draft-ietf-rmt-pi-alc-revised-01.txt   draft-ietf-rmt-pi-alc-revised-02.txt 
Reliable Multicast Transport (RMT) Luby Reliable Multicast Transport (RMT) Luby
Working Group Watson Working Group Watson
Internet-Draft Digital Fountain Internet-Draft Digital Fountain
Expires: April 22, 2006 Gemmell Expires: September 4, 2006 Vicisano
Microsoft Research
Vicisano
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Rizzo March 3, 2006
Univ. di Pisa
Crowcroft
University of Cambridge
October 19, 2005
Asynchronous Layered Coding (ALC) Protocol Instantiation Asynchronous Layered Coding (ALC) Protocol Instantiation
draft-ietf-rmt-pi-alc-revised-01 draft-ietf-rmt-pi-alc-revised-02
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 1, line 42 skipping to change at page 1, line 36
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 22, 2006. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 4, 2006.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract Abstract
This document describes the Asynchronous Layered Coding (ALC) This document describes the Asynchronous Layered Coding (ALC)
protocol, a massively scalable reliable content delivery protocol. protocol, a massively scalable reliable content delivery protocol.
Asynchronous Layered Coding combines the Layered Coding Transport Asynchronous Layered Coding combines the Layered Coding Transport
(LCT) building block, a multiple rate congestion control building (LCT) building block, a multiple rate congestion control building
block and the Forward Error Correction (FEC) building block to block and the Forward Error Correction (FEC) building block to
provide congestion controlled reliable asynchronous delivery of provide congestion controlled reliable asynchronous delivery of
content to an unlimited number of concurrent receivers from a single content to an unlimited number of concurrent receivers from a single
sender. sender.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
skipping to change at page 2, line 18 skipping to change at page 2, line 12
block and the Forward Error Correction (FEC) building block to block and the Forward Error Correction (FEC) building block to
provide congestion controlled reliable asynchronous delivery of provide congestion controlled reliable asynchronous delivery of
content to an unlimited number of concurrent receivers from a single content to an unlimited number of concurrent receivers from a single
sender. sender.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Delivery service models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Delivery service models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Environmental Requirements and Considerations . . . . . . 4 1.3. Environmental Requirements and Considerations . . . . . . 5
2. Architecture Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2. Architecture Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. LCT building block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.1. LCT building block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2. Multiple rate congestion control building block . . . . . 8 2.2. Multiple rate congestion control building block . . . . . 8
2.3. FEC building block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.3. FEC building block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4. Session Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.4. Session Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.5. Packet authentication building block . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.5. Packet authentication building block . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3. Conformance Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3. Conformance Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. Functionality Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4. Functionality Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.1. Packet format used by ALC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.1. Packet format used by ALC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2. LCT Header-Extension Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.2. LCT Header-Extension Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3. Sender Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.3. Sender Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.4. Receiver Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.4. Receiver Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 8. Changes from RFC3450 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8.1. RFC3450 to draft-ietf-rmt-pi-alc-revised-00 . . . . . . . 23
8.2. draft-ietf-rmt-pi-alc-revised-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 9.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 9.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 28 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 27
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document describes a massively scalable reliable content This document describes a massively scalable reliable content
delivery protocol, Asynchronous Layered Coding (ALC), for multiple delivery protocol, Asynchronous Layered Coding (ALC), for multiple
rate congestion controlled reliable content delivery. The protocol rate congestion controlled reliable content delivery. The protocol
is specifically designed to provide massive scalability using IP is specifically designed to provide massive scalability using IP
multicast as the underlying network service. Massive scalability in multicast as the underlying network service. Massive scalability in
this context means the number of concurrent receivers for an object this context means the number of concurrent receivers for an object
is potentially in the millions, the aggregate size of objects to be is potentially in the millions, the aggregate size of objects to be
skipping to change at page 3, line 52 skipping to change at page 3, line 52
application that uses ALC may require that receivers report application that uses ALC may require that receivers report
statistics on their reception experience back to the sender, but the statistics on their reception experience back to the sender, but the
mechanisms by which receivers report back statistics is outside the mechanisms by which receivers report back statistics is outside the
scope of ALC. In general, ALC is designed to be a minimal protocol scope of ALC. In general, ALC is designed to be a minimal protocol
instantiation that provides reliable content delivery without instantiation that provides reliable content delivery without
unnecessary limitations to the scalability of the basic protocol. unnecessary limitations to the scalability of the basic protocol.
This document is a product of the IETF RMT WG and follows the general This document is a product of the IETF RMT WG and follows the general
guidelines provided in [RFC3269]. guidelines provided in [RFC3269].
RFC3450 [RFC3450] contained a previous versions of the protocol
defined in this specification. RFC3450 was published in the
"Experimental" category. It was the stated intent of the RMT working
group to re-submit these specifications as an IETF Proposed Standard
in due course.
This Proposed Standard specification is thus based on and backwards
compatible with the protocol defined in RFC3450 [RFC3450] updated
according to accumulated experience and growing protocol maturity
since its original publication. Said experience applies both to this
specification itself and to congestion control strategies related to
the use of this specification.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, [RFC2119].
1.1. Delivery service models 1.1. Delivery service models
ALC can support several different reliable content delivery service ALC can support several different reliable content delivery service
models as described in [I-D.ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised]. models as described in [I-D.ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised].
1.2. Scalability 1.2. Scalability
skipping to change at page 22, line 7 skipping to change at page 22, line 7
Types in namespace ietf:rmt:lct:headerExtensionTypes:variableLength: Types in namespace ietf:rmt:lct:headerExtensionTypes:variableLength:
+-------+---------+--------------------+ +-------+---------+--------------------+
| Value | Name | Reference | | Value | Name | Reference |
+-------+---------+--------------------+ +-------+---------+--------------------+
| 64 | EXT_FTI | This specification | | 64 | EXT_FTI | This specification |
+-------+---------+--------------------+ +-------+---------+--------------------+
7. Acknowledgments 7. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Vincent Roca, Justin Chapweske and Roger Kermode for their This specification is substantially based on RFC3450 [RFC3450] and
detailed comments on this document. thus credit for the authorship of this document is primarily due to
the authors of RFC3450: Mike Luby, Jim Gemmel, Lorenzo Vicisano,
Luigi Rizzo and Jon Crowcroft. Vincent Roca, Justin Chapweske and
Roger Kermode also contributed to RFC3450. Additional thanks are due
to Vincent Roca and Rod Walsh for contributions to this update to
Proposed Standard.
8. Change Log 8. Changes from RFC3450
8.1. RFC3450 to draft-ietf-rmt-pi-alc-revised-00 This section summarises the changes that were made from the
Experimental version of this specification published as RFC3450
[RFC3450]:
Update all references to the obsoleted RFC 2068 to RFC 2616 o Update all references to the obsoleted RFC 2068 to RFC 2616
Removed the 'Statement of Intent' from the introduction o Removed the 'Statement of Intent' from the introduction (The
statement of intent was meant to clarify the "Experimental" status
of RFC3450.)
The statement of intent was meant to clarify the "Experimental" o Removed the 'Intellectual Property Issues' Section and replaced
status of RFC3450. It does not apply to this draft that is with a standard IPR Statement
intended for "Standard Track" submission.
Removed the 'Intellectual Property Issues' Section and replaced with o Remove material duplicated in LCT
a standard IPR Statement
8.2. draft-ietf-rmt-pi-alc-revised-01 o Update references for LCT and FEC Building Block to new versions
and align with changes in the FEC Building Block.
Remove material duplicated in LCT o Split normative and informative references
Update references for LCT and FEC Building Block to new versions. o Material applicable in a general LCT context, not just for ALC has
been moved to LCT
Split normative and informative references o The first bit of the "Protocol Specific Indication" in the LCT
Headert is defined as a "Source Packet Indication". This is used
in the case that an FEC Scheme defines two FEC Payload ID formats,
one of which is for packets containing only source symbols which
can be processed by receivers that do not support FEC Decoding.
o Definition and IANA registration of the EXT_FTI LCT Header
Extension
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative references 9.1. Normative references
[I-D.ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised] [I-D.ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised]
Luby, M., "Layered Coding Transport (LCT) Building Block", Luby, M., "Layered Coding Transport (LCT) Building Block",
draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised-00 (work in progress), draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised-01 (work in progress),
July 2005. October 2005.
[I-D.ietf-rmt-fec-bb-revised] [I-D.ietf-rmt-fec-bb-revised]
Watson, M., "Forward Error Correction (FEC) Building Watson, M., "Forward Error Correction (FEC) Building
Block", draft-ietf-rmt-fec-bb-revised-01 (work in Block", draft-ietf-rmt-fec-bb-revised-03 (work in
progress), September 2005. progress), January 2006.
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
August 1980. August 1980.
[RFC1112] Deering, S., "Host extensions for IP multicasting", STD 5, [RFC1112] Deering, S., "Host extensions for IP multicasting", STD 5,
RFC 1112, August 1989. RFC 1112, August 1989.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
skipping to change at page 25, line 19 skipping to change at page 25, line 19
[RFC3048] Whetten, B., Vicisano, L., Kermode, R., Handley, M., [RFC3048] Whetten, B., Vicisano, L., Kermode, R., Handley, M.,
Floyd, S., and M. Luby, "Reliable Multicast Transport Floyd, S., and M. Luby, "Reliable Multicast Transport
Building Blocks for One-to-Many Bulk-Data Transfer", Building Blocks for One-to-Many Bulk-Data Transfer",
RFC 3048, January 2001. RFC 3048, January 2001.
[RFC3269] Kermode, R. and L. Vicisano, "Author Guidelines for [RFC3269] Kermode, R. and L. Vicisano, "Author Guidelines for
Reliable Multicast Transport (RMT) Building Blocks and Reliable Multicast Transport (RMT) Building Blocks and
Protocol Instantiation documents", RFC 3269, April 2002. Protocol Instantiation documents", RFC 3269, April 2002.
[RFC3450] Luby, M., Gemmell, J., Vicisano, L., Rizzo, L., and J.
Crowcroft, "Asynchronous Layered Coding (ALC) Protocol
Instantiation", RFC 3450, December 2002.
[RFC3453] Luby, M., Vicisano, L., Gemmell, J., Rizzo, L., Handley, [RFC3453] Luby, M., Vicisano, L., Gemmell, J., Rizzo, L., Handley,
M., and J. Crowcroft, "The Use of Forward Error Correction M., and J. Crowcroft, "The Use of Forward Error Correction
(FEC) in Reliable Multicast", RFC 3453, December 2002. (FEC) in Reliable Multicast", RFC 3453, December 2002.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Michael Luby Michael Luby
Digital Fountain Digital Fountain
39141 Civic Center Dr. 39141 Civic Center Dr.
Suite 300 Suite 300
skipping to change at page 26, line 25 skipping to change at page 26, line 25
Mark Watson Mark Watson
Digital Fountain Digital Fountain
39141 Civic Center Dr. 39141 Civic Center Dr.
Suite 300 Suite 300
Fremont, CA 94538 Fremont, CA 94538
US US
Email: mark@digitalfountain.com Email: mark@digitalfountain.com
Jim Gemmell
Microsoft Research
455 Market St. #1690
San Francisco, CA 94105
US
Email: jgemmell@microsoft.com
Lorenzo Vicisano Lorenzo Vicisano
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
510 McCarthy Blvd. 510 McCarthy Blvd.
Milpitas, CA 95035 Milpitas, CA 95035
US US
Email: lorenzo@cisco.com Email: lorenzo@cisco.com
Luigi Rizzo
Univ. di Pisa
Dip. Ing. dell'Informazione,
via Diotisalvi 2
Pisa, PI 56126
Italy
Email: luigi@iet.unipi.it
Jon Crowcroft
University of Cambridge
Computer Laboratory
William Gates Building
J J Thomson Avenue
Cambridge, CB3 0FD
United Kingdom
Email: Jon.Crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk
Intellectual Property Statement Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
skipping to change at page 28, line 41 skipping to change at page 27, line 41
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society. Internet Society.
 End of changes. 27 change blocks. 
62 lines changed or deleted 62 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.29, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/