A Cost Mode Registry for the Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶

This Internet-Draft will expire on 5 September 2022.¶

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

The cost mode attribute indicates how costs should be interpreted when communicated in the Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) protocol [RFC7285]. The base ALTO specification includes a provision for only two modes:¶

"numerical":

Indicates that numerical operations can be performed (e.g., normalization) on the returned costs (Section 6.1.2.1 of [RFC7285]).¶

"ordinal":

Indicates that the cost values in a cost map represent ranking (relative to all other values in a cost map), not actual costs (Section 6.1.2.2 of [RFC7285]).¶

Additional cost modes are required for specific ALTO deployment cases (e.g., [I-D.ietf-alto-path-vector]). In order to allow for such use cases, this document creates a new ALTO registry to track new cost mode values (Section 4) and relaxes the constraints imposed by the base ALTO specification on allowed cost mode values (Section 3).¶

2. Terminology

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶

This document makes use of the terms defined in [RFC7285].¶

3. Updates to RFC7285

OLD:
   The cost mode attribute indicates how costs should be interpreted.
   Specifically, the cost mode attribute indicates whether returned
   costs should be interpreted as numerical values or ordinal rankings.

   It is important to communicate such information to ALTO clients, as
   certain operations may not be valid on certain costs returned by an
   ALTO server.  For example, it is possible for an ALTO server to
   return a set of IP addresses with costs indicating a ranking of the
   IP addresses.  Arithmetic operations that would make sense for
   numerical values, do not make sense for ordinal rankings.  ALTO
   clients may handle such costs differently.

   Cost modes are indicated in protocol messages as strings.

NEW:

OLD:
   A cost mode is encoded as a string.  The string MUST have a value of
   either "numerical" or "ordinal".

NEW:

4. IANA Considerations

This document requests IANA to create a new subregistry entitled "ALTO Cost Modes" under the "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol" registry available at [ALTO].¶

The registry is initially populated with the following values:¶

+-------------+-----------------------------+
| Cost Mode   | Specification               |
+-------------+-----------------------------+
| numerical   | Section 6.1.2.1 of RFC7285  |
| ordinal     | Section 6.1.2.2 of RFC7285  |
+-------------+-----------------------------+

New values MUST be assigned after IETF Review (Section 4.8 of [RFC8126]).¶

5. Security Considerations

ALTO-related considerations are discussed in Section 15 of [RFC7285].¶

6. Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Benjamin Kaduk for spotting the issue during the review of [I-D.ietf-alto-path-vector].¶

Authors' Addresses