RFC 9064: Considerations in the Development of a QoS Architecture for CCNx-Like Information-Centric Networking Protocols
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This is a position paper. It documents the author's personal views on how Quality of Service (QoS) capabilities ought to be accommodated in Information-Centric Networking (ICN) protocols like Content-Centric Networking (CCNx) or Named Data Networking (NDN), which employ flow-balanced Interest/Data exchanges and hop-by-hop forwarding state as their fundamental machinery. It argues that such protocols demand a substantially different approach to QoS from that taken in TCP/IP and proposes specific design patterns to achieve both classification and differentiated QoS treatment on both a flow and aggregate basis. It also considers the effect of caches in addition to memory, CPU, and link bandwidth as resources that should be subject to explicitly unfair resource allocation. The proposed methods are intended to operate purely at the network layer, providing the primitives needed to achieve transport- and higher-layer QoS objectives. It explicitly excludes any discussion of Quality of Experience (QoE), which can only be assessed and controlled at the application layer or above. This document is not a product of the IRTF Information-Centric Networking Research Group (ICNRG) but has been through formal Last Call and has the support of the participants in the research group for publication as an individual submission.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC9064
- Published
- June 2021
- Authors
- D. Oran
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IRTF
- Area
- —
- Pages
- 23
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 5559Pre-Congestion Notification (PCN) ArchitectureCurrent
June 2009
- RFC 9330Low Latency, Low Loss, and Scalable Throughput (L4S) Internet Service: ArchitectureCurrent
January 2023
- RFC 9331The Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) Protocol for Low Latency, Low Loss, and Scalable Throughput (L4S)Current
January 2023
- RFC 9332Dual-Queue Coupled Active Queue Management (AQM) for Low Latency, Low Loss, and Scalable Throughput (L4S)Current
January 2023
- RFC 8084Network Transport Circuit BreakersCurrent
March 2017
- RFC 7837IPv6 Destination Option for Congestion Exposure (ConEx)Current
May 2016
- RFC 7713Congestion Exposure (ConEx) Concepts, Abstract Mechanism, and RequirementsCurrent
December 2015
- RFC 7141Byte and Packet Congestion NotificationCurrent
February 2014
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?