DLEP Traffic Classification Data Item
draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-11
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (manet WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Bow-Nan Cheng , Stan Ratliff , Lou Berger | ||
| Last updated | 2024-03-18 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | Proposed Standard | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
TSVART Early review
(of
-06)
by David Black
On the Right Track
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up | |
| Document shepherd | Ronald in 't Velt | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2024-03-16 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | ronald.intvelt@tno.nl |
draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-11
Network Working Group B. Cheng
Internet-Draft MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Intended status: Standards Track D. Wiggins
Expires: 19 September 2024
L. Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
18 March 2024
DLEP Traffic Classification Data Item
draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-11
Abstract
This document defines a new Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)
Data Item that is used to support traffic classification. Traffic
classification information is used to identify traffic flows based on
frame/packet content such as destination address. The Data Item is
defined in an extensible and reusable fashion. Its use will be
mandated in other documents defining specific DLEP extensions. This
document also introduces DLEP Sub-Data Items, and Sub-Data Items are
defined to support DiffServ and Ethernet traffic classification.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 19 September 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Cheng, et al. Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DLEP Traffic Classification March 2024
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Traffic Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Traffic Classification Data Item . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.1. Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. DiffServ Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item . . . . . . 7
2.2.1. Router Receive Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3. Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item . . . . . . 8
2.3.1. Router Receive Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. Data Item Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. DLEP Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Registry . . . 11
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
The Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) is defined in [RFC8175].
It provides the exchange of link related control information between
DLEP peers. DLEP peers are comprised of a modem and a router. DLEP
defines a base set of mechanisms as well as support for possible
extensions. DLEP defines Data Items which are sets of information
that can be reused in DLEP messaging. The base DLEP specification
does not include any flow identification beyond DLEP endpoints. This
document defines DLEP Data Item formats which provide flow
identification on a more granular basis. Specifically it enables a
router to use traffic flow classification information provided by the
modem to identify traffic flows. In this case, a flow is identified
based on information found in a data plane header and one or more
matches are associated with a single flow. (For general background
on traffic classification see [RFC2475] Section 2.3.) The Data Item
is structured to allow for use of the defined traffic classification
information with applications such as credit window control as
specified in [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension]
Cheng, et al. Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DLEP Traffic Classification March 2024
This document defines traffic classification based on a DLEP
destination and flows identified by either DiffServ [RFC2475] DSCPs
(differentiated services codepoints) or IEEE 802.1Q
[IEEE.802.1Q_2014] Ethernet Priority Code Points (PCP). The defined
mechanism allows for flows to be described in a flexible fashion and
when combined with applications such as credit window control, allows
credit windows to be shared across traffic sent to multiple DLEP
destinations and as part of multiple flows, or used exclusively for
traffic sent to a particular destination and/or belonging to a
particular flow. The extension also supports the "wildcard" matching
of any flow (DSCP or PCP). Traffic classification information is
provided such that it can be readily extended to support other
traffic classification techniques, or be used by non-credit window
related extensions, such as [RFC8651] or even 5-tuple IP flows.
This document defines support for traffic classification using a
single new Data Item in Section 2.1 for general support and two new
Sub-Data Items are defined to support identification of flows based
on DSCPs and PCPs.
1.1. Key Words
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Traffic Classification
The Traffic Classification Data Item is used to represent a list of
flows that may be used at the same time for traffic sent from a
router to a modem. The data plane information used to identify each
flow is represented in a separate Sub-Data Item. The Data Item and
Sub-Data Item structure is intended to be independent of any specific
usage of the flow identification, e.g., flow control. The Sub-Data
Item structure is also intended to allow for future traffic
classification types, e.g., 5-tuple flows. While the structure of
the Data Items is extensible, actual flow information is expected to
be used in an extension dependent manner. Support for DSCP and PCP-
based flows are defined via individual Sub-Data Items below. Other
types of flow identification, e.g., based on IP protocol and ports,
may be defined in the future via new Sub-Data Items. Note that when
extensions supporting multiple Sub-Data Item types are negotiated,
these types MAY be combined in a single Data Item.
Cheng, et al. Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DLEP Traffic Classification March 2024
Each list of flows is identified using a "Traffic Classification
Identifier" or "TID" and is expected to represent a valid combination
of data plane identifiers that may be used at the same time. Each
flow is identified via a "Flow Identifier" or "FID". Each FID is
defined in a Sub-Data Item which carries the data plane identifier or
identifiers used to associate traffic with the flow. A DLEP
destination address is also needed to complete traffic classification
information used in extensions such as flow control. This
information is expected to be provided in an extension specific
manner. For example, this address can be provided by a modem when it
identifies the traffic classification set in a Destination Up Message
using the Credit Window Associate Data Item defined in
[I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control]. TID and FID values have
modem-local scope.
2.1. Traffic Classification Data Item
This sections defines the Traffic Classification Data Item. This
Data Item is used by a modem to provide a router with traffic
classification information. When an extension requires use of this
Data Item the Traffic Classification Data Item SHOULD be included by
a modem in any Session Initialization Response Message, e.g., see
[I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension]. Updates to previously
provided traffic classifications or new traffic classifications MAY
be sent by a modem by including the Data Item in Session Update
Messages. More than one Data Item MAY be included in a message to
provide information on multiple traffic classifiers.
The set of traffic classification information provided in the data
item is identified using a Traffic Classification Identifier, or TID.
The actual data plane related information used in traffic
classification is provided in a variable list of Traffic
Classification Sub-Data Items.
The format of the Traffic Classification Data Item is:
Cheng, et al. Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DLEP Traffic Classification March 2024
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data Item Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Traffic Class. Identifier (TID)| Num SDIs | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: ... :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Data Item Type:
TBA1
Length:
Variable
Per [RFC8175] Length is the number of octets in the Data Item,
excluding the Type and Length fields.
Traffic Classification Identifier (TID):
A 16-bit unsigned integer identifying a traffic classification
set. There is no restriction on values used by a modem, and there
is no requirement for sequential or ordered values.
Num SDIs:
An 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the number of Traffic
Classification Sub-Data Items included in the Data Item. A value
of zero (0) is allowed and indicates that no traffic should be
matched against this TID.
Reserved:
MUST be set to zero by the sender (a modem) and ignored by the
receiver (a router).
Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item:
Zero or more Traffic Classification Sub-Data Items of the format
defined below MAY be included. The number MUST match the value
carried in the Num SDIs field.
A router receiving the Traffic Classification Data Item MUST locate
the traffic classification information that is associated with the
TID indicated in each received Data Item. If no associated traffic
classification information is found, the router MUST initialize a new
information set using the values carried in the Data Item. When
Cheng, et al. Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DLEP Traffic Classification March 2024
associated traffic classification information is found, the router
MUST replace the corresponding information using the values carried
in the Data Item. In both cases, a router MUST also ensure that any
data plane state, e.g., [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control],
that is associated with the TID is updated as needed.
2.1.1. Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item
All Traffic Classification Sub-Data Items share a common format that
is patterned after the standard DLEP Data Item format, see [RFC8175]
Section 11.3. There is no requirement on, or meaning to Sub-Data
Item ordering. Any errors or inconsistencies encountered in parsing
Sub-Data Items are handled in the same fashion as any other Data Item
parsing error encountered in DLEP.
The format of the Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-Data Item Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value... :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Sub-Data Item Type:
A 16-bit unsigned integer that indicates the type and
corresponding format of the Sub-Data Item's Value field. Sub-Data
Item Types are scoped within the Data Item in which they are
carried, i.e., the Sub-Data Item Type field MUST be used together
with the Traffic Classification Data Item Type to identify the
format of the Sub-Data Item. Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item
Types are managed according to the IANA registry described in
Section 5.2.
Length:
Variable
Copying [RFC8175], Length is a 16-bit unsigned integer that is the
number of octets in the Sub-Data Item, excluding the Type and
Length fields.
Cheng, et al. Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DLEP Traffic Classification March 2024
2.2. DiffServ Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item
The DiffServ Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item is used to identify
the set of DSCPs that should be treated as a single flow, i.e.,
receive the same traffic treatment. DSCPs are identified in a list
of DiffServ fields. An implementation that does not support DSCPs
and wants the same traffic treatment for all traffic to a destination
or destinations would indicate 0 DSCPs.
The format of the DiffServ Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Must be one (1) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flow Identifier (FID) | Num DSCPs | DS Field 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| DS Field 2 | ... | DS Field n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Length:
Variable
Length is defined above. For this Sub-Data Item, it is equal to
three (3) plus the value of the Num DSCPs field.
Flow Identifier (FID):
A 16-bit unsigned integer representing the data plane information
carried in the Sub-Data Item that is to be used in identifying a
flow. The value of 0xFFFF is reserved and MUST NOT be used in
this field.
Num DSCPs:
An 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the number of DSCPs carried
in the Sub-Data Item. A zero (0) indicates a (wildcard) match
against any DSCP value.
DS Field:
Each DS Field is an 8-bit that carries the DSCP field defined in
[RFC2474].
Cheng, et al. Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DLEP Traffic Classification March 2024
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| DSCP | MBZ |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
DSCP: differentiated services codepoint
MBZ: MUST be zero
2.2.1. Router Receive Processing
A router receiving the Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item MUST
validate the information on receipt, prior to using the carried
information, including potentially updating the data behavior as
determined by the extension requiring the use of the Sub-Data Item.
Validation failures MUST be treated as an error as described above.
Once validated, the receiver MUST ensure that each DS Field value is
listed only once across the whole Traffic Classification Data Item.
Note, this check is across the Data Item and not the individual Sub-
Data Item. If the same DS Field value is listed more than once
within the same Traffic Classification Data Item, the Data Item MUST
be treated as an error as described above.
2.3. Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item
The Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item is used to identify
the VLAN and PCPs that should be treated as a single flow, i.e.,
receive the same traffic treatment. Ethernet Priority Code Point
support is defined as part of the IEEE 802.1Q [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] tag
format and includes a 3 bit "PCP" field. The tag format also
includes a 12 bit VLAN identifier (VID) field. PCPs are identified
in a list of priority fields. An implementation that does not
support PCPs and wants the same traffic treatment for all traffic to
a destination or destinations would indicate 0 PCPs. Such an
implementation could identify a VLAN to use per destination.
The format of the Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Must be two (2) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flow Identifier (FID) |NumPCPs| VLAN Identifier (VID) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Pri. 1| Pri. 2| ..... | ..... | ..... | Pad |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Cheng, et al. Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DLEP Traffic Classification March 2024
Length:
Variable
Length is defined above. For this Sub-Data Item, it is equal to
four (4) plus the number of octets needed to accommodate the
number of Priority fields indicated by the NumPCPs field. Note
that as length is in octets and each Priority field is 4 bits, the
additional length is the value carried in the NumPCPs field
divided by two and rounded up to the next higher integer quantity.
Flow Identifier (FID):
A 16-bit unsigned integer representing the data plane information
carried in the Sub-Data Item that is to be used in identifying a
flow. The value of 0xFFFF is reserved and MUST NOT be used in
this field.
Num PCPs:
A 4-bit unsigned integer indicating the number of Priority fields
carried in the Sub-Data Item. A zero (0) indicates a (wildcard)
match against any PCP value.
VLAN identifier (VID):
A 12-bit unsigned integer field indicating the VLAN to be used in
traffic classification. A value of zero (0) indicates that the
VID is to be ignored and any VID is to be accepted during traffic
classification.
Priority:
Each Priority Field is 4-bits long and indicates a PCP field
defined in [IEEE.802.1Q_2014]. Note that zero (0) is a valid
value for either PCP.
0 1 2 3
+---+---+---+---+
| PCP |MBZ|
+---+---+---+---+
PCP: Priority code point
MBZ: MUST be zero
Pad:
A 4-bit long field included when NumPCPs is an odd number. This
field MUST be set to zero by the sender, and MUST be ignored on
receipt.
Cheng, et al. Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DLEP Traffic Classification March 2024
2.3.1. Router Receive Processing
A router receiving the Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item MUST
validate the information on receipt, prior to the using the carried
information, including potentially updating the data behavior as
determined by the extension requiring the use of the Sub-Data Item.
Validation failures MUST be treated as an error as described above.
Once validated, the receiver MUST ensure that each Priority Field
value is listed only once across the whole Traffic Classification
Data Item. Note, this check is across the Data Item and not the
individual Sub-Data Item. If the same Priority Field value is listed
more than once within the same Traffic Classification Data Item, the
Data Item MUST be treated as an error as described above.
If a packet matches both a DiffServ Traffic Classification Sub-Data
Item (Section 2.2), e.g., DSCP match, and an Ethernet Traffic
Classification Sub-Data Item (see Section 2.3), e.g., PCP match, then
the TID with which the DiffServ Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item
is associated MUST take precedence.
3. Compatibility
The formats defined in this document will only be used when
extensions require their use.
The DLEP specification [RFC8175] defines handling of unexpected
appearances of any data items, including those defined in this
document.
4. Security Considerations
This document introduces finer grain flow identification mechanisms
to DLEP. These mechanisms expose vulnerabilities similar to existing
DLEP messages, e.g., an injected message resizes a credit window to a
value that results in a denial of service. The security mechanisms
documented in [RFC8175] can be applied equally to the mechanism
defined in this document.
5. IANA Considerations
This document requests the assignment of several values by IANA. All
assignments are to registries defined by [RFC8175].
Cheng, et al. Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DLEP Traffic Classification March 2024
5.1. Data Item Values
This document requests the following new assignments to the DLEP Data
Item Registry named "Data Item Type Values" in the range with the
"Specification Required" policy. The requested values are as
follows:
+===========+========================+
| Type Code | Description |
+===========+========================+
| TBA1 | Traffic Classification |
+-----------+------------------------+
Table 1: Requested Data Item Values
5.2. DLEP Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Registry
Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to create a new
DLEP registry, named "Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type
Values".
The following table provides initial registry values and the
[RFC8126] defined policies that should apply to the registry:
+=============+=================================+
| Type Code | Description |
+=============+=================================+
| 0 | Reserved |
+-------------+---------------------------------+
| 1 | DiffServ Traffic Classification |
+-------------+---------------------------------+
| 2 | Ethernet Traffic Classification |
+-------------+---------------------------------+
| 3-65407 | Specification Required |
+-------------+---------------------------------+
| 65408-65534 | Private Use |
+-------------+---------------------------------+
| 65535 | Reserved |
+-------------+---------------------------------+
Table 2: Initial Registry Values
6. References
Cheng, et al. Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DLEP Traffic Classification March 2024
6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8175] Ratliff, S., Jury, S., Satterwhite, D., Taylor, R., and B.
Berry, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)", RFC 8175,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8175, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8175>.
6.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control]
Cheng, B., Wiggins, D., Berger, L., and S. Ratliff, "DLEP
Credit-Based Flow Control Messages and Data Items", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-
flow-control-12, 11 July 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-manet-
dlep-credit-flow-control-12>.
[I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension]
Cheng, B., Wiggins, D., and L. Berger, "DLEP DiffServ
Aware Credit Window Extension", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension-
14, 10 July 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension-14>.
[IEEE.802.1Q_2014]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks", IEEE 802.1Q-2014,
DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2014.6991462, 18 December 2014,
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/
opac?punumber=6991460>.
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.
Cheng, et al. Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DLEP Traffic Classification March 2024
[RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
Services", RFC 2475, DOI 10.17487/RFC2475, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2475>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8651] Cheng, B., Wiggins, D., and L. Berger, Ed., "Dynamic Link
Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Control-Plane-Based Pause
Extension", RFC 8651, DOI 10.17487/RFC8651, October 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8651>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
The Sub-Data Item format was inspired by Rick Taylor's "Data Item
Containers". He also proposed the separation of credit windows from
traffic classification at IETF98. Many useful comments were received
from contributors to the MANET working group. This document was
derived from [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension] as a result of
discussions at IETF 101. Many useful comments were received from
contributors to the MANET working group, notably Ronald in't Velt and
David Black.
We had the honor of working too briefly with David Wiggins on this
and related DLEP work. His contribution to the IETF and publication
of the first and definitive open source DLEP implementation have been
critical to the acceptance of DLEP. We morn his passing on November
23, 2023. We wish to recognize his guidance, leadership and
professional excellence. We were fortunate to benefit from his
leadership and friendship. He shall be missed.
Authors' Addresses
Bow-Nan Cheng
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
244 Wood Street
Lexington
Email: bcheng@ll.mit.edu
David Wiggins
Cheng, et al. Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DLEP Traffic Classification March 2024
Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Email: lberger@labn.net
Cheng, et al. Expires 19 September 2024 [Page 14]