Network Working Group                                         S. Bradner
Request for Comments: 1550                            Harvard University
Category: Informational                                        A. Mankin
                                                                    NRL
                                                          December 1993


         IP: Next Generation (IPng) White Paper Solicitation

Status of this Memo

  This memo provides information for the Internet community.  This memo
  does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of
  this memo is unlimited.

Table of Contents

  1.   Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
  2.   Document Review Process  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
  3.   Document Format Requirement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
  4.   Outline for IPng Requirements and Concerns White Papers  . . 3
  5.   Engineering considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
  6.   Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
  7.   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
  Appendix A - Formatting Rules (from RFC 1543) . . . . . . . . . . 6

1. Introduction

  The IP: next generation (IPng) area in the IETF is soliciting white
  papers on topics related to the IPng requirements and selection
  criteria.

  All interested parties are invited to submit white papers detailing
  any specific requirements that they feel an IPng must fulfill or any
  factors that they feel might sway the IPng selection.  An example of
  the former might be a submission by a representative of a utility
  company detailing the scaling and addressing features which would be
  required to service future inclusion of utility meters on the
  network.  An example of the other case might be a paper outlining the
  potential effect on IPng of some sections of the future network
  connectivity being provided via wireless networks.

  At this time, we are not accepting white papers that evaluate
  specific IPng proposals.  This type of document will be accepted
  after the various proposal documents are deemed to be clear and
  complete.





Bradner & Mankin                                                [Page 1]

RFC 1550             IPng White Paper Solicitation         December 1993


  All white papers will be reviewed in a process described below.  As a
  result of these reviews, each white paper will receive the focused
  attention of the IPng directorate and the community.  The white
  papers will be used as resource materials by the IPng Area working
  groups, the directorate, the external review board and the area
  directors, during the selection process.

  The deadline for the submission of these white papers is February 1,
  1994, though early submission is encouraged.

  Submit white papers, general or topic questions, and so on, to
  [email protected].

2. Document Review Process

  All submitted documents will first be reviewed for clarity by members
  of the IPng directorate and the external review board.  This review
  may produce suggestions to the author on areas of the document where
  there may be some confusion as to the meaning.  Authors are urged to
  consider any such suggestions as constructive and to reexamine their
  text in light of the suggestions.

  A separate technical review will then be done of the white paper.
  This review will be conducted within the context of the document.
  That is, the review still will not make value judgments on the white
  papers, but will assess technical feasibility.  This review may also
  produce suggestions to the author.

  The document will be submitted as an Internet-Draft after these
  reviews have been completed and after whatever (if any) revisions
  that the author decides to make.   After a suitable period of time
  these documents will be submitted as informational RFCs unless
  withdrawn by the author.  These documents will comprise a part of the
  historical record of the IPng process.

3. Document Format Requirements

  All white papers must follow the format requirements listed in RFC
  1543 and must not exceed 10 pages in length. (The relevant portion of
  RFC 1543 is included in this document as Appendix A.)  They should
  not include the "status of memo" section; this will be added when the
  documents are posted as Internet Drafts.  The reference version of
  the document must be in ASCII as is current practice with all RFCs.
  A PostScript version of the document may be submitted in addition to
  the ASCII version. (See RFC 1543 for the formatting procedures to use
  with PostScript documents.)





Bradner & Mankin                                                [Page 2]

RFC 1550             IPng White Paper Solicitation         December 1993


4. Outline for IPng Requirements and Concerns White Papers

  This section details the white paper outline to be followed by
  someone who would like to express an opinion about the various
  factors involved in the IPng definition and selection process.  Since
  these documents will be used as resource material by the various IPng
  working groups, the directorate, the external review board and the
  area directors, they should be well-focused and give specific
  references to data supporting their points.

  Each white paper should begin with an executive summary of the
  important points of the document.  This executive summary should not
  exceed 1/2 page in length.

  The white paper should then address the issue or issues that the
  author feels should be understood during the IPng process.  The total
  document should not exceed 10 pages in length.  An author may submit
  more than one white paper if he or she feels that the level of
  detailed discussion on each topic warrants it.

5. Engineering considerations

  In past discussions the following issues have been raised as relevant
  to the IPng selection process.  This list is in no particular order.
  Any or all of these issues may be addressed as well as any other
  topic that the author feels is germane, but do not exceed the 10 page
  limit, please.

  5.1  Scaling - What is a reasonable estimate for the scale of the
     future data networking environment?  The current common wisdom is
     that IPng should be able to deal with 10 to the 12th nodes.

  5.2  Timescale - What are reasonable time estimates for the IPng
     selection, development and deployment process or what should the
     timeframe requirements be?  This topic is being evaluated by the
     ALE working group and a copy of all white papers that express
     opinions about these topics will be forwarded to that group.

  5.3  Transition and deployment - Transition from the current version
     to IPng will be a complex and difficult process.  What are the
     issues that should be considered The TACIT working group will be
     discussing these issues and a copy of all white papers that
     express opinions about these topics will be forwarded to that
     group.

  5.4  Security - What level and type of security will be required in
     the future network environment?  What features should be in an
     IPng to facilitate security?



Bradner & Mankin                                                [Page 3]

RFC 1550             IPng White Paper Solicitation         December 1993


  5.5  Configuration, administration and operation - As networks get
     larger and more complex, the day to day operational aspects become
     ever more important.  What should an IPng include or avoid in
     order to minimize the effect on the network operators?

  5.6  Mobile hosts - How important is the proliferation of mobile
     hosts to the IPng selection process?  To what extent should
     features be included in an IPng to assist in dealing with mobile
     hosts?

  5.7  Flows and resource reservation - As the data networks begin to
     get used for an increasing number of time-critical processes, what
     are the requirements or concerns that affect how IPng should
     facilitate the use of resource reservations or flows?

  5.8  Policy based routing - How important is policy based routing?
     If it is important, what types of policies will be used?  What
     requirements do routing policies and potential future global
     architectures of the Internet bring to IPng?  How do policy
     requirements interact with scaling?

  5.9  Topological flexibility - What topology is anticipated for the
     Internet?  Will the current general topology model continue?  Is
     it acceptable (or even necessary) to place significant topological
     restrictions on interconnectivity of networks?

  5.10 Applicability - What environment / marketplace do you see for
     the application of IPng?  How much wider is it than the existing
     IP market?

  5.11 Datagram service - Existing IP service is "best effort" and
     based on hop-by-hop routed datagrams.  What requirements for this
     paradigm influence the IPng selection?

  5.12 Accounting - How important a consideration should the ability to
     do accounting be in the selection of an IPng?  What, if any,
     features should be included in an IPng to support accounting
     functions?

  5.13 Support of communication media - IPv4 can be supported over most
     known types of communications media.  How important is this same
     flexibility to an IPng?









Bradner & Mankin                                                [Page 4]

RFC 1550             IPng White Paper Solicitation         December 1993


  5.14 Robustness and fault tolerance - To the extent that the Internet
     built from IPv4 has been highly fault tolerant, what are ways that
     IPng may avoid inadvertent decrease in the robustness (since some
     things may work despite flaws that we do not understand well).
     Comment on any other ways in which this requirement may affect the
     IPng.

  5.15 Technology pull - Are there technologies that will pull the
     Internet in a way that should influence IPng?  Can specific
     strategies be developed to encompass these?

  5.16 Action items - suggested charges to the directorate, working
     groups or others to support the concerns or gather more
     information needed for a decision.

6.  Security Considerations

  This RFC raises no security issues, but does invite comment on the
  security requirements of IPng.

7.  Authors' Addresses

  Scott Bradner
  Harvard University
  10 Ware St.
  Cambridge, MA 02138

  Phone: (617) 495-3864

  EMail: [email protected]


  Allison Mankin
  Naval Research Laboratory
  c/o Code 5591
  Washington D.C. 20375-5000

  Phone: 202-404-7030

  EMail: [email protected]











Bradner & Mankin                                                [Page 5]

RFC 1550             IPng White Paper Solicitation         December 1993


Appendix  A - Formatting Rules (from RFC 1543)

  Note: there are a set of NROFF formatting macros for the following
  format.  Please contact [email protected] if you would like to get
  a copy.

  3a.  ASCII Format Rules

     The character codes are ASCII.

     Each page must be limited to 58 lines followed by a form feed on a
     line by itself.

     Each line must be limited to 72 characters followed by carriage
     return and line feed.

     No overstriking (or underlining) is allowed.

     These "height" and "width" constraints include any headers,
     footers, page numbers, or left side indenting.

     Do not fill the text with extra spaces to provide a straight right
     margin.

     Do not do hyphenation of words at the right margin.

     Do not use footnotes.  If such notes are necessary, put them at
     the end of a section, or at the end of the document.

     Use single spaced text within a paragraph, and one blank line
     between paragraphs.

     Note that the number of pages in a document and the page numbers
     on which various sections fall will likely change with
     reformatting.  Thus cross references in the text by section number
     usually are easier to keep consistent than cross references by
     page number.














Bradner & Mankin                                                [Page 6]


You are viewing proxied material from gopher.fnord.one. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.