draft-ietf-detnet-ip-04.txt   draft-ietf-detnet-ip-05.txt 
DetNet B. Varga, Ed. DetNet B. Varga, Ed.
Internet-Draft J. Farkas Internet-Draft J. Farkas
Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson
Expires: May 24, 2020 L. Berger Expires: August 6, 2020 L. Berger
D. Fedyk D. Fedyk
LabN Consulting, L.L.C. LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
A. Malis A. Malis
Independent Independent
S. Bryant S. Bryant
Futurewei Technologies Futurewei Technologies
J. Korhonen February 3, 2020
November 21, 2019
DetNet Data Plane: IP DetNet Data Plane: IP
draft-ietf-detnet-ip-04 draft-ietf-detnet-ip-05
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies the Deterministic Networking data plane when This document specifies the Deterministic Networking data plane when
operating in an IP packet switched network. operating in an IP packet switched network.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
skipping to change at page 1, line 39 skipping to change at page 1, line 38
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 24, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 6, 2020.
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
skipping to change at page 2, line 37 skipping to change at page 2, line 36
5. DetNet IP Data Plane Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. DetNet IP Data Plane Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. DetNet IP Flow Identification Procedures . . . . . . . . 12 5.1. DetNet IP Flow Identification Procedures . . . . . . . . 12
5.1.1. IP Header Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.1.1. IP Header Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1.2. Other Protocol Header Information . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.1.2. Other Protocol Header Information . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.2. Forwarding Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.2. Forwarding Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.3. DetNet IP Traffic Treatment Procedures . . . . . . . . . 15 5.3. DetNet IP Traffic Treatment Procedures . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Management and Control Information Summary . . . . . . . . . 16 6. Management and Control Information Summary . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 11.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Deterministic Networking (DetNet) is a service that can be offered by Deterministic Networking (DetNet) is a service that can be offered by
a network to DetNet flows. DetNet provides these flows extremely low a network to DetNet flows. DetNet provides these flows extremely low
packet loss rates and assured maximum end-to-end delivery latency. packet loss rates and assured maximum end-to-end delivery latency.
General background and concepts of DetNet can be found in the DetNet General background and concepts of DetNet can be found in the DetNet
Architecture [RFC8655]. Architecture [RFC8655].
skipping to change at page 3, line 15 skipping to change at page 3, line 15
the existing IP and higher layer protocol header information is used the existing IP and higher layer protocol header information is used
to support flow identification and DetNet service delivery. Common to support flow identification and DetNet service delivery. Common
data plane procedures and control information for all DetNet data data plane procedures and control information for all DetNet data
planes can be found in the [I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework]. planes can be found in the [I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework].
The DetNet Architecture models the DetNet related data plane The DetNet Architecture models the DetNet related data plane
functions as two sub-layers: functions into two sub-layers: a service functions as two sub-layers: functions into two sub-layers: a service
sub-layer and a forwarding sub-layer. The service sub-layer is used sub-layer and a forwarding sub-layer. The service sub-layer is used
to provide DetNet service protection (e.g., by packet replication and to provide DetNet service protection (e.g., by packet replication and
packet elimination functions) and reordering. The forwarding sub- packet elimination functions) and reordering. The forwarding sub-
layer is used to provides congestion protection (low loss, assured layer is used to provide congestion protection (low loss, assured
latency, and limited out-of-order delivery). The service sub-layer latency, and limited out-of-order delivery). The service sub-layer
generally requires additional fields to provide its service; for generally requires additional fields to provide its service; for
example see [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]. Since no DetNet-specific fields example see [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]. Since no DetNet-specific fields
are added to support DetNet IP flows, only the forwarding sub-layer are added to support DetNet IP flows, only the forwarding sub-layer
functions are supported using the DetNet IP defined by this document. functions are supported using the DetNet IP defined by this document.
Service protection can be provided on a per sub-net basis using Service protection can be provided on a per sub-net basis using
technologies such as MPLS [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls] and Ethernet technologies such as MPLS [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls] and Ethernet
as specified in the IEEE 802.1 TSN task group(referred to in this as specified in the IEEE 802.1 TSN task group(referred to in this
document simply as IEEE802.1 TSN). document simply as IEEE802.1 TSN).
skipping to change at page 3, line 45 skipping to change at page 3, line 45
2.1. Terms Used In This Document 2.1. Terms Used In This Document
This document uses the terminology and concepts established in the This document uses the terminology and concepts established in the
DetNet architecture [RFC8655], and the reader is assumed to be DetNet architecture [RFC8655], and the reader is assumed to be
familiar with that document and its terminology. familiar with that document and its terminology.
2.2. Abbreviations 2.2. Abbreviations
The following abbreviations used in this document: The following abbreviations used in this document:
CoS Class of Service. CoS Class of Service
DetNet Deterministic Networking. DetNet Deterministic Networking
DN DetNet. DN DetNet
DiffServ Differentiated Services DiffServ Differentiated Services
DSCP Differentiated Services Code Point DSCP Differentiated Services Code Point
L2 Layer-2. L2 Layer-2
L3 Layer-3. L3 Layer-3
LSP Label-switched path. LSP Label-switched path
MPLS Multiprotocol Label Switching. MPLS Multiprotocol Label Switching
PREOF Packet Replication, Elimination and Ordering Function. PREOF Packet Replication, Elimination and Ordering Function
QoS Quality of Service. QoS Quality of Service
TSN Time-Sensitive Networking, TSN is a Task Group of the TSN Time-Sensitive Networking, TSN is a Task Group of the
IEEE 802.1 Working Group. IEEE 802.1 Working Group.
2.3. Requirements Language 2.3. Requirements Language
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 BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
skipping to change at page 4, line 49 skipping to change at page 4, line 49
The DetNet IP data plane primarily uses "6-tuple" based flow The DetNet IP data plane primarily uses "6-tuple" based flow
identification, where 6-tuple refers to information carried in IP and identification, where 6-tuple refers to information carried in IP and
higher layer protocol headers. The 6-tuple referred to in this higher layer protocol headers. The 6-tuple referred to in this
document is the same as that defined in [RFC3290]. Specifically document is the same as that defined in [RFC3290]. Specifically
6-tuple is (destination address, source address, IP protocol, source 6-tuple is (destination address, source address, IP protocol, source
port, destination port, and differentiated services (DiffServ) code port, destination port, and differentiated services (DiffServ) code
point (DSCP). General background on the use of IP headers, and point (DSCP). General background on the use of IP headers, and
5-tuples, to identify flows and support Quality of Service (QoS) can 5-tuples, to identify flows and support Quality of Service (QoS) can
be found in [RFC3670]. [RFC7657] also provides useful background on be found in [RFC3670]. [RFC7657] also provides useful background on
the delivery of DiffServ and "tuple" based flow identification. the delivery of DiffServ and "tuple" based flow identification. Note
that a 6-tuple is composed of a 5-tuple plus the addition of a DSCP
component.
The DetNet IP data plane also allows for optional matching on the The DetNet IP data plane also allows for optional matching on the
IPv6 flow label field, as defined in [RFC8200]. IPv6 flow label field, as defined in [RFC8200].
Non-DetNet and DetNet IP packets are identical on the wire. Non-DetNet and DetNet IP packets are identical on the wire.
Generally the fields used in flow identification are forwarded Generally the fields used in flow identification are forwarded
unmodified, however modification of these fields is allowed, for unmodified, however modification of these fields is allowed, for
example to a DSCP value, when required by the DetNet service. example to a DSCP value, when required by the DetNet service.
DetNet flow aggregation may be enabled via the use of wildcards, DetNet flow aggregation may be enabled via the use of wildcards,
skipping to change at page 5, line 49 skipping to change at page 5, line 49
Figure 1 illustrates a DetNet enabled IP network. The DetNet enabled Figure 1 illustrates a DetNet enabled IP network. The DetNet enabled
end systems originate IP encapsulated traffic those are identified end systems originate IP encapsulated traffic those are identified
within the DetNet domain as DetNet flows, relay nodes understand the within the DetNet domain as DetNet flows, relay nodes understand the
forwarding requirements of the DetNet flow and ensure that node, forwarding requirements of the DetNet flow and ensure that node,
interface and sub-network resources are allocated to ensure DetNet interface and sub-network resources are allocated to ensure DetNet
service requirements. The dotted line around the Service component service requirements. The dotted line around the Service component
of the Relay Nodes indicates that the transit routers are DetNet of the Relay Nodes indicates that the transit routers are DetNet
service aware but do not perform any DetNet service sub-layer service aware but do not perform any DetNet service sub-layer
function, e.g., PREOF. function, e.g., PREOF.
Note: The sub-network can represent a TSN, MPLS or IP network Note: The sub-network can represent a TSN, MPLS network or other
segment. network technology that can carry DetNet IP traffic.
IP Edge Edge IP IP Edge Edge IP
End System Node Node End System End System Node Node End System
+----------+ +.........+ +.........+ +----------+ +----------+ +.........+ +.........+ +----------+
| Appl. |<--:Svc Proxy:-- E2E Service---:Svc Proxy:-->| Appl. | | Appl. |<--:Svc Proxy:-- E2E Service---:Svc Proxy:-->| Appl. |
+----------+ +.........+ +.........+ +----------+ +----------+ +.........+ +.........+ +----------+
| IP |<--:IP : :Svc:---- IP flow ----:Svc: :IP :-->| IP | | IP |<--:IP : :Svc:---- IP flow ----:Svc: :IP :-->| IP |
+----------+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +----------+ +----------+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +----------+
|Forwarding| |Fwd| |Fwd| |Fwd| |Fwd| |Forwarding| |Forwarding| |Fwd| |Fwd| |Fwd| |Fwd| |Forwarding|
skipping to change at page 7, line 40 skipping to change at page 7, line 40
applications and end systems SHOULD NOT mix DetNet and non-DetNet applications and end systems SHOULD NOT mix DetNet and non-DetNet
traffic within a single 5-tuple. traffic within a single 5-tuple.
4.2. DetNet Domain-Specific Considerations 4.2. DetNet Domain-Specific Considerations
As a general rule, DetNet IP domains need to be able to forward any As a general rule, DetNet IP domains need to be able to forward any
DetNet flow identified by the IP 6-tuple. Doing otherwise would DetNet flow identified by the IP 6-tuple. Doing otherwise would
limit the number of 6-tuple flow ID combinations that could be used limit the number of 6-tuple flow ID combinations that could be used
by the end systems. From a practical standpoint this means that all by the end systems. From a practical standpoint this means that all
nodes along the end-to-end path of DetNet flows need to agree on what nodes along the end-to-end path of DetNet flows need to agree on what
fields are used for flow identification, and the transport protocols fields are used for flow identification.
(e.g., TCP/UDP/IPsec) which can be used to identify 6-tuple protocol
ports.
From a connection type perspective two scenarios are identified: From a connection type perspective two scenarios are identified:
1. DN attached: the end system is directly connected to an edge 1. DN attached: the end system is directly connected to an edge
node, or the end system is behind a sub-network (See ES1 and ES2 node, or the end system is behind a sub-network (See ES1 and ES2
in figure below) in figure below)
2. DN integrated: the end system is part of the DetNet domain. (See 2. DN integrated: the end system is part of the DetNet domain. (See
ES3 in figure below) ES3 in figure below)
skipping to change at page 15, line 43 skipping to change at page 15, line 43
The use of multiple paths or links, e.g., ECMP, to support a single The use of multiple paths or links, e.g., ECMP, to support a single
DetNet flow is NOT RECOMMENDED. ECMP MAY be used for non-DetNet DetNet flow is NOT RECOMMENDED. ECMP MAY be used for non-DetNet
flows within a DetNet domain. flows within a DetNet domain.
The above implies that management and control functions will be The above implies that management and control functions will be
defined to support this requirement, e.g., see defined to support this requirement, e.g., see
[I-D.ietf-detnet-yang]. [I-D.ietf-detnet-yang].
5.3. DetNet IP Traffic Treatment Procedures 5.3. DetNet IP Traffic Treatment Procedures
Implementations if this document MUST ensure that a DetNet flow Implementations of this document MUST ensure that a DetNet flow
receives the traffic treatment that is provisioned for it via receives the traffic treatment that is provisioned for it via
configuration or the controller plane, e.g., via configuration or the controller plane, e.g., via
[I-D.ietf-detnet-yang]. General information on DetNet service can be [I-D.ietf-detnet-yang]. General information on DetNet service can be
found in [I-D.ietf-detnet-flow-information-model]. Typical found in [I-D.ietf-detnet-flow-information-model]. Typical
mechanisms used to provide different treatment to different flows mechanisms used to provide different treatment to different flows
includes the allocation of system resources (such as queues and includes the allocation of system resources (such as queues and
buffers) and provisioning or related parameters (such as shaping, and buffers) and provisioning or related parameters (such as shaping, and
policing). Support can also be provided via an underlying network policing). Support can also be provided via an underlying network
technology such as MPLS [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls] or IEEE802.1 technology such as MPLS [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls] or IEEE802.1
TSN [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn]. Other than in the TSN case, the TSN [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn]. Other than in the TSN case, the
skipping to change at page 18, line 29 skipping to change at page 18, line 29
9. Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Pat Thaler, Norman Finn, Loa Anderson, The authors wish to thank Pat Thaler, Norman Finn, Loa Anderson,
David Black, Rodney Cummings, Ethan Grossman, Tal Mizrahi, David David Black, Rodney Cummings, Ethan Grossman, Tal Mizrahi, David
Mozes, Craig Gunther, George Swallow, Yuanlong Jiang and Carlos J. Mozes, Craig Gunther, George Swallow, Yuanlong Jiang and Carlos J.
Bernardos for their various contributions to this work. David Black Bernardos for their various contributions to this work. David Black
served as technical advisor to the DetNet working group during the served as technical advisor to the DetNet working group during the
development of this document and provided many valuable comments. development of this document and provided many valuable comments.
10. References 10. Contributors
10.1. Normative references This document is derived from an earlier draft that was edited by
Jouni Korhonen (jouni.nospam@gmail.com) and as such, he contributed
to and authored text in this document.
11. References
11.1. Normative references
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980, DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>.
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981, DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, [RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
skipping to change at page 19, line 43 skipping to change at page 20, line 5
[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>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 [RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
10.2. Informative references 11.2. Informative references
[I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework] [I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A., Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A.,
Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane
Framework", draft-ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework-03 Framework", draft-ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework-03
(work in progress), October 2019. (work in progress), October 2019.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls] [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls]
Korhonen, J. and B. Varga, "DetNet MPLS Data Plane Korhonen, J. and B. Varga, "DetNet MPLS Data Plane
Encapsulation", draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls-02 (work in Encapsulation", draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls-02 (work in
skipping to change at page 20, line 19 skipping to change at page 20, line 27
[I-D.ietf-detnet-flow-information-model] [I-D.ietf-detnet-flow-information-model]
Farkas, J., Varga, B., Cummings, R., Jiang, Y., and D. Farkas, J., Varga, B., Cummings, R., Jiang, Y., and D.
Fedyk, "DetNet Flow Information Model", draft-ietf-detnet- Fedyk, "DetNet Flow Information Model", draft-ietf-detnet-
flow-information-model-06 (work in progress), October flow-information-model-06 (work in progress), October
2019. 2019.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls] [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A., Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A.,
Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: IP over Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: IP over
MPLS", draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls-03 (work in MPLS", draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls-04 (work in
progress), October 2019. progress), November 2019.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn] [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Malis, A., and S. Bryant, "DetNet Varga, B., Farkas, J., Malis, A., and S. Bryant, "DetNet
Data Plane: IP over IEEE 802.1 Time Sensitive Networking Data Plane: IP over IEEE 802.1 Time Sensitive Networking
(TSN)", draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn-01 (work in (TSN)", draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn-01 (work in
progress), October 2019. progress), October 2019.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A., Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A.,
Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: MPLS", Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: MPLS",
draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-03 (work in progress), October draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-04 (work in progress), November
2019. 2019.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-security] [I-D.ietf-detnet-security]
Mizrahi, T., Grossman, E., Hacker, A., Das, S., Dowdell, Mizrahi, T., Grossman, E., Hacker, A., Das, S., Dowdell,
J., Austad, H., and N. Finn, "Deterministic Networking J., Austad, H., and N. Finn, "Deterministic Networking
(DetNet) Security Considerations", draft-ietf-detnet- (DetNet) Security Considerations", draft-ietf-detnet-
security-06 (work in progress), November 2019. security-07 (work in progress), January 2020.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-tsn-vpn-over-mpls] [I-D.ietf-detnet-tsn-vpn-over-mpls]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Malis, A., Bryant, S., and D. Varga, B., Farkas, J., Malis, A., Bryant, S., and D.
Fedyk, "DetNet Data Plane: IEEE 802.1 Time Sensitive Fedyk, "DetNet Data Plane: IEEE 802.1 Time Sensitive
Networking over MPLS", draft-ietf-detnet-tsn-vpn-over- Networking over MPLS", draft-ietf-detnet-tsn-vpn-over-
mpls-01 (work in progress), October 2019. mpls-01 (work in progress), October 2019.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-yang] [I-D.ietf-detnet-yang]
Geng, X., Chen, M., Ryoo, Y., Li, Z., and R. Rahman, Geng, X., Chen, M., Ryoo, Y., Li, Z., and R. Rahman,
"Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Configuration YANG "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Configuration YANG
Model", draft-ietf-detnet-yang-03 (work in progress), July Model", draft-ietf-detnet-yang-04 (work in progress),
2019. November 2019.
[IEEE802.1AE-2018] [IEEE802.1AE-2018]
IEEE Standards Association, "IEEE Std 802.1AE-2018 MAC IEEE Standards Association, "IEEE Std 802.1AE-2018 MAC
Security (MACsec)", 2018, Security (MACsec)", 2018,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8585421>. <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8585421>.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - [RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989, DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.
skipping to change at page 22, line 41 skipping to change at page 23, line 4
Lou Berger Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C. LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Email: lberger@labn.net Email: lberger@labn.net
Don Fedyk Don Fedyk
LabN Consulting, L.L.C. LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Email: dfedyk@labn.net Email: dfedyk@labn.net
Andrew G. Malis Andrew G. Malis
Independent Independent
Email: agmalis@gmail.com Email: agmalis@gmail.com
Stewart Bryant Stewart Bryant
Futurewei Technologies Futurewei Technologies
Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com
Jouni Korhonen
Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com
 End of changes. 30 change blocks. 
36 lines changed or deleted 42 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/