draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-00.txt   draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-01.txt 
DetNet Working Group G. Mirsky DetNet Working Group G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft ZTE Corp. Internet-Draft ZTE Corp.
Intended status: Standards Track M. Chen Intended status: Standards Track M. Chen
Expires: September 28, 2020 Huawei Expires: January 9, 2021 Huawei
March 27, 2020 July 8, 2020
Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic
Networks (DetNet) with MPLS Data Plane Networks (DetNet) with MPLS Data Plane
draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-00 draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-01
Abstract Abstract
This document lists functional requirements for Operations, This document lists functional requirements for Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) toolset in Deterministic Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) toolset in Deterministic
Networks (DetNet) and, using these requirements; defines format and Networks (DetNet) and, using these requirements; defines format and
use principals of the DetNet service Associated Channel over a DetNet use principals of the DetNet service Associated Channel over a DetNet
network with the MPLS data plane.. network with the MPLS data plane..
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 36 skipping to change at page 1, line 36
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 September 28, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 9, 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Terminology and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Keywords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Keywords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Active OAM for DetNet Networks with MPLS Data Plane . . . . . 5 4. Active OAM for DetNet Networks with MPLS Data Plane . . . . . 5
4.1. DetNet Active OAM Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. DetNet Active OAM Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. DetNet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Sub- 4.2. DetNet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Sub-
functions Interaction with Active OAM . . . . . . . . . . 9 functions Interaction with Active OAM . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Use of Hybrid OAM in DetNet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Use of Hybrid OAM in DetNet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of DetNet IP . . . . 9 6. OAM Interworking Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of TSN . . . . . . . 9 6.1. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of TSN . . . . . 9
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.2. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of DetNet IP . . 10
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC8655] introduces and explains Deterministic Networks (DetNet) [RFC8655] introduces and explains Deterministic Networks (DetNet)
architecture and how the Packet Replication and Elimination function architecture and how the Packet Replication and Elimination function
(PREF) can be used to ensure low packet drop ratio in DetNet domain. (PREF) can be used to ensure low packet drop ratio in DetNet domain.
Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) protocols are used Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) protocols are used
to detect, localize defects in the network, and monitor network to detect, localize defects in the network, and monitor network
performance. Some OAM functions, e.g., failure detection, work in performance. Some OAM functions, e.g., failure detection, work in
skipping to change at page 3, line 7 skipping to change at page 3, line 7
domain. The list can further be used for gap analysis of available domain. The list can further be used for gap analysis of available
OAM tools to identify possible enhancements of existing or whether OAM tools to identify possible enhancements of existing or whether
new OAM tools are required to support proactive and on-demand path new OAM tools are required to support proactive and on-demand path
monitoring and service validation. Also, this document defines monitoring and service validation. Also, this document defines
format and use principals of the DetNet service Associated Channel format and use principals of the DetNet service Associated Channel
over a DetNet network with the MPLS data plane over a DetNet network with the MPLS data plane
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]. [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls].
2. Conventions used in this document 2. Conventions used in this document
2.1. Terminology 2.1. Terminology and Acronyms
The term "DetNet OAM" used in this document interchangeably with The term "DetNet OAM" used in this document interchangeably with
longer version "set of OAM protocols, methods and tools for longer version "set of OAM protocols, methods and tools for
Deterministic Networks". Deterministic Networks".
CW Control Word CW Control Word
DetNet Deterministic Networks DetNet Deterministic Networks
d-ACH DetNet Associated Channel Header d-ACH DetNet Associated Channel Header
skipping to change at page 3, line 37 skipping to change at page 3, line 37
OAM: Operations, Administration and Maintenance OAM: Operations, Administration and Maintenance
PREF Packet Replication and Elimination Function PREF Packet Replication and Elimination Function
POF Packet Ordering Function POF Packet Ordering Function
PW Pseudowire PW Pseudowire
RDI Remote Defect Indication RDI Remote Defect Indication
E2E End-to-end
CFM Connectivity Fault Management
BFD Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
TSN Time-Sensitive Network TSN Time-Sensitive Network
F-Label A Detnet "forwarding" label that identifies the LSP used to F-Label A Detnet "forwarding" label that identifies the LSP used to
forward a DetNet flow across an MPLS PSN, e.g., a hop-by-hop label forward a DetNet flow across an MPLS PSN, e.g., a hop-by-hop label
used between label switching routers (LSR). used between label switching routers (LSR).
S-Label A DetNet "service" label that is used between DetNet nodes S-Label A DetNet "service" label that is used between DetNet nodes
that implement also the DetNet service sub-layer functions. An that implement also the DetNet service sub-layer functions. An
S-Label is also used to identify a DetNet flow at DetNet service sub- S-Label is also used to identify a DetNet flow at DetNet service sub-
layer. layer.
skipping to change at page 8, line 37 skipping to change at page 8, line 37
originating node MUST monotonically increase the value of the originating node MUST monotonically increase the value of the
Sequence Number field for the every next active OAM packet. Sequence Number field for the every next active OAM packet.
Channel Type: the value of DetNet Associated Channel Type is one Channel Type: the value of DetNet Associated Channel Type is one
of values defined in the IANA PW Associated Channel Type registry. of values defined in the IANA PW Associated Channel Type registry.
The DetNet flow, according to [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls], is identified The DetNet flow, according to [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls], is identified
by the S-label that MUST be at the bottom of the stack. Active OAM by the S-label that MUST be at the bottom of the stack. Active OAM
packet MUST have d-ACH immediately following the S-label. packet MUST have d-ACH immediately following the S-label.
Special consideration for DetNet active OAM with MPLS data plane
interworking with OAM in IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN)
domain based on [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn]:
o Active OAM test packet MUST be mapped to the same TSN Stream ID as
the monitored DetNet flow .
o Active OAM test packets MUST be treated in the TSN domain based on
its S-label and CoS marking (TC field value).
4.2. DetNet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Sub-functions 4.2. DetNet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Sub-functions
Interaction with Active OAM Interaction with Active OAM
At the DetNet service layer, special functions MAY be applied to the At the DetNet service layer, special functions MAY be applied to the
particular DetNet flow - PREF to potentially lower packet loss, particular DetNet flow - PREF to potentially lower packet loss,
improve the probability of on-time packet delivery and Packet improve the probability of on-time packet delivery and Packet
Ordering Function (POF) to ensure in-order packet delivery. As data Ordering Function (POF) to ensure in-order packet delivery. As data
and the active OAM packets have the same Flow ID, S-label, sub- and the active OAM packets have the same Flow ID, S-label, sub-
functions that rely on sequencing information in the DetNet service functions that rely on sequencing information in the DetNet service
layer MUST process 28 MSBs of the d-ACH as the source of the layer MUST process 28 MSBs of the d-ACH as the source of the
skipping to change at page 9, line 33 skipping to change at page 9, line 21
of Active Methods and Passive Methods. of Active Methods and Passive Methods.
A hybrid measurement method may produce metrics as close to passive, A hybrid measurement method may produce metrics as close to passive,
but it still alters something in a data packet even if that is the but it still alters something in a data packet even if that is the
value of a designated field in the packet encapsulation. One example value of a designated field in the packet encapsulation. One example
of such a hybrid measurement method is the Alternate Marking method of such a hybrid measurement method is the Alternate Marking method
described in [RFC8321]. Reserving the field for the Alternate described in [RFC8321]. Reserving the field for the Alternate
Marking method in the DetNet Header will enhance available to an Marking method in the DetNet Header will enhance available to an
operator set of DetNet OAM tools. operator set of DetNet OAM tools.
6. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of DetNet IP 6. OAM Interworking Models
TBA Interworking of two OAM domains that utilize different networking
technology can be realized either by a peering or a tunneling model.
In a peering model, OAM domains are within the corresponding network
domain. When using the peering model, state changes that are
detected by a Fault Management OAM protocol can be mapped from one
OAM domain into another or a notification, e.g., an alarm, can be
sent to a central controller. In the tunneling model of OAM
interworking, usually, only one active OAM protocol is used. Its
test packets are tunneled through another domain along with the data
flow, thus ensuring the fate sharing among test and data packets.
7. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of TSN 6.1. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of TSN
TBA Active DetNet OAM is required to provide the E2E fault management and
performance monitoring for a DetNet flow. Interworking of DetNet
active OAM with MPLS data plane with the IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive
Networking (TSN) domain based on [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn].
8. IANA Considerations In the case of the peering model is used in the fault management OAM,
then the node that borders both TSN and DetNet MPLS domains MUST
support [RFC7023]. [RFC7023] specified the mapping of defect states
between Ethernet Attachment Circuits (ACs) and associated Ethernet
PWs that are part of an end-to-end (E2E) emulated Ethernet service.
Requirements and mechanisms described in [RFC7023] are equally
applicable to using the peering model to achieve E2E FM OAM over
DetNet MPLS and TSN domains. The Connectivity Fault Management (CFM)
protocol [IEEE.CFM] or in [ITU.Y1731] can provide fast detection of a
failure in the TSN segment of the DetNet service. In the DetNet MPLS
domain BFD (Bidirectional Forwarding Detection), specified in
[RFC5880] and [RFC5885], can be used. To provide E2E failure
detection, the TSN segment might be presented as a concatenated with
the DetNet MPLS and the Section 6.8.17 [RFC5880] MAY be used to
inform the upstream DetNet MPLS node of a failure of the TSN segment.
Performance monitoring can be supported by [RFC6374] in the DetNet
MPLS and [ITU.Y1731] in the TSN domains, respectively. Performance
objectives for each domain should refer to metrics that additive or
be defined for each domain separately.
The following considerations are to be realized when using the
tunneling model of OAM interworking between DetNet MPLS and TSN
domains:
o Active OAM test packet MUST be mapped to the same TSN Stream ID as
the monitored DetNet flow.
o Active OAM test packets MUST be treated in the TSN domain based on
its S-label and CoS marking (TC field value).
Note that the tunneling model of the OAM interworking requires that
the remote peer of the E2E OAM domain supports the active OAM
protocol selected on the ingress endpoint. For example, if BFD is
used for proactive path continuity monitoring in the DetNet MPLS
domain, a TSN endpoint of the DetNet service has also support BFD as
defined in [RFC5885].
6.2. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of DetNet IP
Interworking between active OAM segments in DetNet MPLS and DetNet IP
domains can also be realized using either the peering or the
tunneling model, as discussed in Section 6.1. Using the same
protocol, e.g., BFD, over both segments, simplifies the mapping of
errors in the peering model. To provide the performance monitoring
over a DetNet IP domain STAMP [RFC8762] and its extensions
[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv] can be used.
7. IANA Considerations
TBA TBA
9. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
This document lists the OAM requirements for a DetNet domain and does This document lists the OAM requirements for a DetNet domain and does
not raise any security concerns or issues in addition to ones common not raise any security concerns or issues in addition to ones common
to networking. to networking. Additionally, security considerations discussed in
DetNet specifications: [RFC8655], [I-D.ietf-detnet-security],
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] are applicable to this document. Security
concerns and issues related to MPLS OAM tools like LSP Ping
[RFC8029], BFD over PW [RFC5885] also apply to this specification.
10. Acknowledgment 9. Acknowledgment
Authors extend their appreciation to Pascal Thubert for his Authors extend their appreciation to Pascal Thubert for his
insightful comments and productive discussion that helped to improve insightful comments and productive discussion that helped to improve
the document. the document.
11. References 10. References
11.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[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., Malis, A., Bryant, S.,
Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: MPLS", and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: MPLS", draft-ietf-
draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-05 (work in progress), February detnet-mpls-08 (work in progress), July 2020.
2020.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn] [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Malis, A., and S. Bryant, "DetNet Varga, B., Farkas, J., Malis, A., and S. Bryant, "DetNet
Data Plane: MPLS over IEEE 802.1 Time Sensitive Networking Data Plane: MPLS over IEEE 802.1 Time Sensitive Networking
(TSN)", draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn-02 (work in (TSN)", draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn-03 (work in
progress), March 2020. progress), June 2020.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip] [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., and S. Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., and S.
Bryant, "DetNet Data Plane: MPLS over UDP/IP", draft-ietf- Bryant, "DetNet Data Plane: MPLS over UDP/IP", draft-ietf-
detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-05 (work in progress), February detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-06 (work in progress), May 2020.
2020.
[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>.
[RFC7023] Mohan, D., Ed., Bitar, N., Ed., Sajassi, A., Ed., DeLord,
S., Niger, P., and R. Qiu, "MPLS and Ethernet Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Interworking",
RFC 7023, DOI 10.17487/RFC7023, October 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7023>.
[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>.
[RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, [RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655, "Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019, DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>.
11.2. Informational References 10.2. Informational References
[I-D.ietf-detnet-security]
Mizrahi, T. and E. Grossman, "Deterministic Networking
(DetNet) Security Considerations", draft-ietf-detnet-
security-10 (work in progress), May 2020.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv]
Mirsky, G., Min, X., Nydell, H., Foote, R., Masputra, A.,
and E. Ruffini, "Simple Two-way Active Measurement
Protocol Optional Extensions", draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-
option-tlv-06 (work in progress), June 2020.
[IEEE.CFM]
IEEE, "Connectivity Fault Management clause of IEEE
802.1Q", IEEE 802.1Q, 2013.
[ITU.Y1731]
ITU-T, "OAM functions and mechanisms for Ethernet based
Networks", ITU-T Recommendation G.8013/Y.1731, November
2013.
[RFC3985] Bryant, S., Ed. and P. Pate, Ed., "Pseudo Wire Emulation [RFC3985] Bryant, S., Ed. and P. Pate, Ed., "Pseudo Wire Emulation
Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3985, March 2005, DOI 10.17487/RFC3985, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3985>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3985>.
[RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson, [RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
"Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, DOI 10.17487/RFC4385, Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, DOI 10.17487/RFC4385,
February 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4385>. February 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4385>.
[RFC4928] Swallow, G., Bryant, S., and L. Andersson, "Avoiding Equal [RFC4928] Swallow, G., Bryant, S., and L. Andersson, "Avoiding Equal
Cost Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks", BCP 128, Cost Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks", BCP 128,
RFC 4928, DOI 10.17487/RFC4928, June 2007, RFC 4928, DOI 10.17487/RFC4928, June 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4928>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4928>.
[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.
[RFC5885] Nadeau, T., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Bidirectional
Forwarding Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual
Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)", RFC 5885,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5885, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5885>.
[RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay [RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011, DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6374>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6374>.
[RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with [RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799, Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>. May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.
[RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.
[RFC8321] Fioccola, G., Ed., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli, [RFC8321] Fioccola, G., Ed., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli,
L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi, L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi,
"Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid "Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid
Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321, Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321,
January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8321>. January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8321>.
[RFC8762] Mirsky, G., Jun, G., Nydell, H., and R. Foote, "Simple
Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol", RFC 8762,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8762, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8762>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Greg Mirsky Greg Mirsky
ZTE Corp. ZTE Corp.
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Mach(Guoyi) Chen Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Huawei Huawei
 End of changes. 27 change blocks. 
45 lines changed or deleted 150 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/