[xml2rfc] Question about tables
fred at cisco.com (Fred Baker) Fri, 28 July 2006 11:55 UTC
From: "fred at cisco.com"
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:55:26 +0000
Subject: [xml2rfc] Question about tables
Message-ID: <CD9382A8-3CC3-4442-8A66-5EC6D7D2761A@cisco.com>
X-Date: Fri Jul 28 11:55:26 2006
I have implemented a table in the attached beginnings of a document. Don't think too hard about what the document is about; it is basically a request for a hop-by-hop option number for experimental use in a protocol extension that I think has promise but needs a lot of work. There is a graphic that describes the hop-by-hop option, and then a table that talks in more detail about the fields in it. The table comes out the way I want it to look in the html version, but in the text version I think it needs some lines to make it look better. Suggestions on how to get the tool to produce them? ftp://ftpeng.cisco.com/fred/xml2rfc/RCP-Hop-by-hop-edited.txt ftp://ftpeng.cisco.com/fred/xml2rfc/RCP-Hop-by-hop.html ftp://ftpeng.cisco.com/fred/xml2rfc/RCP-Hop-by-hop.txt ftp://ftpeng.cisco.com/fred/xml2rfc/RCP-Hop-by-hop.xml The "edited" file is approximately what I would like the text of the table to come out looking like. It is manually edited. I suppose I could do that and then put it into an "artwork" block, but it would be nice if I didn't have to. >From Nicolas.Williams at sun.com Fri Jul 28 15:15:37 2006 From: Nicolas.Williams at sun.com (Nicolas Williams) Date: Fri Jul 28 12:15:45 2006 Subject: [xml2rfc] Question about tables In-Reply-To: <CD9382A8-3CC3-4442-8A66-5EC6D7D2761A@cisco.com> References: <CD9382A8-3CC3-4442-8A66-5EC6D7D2761A@cisco.com> Message-ID: <20060728191537.GQ11384@binky.Central.Sun.COM> On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 11:55:19AM -0700, Fred Baker wrote: > There is a graphic that describes the hop-by-hop option, and then a > table that talks in more detail about the fields in it. The table > comes out the way I want it to look in the html version, but in the > text version I think it needs some lines to make it look better. > Suggestions on how to get the tool to produce them? I was just about to ask the same question: how to get dash lines between rows of tables in xml2rfc txt output? Or is the lack of dash lines between rows a bug? I've got a draft which includes suggested forms for IANA registrations, these being modelled as texttables; the lack of clear breaks between rows makes it hard to read these forms... Nico -- >From fred at cisco.com Thu Jul 27 23:30:21 2006 From: fred at cisco.com (Fred Baker) Date: Fri Jul 28 23:18:41 2006 Subject: [xml2rfc] Question about tables Message-ID: <A4BBFE35-7D0C-4202-A083-DC05C2A2EC7E@cisco.com> I have implemented a table in the attached beginnings of a document. It comes out the way I want it to look in the html version, but in the text version I think it needs some lines to make it look better. Suggestions on how to get the tool to produce them? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://drakken.dbc.mtview.ca.us/pipermail/xml2rfc/attachments/20060727/543bbdde/RCP-Hop-by-hop-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- IPv6 N. Dukkipati Internet-Draft Stanford University Intended status: Informational F. Baker Expires: January 28, 2007 Cisco Systems July 27, 2006 Implementing RCP in the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options Header draft-baker-document-00 Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 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 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 28, 2007. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Abstract This note describes the implementation of RCP as an IPv6 Hop-by-Hop option. Dukkipati & Baker Expires January 28, 2007 [Page 1] Internet-Draft RCP Hop-by-Hop July 2006 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. The Hop-by-hop Option supporting RCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Defining the option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Router calculations to be performed . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2.1. Router calculations to be performed periodically . . . 5 2.2.2. Router calculations to be performed per packet . . . . 5 3. Design caveats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Behavior around tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. Initial conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3. Layer violations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Appendix A. Additional stuff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 9 Dukkipati & Baker Expires January 28, 2007 [Page 2] Internet-Draft RCP Hop-by-Hop July 2006 1. Introduction 2. The Hop-by-hop Option supporting RCP 2.1. Defining the option 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 15 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Option Type | Opt Data Len | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Exp | Mantissa | BW Request +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Exp | Mantissa | BW Response +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Exp | Mantissa | RTT Estimate +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1: RCP Hop-by-Hop Option Dukkipati & Baker Expires January 28, 2007 [Page 3] Internet-Draft RCP Hop-by-Hop July 2006 The fields in the header are as follows: +-----------+-------+-------------+---------------------------------+ | Field | Bits | Range | Description | +-----------+-------+-------------+---------------------------------+ | Type | 0..7 | RCPHopByHop | RCP Hop-by-Hop Option | | Data Len | 8..15 | 6 | Payload is six bytes | | Bandwidth | | | Bits per second the application | | Request | | | would like to transmit at | | B/W Req | 0..5 | 0..63 | | | Exponent | | | | | B/W Req | 6..15 | 0..1023 | | | Mantissa | | | | | Bandwidth | | | Bits per second the network can | | Response | | | support the application | | | | | transmitting at | | B/W Rsp | 0..5 | 0..63 | | | Exponent | | | | | B/W Rsp | 6..15 | 0..1023 | | | Mantissa | | | | | RTT | | | Mean RTT in Milliseconds | | Estimate | | | | | B/W | 0..5 | 0..63 | | | Exponent | | | | | B/W | 6..15 | 0..1023 | | | Mantissa | | | | +-----------+-------+-------------+---------------------------------+ Table 1: Fields in RCP Hop-by-Hop Option The premise is that any relevant number can be approximately represented as a "mantissa" (an integer) shifted left "exponent" bits (e.g., mantissa<<exponent, or mantissa*2^exponent). IEEE Standard 754 floating-point representation was considered as well, but it consumes more bits, and network devices frequently do not directly support it. This can be implemented in a few gates in hardware, or a few instructions in microcode. Two special numbers are defined: Infinity and Zero. Clearly any number with a mantissa of zero has the value zero; implementations are encouraged to represent with an exponent of zero as well (e.g., 16 bits, all zero). The number with an exponent of 63 and a mantissa of 1023 (e.g., sixteen bits, all ones) indicates an unknown or unspecified value. Specifically, when a TCP implementation sends a SYN packet, at that time it has no measurement of the RTT to the peer and no knowledge of network capacity. It may be able to say something about what it Dukkipati & Baker Expires January 28, 2007 [Page 4] Internet-Draft RCP Hop-by-Hop July 2006 would like to send, such as perhaps indicating the bit rate of the relevant interface. On a SYN, therefore, the sender may indicate a requested rate, but the rate response and RTT are unspecified. Similarly, when sending a SYN-ACK, the system may know the response rate if this option was present in the SYN packet, but it does not know the RTT, and so must indicate that the RTT is unspecified. Subsequent datagrams in the exchange have the required information, and so may indicate it. 2.2. Router calculations to be performed 2.2.1. Router calculations to be performed periodically The router is intended to periodically (approximately once per average RTT of sessions passion through it, but more frequently if appropriate) calculate how much bandwidth it can allocate to the average data flow. The way it accomplishes this is defined in [Nandita]. 2.2.2. Router calculations to be performed per packet 2.2.2.1. Router calculations to be performed on each packet packet If the rate being requested in any given packet is unspecified or exceeds the bandwidth being granted to data flows in the specified class, then it should be set to that value. 2.2.2.2. Router calculations to be performed per packet The advertised RTT, specified, should be averaged into the current RTT estimate. 3. Design caveats RCP, in using the option described in Section 2, has several issues that will need to be addressed as it is fleshed out. These relate to o Behavior around tunnels o initial conditions o layer violations Dukkipati & Baker Expires January 28, 2007 [Page 5] Internet-Draft RCP Hop-by-Hop July 2006 3.1. Behavior around tunnels The Internet uses a wide variety of tunneling architectures. These include, but are not limited to: o MPLS [RFC3031] o Generalized MPLS [RFC3945], which is used for lambda switching o L2TP [RFC2661] o IP-in-IP [RFC1853] o GRE Tunnels [RFC2784] o IPSEC ESP in Tunnel Mode [RFC4301][RFC4301]. As discussed in [RFC2983], issues can arise with traffic passing through opaque regions created by tunnels; information is not accumulated in the inside headers, and if it is accumulated in the outside headers it may or may not be copied to the inside headers on decapsulation. 3.2. Initial conditions As discussed in Section 2.1, the initial conditions for a data flow are unknown. For example, until the RTT on a session has been measured, it is invalid for the sender to advise the network of his RTT. There may be other issues with initial conditions. 3.3. Layer violations A special case of an initial condition problem occurs if the transport layer specifies the rate requested in the option. Some transports know that their applications will send at stated rates, such as codecs; this rate can be specified to them by the application. In many elastic traffic cases, the logical rate to request is the bit rate of the interface that the data will flow from. However, on any device that has multiple interfaces (routers in general and many hosts as well), the interface is chosen in the network layer after the transport has chosen an address. In such cases, the transport has no a priori knowledge of the interface rate, as the appropriate interface has not been chosen. 4. IANA Considerations This memo requests the allocation of a hop-by-hop option, as defined Dukkipati & Baker Expires January 28, 2007 [Page 6] Internet-Draft RCP Hop-by-Hop July 2006 in [RFC2460]. The number should be in the range 0..63, as it is an option which if not understood should be ignored and passed along. The RFC Editor should replace this section with a statement reporting the value that has been assigned to the literal RPCHopByHop. 5. Security Considerations 6. Acknowledgements 7. References 7.1. Normative References [Nandita] Dukkipati, N. and N. McKeown, "RCP-AC: Congestion Control to make flows complete quickly in any environment", 2006, <http://yuba.stanford.edu/rcp/RCP_AC-dukkipati.pdf>. [Nandita-1] Dukkipati, N., Kobayashi, M., Zhang-Shen, R., and N. McKeown, "Processor Sharing Flows in the Internet", 2004, <http://yuba.stanford.edu/tr.html>. [Nandita-2] Dukkipati, N. and N. McKeown, "Why Flow-Completion Time is the Right Metric for Congestion Control", 2006, <http:// yuba.stanford.edu/techreports/TR05-HPNG-112102.pdf>. [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. 7.2. Informative References [RFC1853] Simpson, W., "IP in IP Tunneling", RFC 1853, October 1995. [RFC2661] Townsley, W., Valencia, A., Rubens, A., Pall, G., Zorn, G., and B. Palter, "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol "L2TP"", RFC 2661, August 1999. [RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P. Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784, March 2000. [RFC2983] Black, D., "Differentiated Services and Tunnels", RFC 2983, October 2000. Dukkipati & Baker Expires January 28, 2007 [Page 7] Internet-Draft RCP Hop-by-Hop July 2006 [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001. [RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004. [RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005. Appendix A. Additional stuff Authors' Addresses Nandita Dukkipati Stanford University Palo Alto, California USA Phone: Email: nanditad@stanford.edu Fred Baker Cisco Systems Santa Barbara, California 93117 USA Phone: +1-408-526-4257 Email: fred@cisco.com Dukkipati & Baker Expires January 28, 2007 [Page 8] Internet-Draft RCP Hop-by-Hop July 2006 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 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 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA). Dukkipati & Baker Expires January 28, 2007 [Page 9] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: RCP-Hop-by-hop.xml Type: text/xml Size: 17031 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://drakken.dbc.mtview.ca.us/pipermail/xml2rfc/attachments/20060727/543bbdde/RCP-Hop-by-hop-0001.xml >From julian.reschke at gmx.de Sun Jul 30 21:31:46 2006 From: julian.reschke at gmx.de (Julian Reschke) Date: Sun Jul 30 11:32:12 2006 Subject: [xml2rfc] Minor 1.31 nits (DTD) Message-ID: <44CCFB12.20806@gmx.de> Hi, are are two minor issues: 1) rfc2629.rnc isn't up-to-date with the current DTD; it doesn't declare the submissionType attribute (this probably applies to the other files derived from the DTD as well). 2) rfc2629-xhtml.ent declares character entities for the five entities that are hardwired into XML. This causes the XML parser over here to issue warnings every time a document referencing the DTD is parsed. Please get rid of them. Best regards, Julian >From mrose at dbc.mtview.ca.us Mon Jul 31 11:09:12 2006 From: mrose at dbc.mtview.ca.us (Marshall Rose) Date: Mon Jul 31 00:09:23 2006 Subject: [xml2rfc] Minor 1.31 nits (DTD) In-Reply-To: <44CCFB12.20806@gmx.de> References: <44CCFB12.20806@gmx.de> Message-ID: <A0F7001F-FF0B-49F6-B386-B01B9FB50C5C@dbc.mtview.ca.us> > 1) rfc2629.rnc isn't up-to-date with the current DTD; it doesn't > declare the submissionType attribute (this probably applies to the > other files derived from the DTD as well). fixed. > 2) rfc2629-xhtml.ent declares character entities for the five > entities that are hardwired into XML. This causes the XML parser > over here to issue warnings every time a document referencing the > DTD is parsed. Please get rid of them. send me a new file in a .zip or .tgz thanks, /mtr
- [xml2rfc] Question about tables Fred Baker
- [xml2rfc] Question about tables Fred Baker