draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry-00.txt   draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry-01.txt 
Network Working Group A. Morton Network Working Group A. Morton
Internet-Draft AT&T Labs Internet-Draft AT&T Labs
Updates: 4656 (if approved) July 24, 2015 Updates: 4656 (if approved) August 26, 2015
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: January 25, 2016 Expires: February 27, 2016
Registries for the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol - OWAMP Registries for the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol - OWAMP
draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry-00 draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry-01
Abstract Abstract
This memo describes the registries for OWAMP - the One-Way Active This memo describes the registries for OWAMP - the One-Way Active
Measurement Protocol. The registries allow assignment of MODE bit Measurement Protocol. The registries allow assignment of MODE bit
positions and OWAMP Command numbers. The memo also requests that positions and OWAMP Command numbers. The memo also requests that
IANA establish the registries for new features, called the OWAMP- IANA establish the registries for new features, called the OWAMP-
Modes registry and the OWAMP Control Command Number registry. Modes registry and the OWAMP Control Command Number registry. This
memo updates RFC 4656.
Requirements Language 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", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
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
skipping to change at page 1, line 41 skipping to change at page 1, line 42
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://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 25, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 27, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://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
skipping to change at page 2, line 26 skipping to change at page 2, line 29
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English. than English.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. IANA Considerations for OWAMP Control Registries . . . . . . 3 3. IANA Considerations for OWAMP Control Registries . . . . . . 3
3.1. Control Command Number Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. Control Command Number Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1.1. Registry Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1.1. Registry Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1.2. Registry Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1.2. Registry Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.3. Experimental Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1.3. Experimental Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.4. OWAMP-Control Command Numbers Initial Contents . . . 4 3.1.4. OWAMP-Control Command Numbers Initial Contents . . . 4
3.2. OWAMP-Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. OWAMP-Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2.1. Registry Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2.1. Registry Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2.2. Registry Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2.2. Registry Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.3. Experimental Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2.3. Experimental Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.4. OWAMP-Modes Initial Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2.4. OWAMP-Modes Initial Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The One-way Active Measurement Protocol, OWAMP [RFC4656] was prepared The One-way Active Measurement Protocol, OWAMP [RFC4656] was prepared
to support measurements of metrics specified by the IP Performance to support measurements of metrics specified by the IP Performance
Metrics (IPPM) working group in the IETF. The Two-Way Active Metrics (IPPM) working group in the IETF. The Two-Way Active
Measurement Protocol, TWAMP [RFC5357] is an extension of OWAMP. The Measurement Protocol, TWAMP [RFC5357] is an extension of OWAMP. The
TWAMP specification gathered wide review as it approached completion, TWAMP specification gathered wide review as it approached completion,
and the by-products were several recommendations for new features in and the by-products were several recommendations for new features in
TWAMP. As a result, a registry of new features was established for TWAMP. As a result, a registry of new features was established for
TWAMP. However, there were no new features proposed for OWAMP until TWAMP. However, there were no new features proposed for OWAMP until
recently. recently [I-D.ietf-ippm-ipsec].
This memo establishes the needed registries for OWAMP, and updates This memo establishes the needed registries for OWAMP, and updates
[RFC4656]. [RFC4656].
2. Purpose and Scope 2. Purpose and Scope
The purpose and scope of this memo is to describe and request the The purpose and scope of this memo is to describe and request the
establishment of registries for future OWAMP [RFC4656] extensions. establishment of registries for future OWAMP [RFC4656] extensions.
IANA already administrates the "Two-way Active Measurement Protocol IANA already administrates the "Two-way Active Measurement Protocol
(TWAMP) Parameters", and this request follows a similar form (with (TWAMP) Parameters", and this request follows a similar form (with
one exception identified below). one exception identified below).
This memo also provides the initial contents for the registries. This memo also provides the initial contents for the OWAMP
registries.
3. IANA Considerations for OWAMP Control Registries 3. IANA Considerations for OWAMP Control Registries
OWAMP-Control protocol coordinates the measurement capability. All OWAMP-Control protocol coordinates the measurement capability. All
OWAMP-Control messages follow specifications defined in section 3 of OWAMP-Control messages follow specifications defined in section 3 of
[RFC4656]. [RFC4656].
3.1. Control Command Number Registry 3.1. Control Command Number Registry
IANA is requested to create a OWAMP-Control Command Number registry. IANA is requested to create a OWAMP-Control Command Number registry.
skipping to change at page 3, line 46 skipping to change at page 4, line 9
3.1.1. Registry Specification 3.1.1. Registry Specification
OWAMP-Control Commands Numbers are specified in the first octet of OWAMP-Control Commands Numbers are specified in the first octet of
OWAMP-Control-Client command messages consistent with section 3 of OWAMP-Control-Client command messages consistent with section 3 of
[RFC4656]. There are a maximum of 256 command numbers. [RFC4656]. There are a maximum of 256 command numbers.
3.1.2. Registry Management 3.1.2. Registry Management
Because the "OWAMP-Control Command Numbers" registry can contain only Because the "OWAMP-Control Command Numbers" registry can contain only
256 values, and because OWAMP is an IETF protocol, these registries 256 values, and because OWAMP is an IETF protocol, these registries
must be updated only by "IETF Consensus" as specified in [RFC5226] MUST be updated only by "IETF Consensus" as specified in [RFC5226]
(an RFC that documents registry use and is approved by the IESG). (an RFC that documents registry use and is approved by the IESG).
3.1.3. Experimental Numbers 3.1.3. Experimental Numbers
One experimental value is currently assigned in the Command Numbers One experimental value is currently assigned in the Command Numbers
Registry, as indicated in the initial contents below. Registry, as indicated in the initial contents below.
3.1.4. OWAMP-Control Command Numbers Initial Contents 3.1.4. OWAMP-Control Command Numbers Initial Contents
OWAMP-Control Commands follows the procedure defined in section 3.5 OWAMP-Control Commands follows the procedure defined in section 3.5
of [RFC4656] (and in the remainder of section 3). of [RFC4656] (and in the remainder of section 3).
The complete set of OWAMP-Control Command Numbers are as follows The complete set of OWAMP-Control Command Numbers are as follows
(including one reserved bit position): (including one reserved bit position):
OWAMP-Control Command Numbers Registry OWAMP-Control Command Numbers Registry
Value Description Semantics Definition Value Description Semantics Reference
Definition
==========================================================
0 Reserved 0 Reserved
1 Request-Session RFC 4656, Section 3.5 1 Request-Session Section 3.5 RFC 4656
2 Start-Sessions RFC 4656, Section 3.7 2 Start-Sessions Section 3.7 RFC 4656
3 Stop-Sessions RFC 4656, Section 3.8 3 Stop-Sessions Section 3.8 RFC 4656
4 Fetch-Sessions RFC 4656, Section 3.9 4 Fetch-Sessions Section 3.9 RFC 4656
5 Experimentation This Memo 5-253 Unassigned
6-255 Unassigned 254 Experimentation This Memo
255 Reserved
3.2. OWAMP-Modes 3.2. OWAMP-Modes
IANA is requested to create a OWAMP-Modes registry. IANA is requested to create an OWAMP-Modes registry.
3.2.1. Registry Specification 3.2.1. Registry Specification
OWAMP-Modes are specified in OWAMP Server Greeting messages and Set- OWAMP-Modes are specified in OWAMP Server Greeting messages and Set-
up Response messages consistent with section 3.1 of [RFC4656]. Modes up Response messages consistent with section 3.1 of [RFC4656]. Modes
are currently indicated by setting single bits in the 32-bit Modes are currently indicated by setting single bits in the 32-bit Modes
Field. However, more complex encoding may be used in the future. Field. However, more complex encoding may be used in the future.
3.2.2. Registry Management 3.2.2. Registry Management
Because the "OWAMP-Modes" are based on only 32 bit positions with Because the "OWAMP-Modes" are based on only 32 bit positions with
each position conveying a unique feature, and because TWAMP is an each position conveying a unique feature, and because OWAMP is an
IETF protocol, these registries must be updated only by "IETF IETF protocol, these registries MUST be updated only by "IETF
Consensus" as specified in [RFC5226] (an RFC that documents registry Consensus" as specified in [RFC5226] (an RFC that documents registry
use and is approved by the IESG). use and is approved by the IESG). IANA SHOULD allocate monotonically
increasing bit positions when requested.
3.2.3. Experimental Numbers 3.2.3. Experimental Numbers
No experimental bit positions are currently assigned in the Modes No experimental bit positions are currently assigned in the Modes
Registry, as indicated in the initial contents below. Registry, as indicated in the initial contents below.
3.2.4. OWAMP-Modes Initial Contents 3.2.4. OWAMP-Modes Initial Contents
OWAMP-Control connection establishment follows the procedure defined OWAMP-Control connection establishment follows the procedure defined
in section 3.1 of [RFC4656]. in section 3.1 of [RFC4656].
In the OWAMP-Modes registry, assignments are straightforward on the In the OWAMP-Modes registry, assignments are straightforward on the
basis of bit positions, and there are no references to values - this basis of bit positions, and there are no references to values - this
is a difference from the comparable TWAMP registry (and a topic for is a difference from the comparable TWAMP registry (and a topic for
improvement in the TWAMP-Modes registry). improvement in the TWAMP-Modes registry which is reconciled in
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ipsec]).
An Extension of the OWAMP-Modes is proposed in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ipsec]. An Extension of the OWAMP-Modes is proposed in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ipsec].
With this extension, the complete set of OWAMP Mode bit positions are With this extension, the complete set of OWAMP Mode bit positions are
as follows (including one reserved bit position): as follows (including one reserved bit position):
OWAMP-Modes Registry OWAMP-Modes Registry
Bit Bit Semantics
Posit. Description Reference/Explanation Pos. Description Definition Reference
0 Unauthenticated RFC4656, Section 3.1 =====================================================
1 Authenticated RFC4656, Section 3.1 0 Unauthenticated Section 3.1 RFC4656
2 Encrypted RFC4656, Section 3.1 1 Authenticated Section 3.1 RFC4656
3 Reserved bit position (3) 2 Encrypted Section 3.1 RFC4656
4 IKEv2-derived Shared RFC_TBD and this memo 3 Reserved this memo
Secret Key new bit position (4) 4 IKEv2-derived Shared this memo and
Secret Key Section 5 RFC_TBD
5-31 Unassigned 5-31 Unassigned
In the original OWAMP and TWAMP Modes field, setting bit position 0, (where RFC_TBD the published version of draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec)
1 or 2 indicated the security mode of the Control protocol, and the
Test protocol inherited the same mode (see section 4 of [RFC4656]). In the original OWAMP Modes field, setting bit position 0, 1 or 2
indicated the security mode of the Control protocol, and the Test
protocol inherited the same mode (see section 4 of [RFC4656]).
The value of the Modes Field sent by the Server in the Server- The value of the Modes Field sent by the Server in the Server-
Greeting message is the bit-wise OR of the modes (bit positions) that Greeting message is the bit-wise OR of the modes (bit positions) that
it is willing to support during this session. Thus, the last four it is willing to support during this session. Thus, the five least
bits of the Modes 32-bit Field are used. When no other features are significant bits of the Modes 32-bit Field are used. When no other
activated, the first 28 bits MUST be zero. A client conforming to features are activated, the 27 most significant bits MUST be zero. A
this extension of [RFC5357] MAY ignore the values in the first 28 Control-Client conforming to [RFC4656] MAY ignore the values in the
bits of the Modes Field, or it MAY support other features that are 29 most significant bits of the Modes Field, or it MAY support
communicated in these bit positions. features that are communicated in other bit positions, such as the
IKEv2-derived Shared Secret Key extension [I-D.ietf-ippm-ipsec].
OWAMP and TWAMP registries for Modes may grow to contain different OWAMP and TWAMP registries for Modes may grow to contain different
features and functions due to the inherent differences in one-way and features and functions due to the inherent differences in one-way and
two-way measurement configurations and the metrics they measure. No two-way measurement configurations and the metrics they measure. No
attempt will be made to coordinate them unnecessarily, except the attempt will be made to coordinate them unnecessarily, except the
Reserved bit position 3 above. This is available for assignment if a Reserved bit position 3 above. This is available for assignment if a
mixed security mode [RFC5618] is defined for OWAMP, and would allow mixed security mode similar to[RFC5618] is defined for OWAMP, and
alignment with the comparable TWAMP feature. would allow alignment with the comparable TWAMP feature.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
As this memo simply requests creation of a registry, it presents no As this memo simply requests the creation of OWAMP registries, it
new security or privacy issues for the Internet. presents no new security or privacy issues for the Internet.
The security considerations that apply to any active measurement of The security considerations that apply to any active measurement of
live networks are relevant here as well. See [RFC4656] and live networks are relevant here as well. See [RFC4656] and
[RFC5357]. [RFC5357].
Privacy considerations for measurement systems, particularly when Privacy considerations for measurement systems, particularly when
Internet users participate in the tests in some way, are described in Internet users participate in the tests in some way, are described in
[I-D.ietf-lmap-framework]. [I-D.ietf-lmap-framework].
5. Acknowledgements 5. Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Kostas Pentikousis, Nalini Elkins, and The author would like to thank Kostas Pentikousis, Nalini Elkins,
Mike Ackermann for insightful reviews and comments. Mike Ackermann, and Greg Mirsky for insightful reviews and comments.
6. References 6. References
6.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
skipping to change at page 7, line 9 skipping to change at page 7, line 24
[RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J. [RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J.
Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",
RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008, RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5357>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5357>.
6.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ipsec] [I-D.ietf-ippm-ipsec]
Pentikousis, K., Zhang, E., and Y. Cui, "IKEv2-derived Pentikousis, K., Zhang, E., and Y. Cui, "IKEv2-derived
Shared Secret Key for O/TWAMP", draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-10 Shared Secret Key for O/TWAMP", draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-11
(work in progress), May 2015. (work in progress), August 2015.
[I-D.ietf-lmap-framework] [I-D.ietf-lmap-framework]
Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T., Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T.,
Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A framework for Large-Scale Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A framework for Large-Scale
Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", draft-ietf- Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", draft-ietf-
lmap-framework-14 (work in progress), April 2015. lmap-framework-14 (work in progress), April 2015.
[RFC5618] Morton, A. and K. Hedayat, "Mixed Security Mode for the [RFC5618] Morton, A. and K. Hedayat, "Mixed Security Mode for the
Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", RFC 5618, Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", RFC 5618,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5618, August 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5618, August 2009,
 End of changes. 24 change blocks. 
48 lines changed or deleted 59 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/