Network Working Group D. Raft Internet-Draft RAFT Corporation Intended status: Standards Track April 1, 2013 Expires: October 03, 2013 Direct Random Access File Transfer draft-draft-draft-00 Abstract Network file access is often highly inefficient due to complexity of existing protocols. Direct Random Access File Transfer (DRAFT) is one new protocol that uses simple UDP techniques to overcome this problem. 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 http://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 October 03, 2013. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2013 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 (http://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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Raft Expires October 03, 2013 [Page 1] Internet-Draft DRAFT April 2013 Table of Contents 1. Introduction and Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction and Problem Statement Network file access is often very inefficient. This is because available solutions are horribly complicated (e.g. Network File System version 4). A much simpler solution is needed. It is called the Direct Random Access File Transfer (DRAFT). 2. Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 3. Protocol New file is opened by sending one UDP packet containing file name to agreed mutualy port number on an server. Any IANA-defined port number will do, although for best results port 9 SHOULD NOT be used. One file block is written by sending an UDP packet to remote server at its port number corresponding to required file block. Since port numbers up to 65535 are reserved by IANA, DRAFT port number is file block number plus 65536. Contents of UDP payload is written to file block. Server sends back 1 empty UDP packet if success. Any file block is read by sending one empty UDP packet to DRAFT port number as defined above. Then server sends back one UDP packet containing file block. No packet means no block success. Files are closed in the DRAFT when server crashes. If client wants to open an additional file acheives so by picking different a source port. UDP checksums are inefficient so not used in the DRAFT. The Internet is quite reliable enough without them. Raft Expires October 03, 2013 [Page 2] Internet-Draft DRAFT April 2013 Also DRAFT does not make congestion control, because that would reduce performance just to be fair to other users. Obviously that would be silly. 4. Security Considerations Security is inefficient, so DRAFT provides none. Most Internet users are quite honest. 5. IANA Considerations It would be better if IANA would let us use all ports below 65536, but we are not optimistic. IANA is very unhelpful about such requests. 6. Acknowledgements There is no acknowledgements. Nobody would help us. 7. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Author's Address Diana Raft RAFT Corporation 0 Kendall Rectangle Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 USA Email: drafts1962@yahoo.co.uk Raft Expires October 03, 2013 [Page 3]