rfc9892.original   rfc9892.txt 
Network Working Group B. Cheng Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) B. Cheng
Internet-Draft MIT Lincoln Laboratory Request for Comments: 9892 MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Intended status: Standards Track D. Wiggins Category: Standards Track D. Wiggins
Expires: 28 September 2025 ISSN: 2070-1721
L. Berger L. Berger
D. Fedyk, Ed. D. Fedyk, Ed.
LabN Consulting, L.L.C. LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
27 March 2025 November 2025
Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Traffic Classification Data Item Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Traffic Classification Data Item
draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-17
Abstract Abstract
This document defines a new Data Item for the Dynamic Link Exchange This document defines a new Data Item for the Dynamic Link Exchange
Protocol (DLEP) to support traffic classification. Traffic Protocol (DLEP) to support traffic classification. Traffic
classification information identifies traffic flows based on frame/ classification information identifies traffic flows based on frame/
packet content such as destination address. The Data Item is defined packet content such as a destination address. The Data Item is
in an extensible and reusable fashion. Its use will be mandated in defined in an extensible and reusable fashion. Its use will be
other documents defining specific DLEP extensions. This document mandated in other documents defining specific DLEP extensions. This
also introduces DLEP Sub-Data Items, and Sub-Data Items are defined document also introduces DLEP Sub-Data Items; Sub-Data Items are
to support DiffServ and Ethernet traffic classification. defined to support Diffserv and Ethernet traffic classification.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on 28 September 2025. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9892.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights publication of this document. Please review these documents
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction
1.1. Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Key Words
2. Traffic Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Traffic Classification
2.1. Traffic Classification Data Item . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Traffic Classification Data Item
2.1.1. Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item . . . . . . . . 6 2.1.1. Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item
2.2. DiffServ Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item . . . . . . 7 2.2. Diffserv Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item
2.2.1. Router Receive Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2.1. Router Receive Processing
2.3. Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item . . . . . . 8 2.3. Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item
2.3.1. Router Receive Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.3.1. Router Receive Processing
3. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3. Compatibility
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4. Security Considerations
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5. IANA Considerations
5.1. Data Item Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.1. Data Item Type Values
5.2. DLEP Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Registry . . . 12 5.2. Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type Values
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6. References
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.1. Normative References
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.2. Informative References
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Acknowledgments
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) is defined in [RFC8175]. The Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) is defined in [RFC8175].
This protocol provides the exchange of link related control This protocol provides the exchange of link-related control
information between DLEP peers. DLEP peers are comprised of a modem information between DLEP peers. DLEP peers are comprised of a modem
and a router. DLEP defines a base set of mechanisms as well as and a router. DLEP defines a base set of mechanisms as well as
support for possible extensions. DLEP defines Data Items which are support for possible extensions. DLEP defines Data Items, which are
sets of information that can be reused in DLEP messaging. The DLEP sets of information that can be reused in DLEP messaging. The DLEP
specification does not include any flow identification beyond DLEP specification does not include any flow identification beyond DLEP
endpoints, i.e., flows are identified based on their DLEP endpoint. endpoints, i.e., flows are identified based on their DLEP endpoint.
This document defines DLEP Data Item formats which provide flow This document defines DLEP Data Item formats that provide flow
identification on a more granular basis. Specifically, it enables a identification on a more granular basis. Specifically, it enables a
router to use traffic flow classification information provided by the router to use traffic flow classification information provided by the
modem to identify traffic flows based on a combination of information modem to identify traffic flows based on a combination of information
found in a data plane header. (For general background on traffic found in a data plane header. (For general background on traffic
classification see [RFC2475] Section 2.3.) The Data Item is classification, see Section 2.3 of [RFC2475].) The Data Item is
structured to allow for use of the defined traffic classification structured to allow for the use of the defined traffic classification
information with applications such as credit window control as information with applications such as credit window control as
specified in [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control]. The credit specified in [RFC9893]. [RFC9893] provides an example of combining
window control document provides an example of combining traffic traffic classification and credit window flow control.
classification and credit window flow control.
This document defines traffic classification based on a DLEP This document defines traffic classification based on a DLEP
destination and flows identified by either DiffServ [RFC2475] destination and flows identified by either Differentiated Services
Differentiated Services Codepoints (DSCPs) or IEEE 802.1Q [IEEE8021Q] Code Points (DSCPs) [RFC2475] or IEEE 802.1Q Ethernet Priority Code
Ethernet Priority Code Points (PCPs). The defined mechanism allows Points (PCPs) [IEEE8021Q]. The defined mechanism allows for flows to
for flows to be described in a flexible fashion and when combined be described in a flexible fashion and when combined with
with applications such as credit window control, allows credit applications such as credit window control, allows credit windows to
windows to be shared across traffic sent to multiple DLEP be shared across traffic sent to multiple DLEP destinations and as
destinations and as part of multiple flows, or used exclusively for part of multiple flows, or used exclusively for traffic sent to a
traffic sent to a particular destination and/or belonging to a particular destination and/or belonging to a particular flow. The
particular flow. The extension also supports the "wildcard" matching extension also supports the "wildcard" matching of any flow (DSCP or
of any flow (DSCP or PCP). Traffic classification information is PCP). Traffic classification information is provided such that it
provided such that it can be readily extended to support other can be readily extended to support other traffic classification
traffic classification techniques, or be used by non-credit window techniques or can be used by extensions that are not related to
related extensions, such as [RFC8651] or even 5-tuple IP flows. credit windows, such as the extension defined in [RFC8651] or even
5-tuple IP flows.
This document defines support for traffic classification using a This document defines support for traffic classification using a
single new Data Item in Section 2.1 for general support and two new single new Data Item (see Section 2.1) for general support. Two new
Sub-Data Items are defined to support identification of flows based Sub-Data Items are defined to support identification of flows based
on DSCPs and PCPs. on DSCPs and PCPs.
1.1. Key Words 1.1. Key Words
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
2. Traffic Classification 2. Traffic Classification
The Traffic Classification Data Item represents a list of flows that The Traffic Classification Data Item represents a list of flows that
may be used at the same time to provide different service classes for may be used at the same time to provide different service classes for
traffic sent from a router to a modem. The data plane information traffic sent from a router to a modem. The data plane information
used to identify each flow is represented in a separate Sub-Data used to identify each flow is represented in a separate Sub-Data
Item. The Data Item and Sub-Data Item structure is intended to be Item. The Data Item and Sub-Data Item structures are intended to be
independent of any specific usage of the flow identification, e.g., independent of any specific usage of the flow identification, e.g.,
flow control. The Sub-Data Item structure is also intended to allow flow control. The Sub-Data Item structure is also intended to allow
for future traffic classification types, e.g., 5-tuple flows. While for future traffic classification types, e.g., 5-tuple flows. While
the structure of the Data Items is extensible, actual flow the structure of the Data Items is extensible, actual flow
information is expected to be used in an extension dependent manner. information is expected to be used in an extension-dependent manner.
Support for DSCP and PCP-based flows are defined via individual Sub- Support for DSCP and PCP-based flows is defined via individual Sub-
Data Items below. Other types of flow identification, e.g., based on Data Items; see below. Other types of flow identification, e.g.,
IP protocol and ports, may be defined in the future via new Sub-Data based on IP protocol and ports, may be defined in the future via new
Items. Note that when extensions supporting multiple Sub-Data Item Sub-Data Items. Note that when extensions supporting multiple Sub-
types are negotiated, these types MAY be combined in a single Data Data Item types are negotiated, these types MAY be combined in a
Item. single Data Item.
Each list of flows is identified using a "Traffic Classification Each list of flows is identified using a "Traffic Classification
Identifier" or "TID" and is expected to represent a valid combination Identifier" or "TID" and is expected to represent a valid combination
of data plane identifiers that may be used at the same time. Each of data plane identifiers that may be used at the same time. Each
flow is identified via a "Flow Identifier" or "FID". Each FID is flow is identified via a "Flow Identifier" or "FID". Each FID is
defined in a Sub-Data Item which carries the data plane identifier or defined in a Sub-Data Item that carries the data plane identifier or
identifiers used to associate traffic with the flow. A DLEP identifiers used to associate traffic with the flow. A DLEP
destination address is also needed to complete traffic classification destination address is also needed to complete traffic classification
information used in extensions such as flow control. This information used in extensions such as flow control. This
information is expected to be provided in an extension specific information is expected to be provided in an extension-specific
manner. For example, this address can be provided by a modem when it manner. For example, this address can be provided by a modem when it
identifies the traffic classification set in a Destination Up Message identifies the traffic classification set in a Destination Up Message
using the Credit Window Associate Data Item defined in using the Credit Window Association Data Item defined in [RFC9893].
[I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control]. TID and FID values have TID and FID values have modem-local scope.
modem-local scope.
2.1. Traffic Classification Data Item 2.1. Traffic Classification Data Item
This section defines the Traffic Classification Data Item. This Data This section defines the Traffic Classification Data Item. This Data
Item is used by a modem to provide a router with traffic Item is used by a modem to provide a router with traffic
classification information. When an extension requires use of any classification information. When an extension requires the use of
Data Item, the Data Items, including this Traffic Classification Data any Data Item, the Data Items, including this Traffic Classification
Item SHOULD be included by a modem in any Session Initialization Data Item, SHOULD be included by a modem in any Session
Response Message, e.g., see Initialization Response Message (e.g., see [RFC9893]). Updates to
[I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control]. Updates to previously previously provided traffic classifications or new traffic
provided traffic classifications or new traffic classifications MAY classifications MAY be sent by a modem by including the Data Item in
be sent by a modem by including the Data Item in Session Update Session Update Messages. More than one Data Item MAY be included in
Messages. More than one Data Item MAY be included in a message to a message to provide information on multiple traffic classifiers.
provide information on multiple traffic classifiers.
The set of traffic classification information provided in the data The set of traffic classification information provided in the Data
item is identified using a Traffic Classification Identifier, or TID. Item is identified using a TID. The actual information related to
The actual data plane related information used in traffic data planes that is used in traffic classification is provided in a
classification is provided in a variable list of Traffic variable list of Traffic Classification Sub-Data Items.
Classification Sub-Data Items.
The format of the Traffic Classification Data Item is: The format of the Traffic Classification Data Item is as follows:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data Item Type | Length | | Data Item Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Traffic Class. Identifier (TID)| Num SDIs | Reserved | |Traffic Class. Identifier (TID)| Num SDIs | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item 1 ~ ~ Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item 1 ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ... ~ ~ ... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item n ~ ~ Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item n ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Data Item Type: Data Item Type:
TBA1 29
Length: Length:
Variable Variable
Per [RFC8175] Length is the number of octets in the Data Item, Per [RFC8175], Length is the number of octets in the Data Item,
excluding the Type and Length fields. The length here is limited excluding the Type and Length fields. The length here is limited
by the packet data unit (PDU) length supported. For example if by the packet data unit (PDU) length supported. For example, if
the Packet is limited to 1400 bytes then the length MUST NOT the packet is limited to 1400 bytes, then the length MUST NOT
exceed this value. If larger packets are supported the maximum exceed this value. If larger packets are supported, the maximum
MUST be adjusted to be smaller or equal to the maximum PDU. MUST be adjusted to be smaller than or equal to the maximum PDU.
Multiple messages can be used if there is more than fits in a Multiple messages can be used if there is more data than will fit
single TLV. in a single TLV.
Traffic Classification Identifier (TID): Traffic Classification Identifier (TID):
A 16-bit unsigned integer identifying a traffic classification A 16-bit unsigned integer identifying a traffic classification
set. There is no restriction on values used by a modem, and there set. There is no restriction on values used by a modem, and there
is no requirement for sequential or ordered values. is no requirement for sequential or ordered values.
Num SDIs: Num SDIs:
An 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the number of Traffic An 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the number of Traffic
Classification Sub-Data Items included in the Data Item. A value Classification Sub-Data Items included in the Data Item. A value
of zero (0) is allowed and indicates that no traffic should be of zero (0) is allowed and indicates that no traffic should be
matched against this TID. matched against this TID.
Reserved: Reserved:
For the Traffic Classification Data Item this reserved field is For the Traffic Classification Data Item, this reserved field is
currently unused. It MUST be set to all zeros for this version of currently unused. It MUST be set to all zeros for this version of
the Data Item and it is currently ignored on reception. This the Data Item and is currently ignored on reception. This allows
allows for future extensions of the Data Item if needed. for future extensions of the Data Item if needed.
Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item: Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item:
Zero or more Traffic Classification Sub-Data Items of the format Zero or more Traffic Classification Sub-Data Items of the format
defined below MAY be included. The number MUST match the value defined in Section 2.1.1 MAY be included. The number MUST match
carried in the Num SDIs field. the value carried in the Num SDIs field.
A router receiving the Traffic Classification Data Item MUST locate A router receiving the Traffic Classification Data Item MUST locate
the traffic classification information that is associated with the the traffic classification information that is associated with the
TID indicated in each received Data Item. If no associated traffic TID indicated in each received Data Item. If no associated traffic
classification information is found, the router MUST initialize a new classification information is found, the router MUST initialize a new
information set using the values carried in the Data Item. If the information set using the values carried in the Data Item. If the
associated traffic classification information is found, the router associated traffic classification information is found, the router
MUST replace the corresponding information using the values carried MUST replace the corresponding information using the values carried
in the Data Item. In both cases, a router MUST also ensure that any in the Data Item. In both cases, a router MUST also ensure that any
data plane state, e.g., [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control], data plane state (e.g., see [RFC9893]) that is associated with the
that is associated with the TID is updated as needed. TID is updated as needed.
2.1.1. Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item 2.1.1. Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item
All Traffic Classification Sub-Data Items share a common format that All Traffic Classification Sub-Data Items share a common format that
is patterned after the standard DLEP Data Item format, see [RFC8175] is patterned after the standard DLEP Data Item format. See
Section 11.3. There is no requirement on, or meaning to Sub-Data Section 11.3 of [RFC8175]. There is no requirement on, or meaning
Item ordering. Any errors or inconsistencies encountered in parsing to, Sub-Data Item ordering. Any errors or inconsistencies
Sub-Data Items are handled in the same fashion as any other Data Item encountered in parsing Sub-Data Items are handled in the same fashion
parsing error encountered in DLEP, see [RFC8175]. as any other Data Item parsing error encountered in DLEP. See
[RFC8175].
The format of the Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item is: The format of the Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item is as follows:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-Data Item Type | Length | | Sub-Data Item Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Value... ~ ~ Value... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Sub-Data Item Type: Sub-Data Item Type:
skipping to change at page 7, line 4 skipping to change at line 273
corresponding format of the Sub-Data Item's Value field. Sub-Data corresponding format of the Sub-Data Item's Value field. Sub-Data
Item Types are scoped within the Data Item in which they are Item Types are scoped within the Data Item in which they are
carried, i.e., the Sub-Data Item Type field MUST be used together carried, i.e., the Sub-Data Item Type field MUST be used together
with the Traffic Classification Data Item Type to identify the with the Traffic Classification Data Item Type to identify the
format of the Sub-Data Item. Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item format of the Sub-Data Item. Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item
Types are managed according to the IANA registry described in Types are managed according to the IANA registry described in
Section 5.2. Section 5.2.
Length: Length:
Variable Variable
Copying [RFC8175], Length is a 16-bit unsigned integer that is the
Per [RFC8175], Length is a 16-bit unsigned integer that is the
number of octets in the Sub-Data Item, excluding the Type and number of octets in the Sub-Data Item, excluding the Type and
Length fields. The maximum length is limited on a per Sub-Data Length fields. The maximum length is limited on a per Sub-Data
Item Type. Item Type.
2.2. DiffServ Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item 2.2. Diffserv Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item
The DiffServ Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item identifies the set The Diffserv Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item identifies the set
of DSCPs that should be treated as a single flow, i.e., receive the of DSCPs that should be treated as a single flow, i.e., receive the
same traffic treatment. DSCPs are identified in a list of DiffServ same traffic treatment. DSCPs are identified in a list of Diffserv
fields. An implementation that does not support DSCPs and wants the fields. An implementation that does not support DSCPs and wants the
same traffic treatment for all traffic to a destination or same traffic treatment for all traffic to a destination or
destinations would indicate 0 DSCPs. destinations would indicate 0 DSCPs.
The format of the DiffServ Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item is: The format of the Diffserv Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item is as
follows:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-Data Item Type (1) | Length | | Sub-Data Item Type (1) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flow Identifier (FID) | Num DSCPs | DS Field 1 | | Flow Identifier (FID) | Num DSCPs | DS Field 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| DS Field 2 | ... | DS Field n | | DS Field 2 | ... | DS Field n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Sub-Data Item Type: Sub-Data Item Type:
Sub-Data Item Type with value one (1) identifies the DiffServ Sub-Data Item Type with value one (1) identifies the Diffserv
Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type in the format defined in Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type in the format defined in
Section 2.1.1. Section 2.1.1.
Length: Length:
Variable Variable
Length is defined above. For this Sub-Data Item, it is equal to Length is defined above. For this Sub-Data Item, it is equal to
three (3) octets plus the value of the Num DSCPs field. This three (3) octets plus the value of the Num DSCPs field. This
means that the maximum Length base on a FID per DSCP for this TLV means that the maximum Length base on a FID per DSCP for this TLV
could be 64 times 3 plus one for Num DSCPs plus one DSCPs or 320 could be 64 times 3 plus one for Num DSCPs plus one DSCPs or 320
octets. The definition can be in multiple Sub-Data Items that are octets. The definition can be in multiple Sub-Data Items that are
much smaller than this. much smaller than this.
Flow Identifier (FID): Flow Identifier (FID):
A 16-bit unsigned integer representing the data plane information A 16-bit unsigned integer representing the data plane information
carried in the Sub-Data Item that is to be used in identifying a carried in the Sub-Data Item that is to be used in identifying a
flow. The value of 0xFFFF is reserved and MUST NOT be used in flow. The value 0xFFFF is reserved and MUST NOT be used in this
this field. field.
Num DSCPs: Num DSCPs:
An 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the number of DSCPs carried An 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the number of DSCPs carried
in the Sub-Data Item. A zero (0) indicates a (wildcard) match in the Sub-Data Item. A zero (0) indicates a (wildcard) match
against any DSCP value that does not have an explicit match to a against any DSCP value that does not have an explicit match to a
FID. A typical use of this is mapping any DSCPs that are not FID. A typical use of this is mapping any DSCPs that are not
explicitly mapped to a default queue. explicitly mapped to a default queue.
DS Field: DS Field:
Each DS Field is an 8-bit that carries the DSCP field defined in Each DS Field is 8 bits long and carries the DSCP field as defined
[RFC2474]. in [RFC2474].
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| DSCP | MBZ | | DSCP | MBZ |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
DSCP: Differentiated Services Codepoint (RFC 2474). DSCP: Differentiated Services Code Point [RFC2474]
MBZ: Must Be Zero - set to zero when transmitted. MBZ: Must Be Zero - set to zero when transmitted
2.2.1. Router Receive Processing 2.2.1. Router Receive Processing
A router receiving the Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item MUST A router receiving the Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item MUST
validate the information on receipt, prior to using the carried validate the information on receipt, prior to using the carried
information, including potentially updating the data behavior as information, including potentially updating the data behavior as
determined by the extension requiring the use of the Sub-Data Item. determined by the extension requiring the use of the Sub-Data Item.
Validation failures MUST be treated as an error as described above in Validation failures MUST be treated as an error as described in
Section 2.1.1. Section 2.1.1.
Once validated, the receiver MUST ensure that each DS Field value is Once validated, the receiver MUST ensure that each DS Field value is
listed only once across the whole Traffic Classification Data Item. listed only once across the whole Traffic Classification Data Item.
Note, this check is across the Data Item and not the individual Sub- Note that this check is across the Data Item and not the individual
Data Item. If the same DS Field value is listed more than once Sub-Data Item. If the same DS Field value is listed more than once
within the same Traffic Classification Data Item, the Data Item MUST within the same Traffic Classification Data Item, the Data Item MUST
be treated as an error as described above in Section 2.1.1. be treated as an error as described in Section 2.1.1.
2.3. Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item 2.3. Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item
The Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item identifies the VLAN The Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item identifies the VLAN
and PCPs that should be treated as a single flow, i.e., receive the and PCPs that should be treated as a single flow, i.e., receive the
same traffic treatment. Ethernet Priority Code Point support is same traffic treatment. Ethernet PCP support is defined as part of
defined as part of the IEEE 802.1Q [IEEE8021Q] tag format and the IEEE 802.1Q tag format [IEEE8021Q] and includes a 3-bit "PCP"
includes a 3 bit "PCP" field. The tag format also includes a 12 bit field. The tag format also includes a 12-bit "VLAN Identifier (VID)"
VLAN identifier (VID) field. PCPs are identified in a list of field. PCPs are identified in a list of priority fields. An
priority fields. An implementation that does not support PCPs and implementation that does not support PCPs and wants the same traffic
wants the same traffic treatment for all traffic to a destination or treatment for all traffic to a destination or destinations would
destinations would indicate 0 PCPs. Such an implementation could indicate 0 PCPs. Such an implementation could identify a VLAN to use
identify a VLAN to use per destination. per destination.
The format of the Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item is: The format of the Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item is as
follows:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-Data Item Type (2) | Length | | Sub-Data Item Type (2) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flow Identifier (FID) |NumPCPs| VLAN Identifier (VID) | | Flow Identifier (FID) |NumPCPs| VLAN Identifier (VID) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Pri. 1| Pri. 2| ..... | ..... | ..... | Pad | | Pri. 1| Pri. 2| ..... | ..... | ..... | Pad |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Sub-Data Item Type: Sub-Data Item Type:
Sub-Data Item Type with value two (2) identifies the Ethernet Sub-Data Item Type with value two (2) identifies the Ethernet
Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type in the format defined in Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type in the format defined in
Section 2.1.1. Section 2.1.1.
Length: Length:
Variable Variable
Length is defined above. For this Sub-Data Item, it is equal to Length is defined above. For this Sub-Data Item, it is equal to
four (4) plus the number of octets needed to accommodate the four (4) plus the number of octets needed to accommodate the
number of Priority fields indicated by the NumPCPs field. Note number of Priority fields indicated by the NumPCPs field. Note
that as length is in octets and each Priority field is 4 bits, the that as the length is in octets and each Priority field is 4 bits,
additional length is the value carried in the NumPCPs field the additional length is the value carried in the NumPCPs field
divided by two and rounded up to the next higher integer quantity. divided by 2 and rounded up to the next higher integer quantity.
This TLV has maximum length of 4 plus 8 divided by 2 or 16 octets. This TLV has a maximum length of 4 plus 8 divided by 2 or 16
octets.
Flow Identifier (FID): Flow Identifier (FID):
A 16-bit unsigned integer representing the data plane information A 16-bit unsigned integer representing the data plane information
carried in the Sub-Data Item that is to be used in identifying a carried in the Sub-Data Item that is to be used in identifying a
flow. The value of 0xFFFF is reserved and MUST NOT be used in flow. The value 0xFFFF is reserved and MUST NOT be used in this
this field. field.
Num PCPs: Num PCPs:
A 4-bit unsigned integer indicating the number of Priority fields A 4-bit unsigned integer indicating the number of Priority fields
carried in the Sub-Data Item. A zero (0) indicates a (wildcard) carried in the Sub-Data Item. A zero (0) indicates a (wildcard)
match against any PCP value that does not have an explicit match match against any PCP value that does not have an explicit match
to a FID. A typical use of a wildcard is mapping any PCPs that to a FID. A typical use of a wildcard is mapping any PCPs that
are not explicitly mapped to a default queue. The maximum number are not explicitly mapped to a default queue. The maximum number
of PCPs 8. of PCPs is 8.
VLAN identifier (VID): VLAN Identifier (VID):
A 12-bit unsigned integer field indicating the VLAN to be used in A 12-bit unsigned integer field indicating the VLAN to be used in
traffic classification. A value of zero (0) indicates that the traffic classification. A value of zero (0) indicates that the
VID is to be ignored and any VID is to be accepted during traffic VID is to be ignored and any VID is to be accepted during traffic
classification. Any explicitly mapped VLANs are match first and classification. Any explicitly mapped VLANs are matched first.
then any VLANs that do not have a mapping map to this default Any VLANs that do not have a mapping will then map to this default
mapping. mapping.
Priority: Priority:
Each Priority Field is 4-bits long and indicates a PCP field Each Priority Field is 4 bits long and indicates a PCP field as
defined in [IEEE8021Q]. Note that zero (0) is a valid value for defined in [IEEE8021Q]. Note that zero (0) is a valid value for
either PCP. either PCP.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
+---+---+---+---+ +---+---+---+---+
| PCP |MBZ| | PCP |MBZ|
+---+---+---+---+ +---+---+---+---+
PCP: Priority Code Point (IEEE8021Q) PCP: Priority Code Point [IEEE8021Q]
MBZ: Must Be Zero - set to zero when transmitted. MBZ: Must Be Zero - set to zero when transmitted
Pad: Pad:
A 4-bit long field included when NumPCPs is an odd number. This A field that is 4 bits long and is included when NumPCPs is an odd
field MUST be set to zero by the sender, and MUST be ignored on number. This field MUST be set to zero by the sender and MUST be
receipt. ignored on receipt.
2.3.1. Router Receive Processing 2.3.1. Router Receive Processing
A router receiving the Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item MUST A router receiving the Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item MUST
validate the information on receipt, prior to the using the carried validate the information on receipt, prior to using the carried
information, including potentially updating the data behavior as information, including potentially updating the data behavior as
determined by the extension requiring the use of the Sub-Data Item. determined by the extension requiring the use of the Sub-Data Item.
Note that validation can include usage specific semantics such as Note that validation can include usage-specific semantics such as
those found in [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control]. Any those found in [RFC9893]. Any failures MUST be treated as an error
failures MUST be treated as an error as described above in as described in Section 2.1.1.
Section 2.1.1.
After successful validation, the receiver MUST ensure that each After successful validation, the receiver MUST ensure that each
Priority Field value is listed only once across the whole Traffic Priority Field value is listed only once across the whole Traffic
Classification Data Item. Note, this check is across the Data Item Classification Data Item. Note that this check is across the Data
and not the individual Sub-Data Items. If the same Priority Field Item and not the individual Sub-Data Items. If the same Priority
value is listed more than once within the same Traffic Classification Field value is listed more than once within the same Traffic
Data Item, the Data Item MUST be treated as an error as described Classification Data Item, the Data Item MUST be treated as an error
above in Section 2.1.1. as described in Section 2.1.1.
In cases where both Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item types are In cases where both Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item types are
defined, matching on Ethernet information takes precedence. More defined, matching on Ethernet information takes precedence. More
specifically, when a packet matches both a DSCP indicated in a specifically, when a packet matches both a DSCP indicated in a
DiffServ Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item (Section 2.2) and a Diffserv Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item (Section 2.2) and a
VID/PCP identified in an Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub-Data VID/PCP identified in an Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub-Data
Item (Section 2.3), then the TID associated with the matching VLAN/ Item (Section 2.3), the TID associated with the matching VLAN/PCP
PCP MUST be used. MUST be used.
3. Compatibility 3. Compatibility
The formats defined in this document will only be used when The formats defined in this document will only be used when
extensions require their use. extensions require their use.
The DLEP specification [RFC8175] defines handling of unexpected The DLEP specification [RFC8175] defines the handling of unexpected
appearances of any Data Items, including those defined in this appearances of any Data Items, including those defined in this
document. document.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
This document introduces finer grained flow identification mechanisms This document introduces finer-grained flow identification mechanisms
to DLEP. These mechanisms expose vulnerabilities similar to existing for DLEP. These mechanisms expose vulnerabilities similar to
DLEP messages. An example of a threat to which traffic existing DLEP messages. An example of a threat to which traffic
classification might be susceptible is a malicious actor masquerading classification might be susceptible is where a malicious actor
as a DLEP peer could inject an alternate Traffic Classification Data masquerading as a DLEP peer could inject an alternate Traffic
Item, changing the mapping of traffic to queues that in turn causes Classification Data Item, changing the mapping of traffic to queues;
delay, congestion or loss to one or more service classes. Other this would in turn cause delay, congestion, or loss in one or more
possible threats are given in the Security Considerations of service classes. Other possible threats are discussed in the
[RFC8175] and are also applicable to, but not specific to, traffic Security Considerations section of [RFC8175] and are also applicable,
classification. but not specific, to traffic classification.
The transport layer security mechanisms documented in [RFC8175], with The transport-layer security mechanisms documented in [RFC8175], with
some updated references to external documents listed below, can be some updated references to external documents listed below, can be
applied to this document. Implementations following the "networked applied to this document. Implementations following the "networked
deployment" model described in the "Implementation Scenarios" of deployment" model described in Section 4 ("Implementation Scenarios")
[RFC8175] SHOULD refer to [BCP195] for additional details. The Layer of [RFC8175] SHOULD refer to [BCP195] for additional details. The
2 security mechanisms documented in [RFC8175] can also, with some Layer 2 security mechanisms documented in [RFC8175] can also, with
updates, be applied to the mechanism defined in this document. some updates, be applied to the mechanisms defined in this document.
Examples of technologies that can be deployed to secure the Layer 2 Examples of technologies that can be deployed to secure the Layer 2
link include [IEEE-802.1AE] and [IEEE-8802-1X]. link include [IEEE-802.1AE] and [IEEE-8802-1X].
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
5.1. Data Item Values 5.1. Data Item Type Values
This document requests the following new assignments to the DLEP Data IANA has assigned the following value from the "Specification
Item Registry named "Data Item Type Values" from the range with the Required" range [RFC8126] in the DLEP "Data Item Type Values"
"Specification Required" policy. The requested value is as follows: registry:
+===========+========================+ +===========+========================+
| Type Code | Description | | Type Code | Description |
+===========+========================+ +===========+========================+
| TBA1 | Traffic Classification | | 29 | Traffic Classification |
+-----------+------------------------+ +-----------+------------------------+
Table 1: Requested Data Item Values Table 1: New Data Item Type Value
5.2. DLEP Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Registry 5.2. Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type Values
Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to create a new IANA has created a new DLEP registry named "Traffic Classification
DLEP registry, named "Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type Sub-Data Item Type Values".
Values".
The following table provides initial registry values and the Table 2 shows the registration policies [RFC8126] for the registry:
[RFC8126] defined policies that should apply to the registry:
+=============+=========================+
| Range | Registration Procedures |
+=============+=========================+
| 1-65407 | Specification Required |
+-------------+-------------------------+
| 65408-65534 | Private Use |
+-------------+-------------------------+
Table 2: Registration Policies
Table 3 shows the initial contents of the registry:
+=============+=================================+=============+ +=============+=================================+=============+
| Type Code | Description | Reference | | Type Code | Description | Reference |
+=============+=================================+=============+ +=============+=================================+=============+
| 0 | Reserved | | | 0 | Reserved | RFC 9892 |
+-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+ +-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+
| 1 | DiffServ Traffic Classification | [RFC2474] | | 1 | Diffserv Traffic Classification | [RFC2474] |
+-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+ +-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+
| 2 | Ethernet Traffic Classification | [IEEE8021Q] | | 2 | Ethernet Traffic Classification | [IEEE8021Q] |
+-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+ +-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+
| 3-65407 | Specification Required | | | 3-65407 | Unassigned | |
+-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+ +-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+
| 65408-65534 | Private Use | | | 65408-65534 | Reserved for Private Use | RFC 9892 |
+-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+ +-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+
| 65535 | Reserved | | | 65535 | Reserved | RFC 9892 |
+-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+ +-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+
Table 2: Initial Registry Values Table 3: Initial Registry Contents
This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers This section provides guidance for registrations in the "Traffic
Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to the Classification Sub-Data Item Type Values" registry.
Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type Values registry for the
DLEP protocol, in accordance with BCP 26 and [RFC8126].
This registry encompasses packet traffic classification, where This registry encompasses packet traffic classification, where
standard packet header identifiers in packets or data frames indicate standard packet header identifiers in packets or data frames indicate
Quality of Service (QoS) treatment. It includes two specific Quality of Service (QoS) treatment. It includes two specific
registries for widely recognized identifiers used in QoS management registries for widely recognized identifiers used in QoS management
for IP and Ethernet networks. Reserved values are set aside for for IP and Ethernet networks. Reserved values are set aside for
similar future identifiers that may emerge to denote QoS treatment. similar future identifiers that may emerge to denote QoS treatment.
However, requests for new entries are not expected to be frequent. However, requests for new entries are not expected to be frequent.
Allocations within the registry are subject to the following Allocations within the registry are subject to the following
requirements: requirements:
1. Documentation of the intended use of the requested value, in 1. Documentation of the intended use of the requested value, in
compliance with the "Specification Required" policy defined in compliance with the "Specification Required" policy defined in
[RFC8126]. [RFC8126].
2. Approval by the Designated Expert (DE) appointed by the IESG. 2. Approval by the designated expert (DE) appointed by the IESG.
The DE must: The DE must do the following:
* Verify that the requested value is clearly documented and its * Verify that the requested value is clearly documented and its
purpose and usage are unambiguous. purpose and usage are unambiguous.
* Ensure the proposed value does not conflict with existing work
or ongoing efforts within the IETF. * Ensure that the proposed value does not conflict with existing
work or ongoing efforts within the IETF.
* Confirm that any specification requesting a code point has * Confirm that any specification requesting a code point has
undergone review by the MANET working group (or a successor undergone review by the MANET Working Group (or a successor
mailing list designated by the IESG). mailing list designated by the IESG).
* Validate that external specifications requesting code points * Validate that external specifications requesting code points
are publicly available, permanently archived, and do not are publicly available, are permanently archived, and do not
conflict with active or published IETF work. conflict with active or published IETF work.
* Ensure the review process is conducted in a timely manner,
with any disputes resolved through consultation with the
appropriate working groups.
To simplify future registrations, it is recommended that this * Ensure that the review process is conducted in a timely
guidance serves as a standard reference for all DLEP-related manner, with any disputes resolved through consultation with
registries. Future specifications may include a header note pointing the appropriate working groups.
to this guidance document.
To simplify future registrations in DLEP-related registries, it is
recommended that this guidance apply to all registries within the
"Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Parameters" registry group.
Future specifications may point to the guidance in this document.
6. References 6. References
6.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
skipping to change at page 14, line 20 skipping to change at line 619
Berry, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)", RFC 8175, Berry, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)", RFC 8175,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8175, June 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8175, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8175>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8175>.
6.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[BCP195] Best Current Practice 195, [BCP195] Best Current Practice 195,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp195>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp195>.
At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following: At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:
Moriarty, K. and S. Farrell, "Deprecating TLS 1.0 and TLS
1.1", BCP 195, RFC 8996, DOI 10.17487/RFC8996, March 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8996>.
Sheffer, Y., Saint-Andre, P., and T. Fossati, Sheffer, Y., Saint-Andre, P., and T. Fossati,
"Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 9325, DOI 10.17487/RFC9325, November (DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 9325, DOI 10.17487/RFC9325, November
2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9325>. 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9325>.
Moriarty, K. and S. Farrell, "Deprecating TLS 1.0 and TLS
1.1", BCP 195, RFC 8996, DOI 10.17487/RFC8996, March 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8996>.
[I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control]
Cheng, B., Wiggins, D., Ratliff, S., Berger, L., and E.
Kinzie, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Credit-
Based Flow Control Messages and Data Items", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-
flow-control-18, 19 March 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/api/v1/doc/document/draft-
ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control/>.
[I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension]
Cheng, B., Wiggins, D., Berger, L., and D. E. Eastlake,
"DLEP DiffServ Aware Credit Window Extension", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-
extension-21, 3 March 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-manet-
dlep-da-credit-extension-21>.
[IEEE-802.1AE] [IEEE-802.1AE]
"802.1AE-2018 - IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
area networks-Media Access Control (MAC) Security", networks-Media Access Control (MAC) Security",
DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2018.8585421, IEEE Std 802.1AE-2018,
December 2018,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8585421>. <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8585421>.
[IEEE-8802-1X] [IEEE-8802-1X]
"8802-1X-2021 - IEEE/ISO/IEC International Standard- IEEE, "IEEE/ISO/IEC International Standard-
Telecommunications and exchange between information Telecommunications and exchange between information
technology systems--Requirements for local and technology systems--Requirements for local and
metropolitan area networks--Part 1X:Port-based network metropolitan area networks--Part 1X:Port-based network
access control", access control", DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2021.9650828, IEEE
Std 8802-1X-2021, December 2021,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9650828>. <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9650828>.
[IEEE8021Q] [IEEE8021Q]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
Networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks", Networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks",
DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.10004498, IEEE 802.1Q-2022, July DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.10004498, IEEE Std 802.1Q-2022,
2022, <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8403927>. December 2022,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10004498>.
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black, [RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998, DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.
[RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z., [RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
Services", RFC 2475, DOI 10.17487/RFC2475, December 1998, Services", RFC 2475, DOI 10.17487/RFC2475, December 1998,
skipping to change at page 15, line 40 skipping to change at line 673
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8651] Cheng, B., Wiggins, D., and L. Berger, Ed., "Dynamic Link [RFC8651] Cheng, B., Wiggins, D., and L. Berger, Ed., "Dynamic Link
Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Control-Plane-Based Pause Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Control-Plane-Based Pause
Extension", RFC 8651, DOI 10.17487/RFC8651, October 2019, Extension", RFC 8651, DOI 10.17487/RFC8651, October 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8651>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8651>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments [RFC9893] Cheng, B., Wiggins, D., Ratliff, S., Berger, L., and E.
Kinzie, Ed., "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)
Credit-Based Flow Control Messages and Data Items",
RFC 9893, DOI 10.17487/RFC9893, November 2025,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9893>.
[RFC9894] Cheng, B., Wiggins, D., Berger, L., and D. Eastlake 3rd,
Ed., "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Diffserv Aware
Credit Window Extension", RFC 9894, DOI 10.17487/RFC9894,
November 2025, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9894>.
Acknowledgments
The Sub-Data Item format was inspired by Rick Taylor's "Data Item The Sub-Data Item format was inspired by Rick Taylor's "Data Item
Containers". He also proposed the separation of credit windows from Containers". He also proposed the separation of credit windows from
traffic classification at IETF98. Many useful comments were received traffic classification at IETF 98. This document was derived from
from contributors to the MANET working group. This document was [RFC9894] as a result of discussions at IETF 101. Many useful
derived from [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension] as a result of comments were received from contributors to the MANET Working Group,
discussions at IETF 101. Many useful comments were received from notably Ronald in 't Velt and David Black.
contributors to the MANET working group, notably Ronald in't Velt and
David Black.
We had the honor of working too briefly with David Wiggins on this We had the honor of working too briefly with David Wiggins on this
and related DLEP work. His contribution to the IETF and publication and related DLEP work. His contribution to the IETF and publication
of the first and definitive open source DLEP implementation have been of the first and definitive open-source DLEP implementation have been
critical to the acceptance of DLEP. We mourn his passing on November critical to the acceptance of DLEP. We mourn his passing on November
23, 2023. We wish to recognize his guidance, leadership and 26, 2023. We wish to recognize his guidance, leadership, and
professional excellence. We were fortunate to benefit from his professional excellence. We were fortunate to benefit from his
leadership and friendship. He shall be missed. leadership and friendship. He shall be missed.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Bow-Nan Cheng Bow-Nan Cheng
MIT Lincoln Laboratory MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Massachusetts Institute of Technology
244 Wood Street 244 Wood Street
Lexington Lexington, MA 02421-6426
United States of America
Email: bcheng@ll.mit.edu Email: bcheng@ll.mit.edu
David Wiggins David Wiggins
Email: david@none.org
Lou Berger Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C. LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Email: lberger@labn.net Email: lberger@labn.net
Don Fedyk (editor) Don Fedyk (editor)
LabN Consulting, L.L.C. LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Email: dfedyk@labn.net Email: dfedyk@labn.net
 End of changes. 100 change blocks. 
268 lines changed or deleted 274 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.