<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> encoding="UTF-8"?>

<!-- pre-edited by ST 03/14/24 -->

<!DOCTYPE rfc [
<!ENTITY nbsp "&#160;">
<!ENTITY zwsp "&#8203;">
<!ENTITY nbhy "&#8209;">
<!ENTITY wj "&#8288;">
]>

<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" category="info" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-detnet-ip-oam-13" number="9634" consensus="true" obsoletes="" updates="" submissionType="IETF" xml:lang="en" tocInclude="true" tocDepth="3" symRefs="true" sortRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.6.0 -->
  <?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>

<front>
    <title abbrev="OAM for DetNet over IP">Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic Networks Networking (DetNet) with the IP Data Plane</title>

<!-- [rfced] We have updated the document title along the lines of
RFC 9546 and other cited RFCs, which define "DetNet" as
"Deterministic Networking".  Please let us know any concerns.

Original:
 Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic
                Networks (DetNet) with IP Data Plane

Currently:
 Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic
              Networking (DetNet) with the IP Data Plane -->

    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-detnet-ip-oam-13"/> name="RFC" value="9634"/>
    <author initials="G." surname="Mirsky" fullname="Greg Mirsky">
      <organization>Ericsson</organization>
      <address>
        <email>gregimirsky@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author fullname="Mach(Guoyi) Chen" initials="M." surname="Chen">
      <organization>Huawei</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>
          <city/>
          <code/>
          <country/>
        </postal>
        <email>mach.chen@huawei.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="D" initials="D." surname="Black" fullname="David Black">
      <organization>Dell EMC</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>176 South Street</street>
          <city>Hopkinton, MA</city>
          <city>Hopkinton</city><region>MA</region>
          <code>01748</code>
          <country>United States of America</country>
        </postal>
        <email>david.black@dell.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date month="August" year="2024"/>

    <area>Routing</area>
    <workgroup>DetNet  Working Group</workgroup>
    <keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>

    <area>RTG</area>
    <workgroup>detnet</workgroup>
    <keyword>DetNet</keyword>
    <keyword>OAM</keyword>
    <abstract>
      <t>
	   This document discusses the use of existing IP Operations,
   Administration, and Maintenance protocols and mechanisms in
   Deterministic Networking networks that use the IP data plane.
      </t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <section anchor="intro" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>
   <xref target="RFC8655" format="default"/> introduces and explains the Deterministic Networks Networking (DetNet)
   architecture.
      </t>
      <t>
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) protocols are used
   to detect and localize defects in the network as well as to monitor network
   performance.  Some OAM functions (e.g., failure detection), detection) work in
   the network proactively, while others (e.g., defect localization) are
   usually performed on-demand. on demand.  These tasks are achieved by a combination
   of active and hybrid OAM methods, as defined in <xref target="RFC7799"/>.
      </t>
      <t>
   <xref target="I-D.ietf-detnet-oam-framework" target="RFC9551" format="default"/> lists the OAM functional requirements
   for DetNet, DetNet and defines the principles for OAM use within DetNet
   networks utilizing the IP data plane. The functional requirements
   can be compared against current OAM tools to identify gaps and
   potential enhancements required to enable proactive and on-demand
   path monitoring and service validation.
      </t>
      <t>
         This document discusses the use of existing IP OAM protocols and mechanisms in
   DetNet networks that use the IP data plane.
   </t>
    </section>
    <section numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Conventions used Used in this document</name> This Document</name>
      <section numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Terminology</name>
        <t>
The term "DetNet OAM" as used in this document interchangeably with longer version
"set also means "a set of OAM protocols, methods methods, and tools for Deterministic Networks". Networking".
</t>
        <t>DetNet:    Deterministic Networks</t>
        <t>OAM:      Operations,
        <dl spacing="normal">
        <dt>DetNet:</dt><dd>Deterministic Networking</dd>
        <dt>OAM:</dt><dd>Operations, Administration, and Maintenance</t>
        <t>ICMP:      Internet Maintenance</dd>
        <dt>ICMP:</dt><dd>Internet Control Message Protocol</t>
        <t>Underlay Protocol</dd>
        <dt>Underlay Network or Underlay Layer:  The Layer:</dt><dd>The network that provides
   connectivity between DetNet nodes.  MPLS networks providing Label Switched Path (LSP)
   connectivity between DetNet nodes are an example of the DetNet IP network underlay
   layer.</dd>

<!-- [rfced] Section 2.1:  We defined "LSP" as "Label Switched Path"
per RFC 9546.  If this is incorrect, please provide the correct
definition of "LSP".

Original:
 MPLS networks providing LSP
 connectivity between DetNet nodes are an example of the DetNet IP
 network underlay
   layer.</t>
        <t>DetNet Node:  a layer.

Currently:
 MPLS networks providing Label
 Switched Path (LSP) connectivity between DetNet nodes are an
 example of the DetNet IP network underlay layer. -->

        <dt>DetNet Node:</dt><dd>A node that is an actor in the DetNet domain.  DetNet
   domain edge nodes and nodes that perform the Packet Replication and Elimination Function within the domain are
   examples of a DetNet node.</t>
      </section> node.</dd>

<!--
      <section numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Keywords</name>
        <t>
   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
   NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
   "MAY", [rfced] Section 2.1:  Does "Packet Replication and Elimination
Function" mean "Packet Replication, Elimination, and "OPTIONAL" Ordering
Functions" (as used in RFC 9546 and Section 3.3 of this document are to be interpreted as
   described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119" format="default"/> <xref target="RFC8174" format="default"/>
   when, document),
"Packet Replication Function", "Packet Elimination and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
        </t>
      </section> Replication
Functions", or something else?

Original:
 DetNet
 domain edge nodes and nodes that perform the Packet Replication and
 Elimination Function within the domain are examples of a DetNet node. -->

	</dl>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="oam-data-plane" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Active OAM for DetNet Networks with the IP Data Plane</name>
      <t>
OAM protocols and mechanisms act within the data plane of the particular networking layer.
Thus, it is critical that the data plane encapsulation supports support OAM mechanisms and enables enable them to be
   configured so that DetNet OAM packets follow the same path
   (unidirectional or bidirectional) through the network and receive
   the same forwarding treatment in the DetNet forwarding sub-layer
   as the DetNet flow being monitored.
</t>
      <t>
The DetNet data plane encapsulation in a transport network with IP encapsulations is specified
in Section 6 of <xref target="RFC8939" format="default"/>. sectionFormat="of" section="6"/>.
For the IP underlay network, DetNet flows are identified
by the ordered match to the provisioned information set that, among other elements, includes the IP protocol, protocol type, source port number, and
destination port number. Active IP OAM
protocols like Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) <xref target="RFC5880" format="default"/> or the
Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) <xref target="RFC8762" format="default"/>, format="default"/>
use UDP transport and the well-known UDP port numbers as the destination port.
For BFD, the UDP destination port is specific to the BFD variant,
e.g., Multihop multihop BFD uses port 4784 <xref target="RFC5883"/>.

<!-- [rfced] Section 3:  This sentence reads oddly, as it seems to
mix both singular and plural.  Should "the well-known UDP port
numbers" be "the well-known UDP port number", or should "the
destination port" be "the destination ports"?

Original:
 Active
 IP OAM protocols like Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)
 [RFC5880] or Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP)
 [RFC8762], use UDP transport and the well-known UDP port numbers as
 the destination port. -->

</t>
<t>
Thus
Thus, a DetNet node must be
able to associate an IP DetNet flow with the particular test session to ensure that test packets experience the
same treatment as the DetNet flow packets. For example, in a network where path selection and DetNet functionality
   are based on 3-tuples (destination and source IP addresses
   in combination with the Differentiated Services Code Point  value) value), that association can be achieved
   by having the OAM traffic use the same 3-tuple as the monitored
   IP DetNet flow.
In such a scenario, an IP OAM session between the same pair of IP nodes would share the network treatment
with the monitored IP DetNet flow regardless of whether ICMP, BFD, or STAMP protocol is used.
</t>
<t>
In IP networks, the majority of on-demand failure detection and localization is achieved through the use
of the Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP), ICMP, utilizing Echo Request and Echo Reply messages,
along with a set of defined error messages such as Destination Unreachable, which provide detailed information through assigned code points.
<xref target="RFC0792"/> and <xref target="RFC4443"/> define the ICMP for IPv4 and IPv6 networks, respectively.
To utilize ICMP effectively for these purposes within DetNet, DetNet nodes must establish the association
of ICMP traffic between DetNet nodes with IP DetNet traffic. This entails ensuring that such
ICMP traffic traverses the same interfaces and receives identical QoS treatment as that is identical to the monitored DetNet IP flow.
Failure to do so may result in ICMP being unable to detect and localize failures specific to the DetNet IP data plane.
</t>
      <section anchor="native-ip-section" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Mapping Active OAM and IP DetNet flows</name> Flows</name>
        <t>
IP OAM protocols are used to detect failures (e.g., BFD <xref target="RFC5880"/>)
and performance degradation (e.g., STAMP <xref target="RFC8762"/>) that affect an IP DetNet flow.
It is essential to ensure that specially constructed OAM packets traverse the same set of nodes and links
and receive the same network QoS treatment as the monitored data flow, e.g., a DetNet flow, for making active OAM useful.
   When the UDP destination port
   number used by the OAM protocol is assigned by IANA, then judicious
   selection of the UDP source port may be able to help achieve co-routedness
   of OAM with the monitored IP DetNet flow in multipath environments,
   e.g., Link Aggregation Group or Equal Cost Multipath, via the use of a
   UDP source port value that results in the OAM traffic and the
   monitored IP DetNet flow hashing to the same path based on the packet
   header hashes used for path selection. This does assume that forwarding
   equipment along the multipath makes consistent hashing decisions, which
   might not always be true in a heterogeneous environment.
(That also applies to the encapsulation techniques described in <xref target="ip-udp-section"/>
Sections&nbsp;<xref target="ip-udp-section" format="counter"/> and <xref target="detnet-udp-section"/>.) target="detnet-udp-section" format="counter"/>.)
To ensure the accuracy of OAM results in detecting failures and
monitoring the performance of IP DetNet, it is essential that test packets not only traverse the same path as the monitored IP DetNet flow
but also receive the same treatment by the nodes, e.g., shaping, filtering, policing, and availability of the pre-allocated resources,
as experienced by the IP DetNet packet. That correlation between the particular IP OAM session and the monitored IP DetNet flow
can be achieved by using DetNet provisioning information (e.g., <xref target="I-D.ietf-detnet-yang"/>). target="RFC9633"/>). Each IP OAM protocol session
is presented as a DetNet Application application with related service and forwarding sub-layers. The forwarding sub-layer of the IP OAM session
is identical to the forwarding sub-layer of the monitored IP DetNet flow, except for information
in the "ip-header" grouping ip-header, item as defined in  <xref target="I-D.ietf-detnet-yang"/>. target="RFC9633"/>.

<!-- [rfced] Section 3.1:  We had trouble following what "for making
active OAM useful" applies to.  If the suggested text is not correct,
please provide clarifying text.

Original:
 It is essential to ensure that specially constructed
 OAM packets traverse the same set of nodes and links and receive the
 same network QoS treatment as the monitored data flow, e.g., a DetNet
 flow, for making active OAM useful.

Suggested:
 For active OAM to be useful, it is essential to ensure that
 specially constructed OAM packets traverse the same set of nodes and
 links and receive the same network QoS treatment as the monitored
 data flow, e.g., a DetNet flow. -->

</t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="ip-udp-section" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Active OAM Using IP-in-UDP Encapsulation</name>
        <t>
As described above, active IP OAM is realized through several protocols. Some protocols use UDP transport,
while ICMP is a network-layer protocol. The amount of operational work mapping IP OAM protocols
to the monitored DetNet flow can be reduced by using an IP/UDP tunnel to carry IP test packets (<xref target="RFC2003"/>). <xref target="RFC2003"/>.
Then, to ensure that OAM packets traverse the same set of nodes and links, the IP/UDP tunnel
must be mapped to the monitored DetNet flow. Note that in such a case, the DetNet domain for the test packet
is seen as a single IP link in such a case. link. As a result, transit DetNet IP nodes cannot be traced
using the usual traceroute procedure, and a modification of the traceroute may be required.

<!-- [rfced] Section 3.2:  We couldn't verify this citation, as we
don't see "test packets" or "test" mentioned in RFC 2003.  Would it
help to rephrase as suggested?

Original:
 The amount of operational work mapping IP
 OAM protocols to the monitored DetNet flow can be reduced by using an
 IP/UDP tunnel to carry IP test packets ([RFC2003]).

Suggested (move the citation):
 The amount of operational work mapping IP
 OAM protocols to the monitored DetNet flow can be reduced by using an
 IP/UDP tunnel [RFC2003] to carry IP test packets. -->

      </t>
        </section>

      <section anchor="detnet-udp-section" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Active OAM Using DetNet-in-UDP Encapsulation</name>
        <t>
Active OAM in IP DetNet can be realized using DetNet-in-UDP encapsulation.
Using a DetNet-in-UDP tunnel between IP DetNet nodes ensures that active OAM test packets follow the same path through
   the network as the monitored IP DetNet flow packets and receive
   the same forwarding treatment in the DetNet forwarding sub-layer
   (see Section 4.1.2 of <xref target="RFC8655"/>) target="RFC8655" sectionFormat="of" section="4.1.2"/>)
 as the IP DetNet flow
   being monitored.
</t>
<t>
<xref target="I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof"/> target="RFC9566"/> describes how DetNet with MPLS over UDP/IP the MPLS-over-UDP/IP data plane <xref target="RFC9025"/> can be used
to support Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions (PREOF) to potentially lower packet loss, improve the probability of on-time packet delivery delivery,
and ensure in-order packet delivery in IP DetNet's service sub-layer. To ensure that an active OAM test packet follows the path of the monitored
DetNet flow in the DetNet service sub-layer sub-layer, the encapsulation shown in <xref target="ip-detnet-udp-oam"/> is used.
</t>
        <figure anchor="ip-detnet-udp-oam">
          <name>DetNet Associated Channel Header Format</name>
          <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[      +---------------------------------+
      |                                 |
      |         DetNet App-Flow         |
      |       (original IP) Packet      |
      |                                 |
      +---------------------------------+ <--\
      |            DetNet ACH           |    |
      +---------------------------------+    +--> PREOF capable PREOF-capable
      |       Service-ID (S-Label)      |    |    DetNet IP data
      +---------------------------------+    |    plane encapsulation
      |            UDP Header           |    |
      +---------------------------------+    |
      |            IP Header            |    |
      +---------------------------------+ <--/
      |            Data-Link            |
      +---------------------------------+
      |             Physical            |
      +---------------------------------+
]]></artwork>
        </figure>
        <t>
                where:
                Where:
        </t>
        <ul empty="true">
        <li>DetNet
        <t indent="3">DetNet ACH is the DetNet Associated Channel Header defined in <xref target="I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-oam"/>.</li>
        <li>PREOF target="RFC9546"/>.</t>
        <t indent="3">PREOF if DetNet service sub-layer defined in <xref target="RFC8655"/>.</t>

<!-- [rfced] Section 3.3:  This sentence/phrase does not parse; it
appears that some words are missing.  If the suggested text is not
correct, please clarify what "if" refers to.

Original (the previous entry is included for context):
 DetNet ACH is the DetNet Associated Channel Header defined in
 [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-oam].

 PREOF - Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions if
 DetNet service sub-layer defined in <xref target="RFC8655"/>.</li>
        </ul> [RFC8655].

Suggested:
 DetNet ACH is the DetNet Associated Channel Header defined in
 [RFC9546].

 PREOF is used for the DetNet service sub-layer as defined in
 [RFC8655]. -->

      </section>

      <section anchor="over-gre-section" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>The Application of Y.1731/G.8013 Using GRE-in-UDP Encapsulation</name>
        <t>
<xref target="RFC8086" format="default"/> has defined the method of encapsulating GRE (Generic Routing Encapsulation) headers
in UDP. GRE-in-UDP encapsulation can be used for IP DetNet OAM OAM, as it eases the task of mapping an OAM test session
to a particular IP DetNet flow that is identified by an N-tuple. Matching a GRE-in-UDP tunnel to the monitored IP DetNet flow
enables the use of Y.1731/G.8013 <xref target="ITU-T.1731" target="ITU.Y1731" format="default"/> as a comprehensive toolset of OAM. The Protocol Type field
in the GRE header must be set to 0x8902, assigned by IANA to the IEEE 802.1ag Connectivity Fault Management (CFM) Protocol protocol / ITU-T Recommendation Y.1731.
Y.1731/G.8013 supports the necessary functions required for IP DetNet OAM, i.e., continuity check, checks, one-way packet loss loss, and packet delay measurement. measurements.
</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <!--
<section anchor="hybrid-oam" title="Use of Hybrid OAM in DetNet">
<t>Hybrid OAM methods are used in performance monitoring and defined in <xref target="RFC7799"/> as:
<list>
<t>Hybrid Methods are Methods of Measurement that use a combination of
   Active Methods and Passive Methods.</t>
   </list>
   A hybrid measurement method may produce metrics as close to passive,
   but it still alters something in a data packet even if that is the value of a
   designated field in the packet encapsulation. One example of such a hybrid measurement method
   is the Alternate Marking method (AMM) described in <xref target="RFC8321"/>. One of the advantages
   of the use of AMM in a DetNet domain with the IP data plane is that the marking is applied to a data flow,
   thus ensuring that measured metrics are directly applicable to the DetNet flow.
   </t>
</section>
-->
<section anchor="ip-over-tsn-sec" numbered="true" toc="default">
    <name>Active OAM for DetNet IP Interworking with OAM of non-IP for Non-IP DetNet domains</name> Domains</name>
      <t>
A domain in which the IP data plane provides DetNet service could be used
in conjunction with a TSN Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) network and a DetNet domain with the MPLS data plane to deliver end-to-end service.
In such scenarios, the ability to detect defects and monitor performance using OAM is essential.
<xref target="I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-oam" target="RFC9546" format="default"/> identified identifies two OAM interworking models - -- peering and tunneling.
Interworking between DetNet domains with IP and MPLS data planes is analyzed in Section 4.2 of
<xref target="I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-oam" format="default"/>. target="RFC9546" sectionFormat="of" section="4.2"/>.
   In addition, OAM interworking requirements and recommendations that apply
   between a DetNet Domain domain with the MPLS dataplane data plane and an adjacent TSN
   network also apply between a DetNet domain with the IP dataplane data plane and
   an adjacent TSN network.
</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="iana-considerations" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <t>
This document does not have any requests for has no IANA allocation. This section can be deleted before the publication of the draft. actions.
      </t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="security-considerations" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>
   This document describes the applicability of the existing Fault Management and
   Performance Monitoring IP OAM protocols.
   It does not raise any security concerns or issues in addition to ones those common to networking or
   already documented in <xref target="RFC0792"/>, <xref target="RFC4443"/>, <xref target="RFC5880"/>,
   and <xref target="RFC8762"/> for the referenced DetNet and OAM protocols.
      </t>
    </section>

  </middle>
  <back>
    <!-- References split into informative and normative -->
    <references>
      <name>References</name>
      <references>
        <name>Normative References</name>
        <!--
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"/> href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.0792.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"/>
        -->
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.0792.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4443.xml"/> href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4443.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8086.xml"/> href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8086.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8655.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bibxml3/draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam.xml"/> href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8655.xml"/>

<!-- draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-15 (RFC 9546; published) -->
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8939.xml"/> href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9546.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9025.xml"/> href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8939.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2003.xml"/> href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9025.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bibxml3/draft-ietf-detnet-yang.xml"/> href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2003.xml"/>

<!--
    <?rfc include="reference.RFC.6310"?>
    <?rfc include="reference.RFC.7023"?>
   <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls"?>
   <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn"?> draft-ietf-detnet-yang (RFC YYY1)
     Note: Title updated per YANG Doctors; should be OK. In AUTH48 as of 8/19/24 -->
<reference anchor="RFC9633" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9633">
   <front>
      <title>Deterministic Networking (DetNet) YANG Data Model</title>
      <author initials="X." surname="Geng" fullname="Xuesong Geng">
         <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
      </author>
      <author initials="Y." surname="Ryoo" fullname="Yeoncheol Ryoo">
         <organization>ETRI</organization>
      </author>
      <author initials="D." surname="Fedyk" fullname="Don Fedyk">
         <organization>LabN Consulting, L.L.C.</organization>
      </author>
      <author initials="R." surname="Rahman" fullname="Reshad Rahman">
         <organization>Equinix</organization>
      </author>
      <author initials="Z." surname="Li" fullname="Zhenqiang Li">
         <organization>China Mobile</organization>
      </author>
      <date month="August" year="2024" />
   </front>
  <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9633"/>
  <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9633"/>
</reference>
    </references>
      <references>
        <name>Informational
        <name>Informative References</name>

        <reference anchor="ITU-T.1731"> anchor="ITU.Y1731">
          <front>
            <title>Operations,
            <title>Operation, administration and maintenance (OAM) functions and mechanisms for Ethernet-based networks</title>
            <author>
              <organization>ITU-T</organization>
            </author>
            <date month="August" year="2015"/> month="June" year="2023"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="ITU-T" name="ITU-T Recommendation" value="G.8013/Y.1731"/>
        </reference>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7799.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8762.xml"/>

<!-- <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8321"?> [rfced] References:  The August 2015 version of this
specification is marked "Superseded" on
<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.8013/en>.  As the citation in
Section 3.4 appears to be general in nature, we updated this listing
per RFC 9546 accordingly.  Please let us know any concerns.

Original:
 [ITU-T.1731]
            ITU-T, "Operations, administration and maintenance (OAM)
            functions and mechanisms for Ethernet-based networks",
            ITU-T G.8013/Y.1731, August 2015.

Currently:
 [ITU.Y1731]
            ITU-T, "Operation, administration and maintenance (OAM)
            functions and mechanisms for Ethernet-based networks",
            ITU-T Recommendation G.8013/Y.1731, June 2023. -->

        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5880.xml"/> href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7799.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8762.xml"/>
	<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5883.xml"/> href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5880.xml"/>
	<xi:include href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bibxml3/draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework.xml"/> href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5883.xml"/>

<!-- draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework (RFC 9551; published) -->
	<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9551.xml"/>

<!-- ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof (RFC 9566; published) -->
	<xi:include href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bibxml3/draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof.xml"/> href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9566.xml"/>
      </references>
    </references>
  </back>

<!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the
online Style Guide at
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>,
and let us know if any changes are needed.

Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this
should still be reviewed as a best practice. -->

</rfc>