the coding block size, it may be efficient to simply provide a list
      of coding block vector identifiers.  However, in many cases, a bit
      mask marking the locations of missing packets may be significantly
      more efficient for communicating receiver repair needs.  And since
      the data content is logically divided into coding blocks, a system
      of hierarchical bit masks can be used to encode missing content at
      the object/stream, FEC block, and individual packet levels.  Hier-
      archical bit mask encoding can provide compact NACK messages even
      in high delay*bandwidth*loss conditions.  Bit mask based NACK con-
      tent can also be efficiently processed with logical operations dur-
      ing protocol operation.

      When FEC is used and NACK content is designed to contain explicit
      repair requests, there is a strategy where the receivers can NACK
      for specific content which will help facilitate NACK suppression
      and repair efficiency.  The assumptions for this strategy are that
      sender may potentially exhaust its supply of new, unique parity
      packets available for a given coding block and be required to
      explicitly retransmit some data or parity segments to complete
      reliable transfer.  Another assumption is that an FEC algorithm
      where any parity packet can fill any erasure within the coding
      block is used.  The goal of this strategy is to make maximum use of
      the available parity and provide the minimal amount of data and
      repair transmissions during reliable transfer of a coding block to
      the group.

      In this approach, the sender transmits the data content of the cod-
      ing block (and optionally some quantity of parity packets) in its
      initial transmission.  Note that a coding block is considered to be
      logically made up of the contiguous set of data vectors plus parity
      vectors for the given FEC algorithm used.

      Receivers construct NACK messages requesting sufficient parity con-
      tent to satisfy their repair needs.  For example, if the receiver
      has three erasures in the received coding block, it requests trans-
      mission of the three lowest ordinal parity vectors in the coding
      block. (In the case of a code where the loss exceeds TBD TBD TBD

      In response to repair request, the sender transmits parity vectors
      beginning from the lowest ordinal part of the parity portion of the
      coding block.

      When the receivers construct explicit NACK content, they request
      transmission of only the _upper_ ordinal portion, corresponding to
      the number of _data_ vectors, of the logical coding block required
      to fill their packet erasures (Note this _may_ include data vectors
      if there is a smaller number of parity vectors than data vectors



Adamson, Bormann, et al.    Expires May 2002                   [Page 11]


Internet Draft            NORM Building Blocks             November 2001


      for the selected code, but generally will consist solely of parity
      vectors).  The receivers can also provide a count of erasures as a
      convenience (saves processing time) to the sender.  Upon receipt of
      the NACK message, the sender will schedule transmission of fresh,
      new parity vectors based on the erasure count _if_ it has a suffi-
      cient quantity of vectors which were _not_ previously transmitted
      and ignore the explicit content requested..  Otherwise, the sender
      will resort to transmitting the set of repair vectors requested.
      With this approach, the sender needs to maintain very little state
      on requests it has received from the group without need for syn-
      chronization of repair requests from the group.  Since all
      receivers use this same algorithm to express their explict repair
      needs, NACK suppression among receivers is simplified over the
      course of multiple repair cycles.  The receivers can simply compare
      NACKs heard from other receivers against their own calculated
      repair needs to determine whether they should transmit or suppress
      their pending NACK messages.


      3.2.3 NACK Content Encapsulation

      The format of NACK content will depend on the protocol's data ser-
      vice model and the format of data content identifiication the pro-
      tocol uses.  This is also dependent upon the type of FEC encoding
      (if any) is used.  Figure 2 illustrates a general logical hierarchy
      of transmission content identification, denoting that the notion of
      objects (or streams) and/or FEC blocking is optional at the proto-
      col instantiation's discretion.  Since the notion of session
      "streams" and "blocks" are optional, the framework degenerates to
      that of typical transport data segmentation and reassembly in its
      simplest form.

              Session_
                       \_
                          [Object/Stream(s)]_
                                             \_
                                                [FEC Blocks]_
                                                             \_
                                                                Segments

             Figure 2: Hierarchy of Reliable Data Transfer Content

      The format of NACK messages should meet the following goals:

      1) Describe a basic unit to identify transport data unit transmis-
      sions required to repair a portion of the received content, whether
      it is an entire missing object/stream (or range), entire FEC coding
      block(s), or sets of segments,



Adamson, Bormann, et al.    Expires May 2002                   [Page 12]


Internet Draft            NORM Building Blocks             November 2001


      1) Be simple to process for NACK aggregation and suppression,

      2) Be capable of including NACKs for multiple objects, fec coding
      blocks and/or symbols in a single message.  FEC erasure counts may
      also be desirable.

      3) Have a compact format, and

      4) Be capable of working with the Generic Router Assist (GRA)
      building block.


      The concatenation of "<objectId><blockId><segmentId>" comprises a
      basic transport protocol data unit (TPDU) identifier of segments
      transmitted from a given source.  NACK content can be composed of
      lists and/or ranges of these TPDU identifiers to build up NACK mes-
      sages to describe the receivers repair needs.  If no hierarchical
      object delineation or FEC blocking is used, the TPDU is a simple
      linear representation of the data segments transmitted by the
      sender.  When the TPDU represents a hierarchy for purposes of
      object/stream delineation and/or FEC blocking, the NACK content
      unit may require flags to indicate which portion of the TPDU is
      applicable.  For example, if an entire "object" (or range of
      objects" is missing in the received data, the receiver will not
      necessarily know the appropriate range of <blockIds> or <segmen-
      tIds> for which to request repair and thus requires some mechanism
      to request repair (or retransmission) of the entire unit repre-
      sented by an <objectId>.  The same is true if entire FEC coding
      blocks represented by one or a range of <blockIds> is missing for a
      receiver.


3.2.4 NACK Suppression Mechanisms

      A primary NACK suppression mechanism is the use of initial backoff
      timeouts by receivers wishing to transmit NACK messages[Floyd95].
      Upon expiration of the timeout, a receiver will transmit a NACK
      unless the content of the pending repair request is completely
      superseded by NACK messages heard from other receivers (when
      receivers are multicasting NACKs) or from some indicator from the
      sender.  (Note: When receivers are unicasting NACK messages, the
      sender may facilitate NACK suppression by forwarding appropriate
      NACKs it has received to the group at large or provide some other
      indicator of the repair information it will be subsequently trans-
      mitting).

      The backoff timeout periods used by receivers should be indepen-
      dently, randomly picked by receivers with an exponential



Adamson, Bormann, et al.    Expires May 2002                   [Page 13]


Internet Draft            NORM Building Blocks             November 2001


      distribution [Nonnenmacher98].  This results in the bulk of the
      receiver set holding off transmission of NACK messages under the
      assumption that the smaller number of "early NACKers" will super-
      sede the repair needs of the remainder of the group.  The mean of
      the distribution should be determined as a function of the current
      estimate of sender<->group greatest round trip time (GRTT) and a
      group size estimate which determined by other mechanisms within the
      protocol (See section below) or preset by the multicast applica-
      tion.

      A simple algorithm can be constructed to generate random backoff
      timeouts with the appropriate distribution.  Additionally, the
      algorithm may be designed to optimize the backoff distribution
      given the number of receivers (R) potentially generating feedback.
      This "optimization" minimizes the number of feedback messages (e.g.
      NACK) in the worst-case situation where all receivers generate a
      NACK. The maximum backoff timeout (T) can also be controlled to
      allow the application or protocol tradeoff NACK latency versus vol-
      ume of feedback traffic.  A larger value of T will result in a
      lower density of feedback traffic for a given repair cycle.  A
      smaller value of T results in shorter latency which reduces the
      buffering requirements of senders and receivers for reliable trans-
      port.

      Given the receiver group size (R), and maximum allowed backoff
      timeout (T), a truncated exponential backoff timeout (t') can be
      picked with the following algorithm:

      1)  Establish an optimal mean (L) for the exponential backoff based
          on the group size:

                                 L = ln(R) + 1

      2) Pick a random number (x) from a uniform distribution
         over a range of:

                    L                       L             L
              ----------------   to   ---------------- + ---
              T * (exp(L) - 1)        T * (exp(L) - 1)    T

      3) Transform this random variate to generate the
         desired random backoff time (t) with the following
         equation:

                    t' = T/L * ln(x * (exp(L) - 1) * (T/L))

      This is a C language function which can be used to perform this
      function:



Adamson, Bormann, et al.    Expires May 2002                   [Page 14]


Internet Draft            NORM Building Blocks             November 2001


      double RandomBackoff(double maxTime, double groupSize)
      {
          double lambda = log(groupSize) + 1;
          double x = UniformRand(lambda/maxTime) +
                     lambda / (maxTime*(exp(lambda)-1));
          return ((maxTime/lambda) *
                  log(x*(exp(lambda)-1)*(maxTime/lambda)));
      }  // end RandomBackoff()

      where UniformRand(double max) returns random numbers with a uniform
      distribution from the range of 0..max.  For example, based on the
      POSIX "rand()" function, the following code can be used:

      double UniformRand(double max)
      {
          return (max * ((double)rand()/(double)RAND_MAX));
      }

      The number of expected NACKs generated (N) within the first round
      trip time for a single loss event can be approximately expected to
      be:

                         N = exp(1.2 * L / (2*T/GRTT))

      Thus the maximum backoff time (T) can be adjusted to tradeoff
      worst-case NACK feedback volume versus latency.  This is derived
      from [Nonnenmacher98] and assumes  T >= GRTT, and L is the mean of
      the distribution optimized for the given group size as shown in the
      algorithm above.  Note that other mechanisms within protocol may
      work to reduce redundant NACK generation further.

      There are some secondary NACK suppression mechanisms which can also
      be  considered.  For example, the sender's transmissions may follow
      an ordinal sequence of transmission (observed through data/repair
      content <objectIds> and/or <segmentIds>) which is "rewound" during
      repair transmissions.  Receivers may wish to limit transmission of
      their NACKs only when the sender's current sequenced position of
      transmission passes the point at which the receiver has incomplete
      transmissions, thus reducing premature requests for repair of data
      the sender may be providing in response to other receiver requests.
      This mechanism can be very effective for protocol convergence in
      high loss conditions when transmissions of NACKs from other
      receivers (or indicators from the sender) are lost.  Another mecha-
      nism (particularly applicable when FEC is used) is for the sender
      to embed an indication of impending repair transmissions in current
      packets sent.  For example, the indication may be as simple as an
      advertisment of the number of FEC packets to be sent for the cur-
      rent applicable coding block.  Finally, some consideration might be



Adamson, Bormann, et al.    Expires May 2002                   [Page 15]


Internet Draft            NORM Building Blocks             November 2001


      given to using the NACKing history of receivers to weight their
      selection of NACK backoff timeout intervals.  For example, if a
      receiver has historically been experiencing the greatest degree of
      loss, it may promote itself to statistically NACK sooner than other
      receivers.  Note this assumes there is some degree of correlation
      over successive intervals of time in the loss experienced by
      receivers.  This adjustment of backoff timeout selection may
      require the creation of an "early NACK" slot for these historical
      NACKers.  This additional slot in the NACK backoff window will
      result in a longer repair cycle process which may not be desirable
      for some applications.  The resolution of these trade-offs may be
      dependent upon the protocol's target application set or network.

      Interface Description

      Inputs:

        1)   Group greatest round trip time estimate (GRTT).
        2)   Group size estimate.
        3)   Application-defined bound on backoff timeout period.
        4)   NACKs from other receivers.
        5)   Pending repair indication from sender (may be forwarded
             NACKs).
        6)   Current sender transmission sequence position.

      Outputs:

        1)   Yes/no decision to generate NACK message upon backoff timer
             expiration.

3.2.5 Sender NACK Processing and Repair Response

      Upon reception of a repair request from a receiver in the group,
      the sender will initiate a repair response procedure.  The sender
      may wish to delay transmission of repair content until it has had
      sufficient time to accumulate potentially multiple NACKs from the
      receiver set.  This allows the sender to determine the most effi-
      cient repair strategy for a given transport stream/object or FEC
      coding block.  Depending upon the approach used, some protocols may
      find it beneficial for the sender to provide an indicator of pend-
      ing repair transmissions as part of the its current transmitted
      message content.  This can aid some NACK suppression mechanisms.
      Alternatively, in the case of unicast feedback from the receiver
      set, it may be useful for the sender to forward (via multicast)
      superseding NACK messages to the group to allow for NACK suppres-
      sion when there is not multicast connectivity among the receiver
      set.




Adamson, Bormann, et al.    Expires May 2002                   [Page 16]


Internet Draft            NORM Building Blocks             November 2001


      When FEC is used, it is beneficial that the sender transmit previ-
      ously untransmitted parity content whenever possible.  This maxi-
      mizes the receiving nodes' ability to reconstruct the entire trans-
      mitted content from their individual subsets of received messages.

      The transmitted object and/or stream content will be marked with
      monotonically increasing sequence numbers (within a reasonably
      large ordinal space).  If the sender observes the discipline of
      transmitting repair for the earliest content first, the receivers
      can use a strategy of witholding repair requests for later content
      until the sender once again returns to that point in the
      object/stream transmission sequence.  This can increase overall
      message efficiency among the group and help work to keep repair
      cycles relatively synchronized without dependence upon strict tim-
      ing.  This also helps minimize the buffering requirements of
      receivers and senders and reduces redundant transmission of data to
      the group at large.

      Interface Description

      Inputs:

        1)   Receiver NACKs
        1)   Group timing information

      Outputs:

        1)   Repair messages (FEC and/or Data content retransmission)

3.3 Group "Join" Policies/ Procedures

      Consideration should be given to how new receivers join a group
      (perhaps where reliable transmission is already in progress) and
      beging NACKing for any repair needs. If this is unconstrained, the
      dynamics of group membership may impede the application's ability
      to meet it goals progressing the transmission of data.  Policies
      limiting the opportunities at which receivers begin participating
      in the NACK process may be used to achieve the desired behavior.
      For example, it may be beneficial if receivers only attempt reli-
      able reception from a newly-heard sender when upon non-repair
      transmissions of data in the first FEC block of an object or logi-
      cal portion of a stream.  The sender may also implement policies
      limiting which receivers from which it will accept NACK requests,
      but this may be prohibitive for scalability reasons in some situa-
      tions.  In some types of bulk transfer applications (and for poten-
      tial interactive applications), it may alternatively desirable to
      have a looser transport synchronization policy and rely upon ses-
      sion management mechanisms to control group dynamics which may



Adamson, Bormann, et al.    Expires May 2002                   [Page 17]


Internet Draft            NORM Building Blocks             November 2001


      result in poor behavior.

      Inputs:

        1)   Current object/stream data/repair content and sequencing
             identifiers from sender transmissions.

      Outputs:

        1)   Receiver yes/no decision to begin receiving and NACKing for
             reliable reception of data

3.4 Reliable Multicast Member Identification

      In a NORM protocol (or other multicast  protocols) where there is
      the potential for multiple sources of data, it is necessary to pro-
      vide some mechanism to uniquely identify the sources (and possibly
      some or all receivers in some cases) within the group.  Identity
      based on arriving packet source addresses is insufficient for sev-
      eral reasons.  These reasons include routing changes for hosts with
      multiple interfaces which result different packet source addresses
      for a given host over time, network address translation (NAT) or
      firewall devices, or other transport/network bridging approaches.
      As a result, some type of unique source identifier (sourceId) field
      should be present in packets transmitted by reliable multicast ses-
      sion members.

3.5 Data Content Identification

      The data and repair content transmitted by a NORM sender requires
      some form of identification in the protocol header fields.  This
      identification is required to facilitate the reliable NACK-oriented
      repair process.  These identifiers will be used in NACK messages
      generated.

      There are two very general types of data which may comprise bulk
      transfer session content.  These data types are static objects of
      finite size and continuous non-finite streams.  A given application
      may wish to reliably multicast data content using either one or
      both of these data models.  While it may be possible for some
      applications to further generalize this model and provide mecha-
      nisms to encapsulate static objects as content embedded within a
      stream, there are advantages to many applications to provide dis-
      tinct support for static bulk objects and messages with the context
      of a reliable multicast session.  These applications may include
      content caching servers, file transfer or collaborative tools with
      bulk content.  Applications with requirements for these static
      object types can then take advantage of transport layer mechanisms



Adamson, Bormann, et al.    Expires May 2002                   [Page 18]


Internet Draft            NORM Building Blocks             November 2001


      (i.e.  segmentation/reassembly, caching, integrated forward error
      correction coding, etc) rather than being required to provide their
      own mechanisms for these functions at the application layer.

      As noted, some applications may alternatively desire to transmit
      bulk content in the form of one or more streams of non-finite size.
      Example streams include continuous quasi-realtime message broad-
      casts (e.g. stock ticker) or some content types which are part of
      collaborative tools or other more complex applications.  And, as
      indicated above, some applications may wish to encapsulate other
      bulk content (e.g. files) into one more streams within a multicast
      session.  Additionally, multiple streams can allow for parallized
      transmission within the context of a single multicast session.

      The components described within this building block draft document
      are envisioned to be applicable to both of these models with the
      potential for a mix of both types within a single multicast ses-
      sion.  To support this requirement, the normal data content identi-
      fication should include a field to uniquely identify the object or
      stream <objectId> within some reasonable temporal or ordinal inter-
      val.  Note that it is _not_ expected that this data content identi-
      fication will be globally unique.  It is expected that the
      object/stream identifier will be unique with respect to a given
      sender within the reliable multicast session and during the time
      that sender is supporting a specific transport instance of that
      object or stream.

      Since the "bulk" object/stream content will generally require seg-
      mentation, some form of segment identification <segmentId> must
      also be  provided.  This segment identifier will be relative to any
      object or stream identifier which has been provided.  Thus, in some
      cases, NORM protocol instantiations may be able to receive trans-
      missions and request repair for multiple streams and one or more
      sets of static objects in parallel.  For protocol instantiations
      employing FEC the <segmentId> portion of the data content identi-
      fier may consist of a logical concatenation of a coding block iden-
      tifier <blockId> and identifer for the specific data or parity seg-
      ment of the code block.  The RMT FEC Building Block (currently
      "draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-04.txt") provides a standard message format
      for identifying FEC transmission content.

      Additionally, flags to determine the usage of the content identi-
      fier fields (e.g.  stream vs.  object) may be applicable.  Flags
      may also serve other purposes in data content identification.  It
      is expected that any flags defined will be dependent upon individ-
      ual protocol instantiations.

      In summary, the following data content identification fields may be



Adamson, Bormann, et al.    Expires May 2002                   [Page 19]


Internet Draft            NORM Building Blocks             November 2001


      required for NORM protocol data content messages:

        1)   Source node identifier (<senderId>)
        2)   Object/Stream identifier (<objectId>), if applicable.
        3)   FEC Block identifier (<blockId>), if applicable.
        4)   Segment identifier (<segmentId>)
        5)   Flags to differentiate interpretation of identifier fields
             or identifier structure which implicitly indicates usage.
        6)   Additional FEC transmission content fields per FEC Building
             Block

      These fields have been identified since any generated NACK messages
      will use these identifiers in requesting repair or retransmission
      of data.  NORM protocols are expected to greatly benefit from
      interaction with other reliable multicast building blocks (Generic
      Router Assist(GRA), in particular) and those other building blocks
      will need to appropriately consider these anticipated requirements.

3.6 Forward Error Correction

      Multiple forward error correction (FEC) approaches have been iden-
      tified which can provide great performance enhancements to the
      repair process of NACK-oriented and other reliable multicast proto-
      cols [Metzner84, Macker97].  NORM protocols can reap additional
      benefits since FEC-based repair does not _generally_ require
      explicit knowledge of repair content within the bounds of its cod-
      ing block size (in packets).

      Generally, repair packets generated using FEC algorithms with good
      erasure filling properties (e.g.  Reed-Solomon) will be transmitted
      only in response to NACK repair requests from receiving nodes.
      However, there are benefits in some network environments for trans-
      mitting some predetermined quantity of FEC repair packets multi-
      plexed with the regular data segment transmissions [Gossink98].
      This can reduce the amount of NACK traffic generated with rela-
      tively  little overhead cost when group sizes are very large or the
      network  connectivity has a large delay*bandwidth product with some
      nominal level of expected packet loss.  While the application of
      FEC is not unique to NORM, these sorts of requirements may dictate
      the types of algorithms and protocol approaches which are applica-
      ble.

      A specific issue related to the use of FEC with NORM is the mecha-
      nism used to identify which portion(s) of transmitted data content
      to which specific FEC packets are applicable.  It is expected that
      FEC algorithms will be based on generating a set of parity repair
      packets for a corresponding block of transmitted data packets.
      Since data content packets are uniquely identified by the



Adamson, Bormann, et al.    Expires May 2002                   [Page 20]


Internet Draft            NORM Building Blocks             November 2001


      concatenation of <sourceId/objectId/blockId/segmentId> during
      transport, it is expected that FEC packets will be identified in a
      similar manner.  The RMT FEC Building Block specification (cur-
      rently "draft-ietf-rmt-bb-fec-04.txt") provides detailed recommen-
      dations concerning application of FEC and standard formats for
      related reliable multicast protocol messages.

3.7 Round-trip Timing Collection

      The measurement of packet propagation round-trip time (RTT) among
      members of the group is required to support NACK suppression algo-
      rithms, timing of sender commands or certain repair functions, and
      congestion control operation.  The nature of the round-trip infor-
      mation collected is dependent upon the type of interaction among
      the members of the group.  In the case where only "one-to-many"
      transmission is required, it may be necessary that only the sender
      require RTT knowledge of the greatest RTT (GRTT) among the receiver
      set and/or RTT knowledge of only a portion of the group.  Here, the
      GRTT information might be collected in a reasonably scalable man-
      ner.  For congestion control operation, it is possible that RTT
      information may be required by each receiver in the group.  In this
      case, an alternative RTT collection scheme may be utilized where
      receivers collect individual RTT measurements with respect to the
      sender and advertise them (or an competed subset) to the group or
      sender.  Where it is likely that exchange of reliable multicast
      data will occur among the group on a "many-to-many" basis, there
      are alternative measurement techniques which might be employed for
      increased efficiency [Ozdemir99].  And in some cases, there might
      be absolute time synchronization among hosts which may simplify RTT
      measurement.  There are trade-offs in multicast congestion control
      design which need further consideration before a universal recom-
      mendation on RTT (or GRTT) measurement can be specified.  Regard-
      less of how the RTT information is collected (and more specifically
      GRTT) with respect to congestion control or other requirements, the
      sender will need to advertise its current GRTT estimate to the
      group for timing of the

3.7.1 One-to-Many Sender GRTT Measurement

      The goal of this form of RTT measurement is for the sender to learn
      the GRTT among the receivers who are actively participating in NORM
      operation.  The set of receivers participating in this process may
      be the entire group or some subset of the group determined from
      another mechanism within the protocol instantiation.  An approach
      to collect this GRTT information follows.

      The sender periodically polls the group with a message (independent
      or "piggy-backed" with other transmissions) containing a <sendTime>



Adamson, Bormann, et al.    Expires May 2002                   [Page 21]


Internet Draft            NORM Building Blocks             November 2001


      timestamp relative to an internal clock at the sender.  Upon recep-
      tion of this message, the receivers will record this <sendTime>
      timestamp and the time (referenced to their own clocks) at which it
      was received <recvTime>.  When the receiver provides feedback to
      the sender (either explicitly or as part of other feedback messages
      depending upon protocol instantion specification), it will con-
      struct a "response" using the formula:

          <grttResponse> = <sendTime> + (<currentTime> - <recv_Time>)

      where the <sendTime> is the timestamp from the last probe message
      received from the source and the (<currentTime> - <recvTime>) is
      the amount of time differential since that request was received
      until the receiver generated the response.

      The sender processes each receiver response by calculating a cur-
      rent RTT measurement for the receiver from whom the response was
      received using the following formula:

                <receiverRtt> = <currentTime> - <grttResponse>

      During the each periodic GRTT probing interval, the source keeps
      the peak round trip estimate from the set of responses it has
      received.  The GRTT estimate should be filtered to be conservative
      towards maintaining an estimate biased towards the greatest
      receiver RTT measurements received.  A conservative estimate of
      GRTT maximizes the efficiency redundant NACK suppression and repair
      aggregation.  The update to the source's ongoing estimate of GRTT
      is done observing the following rules:

        1)   If a receiver's response round trip calculation is greater
             than the  current GRTT estimate AND current peak, the
             response value is immediately fed into the GRTT  update fil-
             ter given below.  In any case, the source records the "peak"
             receiver RTT measurement for the current probe interval.

        2)   At the end of the response collection period (i.e. the GRTT
             probe interval), if the recorded "peak" response is less
             than the current GRTT estimate AND this is the third consec-
             utive collection period with a peak less than the current
             GRTT estimate the recorded peak is fed into the GRTT update.
             (Implicitly, Rule #1 was applied otherwise so no new update
             is required).

        3)   At the end of the response collection period, the peak
             tracking value is set to either ZERO if the "peak" is
             greater than or equal to the current GRTT estimate (i.e.
             Already incorporated into the filter under Rule #1) or kept



Adamson, Bormann, et al.    Expires May 2002                   [Page 22]


Internet Draft            NORM Building Blocks             November 2001


             the same if its value is less than the current GRTT estimate
             AND was not yet incorporated into the GRTT update filter
             according to Rule #2. Thus for decreases in the source's
             estimate of GRTT, the "peak" is tracked across three consec-
             utive probe intervals.  The current MDP implementation uses
             the following GRTT update filter to incorporate new peak
             responses into the the GRTT estimate:

           if (peak > current_estimate)
               current_estimate = 0.25 * current_estimate + 0.75 * peak;
           else
               current_estimate = 0.75 * current_estimate + 0.25 * peak;

      This update method is biased towards maintaining an estimate of the
      worst-case round trip delay.  The reason the GRTT estimate is
      reduced only after 3 consecutive collection periods with smaller
      response peaks is to be conservative where packet loss may have
      resulted in lost response messages.  And then the reduction is
      additionally conservatively weighted using the averaging filter
      from above.

      The GRTT collection period (i.e. period of probe transmission)
      could be fixed at a value on the order of that expected for group
      membership and/or network topology dynamics.  For robustness, more
      rapid probing could be used at protocol startup before settling to
      a less frequent, steady-state interval.  Optionally, an algorithm
      may be developed to adjust the GRTT collection period dynamically
      in response to the current GRTT estimate (or variations in it) and
      to an estimation of packet loss.  The overhead of probing messages
      could then be reduced when the GRTT estimate is stable and unchang-
      ing, but be adjusted to track more dynamically during periods of
      variation with correspondingly shorter GRTT collection periods.

      In summary, although NORM repair cycle timeouts are based on GRTT,
      it should be noted that convergent operation of the protocol does
      not _strictly_ depend on accurate GRTT estimation.  The current
      mechanism has proved sufficient in simulations and in the environ-
      ments in which NORM-like protocols have been deployed to date.  The
      estimate provided by the algorithm tracks the peak envelope of
      actual GRTT (including operating system effect as well as network
      delays) even in relaitvely high loss connectivity.  The steady-
      state probing/update interval may potentially be varied to accommo-
      date different levels of expected network dynamics in different
      environments.

3.7.2 One-to-Many Receiver RTT Measurement

      (TBD - Receivers "ping" sender for RTT measurement, and then



Adamson, Bormann, et al.    Expires May 2002                   [Page 23]


Internet Draft            NORM Building Blocks             November 2001


      receivers competitively (worst case RTT metric) advertise their
      measurements to the sender and optionally group so the sender can
      determine GRTT ... Sender should still robustly advertise its cur-
      rent GRTT knowledge to the group so group can use appropriate tim-
      ing)

3.7.3 Many-to-Many RTT Measurement

      (TBD - Describe approach based on Ozdemir99, if appropriate/appli-
      cable?)

3.7.4 Sender GRTT Advertisement

      To facilitate determistic NORM protocol operation, the sender
      should robustly advertise its current estimation of GRTT to the
      receiver set.  Common, robust knowledge of the sender's current
      operating GRTT estimate among the group will allow the protocol to
      progress in its most efficient manner.  The sender's GRTT estimate
      can be robustly advertised to the group by simply embedding the
      estimate into all pertinent messages transmitted by the sender.
      The overhead of this can be made quite small by quantizing (com-
      pressing) the GRTT estimate to a single byte of information.  The
      following C-lanquage function algorithm allows this to be done over
      a wide range of GRTT values while maintaining a greater range of
      precision for small GRTT values and less precision for large val-
      ues:

           unsigned char QuantizeGrtt(double grtt)
           {
               if (grtt > 1.0e03)
                   grtt = 1.0e03;
               else if (grtt < 1.0e-06)
                   grtt = 1.0e-06;
               if (grtt < 3.3e-05)
                   return ((unsigned char)(grtt * 1.0e06) - 1);
               else
                   return ((unsigned char)(ceil(255.0.-
                                           (13.0 * log(1.0e03/grtt)))));
           }

      Note that this function is useful for quantizing GRTT times in the
      range of 1 microsecond to 1000 seconds.  Of course, NORM protocol
      implementations may wish to further constrain advertised GRTT esti-
      mates (e.g. limit the maximum value) for practical reasons.

3.8 Group Size Determination/Estimation

      (TBD)  Group size may be approximated from the density of feedback



Adamson, Bormann, et al.    Expires May 2002                   [Page 24]


Internet Draft            NORM Building Blocks             November 2001


      messages which follow the exponentially weighted random backoff.
      NORM_NACK messages might be used during normal protocol operation
      or a bootstrap procedure can be created to obtain an initial size
      estimation and track group size with receiver join/leave dynamics.
      This might also be combined with congestion control feedback col-
      lection.  The details of this are TBD.

3.9 Congestion Control Operation

      (TBD - A NACK-oriented protocol may place limitations/requirements
      on collection of information to facilitate congestion control of
      senders.  There are a number of specific issues of TCP-Friendly
      Multicast Congestion Control (TFMCC)which must be addressed.)

3.10 Router/Intermediate System assistance

      (TBD - NACK-oriented protocols can potentially benefit greatly from
      router assistance.  In particular, additional NACK suppression
      would be beneficial (This may impact how synchronized receiver NACK
      cycles are, sender advertisement of NACK-cycle parameters (i.e.
      GRTT, group size, etc), NACK content, others)

3.11 Additional protocol mechanisms

      (TBD- e.g.  positive acknowledgement collection, performance
      statistics collection, session management, etc)

4.0 Security Considerations (TBD)


5.0 References

      [Mankin98] A. Mankin, A. Romanow, S.  Bradner, V.  Paxson, "IETF
      Criteria for Evaluating Reliable Multicast Transport and Applica-
      tion Protocols", RFC 2357, June 1998.

      [Pingali93] S. Pingali, D. Towsley, J.  Kurose.  "A Comparison of
      Sender-Initiated and Receiver-Initiated Reliable Multicast Proto-
      cols".  In Proc.  INFOCOM, San Francisco, CA, October 1993.

      [Levine96] B.N. Levine, J.J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves.  "A Comparison of
      Known Classes of Reliable Multicast Protocols", Proc.  Interna-
      tional Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP-96), Columbus, Ohio,
      Oct 29--Nov 1, 1996.

      [Clark90] D. Clark, D. Tennenhouse, "Architectural Considerations
      for a New Generation of Protocols".  In Proc.  ACM SIGCOMM, pages
      201--208, September 1990.



Adamson, Bormann, et al.    Expires May 2002                   [Page 25]


Internet Draft            NORM Building Blocks             November 2001


      [Deering89] S.  Deering.  "Host Extensions for IP Multicasting".
      Internet RFC1112, August 1989.

      [Floyd95] S. Floyd, V.  Jacobson, S.  McCanne, C.  Liu, and L.
      Zhang.  "A Reliable Multicast Framework for Light-weight Sessions
      and Application Level Framing", Proc.  ACM SIGCOMM, August 1995.

      [Nonnenmacher98] J.  Nonnenmacher and E.  W.  Biersack, "Optimal
      multicast feedback," in IEEE Infocom , (San Francisco, California),
      p.  964, March/April 1998.

      [Gossink98] D. Gossink, J.  Macker, "Reliable Multicast and Inte-
      grated Parity Retransmission with Channel Estimation", IEEE GLOBE-
      COM 98'.

      [Metzner84] J. Metzner, "An Improved Broadcast Retransmission Pro-
      tocol", IEEE Transactions on Communications, Vol.  Com-32, No.6,
      June 1984.

      [Macker97a] J. Macker, "Integrated Erasure-Based Coding for Reli-
      able Multicast Transmission", IRTF Meeting presentation, March
      1997.

      [Macker97b] J. Macker, "Reliable Multicast Transport and Integrated
      Erasure-based Forward Error Correction", Proc. IEEE MILCOM 97,
      October  1997.

      [Ozdemir99]  V. Ozdemir, S. Muthukrishnan, I. Rhee, "Scalable, Low-
      Overhead Network Delay Estimation", NCSU/AT&T White Paper, February
      1999.





















Adamson, Bormann, et al.    Expires May 2002                   [Page 26]


Internet Draft            NORM Building Blocks             November 2001


6.0 Authors' Addresses

      Brian Adamson
      adamson@itd.nrl.navy.mil
      Naval Research Laboratory
      Washington, DC, USA, 20375

      Carsten Bormann
      cabo@tellique.de
      Tellique Kommunikationstechnik GmbH
      Gustav-Meyer-Allee 25 Geb ude 12
      D-13355 Berlin, Germany

      Mark Handley
      mjh@aciri.org
      1947 Center Street, Suite 600
      Berkeley, CA 94704

      Joe Macker
      macker@itd.nrl.navy.mil
      Naval Research Laboratory
      Washington, DC, USA, 20375





























Adamson, Bormann, et al.    Expires May 2002                   [Page 27]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/