draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension-05.txt		rfc8757.txt
	Network Working Group B. Cheng		Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) B. Cheng
	Internet-Draft MIT Lincoln Laboratory		Request for Comments: 8757 MIT Lincoln Laboratory
	Intended status: Standards Track L. Berger, Ed.		Category: Standards Track L. Berger, Ed.
	Expires: May 23, 2020 LabN Consulting, L.L.C.		ISSN: 2070-1721 LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
	November 20, 2019		March 2020
	Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Latency Range Extension		Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Latency Range Extension
	draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension-05
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document defines an extension to the Dynamic Link Exchange		This document defines an extension to the Dynamic Link Exchange
	Protocol (DLEP) to provide the range of latency that can be		Protocol (DLEP) to provide the range of latency that can be
	experienced on a link.		experienced on a link.
	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 May 23, 2020.		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/rfc8757.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2020 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		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction
	1.1. Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1.1. Key Words
	2. Extension Usage and Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		2. Extension Usage and Identification
	3. Latency Range Data Item . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		3. Latency Range Data Item
	4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		4. Security Considerations
	5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		5. IANA Considerations
	5.1. Extension Type Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		5.1. Extension Type Value
	5.2. Data Item Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		5.2. Data Item Value
	6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		6. References
	Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		6.1. Normative References
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		6.2. Informative References
			Acknowledgments
			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].
	It provides the exchange of link related control information between		It provides the exchange of link-related control information between
	DLEP peers. DLEP peers are comprised of a modem and a router. DLEP		DLEP peers. DLEP peers are comprised of a modem and a router. DLEP
	defines a base set of mechanisms as well as support for possible		defines a base set of mechanisms as well as support for possible
	extensions. This document defines one such extension.		extensions. This document defines one such extension.
	The base DLEP specification includes the Latency metric which		The base DLEP specification includes the Latency Data Item, which
	provides a single latency value on a link, which is implementation		provides a single, implementation-dependent latency value on a link.
	dependent. This document adds the ability to relay the minimum and		This document adds the ability to relay the minimum and maximum
	maximum latency range seen on a link. The extension defined in this		latency range seen on a link. The extension defined in this document
	document is referred to as "Latency Range".		is referred to as "Latency Range".
	This document defines a new DLEP Extension Type Value in Section 2		This document defines a new DLEP Extension Type Value that is used to
	which is used to indicate the use of the extension, and one new DLEP		indicate the use of the extension; see Section 2. A new DLEP Data
	Data Item in Section 3.		Item is defined in Section 3.
	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. Extension Usage and Identification		2. Extension Usage and Identification
	The use of the Latency Range Extension SHOULD be configurable. To		The use of the Latency Range Extension SHOULD be configurable. To
	indicate that the Latency Range Extension is to be used, an		indicate that the Latency Range Extension is to be used, an
	implementation MUST include the Latency Range Extension Type Value in		implementation MUST include the Latency Range Extension Type Value in
	the Extensions Supported Data Item. The Extensions Supported Data		the Extensions Supported Data Item. The Extensions Supported Data
	Item is sent and processed according to [RFC8175].		Item is sent and processed according to [RFC8175].
	Note: the usage of the extension defined in this document does not		Note: The usage of the extension defined in this document does not
	impact processing associated with the Latency Data Item defined in		impact processing associated with the Latency Data Item defined in
	[RFC8175].		[RFC8175].
	The Latency Range Extension Type Value is TBA1, see Section 5.		The Latency Range Extension Type Value is 4; see Section 5.
	3. Latency Range Data Item		3. Latency Range Data Item
	The Latency Range Data Item serves much the same purpose as the		The Latency Range Data Item serves much the same purpose as the
	Latency Data Item defined in [RFC8175] with the addition of being		Latency Data Item defined in [RFC8175] with the addition of being
	able to communicate the latency range that can be experienced by		able to communicate the latency range that can be experienced by
	traffic on a link. The Latency Range Data Item MUST be included in		traffic on a link. The Latency Range Data Item MUST be included in
	the Session Initialization Response Message, with default values to		the Session Initialization Response Message, with default values to
	be used on a session-wide basis. The Latency Range Data Item also		be used on a session-wide basis. The Latency Range Data Item also
	MAY be carried in any message where the Latency Data Item [RFC8175]		MAY be carried in any message where the Latency Data Item [RFC8175]
	is allowed and is carried as an additional data item. When present,		is allowed and is carried as an additional data item. When present,
	the Latency Range Data Item MUST be processed according to the same		the Latency Range Data Item MUST be processed according to the same
	rules as the Latency Data Item defined in [RFC8175].		rules as the Latency Data Item defined in [RFC8175].
	The format of the Latency Range Data Item is:		The format of the Latency Range Data Item is:
	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 |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Maximum Latency :		| Maximum Latency :
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	: Maximum Latency |		: Maximum Latency |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Minimum Latency :		| Minimum Latency :
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	: Minimum Latency |		: Minimum Latency |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Data Item Type: TBA2		Data Item Type:
			28
	Length: 16		Length:
			16
	Maximum Latency:		Maximum Latency:
	A 64-bit unsigned integer, representing the longest transmission		A 64-bit unsigned integer, representing the longest transmission
	delay, in microseconds, that a packet encounters as it is		delay, in microseconds, that a packet encounters as it is
	transmitted over the link.		transmitted over the link.
	Minimum Latency:		Minimum Latency:
	A 64-bit unsigned integer, representing the shortest transmission		A 64-bit unsigned integer, representing the shortest transmission
	delay, in microseconds, that a packet can encounter as it is		delay, in microseconds, that a packet can encounter as it is
	transmitted over the link.		transmitted over the link.
	4. Security Considerations		4. Security Considerations
	The extension introduces a new Data Item for DLEP. The extension		The extension introduces a new Data Item for DLEP. The extension
	does not inherently introduce any additional vulnerabilities above		does not inherently introduce any additional vulnerabilities above
	those documented in [RFC8175]. The approach taken to Security in		those documented in [RFC8175]. The approach taken to security in
	that document applies equally when running the extension defined in		that document applies equally when running the extension defined in
	this document.		this document.
	5. IANA Considerations		5. IANA Considerations
	This document requests the assignment of two values by IANA. All		As described below, IANA has assigned two values per this document.
	assignments are to registries defined by [RFC8175].		Both assignments are to registries defined by [RFC8175].
	5.1. Extension Type Value		5.1. Extension Type Value
	This document requests one new assignment to the DLEP Extensions		IANA has assigned the following value in the "Extension Type Values"
	Registry named "Extension Type Values" in the range with the		registry within the "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)
	"Specification Required" policy. The requested value is as follows:		Parameters" registry. The new value is in the range with the
			"Specification Required" [RFC8126] policy:
	+------+---------------+		+------+---------------+
	| Code | Description |		| Code | Description |
	+------+---------------+		+======+===============+
	| TBA1 | Latency Range |		| 4 | Latency Range |
	+------+---------------+		+------+---------------+
	Table 1: Requested Extension Type Value		Table 1: New Extension
			Type Value
	5.2. Data Item Value		5.2. Data Item Value
	This document requests one new assignment to the DLEP Data Item		IANA has assigned the following value in the "Data Item Type Values"
	Registry named "Data Item Type Values" in the range with the		registry within the "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)
	"Specification Required" policy. The requested values are as		Parameters" registry. The new value is in the range with the
	follows:		"Specification Required" [RFC8126] policy:
	+-----------+---------------+		+-----------+---------------+
	| Type Code | Description |		| Type Code | Description |
	+-----------+---------------+		+===========+===============+
	| TBA2 | Latency Range |		| 28 | Latency Range |
	+-----------+---------------+		+-----------+---------------+
	Table 2: Requested Data Item Values		Table 2: New Data Item Value
	6. Normative References		6. 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>.
	[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC		[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
	2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,		2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
	May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.		May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
	[RFC8175] Ratliff, S., Jury, S., Satterwhite, D., Taylor, R., and B.		[RFC8175] Ratliff, S., Jury, S., Satterwhite, D., Taylor, R., and B.
	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>.
	Appendix A. Acknowledgments		6.2. Informative References
			[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
			Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
			RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
			Acknowledgments
	Helpful comments were received from members of the MANET working		Helpful comments were received from members of the MANET working
	grouping, including Ronald in 't Velt, Henning Rogge, and Victoria		group, including Ronald in 't Velt, Henning Rogge, and Victoria
	Pritchard.		Pritchard.
	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, MA 02421-6426		Lexington, MA 02421-6426
			United States of America
	Email: bcheng@ll.mit.edu		Email: bcheng@ll.mit.edu
	Lou Berger (editor)		Lou Berger (editor)
	LabN Consulting, L.L.C.		LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
	Email: lberger@labn.net		Email: lberger@labn.net
End of changes. 30 change blocks.
	83 lines changed or deleted		93 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/