The following figure shows the kernel components of the Distributed Information System, the road map and how far I am today. The items in black are implemented and operational and the items in gray still needs to be implemented. Progress is going clockwise :).

OID An OID is to DIS what the URL is to the web. It is a unique, binary encoded and non reusable reference to an information published in the distributed information system. It was the first tile I designed and implemented. Its simplicity is inversely proportional to the time and effort required to invent it because I had to explore and compare many different possible and existing solutions.

IDR It is to DIS what HTML or XML is to the web. IDR is the Information Data Representation used in DIS. It is a stream oriented encoding with support of object serialization and exceptions. The prototype implementation is currently being fully rewritten. It still miss the ability to specify the encoding version or a formalization of data description. The later is required to be able to display data in a human readable format or to automatically generate data manipulation functions or containers mapped to different programming languages.

DITP It is to DIS what HTTP is to the web. It is the protocol used to exchange information or invoke remote actions in DIS. It is very simple, modular and extensible through the use of dynamically configurable data processing tasks. Support of compression, authentication or encryption is then provided by some kinds of plugins. The protocol use the object oriented model with remote method invocation. The current prototype does not yet support concurrent asynchronous method invocation.

DIS DIS stands here for Distributed Information Service and is not to be confused with Distributed Information System. It is fundamental to DIS, so a confusion is not really a problem. This service combines the properties of DNS and LDAP and would be a new kind of service on the Internet. I can't disclose more  on it because it is still in development. A first prototype has been implemented unfortunately proving the need to support data description.

SEC This part covers authentication and access control in DIS. It requires a functional DIS service. An interesting feature is that it is designed to scale up so that a service could cope with millions of different users without having to keep track of million accounts and passwords.

IDX It is a service simply mapping human readable UTF8 strings to OID references. It is equivalent to the list of named entries in a directory. Like any other services, its access is controlled by ACL and can thus be modified remotely with appropriate privileges. An index may be huge with multiple alternate entry point, exactly like the DNS but exclusively as a flat name space. The OID associated to the UTF8 string is stored in an object so that polymorphism allow to associate images (icons) and other informations to entries by extension.

DIR It is a graph of IDX services with one root entry. Services or information published in DIS can then be referenced by a humanly readable path in the IDX graph relative to the root.



It is an ambitious project but, I am convinced, its added value is worth the effort. I wish I could work full time on this project with the help of some other developers, but this would require funding I don't have access to for now.

An application would help demonstrating the added value of the system. I'm still looking for one with an optimal balance in development effort and success potential.

DITP is flexible, versatile and simple because it uses the inter-object communication model. Not only for the user needs to communicate with its service, but also to setup and configure the connection data processing (i.e. authentication, encryption, compression, logging, tunneling,...).

Inter-object communication

By adopting the inter-object communication model users can create any type of service (remote object) they want. They can also extend or refine their capabilities by using inheritance with the polymorphism property and preserve backward compatibility at the same time.

This makes DITP versatile and flexible, but any other inter-object communication protocol could claim the same.

Configuring and setting up the connection

What makes DITP different is that the connection configuration and setup are also performed by using the object oriented model. The different algorithms used are controlled by specific services and the client controls them by invoking the appropriate methods.

This makes the protocol very flexible and versatile since the algorithm can be combined and configured in any way. It is easy to add support for new algorithms and there is no constrain on the transaction polka required to configure them.

This design choice basically factorizes and parameterizes the protocol. What is left for DITP to define is how to open a connection, how to exchange messages between client and services and how to setup a new client-service binding.

Opening the DITP connection

Opening a DITP connection implies a very simple transaction where the client and the service side exchange a four byte message. If both message contain the expected value, the connection is considered opened. It can hardly be made simpler.

When the connection is opened the client and service implicitly attach a channel control service to the connection. This service has very few methods. One is used to close the connection and the other to request the attachment of another service whose type and identity are given as argument.

That is all it takes to have an operational DITP server. The exchanged messages have also a very simple structure, but will be described in another note because they have another original feature allowing to minimize latency.

Once the connection is opened, if the client wants to secure the connection by adding authentication or encryption, he request the attachment of the corresponding services and configure them by calling their methods.


This is why I claim that DITP is versatile, flexible and simple.

The DITP protocol has been designed to minimize the time required to setup an operational connection. This is achieved by a simple method which is made explicit in the following figure.

In common protocols, like HTTP and SMTP, the server is expected to send a greeting before the client can respond and proceed by sending its first request.

The time the client has to wait for this greeting message is usually dominated by the round trip time. In a LAN the round trip time is less than a millisecond, but on Internet it will take many tens of milliseconds and sometime hundreds of millisecond if the server is on another continent.

By simply swapping the DITP open transaction orientation, we save one round trip time delay before the client can sent its first transaction request. Another advantage of this method is that the server can use a very narrow timeout window for the arrival of the DITP connection setup request. This protects against some type of DOS attacks.

There are two additional things we can observe from the previous figure.

1.- The HTTP or SMTP protocol could be optimized by allowing the client to send its first data without having to wait for the server greeting.

2.- The round trip time due to TCP could be avoided if we could combine it with the DITP connection set up and the two first requests. There is clearly room for improvement on this layer, but this is out of scope regarding this project.

One fundamental question is the encoding of a time value. A time value has two types of use. One is as time stamp and the other is just as a general time reference.

Requirements

On one hand, a time stamp has the requirement to have a well defined and controlled precision, while the covered time span can be limited (i.e. +/- 200 years).  On the other hand, a general time reference needs to be applicable to a very large time span, with less constrains on the precision limit.

Options

For the time reference value one could use a double precision float representation with seconds as units. All arithmetic operations are provided right out of the box and generally hardwired in the processor. Conversion to calendar time is trivial since one simply has to extract the integer part of the value and convert it to a time_t value. From there one can use the common calendar time conversion and formatting functions.

For time stamps, using integers seems preferable. But we still have a choice between a split encoding like the timeval structure, a 64bit fixed point encoding, or an integer with very small time unit (i.e. nanoseconds).

Discussion

There is not much to discuss about the absolute time. Using a double precision float is an optimal solution. For time stamps however we have three different solutions.

From my experience, I've seen that split time encoding like the timeval structure is not convenient to use when dealing with time arithmetics. It is even error prone if the user has to program the operations himself.

I also tried to implement a fixed point time encoding class with the decimal point between bit 29 and 30. But this is tricky to get right and some operations are not trivial to implement correctly. This is because fractional computation requires normalization and optimal rounding errors handling.

A 64bit  integer using  nanoseconds as time units is apparently the most simple and straightforward time stamp encoding. Converting to seconds is done with a simple 64bit integer division which is also hardwired in most recent processors. Conversion to other time units like microseconds, milliseconds, days or week is as accurate and simple. Multiplication or division with decimal scalar values is also trivial.

Another advantage of the 64bit integer nanosecond values is that there is no need of special functions to do the conversions or operations. A programmer can easily figure out what to do and use conventional arithmetic operations.

With a 64 bit signed integers with nanosecond units, the covered time span is over +/- 292 years range. One can thus afford keep the current time_t January 1970 epoch and push back the wrapping limit far away. 

Conclusion

In DIS, we'll thus use a double precision float for general time reference value and a 64bit integer with nanosecond units for time stamps and delays encoding.

Note: I've seen the use of a double precision float for time encoding in some Windows operating system API. I still have to see the use of a 64bit signed integer with nanosecond units. It would make sense as an upgrade of time_t which is required since we are getting close to the wrapping limit.Update : It has been brought to my attention that Java stores time values in a signed 64bit integer with milliseconds as time units relative to January 1, 1970. The covered time span is thus +/- 290 million years. I'll stay with the nanosecond units for time stamps.

The "Martian headset" is a long but very interesting article on software standards published on the Joel on Software blog.

I've learned that it is not enough to publish a standard specification document. At least one reference implementation is required. Java did this with its compiler and managed by that to ensure interoperability. It could even resist attempts to break the standard.

Lesson learned !

Minimizing latency was one of the main aspects driving the design of the DITP protocol. You may check wikipedia for a definition of latency in the networking context.

While network speed has still allot of room to increase, network latency doesn't. Today 80GB/s backbone fiber links are getting common, and we know that there is no limit to reach Tera Byte/s speed or even above. We can easily achieve this by frequency multiplexing or adding more parallel fibers. So we have plenty of room to extend the number of Bytes/s we can send. We can expect a network speed gain of a factor of 100 or maybe even 1000 in the next 25 years.

On the other hand we have a hard and very close limit in transmission latency. This is all the fault of the speed of light limit (~300.000 Km/s). See the numbers. The distance between Paris (France) and New York (USA) is ~ 6000 Km. So it takes 20ms for a single bit to reach the other end and there is no way to lower this time unless we find some "worm hole" in our knowledge of physics.

We are still far from this lower bound limit, but only by a factor 10 or less. Thus a protocol designed for WAN (World Area Network) application should really care about latency.

Here is how I learned the lesson. I designed a protocol to transmit 2MB blocks between computers. The protocol was trivial and worked very well in LAN (Local Area Network) applications. We then had the opportunity to test it on a leased 6GB/s long distance connection between CERN (Geneva in Switzerland) and the university of Alberta (Canada). The surprise was that the bandwidth usage never exceeded 2%. We found out that it was caused by the network latency which was ~500ms. In this context, the  handshake time dominated the transmit time, something we didn't see in a LAN. So our protocol had to be redesigned ! Since that day I understood how important and critical network latency can be.

The first lesson we may learn from this analysis is that when designing a modern protocol for potential WAN usage, minimizing network latency is much more important than encoding concision.

The second important lesson is that inter-object communication will be impaired by the network latency of long distance connections. In such context I thus expect that the agent model will be more efficient. In this model, it is a piece code, a program or even a virtual robot that is sent to the remote host. And this is exactly what is already happening today with JavaScript code in web pages. I assume this tendency will develop and extend in the next 10 years. 

DITP is ready for this since it can be used as the transport layer of such agent transmission. All we need is a special remote service object acting as an agent host. This is on top of the DITP communication layer so that many different types of agents can coexist. The technology can thus also evolve and preserve backward compatibility. There are other reasons why DIPT has a good potential for such usage model, but it is still a bit early to expose them.

Network latency is an often disregarded parameter, but things might change in a near future when we'll get closer to the hard limit !

Progress on the design and the prototype implementation is going on. I now have a working prototype for the inter-object communication system. This helps me testing and refining the design. I also regularly review and update the specification documents.

On DITP, the current points of focus is to find a good way to manage the PDU (Protocol Data Units) processing like compression, authentication or enciphering. The user must be able to select and set them up in a snap while keeping it as versatile and flexible as possible.

On IDR, the current point of focus is a refinement of signed information encoding. A straightforward implementation is to simply append to signature to the signed information. But this annihilates all the benefits of the stream oriented encoding. Beside, invalid signature or data must be detected as early as possible. A solution has been identified, but fitting it nicely with the current encoding requires some more investigation.

A design process is a difficult task because we have zillion of decisions to make. The more complex the design, the more decisions there is to make, and likely we can make a mistake somewhere. The two heuristics I use to minimize this risk is first to keep the design as simple as possible and second to minimize the constrains on usage. The former is popular, the later much less.

DIS is based on the object model. DITP, the communication protocol used by DIS, is thus an inter-object communication protocol: it makes it possible to invoke methods of an object hosted in another process.

Client and service

The most simple API to do so, is to have a dummy object on the client side with exactly the same interface as the remote object. The methods of the dummy object, we'll call client, forward the call to the remote object we'll call service. Forwarding a method call means packing arguments into a message, send it to the service that process the call and sent back a message containing the result. From the user point of view there is no difference with calling a method of a local object.

In DITP the client object has an exclusive relationship with the remote service object it is connected to. The service is thus in fact an agent acting on behalf of the client. It is however still under control of the hosting process who can modulate its behavior according to client credentials or specific context. This design has also the benefit to associate a state to the service that may be transient or persistent (restored in a new connection).

Shared services are services that may be accessed by multiple clients simultaneously, Such services are implemented by a dedicated object supporting concurrent method invocations from the different services (agents).

Sequential and concurrent method invocation

Sequential method invocation is the most simple to implement and is also expected to be most frequent use case. The service process incoming method invocation requests one by one in the order of arrival, processing the next one only when the result of the previous one has been sent back. Adding a timeout control system will ensure that the system will never block.

Concurrent method invocation requires that each method invocation is processed by a dedicated thread. The service has to be thread safe and a congestion avoidance system is required in addition to the timeout control. It is thus more complex to design and implement.

DITP is designed so that simple communication models are simple to implement and use, and that more complex communication models can be implemented by composition.

Thus a client-service connection, called a channel, will only support sequential method invocation. Since DITP supports channel multiplexing and in both directions, supporting concurrent method invocation is implemented by encapsulating a pool of parallel client-service connections inside of the client and the service. Callbacks may then be implemented by multiplexing reverse client-service connections. .

A modern communication protocol must be secure. And to do it right, security must have been integrated in the design from the very start. Here is a short list of security requirements for DITP:

   - authenticate peers
   - support exchanged data authentication and encryption
   - provide access control on accessible services, objects and methods
   - support single and multi-signed information of any kind
   - signed information supporting polymorphism and aggregates
   - allow anyone to verify any signature with minimal knowledge

Multi-signed information is when more than one people sign a given information, (i.e. a contract).

With a stream oriented encoding this all imply that we are able to apply a hash function (i.e. SHA) on transmitted data while it is encoded or decoded.

This is what I am currently implementing. Unfortunately, a server crash, monopolized all my time this week. Murphy's law revenge...