draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-01.txt   draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-02.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: January 9, 2021 Huawei Expires: July 19, 2021 Huawei
July 8, 2020 January 15, 2021
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-01 draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-02
Abstract Abstract
This document lists functional requirements for Operations, This document defines format and use principals of the Deterministic
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) toolset in Deterministic Network (DetNet) service Associated Channel (ACH) over a DetNet
Networks (DetNet) and, using these requirements; defines format and network with the MPLS data plane. The DetNet service ACH can be used
use principals of the DetNet service Associated Channel over a DetNet to carry test packets of active Operations, Administration, and
network with the MPLS data plane.. Maintenance protocols that are used to detect DetNet failures and
measure performance metrics.
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.
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 January 9, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 19, 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2021 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Terminology and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Terminology and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Keywords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Keywords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Active OAM for DetNet Networks with MPLS Data Plane . . . . . 4
4. Active OAM for DetNet Networks with MPLS Data Plane . . . . . 5 3.1. DetNet Active OAM Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. DetNet Active OAM Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. DetNet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Sub-
4.2. DetNet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Sub- functions Interaction with Active OAM . . . . . . . . . . 7
functions Interaction with Active OAM . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Use of Hybrid OAM in DetNet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Use of Hybrid OAM in DetNet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. OAM Interworking Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. OAM Interworking Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.1. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of TSN . . . . . 8
6.1. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of TSN . . . . . 9 5.2. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of DetNet IP . . 9
6.2. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of DetNet IP . . 10 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
the network proactively, while others, e.g., defect localization, the network proactively, while others, e.g., defect localization,
usually performed on-demand. These tasks achieved by a combination usually performed on-demand. These tasks achieved by a combination
of active and hybrid, as defined in [RFC7799], OAM methods. of active and hybrid, as defined in [RFC7799], OAM methods.
This document lists the functional requirements toward OAM for DetNet Also, this document defines format and use principals of the DetNet
domain. The list can further be used for gap analysis of available service Associated Channel over a DetNet network with the MPLS data
OAM tools to identify possible enhancements of existing or whether plane [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls].
new OAM tools are required to support proactive and on-demand path
monitoring and service validation. Also, this document defines
format and use principals of the DetNet service Associated Channel
over a DetNet network with the MPLS data plane
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls].
2. Conventions used in this document 2. Conventions used in this document
2.1. Terminology and Acronyms 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
skipping to change at page 4, line 22 skipping to change at page 4, line 22
examples of DetNet node. examples of DetNet node.
2.2. Keywords 2.2. Keywords
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
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
3. Requirements 3. Active OAM for DetNet Networks with MPLS Data Plane
This section lists requirements for OAM in DetNet domain with MPLS
data plane:
1. It MUST be possible to initiate DetNet OAM session from any
DetNet node towards another DetNet node(s) within given domain.
2. It SHOULD be possible to initialize DetNet OAM session from a
centralized controller.
3. DetNet OAM MUST support proactive and on-demand OAM monitoring
and measurement methods.
4. DetNet OAM packets MUST be in-band, i.e., follow precisely the
same path as DetNet data plane traffic.
5. DetNet OAM MUST support unidirectional OAM methods, continuity
check, connectivity verification, and performance measurement.
6. DetNet OAM MUST support bi-directional OAM methods. Such OAM
methods MAY combine in-band monitoring or measurement in the
forward direction and out-of-bound notification in the reverse
direction, i.e., from egress to ingress end point of the OAM
test session.
7. DetNet OAM MUST support proactive monitoring of a DetNet node
availability in the given DetNet domain.
8. DetNet OAM MUST support Path Maximum Transmission Unit
discovery.
9. DetNet OAM MUST support Remote Defect Indication (RDI)
notification to the DetNet node performing continuity checking.
10. DetNet OAM MUST support performance measurement methods.
11. DetNet OAM MAY support hybrid performance measurement methods.
12. DetNet OAM MUST support unidirectional performance measurement
methods. Calculated performance metrics MUST include but are
not limited to throughput, packet loss, delay and delay
variation metrics. [RFC6374] provides excellent details on
performance measurement and performance metrics.
13. DetNet OAM MUST support defect notification mechanism, like
Alarm Indication Signal. Any DetNet node in the given DetNet
domain MAY originate a defect notification addressed to any
subset of nodes within the domain.
14. DetNet OAM MUST support methods to enable survivability of the
DetNet domain. These recovery methods MAY use protection
switching and restoration.
15. DetNet OAM MUST support the discovery of Packet Replication,
Elimination, and Order preservation sub-functions locations in
the domain.
16. DetNet OAM MUST support testing of Packet Replication,
Elimination, and Order preservation sub-functions in the domain.
17. DetNet OAM MUST support monitoring any sub-set of paths
traversed through the DetNet domain by the DetNet flow.
4. Active OAM for DetNet Networks with MPLS Data Plane
OAM protocols and mechanisms act within the data plane of the OAM protocols and mechanisms act within the data plane of the
particular networking layer. And thus it is critical that the data particular networking layer. And thus it is critical that the data
plane encapsulation supports OAM mechanisms in such a way to comply plane encapsulation supports OAM mechanisms in such a way to comply
with the above-listed requirements. One of such examples that with the OAM requirements listed in [I-D.tpmb-detnet-oam-framework].
require special consideration is requirement #5: One of such examples that require special consideration is
requirement #5:
DetNet OAM packets MUST be in-band, i.e., follow precisely the DetNet OAM packets MUST be in-band, i.e., follow precisely the
same path as DetNet data plane traffic both for unidirectional and same path as DetNet data plane traffic both for unidirectional and
bi-directional DetNet paths. bi-directional DetNet paths.
The Det Net data plane encapsulation in transport network with MPLS The Det Net data plane encapsulation in transport network with MPLS
encapsulation specified in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]. For the MPLS encapsulation specified in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]. For the MPLS
underlay network, DetNet flows to be encapsulated analogous to underlay network, DetNet flows to be encapsulated analogous to
pseudowires (PW) over MPLS packet switched network, as described in pseudowires (PW) over MPLS packet switched network, as described in
[RFC3985], [RFC4385]. Generic PW MPLS Control Word (CW), defined in [RFC3985], [RFC4385]. Generic PW MPLS Control Word (CW), defined in
[RFC4385], for DetNet displayed in Figure 1. [RFC4385], for DetNet displayed in Figure 1.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 0| Sequence Number | |0 0 0 0| Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: DetNet Control Word Format Figure 1: DetNet Control Word Format
skipping to change at page 6, line 33 skipping to change at page 5, line 22
1111 11111111 111111 112212 112212 132213 1111 11111111 111111 112212 112212 132213
CE1----EN1--------R1-------R2-------R3--------EN2----CE2 CE1----EN1--------R1-------R2-------R3--------EN2----CE2
\2 22222/ 3 / \2 22222/ 3 /
\2222222 /----+ 3 / \2222222 /----+ 3 /
+------R4------------------------+ +------R4------------------------+
333333333333333333333333 333333333333333333333333
Figure 2: DetNet Data Plane Based on PW Figure 2: DetNet Data Plane Based on PW
4.1. DetNet Active OAM Encapsulation 3.1. DetNet Active OAM Encapsulation
DetNet OAM, like PW OAM, uses PW Associated Channel Header defined in DetNet OAM, like PW OAM, uses PW Associated Channel Header defined in
[RFC4385]. Figure 3 displays the encapsulation of a DetNet MPLS [RFC4385]. Figure 3 displays the encapsulation of a DetNet MPLS
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] active OAM packet. [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] active OAM packet.
+---------------------------------+ +---------------------------------+
| | | |
| DetNet App-Flow | | DetNet App-Flow |
| Payload Packet | | Payload Packet |
| | | |
skipping to change at page 8, line 37 skipping to change at page 7, line 15
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.
4.2. DetNet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Sub-functions 3.2. 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
sequencing information for the OAM packet. sequencing information for the OAM packet.
5. Use of Hybrid OAM in DetNet 4. Use of Hybrid OAM in DetNet
Hybrid OAM methods are used in performance monitoring and defined in Hybrid OAM methods are used in performance monitoring and defined in
[RFC7799] as: [RFC7799] as:
Hybrid Methods are Methods of Measurement that use a combination Hybrid Methods are Methods of Measurement that use a combination
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 Interworking Models 5. OAM Interworking Models
Interworking of two OAM domains that utilize different networking Interworking of two OAM domains that utilize different networking
technology can be realized either by a peering or a tunneling model. technology can be realized either by a peering or a tunneling model.
In a peering model, OAM domains are within the corresponding network In a peering model, OAM domains are within the corresponding network
domain. When using the peering model, state changes that are domain. When using the peering model, state changes that are
detected by a Fault Management OAM protocol can be mapped from one 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 OAM domain into another or a notification, e.g., an alarm, can be
sent to a central controller. In the tunneling model of OAM sent to a central controller. In the tunneling model of OAM
interworking, usually, only one active OAM protocol is used. Its interworking, usually, only one active OAM protocol is used. Its
test packets are tunneled through another domain along with the data test packets are tunneled through another domain along with the data
flow, thus ensuring the fate sharing among test and data packets. flow, thus ensuring the fate sharing among test and data packets.
6.1. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of TSN 5.1. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of TSN
Active DetNet OAM is required to provide the E2E fault management and Active DetNet OAM is required to provide the E2E fault management and
performance monitoring for a DetNet flow. Interworking of DetNet performance monitoring for a DetNet flow. Interworking of DetNet
active OAM with MPLS data plane with the IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive 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]. Networking (TSN) domain based on [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn].
In the case of the peering model is used in the fault management OAM, 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 then the node that borders both TSN and DetNet MPLS domains MUST
support [RFC7023]. [RFC7023] specified the mapping of defect states support [RFC7023]. [RFC7023] specified the mapping of defect states
between Ethernet Attachment Circuits (ACs) and associated Ethernet between Ethernet Attachment Circuits (ACs) and associated Ethernet
skipping to change at page 10, line 29 skipping to change at page 9, line 5
o Active OAM test packets MUST be treated in the TSN domain based on o Active OAM test packets MUST be treated in the TSN domain based on
its S-label and CoS marking (TC field value). its S-label and CoS marking (TC field value).
Note that the tunneling model of the OAM interworking requires that Note that the tunneling model of the OAM interworking requires that
the remote peer of the E2E OAM domain supports the active OAM the remote peer of the E2E OAM domain supports the active OAM
protocol selected on the ingress endpoint. For example, if BFD is protocol selected on the ingress endpoint. For example, if BFD is
used for proactive path continuity monitoring in the DetNet MPLS used for proactive path continuity monitoring in the DetNet MPLS
domain, a TSN endpoint of the DetNet service has also support BFD as domain, a TSN endpoint of the DetNet service has also support BFD as
defined in [RFC5885]. defined in [RFC5885].
6.2. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of DetNet IP 5.2. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of DetNet IP
Interworking between active OAM segments in DetNet MPLS and DetNet IP Interworking between active OAM segments in DetNet MPLS and DetNet IP
domains can also be realized using either the peering or the domains can also be realized using either the peering or the
tunneling model, as discussed in Section 6.1. Using the same tunneling model, as discussed in Section 5.1. Using the same
protocol, e.g., BFD, over both segments, simplifies the mapping of protocol, e.g., BFD, over both segments, simplifies the mapping of
errors in the peering model. To provide the performance monitoring errors in the peering model. To provide the performance monitoring
over a DetNet IP domain STAMP [RFC8762] and its extensions over a DetNet IP domain STAMP [RFC8762] and its extensions
[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv] can be used. [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv] can be used.
7. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
TBA This document does not have any requests for IANA allocation. This
section can be deleted before the publication of the draft.
8. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
This document lists the OAM requirements for a DetNet domain and does Additionally, security considerations discussed in DetNet
not raise any security concerns or issues in addition to ones common specifications: [RFC8655], [I-D.ietf-detnet-security],
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 [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] are applicable to this document. Security
concerns and issues related to MPLS OAM tools like LSP Ping concerns and issues related to MPLS OAM tools like LSP Ping
[RFC8029], BFD over PW [RFC5885] also apply to this specification. [RFC8029], BFD over PW [RFC5885] also apply to this specification.
9. Acknowledgment 8. 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.
10. References 9. References
10.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., Bryant, S., Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., Bryant, S.,
and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: MPLS", draft-ietf- and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: MPLS", draft-ietf-
detnet-mpls-08 (work in progress), July 2020. detnet-mpls-13 (work in progress), October 2020.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Malis, A., and S. Bryant, "DetNet
Data Plane: MPLS over IEEE 802.1 Time Sensitive Networking
(TSN)", draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn-03 (work in
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-06 (work in progress), May 2020. detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-08 (work in progress), December
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, [RFC7023] Mohan, D., Ed., Bitar, N., Ed., Sajassi, A., Ed., DeLord,
S., Niger, P., and R. Qiu, "MPLS and Ethernet Operations, S., Niger, P., and R. Qiu, "MPLS and Ethernet Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Interworking", Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Interworking",
RFC 7023, DOI 10.17487/RFC7023, October 2013, RFC 7023, DOI 10.17487/RFC7023, October 2013,
skipping to change at page 12, line 5 skipping to change at page 10, line 20
[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>.
10.2. Informational References 9.2. Informational References
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Malis, A., and S. Bryant, "DetNet
Data Plane: MPLS over IEEE 802.1 Time Sensitive Networking
(TSN)", draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn-05 (work in
progress), December 2020.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-security] [I-D.ietf-detnet-security]
Mizrahi, T. and E. Grossman, "Deterministic Networking Grossman, E., Mizrahi, T., and A. Hacker, "Deterministic
(DetNet) Security Considerations", draft-ietf-detnet- Networking (DetNet) Security Considerations", draft-ietf-
security-10 (work in progress), May 2020. detnet-security-13 (work in progress), December 2020.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv] [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv]
Mirsky, G., Min, X., Nydell, H., Foote, R., Masputra, A., Mirsky, G., Min, X., Nydell, H., Foote, R., Masputra, A.,
and E. Ruffini, "Simple Two-way Active Measurement and E. Ruffini, "Simple Two-way Active Measurement
Protocol Optional Extensions", draft-ietf-ippm-stamp- Protocol Optional Extensions", draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-
option-tlv-06 (work in progress), June 2020. option-tlv-10 (work in progress), November 2020.
[I-D.tpmb-detnet-oam-framework]
Mirsky, G., Theoleyre, F., Papadopoulos, G., and C.
Bernardos, "Framework of Operations, Administration and
Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic Networking (DetNet)",
draft-tpmb-detnet-oam-framework-00 (work in progress),
January 2021.
[IEEE.CFM] [IEEE.CFM]
IEEE, "Connectivity Fault Management clause of IEEE IEEE, "Connectivity Fault Management clause of IEEE
802.1Q", IEEE 802.1Q, 2013. 802.1Q", IEEE 802.1Q, 2013.
[ITU.Y1731] [ITU.Y1731]
ITU-T, "OAM functions and mechanisms for Ethernet based ITU-T, "OAM functions and mechanisms for Ethernet based
Networks", ITU-T Recommendation G.8013/Y.1731, November Networks", ITU-T Recommendation G.8013/Y.1731, November
2013. 2013.
 End of changes. 31 change blocks. 
134 lines changed or deleted 71 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/