Dirk Kutscher

The ICNRG Meeting at IETF-121 takes place on 2024-11-05, 13:00 to 14:30 UTC.

• Agenda and Presentations
• MeetEcho
• Notes
• IETF-121 Agenda

ICNRG Agenda

Please remember that all sessions are being recorded.

Material

1. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-icnrg-flic/
2. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mosko-icnrg-ccnxchunking/
3. https://github.com/mmosko/ccnpy
4. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-icnrg-reflexive-forwarding/
5. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hong-icn-metaverse-interoperability/
6. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-icnrg-damc/

We updated our Internet Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-reflexive-forwarding-00 on Reflexive Forwarding for CCNx and NDN Protocols.

Current Information-Centric Networking protocols such as CCNx and NDN have a wide range of useful applications in content retrieval and other scenarios that depend only on a robust two-way exchange in the form of a request and response (represented by an Interest-Data exchange in the case of the two protocols noted above). A number of important applications however, require placing large amounts of data in the Interest message, and/or more than one two-way handshake. While these can be accomplished using independent Interest-Data exchanges by reversing the roles of consumer and producer, such approaches can be both clumsy for applications and problematic from a state management, congestion control, or security standpoint. This specification proposes a Reflexive Forwarding extension to the CCNx and NDN protocol architectures that eliminates the problems inherent in using independent Interest-Data exchanges for such applications. It updates RFC8569 and RFC8609.

The recent update includes a generalization of the main protocol specification, so that Reflexive Forwarding can be used in both CCNx and NDN.

On October 10th, 2024, I was invited to give a talk at the 2nd Airbus Workshop on Networking Systems. The workshop largely discussed connected aircraft scenarios and technologies and features talks on security and reliability, IoT sensor fusioning, and future space and 6G network architectures.

My talk was on Connected Aircraft – Network Architectures and Technologies, and discussed relevant scenarios from my perspective, such as passenger services and new aircraft management applications. For the technology discussion, I focused on large-scale low-latency multimedia communication over the expected heterogeneous and dynamic aircraft connectivity networks and discussed current and emerging technologies such as Media over QUIC, ICN.

I also introduced the recently established Low-Altitude Systems and Economy Research Institute at HKUST(GZ), a cross-disciplinary research institute for the low-altitude domain (with similar but not identical requirements) and some of our recent projects such as Named Data Microverse.

The term ‘Metaverse’ often denotes a wide range of existing and fictional applications. Nevertheless, there are actual systems today that can be studied and analyzed. However, whereas a considerable body of work has been published on applications and application ideas, there is less work on the technical implementation of such systems, especially from a networked systems perspective.

In a recently published open access journal article, we share some insights into the technical design of Metaverse systems, their key technologies, and their shortcomings, predominantly from a networked systems perspective. For the scope of this study, we define the ‘Metaverse’ as follows. The ‘Metaverse’ encompasses various current and emerging technologies, and the term is used to describe different applications, ranging from Augmented Reality (AR), Virtual Reality (VR),and Extended Reality (XR) to a new form of the Internet or Web. A key feature distinguishing the Metaverse from simple AR/VR is its inherently collaborative and shared nature, enabling interaction and collaboration among users in a virtual environment.

Building on Existing Platforms and Network Stacks

Most current Metaverse systems and designs are built on existing technologies and networks. For example, massively multiplayer online games such as Fortnite use a generalized client-server model. In this model, the server authoritatively manages the game state, while the client maintains a local subset of this state and can predict game flow by executing the same game code as the server on approximately the same data. Servers send information about the game world to clients by replicating relevant actors and their properties. Commercial social VR platforms such as Horizon Worlds and AltspaceVR use HTTPS to report client-side information and synchronize in-game clocks across users.

Mozilla Hubs, built with A-Frame (a web framework for building virtual reality experiences), uses WebRTC communication with a Selective Forwarding Unit (SFU). The SFU receives multiple audio and video data streams from its peers, then determines and forwards relevant data streams to connected peers. Blockchain or Non-Fungible Token (NFT)-based online games, such as Decentraland, run exclusively on the client side but allow for various data flow models, ranging from local effects and traditional client-server architectures to peer-to-peer (P2P) interactions based on state channels; Upland is built on EOSIO, an open-source blockchain protocol for scalable decentralized applications, and transports data through HTTPS. Connections between peers in Upland are established using TLS or VPN tunnels.

Many studies have focused on improving various aspects of Metaverse systems. For example, EdgeXAR is a mobile AR framework using edge offloading to enable lightweight tracking with six degrees of freedom (DOF) while reducing offloading delay from the user’s view; SORAS is an optimal resource allocation scheme for edgeenabled Metaverse, using stochastic integer programming to minimize the total network cost; Ibrahim et al. explores the issue of partial computation offloading for multiple subtasks in an in-network computing environment, aiming to minimize energy consumption and delay. However, these ideas for offloading computation and rendering tasks to edge platforms often conflict with the existing end-to-end transport protocols and overlay deployment models. Recently, a Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL)-based multipath network orchestration framework designed for remote healthcare services is presented, automating subflow management to handle multipath networks. However, proposals for scalable multi-party communication would require interdomain multicast services, unavailable on today’s Internet.

Disconnect Between High-Level Concepts and Actual Systems

In practice, there is a significant disconnect between high-level Metaverse concepts, ideas for technical improvements, and systems that are actually developed and partially deployed. A 2022 ACM IMC paper titled Are we ready for metaverse?: a measurement study of social virtual reality platforms analyzes the performance of various social VR systems, pinpointing numerous issues related to performance, communication overhead, and scalability. These issues are primarily due to the fact that current systems leverage existing platforms, protocols, and system architectures, which cannot tap into any of the proposed architectural and technical enhancements, such as scalable multi-party communication, offloading computation, rendering tasks, etc.

Rather than merely layering ‘the Metaverse’ on top of legacy and not always ideal foundations, we consider Metaverse as a driver for future network and web applications and actively develop new designs to that end. In our article, we take a comprehensive systems approach and technically describe current Metaverse systems, focusing on their networking aspects. We document the requirements and challenges of Metaverse systems and propose a principled approach to system design for these requirements and challenges based on a thorough understanding of the needs of Metaverse systems, the current constraints and limitations, and the potential solutions of Internet technologies.

Article Overview

1. We present a technical description of the ‘Metaverse’ based on existing and emerging systems, including a discussion of its fundamental properties, applications, and architectural models.
2. We comprehensively study relevant enabling technologies for Metaverse systems, including HCI/XR technologies, networking, communications, media encoding, simulation, real-time rendering and AI. We also discuss current Metaverse system architectures and the integration of these technologies into actual applications.
3. We conduct a detailed requirements analysis for constructing Metaverse systems. We analyze applications specific requirements and identify existing gaps in four key aspects: communication performance, mobility, large-scale operation,and end system architecture. For each area, we propose candidate technologies to address these gaps.
4. We propose a research agenda for future Metaverse systems, based on our gap analysis and candidate technologies discussion. We re-assess the fundamental goals and requirements, without necessarily being constrained by existing system architectures and protocols. Based on a comprehensive understanding of what Metaverse systems need and what end-systems, devices, networks and communication services can theoretically provide, we propose specific design ideas and future research directions to realize Metaverse systems that can meet the expectations often articulated in the literature.

References

• Y. Zhang, D. Kutscher and Y. Cui; Networked Metaverse Systems: Foundations, Gaps, Research Directions; in IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, doi: 10.1109/OJCOMS.2024.3426098.
• Tianyuan Yu, Xinyu Ma, Varun Patil, Yekta Kocaogullar, Yulong Zhang, Jeff Burke, Dirk Kutscher, Lixia Zhang; Secure Web Objects: Building Blocks for Metaverse Interoperability and Decentralization; IEEE MetaCom 2024; August 12-14 2024; Hong Kong, China
• Dirk Kutscher, Jeff Burke, Giuseppe Fioccola, Paulo Mendes;
  Statement: The Metaverse as an Information-Centric Network; 10th ACM Conference on Information-Centric Networking (ACM ICN '23); October 9 — 10, 2023, Reykjavik, Iceland
• Giuseppe Fioccola , Paulo Mendes , Jeff Burke , Dirk Kutscher;
  Information-Centric Metaverse; Internet Draft draft-fmbk-icnrg-metaverse-01; Work in Progress; July 2023

In our upcoming paper at IEEE Metacom-2024, we propose a data-oriented approach for future Web and Metaverse system designs.

Abstract

This position paper explores how to support the Web's evolution through an underlying data-centric approach that better matches the data-orientedness of modern and emerging applications. We revisit the original vision of the Web as a hypermedia system that supports document composability and application interoperability via name-based data access. We propose the use of secure web objects (SWO), a data-oriented communication approach that can reduce complexity, centrality, and inefficiency, particularly for collaborative and local-first applications, such as the Metaverse and other collaborative applications. SWO are named, signed, application-defined objects that are secured independently of their containers or communications channels, an approach that leverages the results from over a decade-long data-centric networking research. This approach does not require intermediation by aggregators of identity, storage, and other services that are common today. We present a brief design overview, illustrated through prototypes for two editors of shared hypermedia documents: one for 3D and one for LaTeX. We also discuss our findings and suggest a roadmap for future research.

References

• Tianyuan Yu, Xinyu Ma, Varun Patil, Yekta Kocaogullar, Yulong Zhang, Jeff Burke, Dirk Kutscher, Lixia Zhang; Secure Web Objects: Building Blocks for Metaverse Interoperability and Decentralization; IEEE MetaCom 2024, pre-print: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.15221

• Dirk Kutscher; Data-oriented, Decentralized, Daring: Opportunities and Research Challenges for an Information-Centric Web; Lightning Talk at NDNComm 2024; March 2024

• Navin V. Keizer, Onur Ascigil, Michał Król, Dirk Kutscher, and George Pavlou; A Survey on Content Retrieval on the Decentralised Web; ACM Computing Surveys; March 2024; https://doi.org/10.1145/3649132

• Dirk Kutscher, Jeff Burke, Giuseppe Fioccola, Paulo Mendes;
  Statement: The Metaverse as an Information-Centric Network; 10th ACM Conference on Information-Centric Networking (ACM ICN '23); October 9 — 10, 2023, Reykjavik, Iceland; https://doi.org/10.1145/3623565.3623761

The Information-Centric Networking Research Group (ICNRG) of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) met at IETF-119 in Brisbane. Here is my quick summary of the meeting:

Agenda:

Meeting material:

• All presentation material
• Meeting minutes
• Meeting video

ICNRG Status

ICNRG recently published four news RFCs – great achievement by all involved authors and the whole group!

• RFC 9510: Alternative Delta Time Encoding for Content-Centric Networking (CCNx) Using Compact Floating-Point Arithmetic
• RFC 9531: Path Steering in Content-Centric Networking (CCNx) and Named Data Networking (NDN)
• RFC 9508: Information-Centric Networking (ICN) Ping Protocol Specification
• RFC 9507: Information-Centric Networking (ICN) Traceroute Protocol Specification

See my blog posting for a more detailed description.

Secure Web Objects and Transactions

One focus of this meeting was transactions in ICN, i.e., interactions with the intention to achieve some durable state change at a remote peer – which imposes some challenges in a system that is designed around accessing named data.

In my presentation I talked about different ways to realize transactions in ICN:

1. ICN as a network layer
   • Client-server communication between two nodes
   • Implement transaction semantics on top of an ICN messaging service
2. Recording state changes in shared data structures
   • Shared namespace, potentially functioning as a transaction ledger
   • Still need to think about atomicity etc

For 1) transactions as messaging over ICN networks, the following considerations apply:

• Client-server communication between two nodes
• Implement transaction semantics on top of an ICN messaging service
• Different approaches
  • A: Traditional layering: Using NDN-like systems as a messaging layer
  • Assign prefixes to client & servers
  • Send messages back and forth, and implement reliability and transactions semantics on top
  • B: ICN-native communication: Use Interest-Data as request-response abstraction for transactions
  • Mapping transaction communication and state evolution more directly to ICN, e.g., Interest-Data in NDN
  • Collapsing traditional network, transport, application layer functions

I mainly talked about variant 1B, ICN-native communication: Use InterestData as request-response abstraction for transactions and introduced the idea of "Secure Web Objects" (SWOs) for a data-oriened web as a motivation.

In such a system, not everything would be about accessing named data object – there is also a need for "client/server" state evolution, e.g., for online banking and similar use cases.

I introduced some ideas on RESTful ICN that we published in an earlier paper. The Restful ICN proposal leverages Reflexive Forwarding, for robust client-server communication and integrates elements of CCNx key exchange for security context setup and session resumption.

Summarizing, I wanted to initiate a discussion about how to realize transactions in information-centric systems? This discussion is not about mapping ICN to existing protocols, such as HTTP, but about actual distributed computing semantics, i.e., robust session setup and state evolution. Transactions with ICN-native communication are hard to provide with with basic Interest/Data. Reflexive Forwarding + CCNx Key Exchange + transaction semantics are an attempt to provide such a service in a mostly ICN-idiomatic way, with the downside that reflexive forwarding needs extensions to forwarders. This raises question on the minimal feature set of core ICN protocols, and to deal with extensions.

In the discussion, it was pointed out that lots of experience on distributed systems has shown that transactions or secure multi-interactions will generally require more than a single two-way exchange.

Others suggested that ICN and NDN has authentication carried out when the signed interest arrives which directly proves authentication, so that the authentication would in fact be done beforehand.

However, authentication may not be enough. For example, client authorization in client-server communication is a critical function which needs to be carefully designed in real-world networks. For example, forcing a server to do signature verification on initial request arrival has been shown in prior systems (e.g. TCP+TLS) to represent a serious computational DOS attack risk. Reflexive Forwarding in RICE tries to avoid exactly that problem, by enabling the server to iteratively authenticate and authorize clients before committing computing resources.

It was also said that whenever a protocol does authentication. you need to analyze in the context of specific examples to discuss, and that cannot only look at the problem at an abstract level.

Transaction Manifests

Marc Mosko presented another approach to transactions in ICN, called [Transaction Manifests](https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/119/materials/slides-119-icnrg-transaction-manifests-00 "Transaction Manifests "Transaction Manifests"). He explained that ICN can be transactional.

Typically, ICN is considered as a publish/subscribe or pre-publishing of named-data approach. Outside ICN, distributed transactions do exist, especially in DLTs. For example, considering a permissioned DLT with size N and K << N bookkeepers. In a DLT, they base their decision on the block hash history. In this talk, Marc discussed what would be an equivalent function in ICN, and introduced the notion of transaction manifests.

In ICN, there is a technology called FLIC (File-like collections), i.e., manifests for static objects. FLIC describes a single object that is re-constructed by traversing the manifest in order. In Marc's proposal, a transaction manifest describes a set of names that must be considered together. The transaction manifest names likely point to FLIC root manifests.

In the example above, transaction manifest entries entries point directly to objects. For a complete systems, you would also need a set of bookkeepers, e.g., systems like Hyperledger offering global ordering vis bespoke orderer nodes. Such bookkeeper would have to ensure that a transaction has current pre-conditions, current post-conditions, and no conflicts in post-conditions. Transaction manifests are a form of write-ahead logs (WAL), as used in databases, such as PostgreSQL.

Marc went on discussing a few challenges, such as interactions with repositories and caches, as well as distributed transaction manifests.

There was some discussion on the required ordering properties for this approach, i.e., whether, in a multi-bookkeeper system, livelocks and deadlocks could occur – and whether these could resolved without requiring a total order.

Marc is continueing to work on this. One of the next steps would be to design client-to-bookkepper and bookkeeper-to-bookkeeper protocols.

Vanadium: Secure, Distributed Applications

Marc Mosko introduced the Vanadium system, a secure, distributed RPC system based on distributed naming and discovery. Vanadium uses symmetrical authentication and encryption and may use private name discovery with Identity-Based-Encryption (IBE).

Vanadium has two parts:

1. Principals and Blessings and Caveats (Security)
   • Use a hierarchical name, e.g. alice:home:tv.
   • Certificate based
   • Blessings are scoped delegations from one principal to another for a namespace (e.g. alice grants Bob “watch” permissions to the TV)
   • Caveats are restrictions on delegations (e.g. Bob can only watch 6pm – 9pm).
   • 3rd party caveats must be discharged before authorization
   • E.g. revocations or auditing
2. The RPC mount tables (Object Naming)
   • These describe how to locate RPC namespaces
   • They provide relative naming

Vanadium is interesting because parts of its design resemble some ICN concepts, especially the security part:

• It uses prefix matching and encryption
• Namespaces work like groups
• The colon : separates the blesser from the blessed
• Authorizations match extensions.
  • If Alice authorized “read” to alice:hometv to alice:houseguests, and if Bob has a blessing for alice:houseguests:bob, then Bob has “read” to alice:hometv.
• A special terminator :$ only matches the exact prefix.
  • A blessing to alice:houseguest:$ only matches that exact prefix.

Marc then explain the object naming structure and the entity resolution in Vanadium.

More details can be found in Marc's presentation and on Vanadium's web page.

In summary, Vanadium is a permissioned RPC service. A Vanadium name encodes the endpoint plus name suffix. The endpoint does not need to resolve to a single mount table server, it could be any server that possesses an appropriate blessing. Authentication is done via pair-wise key exchange and blessing validations. It can be private if using IBE, otherwise server name leaks. Authorizations and Blessings and Caveats use hierarchical, prefixmatching names.

From an ICN perspective, the security approach seems interesting. Blessings and Caveats and discharges and namespaces as groups. One question is how this differs from SDSI co-signings. The Vanadium identity service provides an interesting mapping of OAuth2 app:email tokens to PKI and blessings. The RPC approach exhibits some differences to ICN, e.g., embedding the endpoint identifier in the name. ICN technologies in this context are public-key scoped names in CCNx and schematized trust anchors in NDN.

In the discusion, it was noted that it would be interesting to do an apples-to-apples comparison to the NDN trust schema approach; Vanadium's approach with the ability to create blessings and caveats on demand seems to be much more granular and dynamic.

Global vs. Scoped Namespaces

Marc Mosko discussed global vs. scoped namespaces. For example, how do you know that the key you are looking at is the key that you should be looking at? IPFS punts that to out-of-band mechanisms. CCNX on the other hand uses public key scoped names; you can put a public key, publisher ID in an interest and say you only wanyt this name if signed with the associated key.

It was suggested to re-visit some of the concepts in the RPC system of OSF distributed computing, where all namespaces were scoped, and name discovery starts out as local. You could then "attach" a local namespace to more global namespace via an explicit "graft" operation. The key here was that the authoritative pointers representing the namespace graph were from child to parent, as opposed to parent to child as it is with systems like DNS. Your local trust root identifier could become a name in a higher layer space, yielding a trust root higher in the hierarchy tha could be used instead of or in addition to your local trust root. Doing this can create progressively more global name spaces out of local ones.

Please check out the meeting video for the complete discussion at the meeting.

In the Information-Centric Networking Research Group (ICNRG) of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) we have recently published a set of new RFCs:

RFC 9510: Alternative Delta Time Encoding for Content-Centric Networking (CCNx) Using Compact Floating-Point Arithmetic

Content-Centric Networking (CCNx) utilizes delta time for a number of functions. When using CCNx in environments with constrained nodes or bandwidth-constrained networks, it is valuable to have a compressed representation of delta time. In order to do so, either accuracy or dynamic range has to be sacrificed. Since the current uses of delta time do not require both simultaneously, one can consider a logarithmic encoding. This document updates RFC 8609 ( to specify this alternative encoding.

RFC 9531: Path Steering in Content-Centric Networking (CCNx) and Named Data Networking (NDN)

Path steering is a mechanism to discover paths to the producers of Information-Centric Networking (ICN) Content Objects and steer subsequent Interest messages along a previously discovered path. It has various uses, including the operation of state-of-the-art multi-path congestion control algorithms and for network measurement and management. This specification derives directly from the design published in https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3125719.3125721 (4th ACM Conference on Information-Centric Networking) and, therefore, does not recapitulate the design motivations, implementation details, or evaluation of the scheme. However, some technical details are different, and where there are differences, the design documented here is to be considered definitive.

RFC 9508: Information-Centric Networking (ICN) Ping Protocol Specification

This document presents the design of an Information-Centric Networking (ICN) Ping protocol. It includes the operations of both the client and the forwarder.

Ascertaining data plane reachability to a destination and taking coarse performance measurements of Round-Trip Time (RTT) are fundamental facilities for network administration and troubleshooting. In IP, where routing and forwarding are based on IP addresses, ICMP Echo Request and ICMP Echo Reply packets are the protocol mechanisms used for this purpose, generally exercised through the familiar ping utility. In Information-Centric Networking (ICN), where routing and forwarding are based on name prefixes, the ability to ascertain the reachability of names is required.

In order to carry out meaningful experimentation and deployment of ICN protocols, new tools analogous to ping and traceroute used for TCP/IP are needed to manage and debug the operation of ICN architectures and protocols. This document describes the design of a management and debugging protocol analogous to the ping protocol of TCP/IP; this new management and debugging protocol will aid the experimental deployment of ICN protocols. As the community continues its experimentation with ICN architectures and protocols, the design of ICN Ping might change accordingly. ICN Ping is designed as a "first line of defense" tool to troubleshoot ICN architectures and protocols. As such, this document is classified as an Experimental RFC. Note that a measurement application is needed to make proper use of ICN Ping in order to compute various statistics, such as average, maximum, and minimum Round-Trip Time (RTT) values, variance in RTTs, and loss rates.

RFC 9507: Information-Centric Networking (ICN) Traceroute Protocol Specification

This document presents the design of an Information-Centric Networking (ICN) Traceroute protocol. This includes the operation of both the client and the forwarder.

In TCP/IP, routing and forwarding are based on IP addresses. To ascertain the route to an IP address and to measure the transit delays, the traceroute utility is commonly used. In Information-Centric Networking (ICN), routing and forwarding are based on name prefixes. To this end, the ability to ascertain the characteristics of at least one of the available routes to a name prefix is a fundamental requirement for instrumentation and network management. These characteristics include, among others, route properties such as which forwarders were transited and the delay incurred through forwarding.

In order to carry out meaningful experimentation and deployment of ICN protocols, new tools analogous to ping and traceroute used for TCP/IP are needed to manage and debug the operation of ICN architectures and protocols. This document describes the design of a management and debugging protocol analogous to the traceroute protocol of TCP/IP; this new management and debugging protocol will aid the experimental deployment of ICN protocols. As the community continues its experimentation with ICN architectures and protocols, the design of ICN Traceroute might change accordingly. ICN Traceroute is designed as a tool to troubleshoot ICN architectures and protocols.

Research and development in ICN has led to different communication patterns such as Sync and API implementations such as CNL. It is now time to think about how to leverage Information-Centric principles for providing better foundations for hypermedia applications in the future web. At NDNComm-2024 I talked about how ICN could possibly help, what could be fruitful future research directions, and why web3 and dweb are not the answer.

Material

Presentation

The emerging term In-Network Computin (INC) [inc] in particular refers applying on-path programmable networking devices (e.g., switches and routers between clients and servers) as an accelerator or function offloader to boost throughput, reduce server load, or improve latency, typically in a well-controlled data center network environment.

Some INC implementations evolved from programmable data plane systems and align with the trend of network programmability at large. In recent year, it has been shown to support many promising applications (e.g., caching, aggregation, and agreement). For example, in distributed machine learning (DML), training nodes produce data (gradients) that needs to be aggregated or reduced -- and the result could be distributed to one or multiple consumers. As another example, the NetClone system [netclone] uses in-network forwarder to replicate RPC invocation messages and to perform more informed forwarding based on observed latencies for accelerating RPC communication.

While it is possible to achieve this kind of operation purely with end-to-end communication between worker nodes, performance can be dramatically improved by offloading both the operation processing and the data dissemination to nodes in the network. These in-network processors are often conceived as semi-transparent performance enhancing on-path elements, i.e., they are not the actual endpoints in transport protocol sessions and would intercept packets with application data and potentially generate new data that they would have to transmit.

In our Internet Draft draft-song-inc-transport-protocol-req-01.txt, we are discussing this problem and are formulating some requirements for the design of future transport protocols in this space.

References

• Collective Communication: Better Network Abstractions for AI
• Computing in the Network – Lessons Learned and New Opportunities
• [I-D.yao-tsvwg-cco-problem-statement-and-usecases] Yao, K., Shiping, X., Li, Y., Huang, H., and D. KUTSCHER, "Collective Communication Optimization: Problem Statement and Use cases", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-yao-tsvwg-cco-problem-statement-and-usecases-00, 23 October 2023, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-yao-tsvwg-cco-problem-statement-and-usecases-00.
• [inc] Klenk et al., B., "An In-Network Architecture for Accelerating Shared-Memory Multiprocessor Collectives", ACM/IEEE 47th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA), 2020, <https:dx.doi.org/10.1109/ISCA45697.2020.00085>
• [netclone] Kim, G., "NetClone: Fast, Scalable, and Dynamic Request Cloning for Microsecond-Scale RPCs", In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2023 Conference (ACM SIGCOMM '23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 195-207, 2023 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3603269.3604820

We published a paper on automated remote bootstrapping in Named Data Networking (NDN):

Tianyuan Yu, Xinyu Ma, Hongcheng Xie, Dirk Kutscher, Lixia Zhang; Cornerstone: Automating Remote NDN Entity Bootstrapping; Asian Internet Engineering Conference (AINTEC) 2023; December 2023; doi/10.1145/3630590.3630598

Abstract

To secure all communications, Named Data Networking (NDN) requires that each entity joining an NDN network go through a bootstrapping process first, to obtain its initial security credentials. Several solutions have been developed to bootstrap IoT devices in localized environments, where the devices being bootstrapped are within the physical reach of their bootstrapper. However, distributed applications need to bootstrap remote users and devices into an NDN-based system over insecure Internet connectivity. In this work, we take Hydra, a federated distributed file storage system made of servers contributed by multiple participating organizations, as a use case to drive the design and development of a remote bootstrapping solution, dubbed Cornerstone. We describe the design of Cornerstone, evaluate its effectiveness, and discuss the lessons learned from this process.