|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 9546
Last modified on Thursday, February 29th, 2024
 Permanent link to RFC 9546
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 9546
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 9546
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) G. Mirsky
Request for Comments: 9546 Ericsson
Category: Standards Track M. Chen
ISSN: 2070-1721 Huawei
B. Varga
Ericsson
February 2024
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic
Networking (DetNet) with the MPLS Data Plane
 Abstract
This document defines format and usage principles of the
Deterministic Networking (DetNet) service Associated Channel over a
DetNet network with the MPLS data plane. The DetNet service
Associated Channel can be used to carry test packets of active
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) protocols that are
used to detect DetNet failures and measure performance metrics.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 9546.
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. 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. Conventions Used in This Document
2.1. Terminology and Acronyms
2.2. Key Words
3. Active OAM for DetNet Networks with the MPLS Data Plane
3.1. DetNet Active OAM Encapsulation
3.2. DetNet PREOF Interaction with Active OAM
4. OAM Interworking Models
4.1. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of TSN
4.2. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of DetNet IP
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. DetNet Associated Channel Header (d-ACH) Flags Registry
6. Security Considerations
7. References
7.1. Normative References
7.2. Informative References
Acknowledgments
Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction
[RFC 8655] introduces and explains Deterministic Networking (DetNet)
architecture and how the Packet Replication, Elimination, and
Ordering Functions (PREOF) can be used to ensure a low packet drop
ratio in a DetNet domain.
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) protocols are used
to detect and localize network defects and to monitor network
performance. Some OAM functions (e.g., failure detection) are
usually performed proactively in the network, while others (e.g.,
defect localization) are typically performed on demand. These tasks
can be achieved through a combination of active and hybrid OAM
methods, as classified in [RFC 7799]. This document presents a format
for active OAM in DetNet networks with the MPLS data plane.
Also, this document defines format and usage principles of the DetNet
service Associated Channel over a DetNet network with the MPLS data
plane [RFC 8964].
2. Conventions Used in This Document
2.1. Terminology and Acronyms
The term "DetNet OAM" in this document is used interchangeably with a
"set of OAM protocols, methods, and tools for Deterministic
Networking".
BFD: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
CFM: Connectivity Fault Management
d-ACH: DetNet Associated Channel Header
DetNet: Deterministic Networking
DetNet Node: A node that is an actor in the DetNet domain. Examples
of DetNet nodes include DetNet domain edge nodes and DetNet nodes
that perform PREOF within the DetNet domain.
E2E: End to end
F-Label: A DetNet "forwarding" label. The F-Label identifies the
Label Switched Path (LSP) used to forward a DetNet flow across an
MPLS Packet Switched Network (PSN), e.g., a hop-by-hop label used
between label switching routers.
OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
PREOF: Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions
PW: Pseudowire
S-Label: A DetNet "service" label. An S-Label is used between
DetNet nodes that implement the DetNet service sub-layer
functions. An S-Label is also used to identify a DetNet flow at
the DetNet service sub-layer.
TSN: Time-Sensitive Networking
Underlay Network or Underlay Layer: The network that provides
connectivity between the DetNet nodes. One example of an underlay
layer is an MPLS network that provides LSP connectivity between
DetNet nodes.
2.2. 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 [RFC 2119] [RFC 8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Active OAM for DetNet Networks with the MPLS Data Plane
OAM protocols and mechanisms act within the data plane of the
particular networking layer; thus, it is critical that the data plane
encapsulation supports OAM mechanisms that comply with the OAM
requirements listed in [OAM-FRAMEWORK].
Operation of a DetNet data plane with an MPLS underlay network is
specified in [RFC 8964]. Within the MPLS underlay network, DetNet
flows are to be encapsulated analogous to pseudowires (PWs) as
specified in [RFC 3985] and [RFC 4385]. For reference, the Generic PW
MPLS Control Word (as defined in [RFC 4385] and used with DetNet) is
reproduced in Figure 1.
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 0 0 0| Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Generic PW MPLS Control Word Format
PREOF in the DetNet domain is composed of a combination of nodes that
perform replication and elimination functions. The Elimination sub-
function always uses the S-Label in conjunction with the packet
sequencing information (i.e., the Sequence Number encoded in the
DetNet Control Word). The Replication sub-function uses the S-Label
information only.
3.1. DetNet Active OAM Encapsulation
DetNet OAM, like PW OAM, uses the PW Associated Channel Header
defined in [RFC 4385]. At the same time, a DetNet PW can be viewed as
a Multi-Segment PW, where DetNet service sub-layer functions are at
the segment endpoints. However, DetNet service sub-layer functions
operate per packet level (not per segment). These per-packet level
characteristics of PREOF require additional fields for proper OAM
packet processing. MPLS encapsulation [RFC 8964] of a DetNet active
OAM packet is shown in Figure 2.
+---------------------------------+
| |
| DetNet OAM Packet |
| |
+---------------------------------+ <--\
| DetNet Associated Channel Header| |
+---------------------------------+ +--> DetNet active OAM
| S-Label | | MPLS encapsulation
+---------------------------------+ |
| [ F-Label(s) ] | |
+---------------------------------+ <--/
| Data-Link |
+---------------------------------+
| Physical |
+---------------------------------+
Figure 2: DetNet Active OAM Packet Encapsulation in the MPLS Data
Plane
Figure 3 displays encapsulation of a test packet for a DetNet active
OAM protocol in case of MPLS over UDP/IP [RFC 9025].
+---------------------------------+
| |
| DetNet OAM Packet |
| |
+---------------------------------+ <--\
| DetNet Associated Channel Header| |
+---------------------------------+ +--> DetNet active OAM
| S-Label | | MPLS encapsulation
+---------------------------------+ |
| [ F-label(s) ] | |
+---------------------------------+ <--+
| UDP Header | |
+---------------------------------+ +--> DetNet data plane
| IP Header | | IP encapsulation
+---------------------------------+ <--/
| Data-Link |
+---------------------------------+
| Physical |
+---------------------------------+
Figure 3: DetNet Active OAM Packet Encapsulation in MPLS over UDP/IP
Figure 4 displays the format of the DetNet Associated Channel Header
(d-ACH).
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 0 0 1|Version|Sequence Number| Channel Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Node ID |Level| Flags |Session|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: d-ACH Format
The d-ACH encodes the following fields:
Bits 0..3: These MUST be 0b0001. This allows the packet to be
distinguished from an IP packet [RFC 4928] and from a DetNet
data packet [RFC 8964].
Version: A 4-bit field. This document specifies version 0.
Sequence Number: An unsigned circular 8-bit field. Because a
DetNet active OAM test packet includes d-ACH, Section 4.2.1 of
[RFC 8964] does not apply to handling the Sequence Number field
in DetNet OAM over the MPLS data plane. The sequence number
space is circular with no restriction on the initial value.
The originator DetNet node MUST set the value of the Sequence
Number field before the transmission of a packet. The initial
value SHOULD be random (unpredictable). The originator node
SHOULD increase the value of the Sequence Number field by 1 for
each active OAM packet. The originator MAY use other
strategies, e.g., for negative testing of Packet Ordering
Functions.
Channel Type: A 16-bit field and the value of the DetNet
Associated Channel Type. It MUST be one of the values listed
in the IANA "MPLS Generalized Associated Channel (G-ACh) Types
(including Pseudowire Associated Channel Types)" registry
[IANA-G-ACh-Types].
Node ID: An unsigned 20-bit field. The value of the Node ID
field identifies the DetNet node that originated the packet. A
DetNet node MUST be provisioned with a Node ID that is unique
in the DetNet domain. Methods for distributing Node ID are
outside the scope of this specification.
Level: A 3-bit field. Semantically, the Level field is analogous
to the Maintenance Domain Level in [IEEE.802.1Q]. The Level
field is used to cope with the "all active path forwarding"
(defined by the TSN Task Group of the IEEE 802.1 WG
[IEEE802.1TSNTG]) characteristics of the PREOF concept. A
hierarchical relationship between OAM domains can be created
using the Level field value, as illustrated by Figure 18.7 in
[IEEE.802.1Q].
Flags: A 5-bit field. The Flags field contains five 1-bit flags.
Section 5.1 creates the IANA "DetNet Associated Channel Header
(d-ACH) Flags" registry for new flags to be defined. The flags
defined in this specification are presented in Figure 5.
Session ID: A 4-bit field. The Session field distinguishes OAM
sessions originating from the same node (a given Maintenance
End Point may have multiple simultaneously active OAM sessions)
at the given Level.
0 1 2 3 4
+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|U|U|U|U|
+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: DetNet Associated Channel Header Flags Field Format
U: Unused and for future use. MUST be 0 on transmission and ignored
on receipt.
According to [RFC 8964], a DetNet flow is identified by the S-Label
that MUST be at the bottom of the stack. An active OAM packet MUST
include d-ACH immediately following the S-Label.
3.2. DetNet PREOF Interaction with Active OAM
At the DetNet service sub-layer, special functions (notably PREOF)
MAY be applied to the particular DetNet flow to potentially reduce
packet loss, improve the probability of on-time packet delivery, and
ensure in-order packet delivery. PREOF relies on sequencing
information in the DetNet service sub-layer. For a DetNet active OAM
packet, PREOF MUST use the Sequence Number field value as the source
of this sequencing information. App-flow and OAM use different
sequence number spaces. PREOF algorithms are executed with respect
to the sequence number space identified by the flow's characteristic
information. Although the Sequence Number field in d-ACH has a range
from 0 through 255, it provides sufficient space because the rate of
DetNet active OAM packets is significantly lower compared to the rate
of DetNet packets in an App-flow; therefore, wrapping around is not
an issue.
4. OAM Interworking Models
Interworking of two OAM domains that utilize different networking
technology can be realized by either a peering model 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 fate sharing among test and data packets.
4.1. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of TSN
DetNet active OAM can provide end-to-end (E2E) fault management and
performance monitoring for a DetNet flow. In the case of DetNet with
an MPLS data plane and an IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN)
sub-network, it implies the interworking of DetNet active OAM with
TSN OAM, of which the data plane aspects are specified in [RFC 9037].
When the peering model (Section 4) is used in the Connectivity Fault
Management (CFM) OAM protocol [IEEE.802.1Q], the node that borders
both TSN and DetNet MPLS domains MUST support [RFC 7023]. [RFC 7023]
specifies the mapping of defect states between Ethernet Attachment
Circuits and associated Ethernet PWs that are part of an E2E emulated
Ethernet service and are also applicable to E2E OAM across DetNet
MPLS and TSN domains. The CFM [IEEE.802.1Q] [ITU.Y1731] can provide
fast detection of a failure in the TSN segment of the DetNet service.
In the DetNet MPLS domain, Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD),
as specified in [RFC 5880] and [RFC 5885], can be used. To provide E2E
failure detection, the TSN and DetNet MPLS segments could be treated
as concatenated such that the diagnostic codes (see Section 6.8.17 of
[RFC 5880]) MAY be used to inform the upstream DetNet MPLS node of a
TSN segment failure. Performance monitoring can be supported by
[RFC 6374] in the DetNet MPLS and by [ITU.Y1731] in TSN domains,
respectively. Performance objectives for each domain should refer to
metrics that are composable [RFC 6049] or are defined for each domain
separately.
The following considerations apply when using the tunneling model of
OAM interworking between DetNet MPLS and TSN domains based on general
principles described in Section 4 of [RFC 9037]:
* Active OAM test packets MUST be mapped to the same TSN Stream ID
as the monitored DetNet flow.
* Active OAM test packets MUST be processed in the TSN domain based
on their S-Label and Class of Service marking (the Traffic Class
field value).
Mapping between a DetNet flow and TSN Stream in the TSN sub-network
is described in Section 4.1 of [RFC 9037]. The mapping has to be done
only on the edge node of the TSN sub-network, and intermediate TSN
nodes do not need to recognize the S-Label. An edge node has two
components:
1. A passive Stream identification function.
2. An active Stream identification function.
The first component identifies the DetNet flow (using Clause 6.8 of
[IEEE.802.1CBdb]), and the second component creates the TSN Stream by
manipulating the Ethernet header. That manipulation simplifies the
identification of the TSN Stream in the intermediate TSN nodes by
avoiding the need for them to look outside of the Ethernet header.
DetNet MPLS OAM packets use the same S-Label as the DetNet flow data
packets. The above-described mapping function treats these OAM
packets as data packets of the DetNet flow. As a result, DetNet MPLS
OAM packets are fate sharing within the TSN sub-network. As an
example of the mapping between DetNet MPLS and TSN, see Annex C.1 of
[IEEE.802.1CBdb] that, in support of [RFC 9037], describes how to
match MPLS DetNet flows and achieve TSN Streams.
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, BFD support (as defined in [RFC 5885]) is necessary at any TSN
endpoint of the DetNet service.
4.2. 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 model or the
tunneling model, as discussed in Section 4.1. Using the same
protocol, e.g., BFD over both segments, simplifies the mapping of
errors in the peering model. For example, respective BFD sessions in
DetNet MPLS and DetNet IP domains can be in a concatenated
relationship as described in Section 6.8.17 of [RFC 5880]. To provide
performance monitoring over a DetNet IP domain, the Simple Two-way
Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP) [RFC 8762] and its extensions
[RFC 8972] can be used to measure packet loss and packet delay
metrics. Such performance metrics can be used to calculate
composable metrics [RFC 6049] within DetNet MPLS and DetNet IP domains
to reflect the end-to-end DetNet service performance.
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. DetNet Associated Channel Header (d-ACH) Flags Registry
IANA has created the "DetNet Associated Channel Header (d-ACH) Flags"
registry within the "DetNet Associated Channel Header (d-ACH) Flags"
registry group. The registration procedure is "IETF Review"
[RFC 8126]. There are five flags in the 5-bit Flags field, as defined
in Table 1.
+=====+=============+
| Bit | Description |
+=====+=============+
| 0-4 | Unassigned |
+-----+-------------+
Table 1: DetNet
Associated Channel
Header (d-ACH) Flags
Registry
6. Security Considerations
Security considerations discussed in DetNet specifications [RFC 8655],
[RFC 8964], [RFC 9055], and [OAM-FRAMEWORK] are applicable to this
document. Security concerns and issues related to MPLS OAM tools
like LSP Ping [RFC 8029] and BFD over PW [RFC 5885] also apply to this
specification.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2119>.
[RFC 7023] 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/RFC 7023, October 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7023>.
[RFC 8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8174>.
[RFC 8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 8655, October 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8655>.
[RFC 8964] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., Bryant,
S., and J. Korhonen, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet)
Data Plane: MPLS", RFC 8964, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8964, January
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8964>.
[RFC 9025] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., and S.
Bryant, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane:
MPLS over UDP/IP", RFC 9025, DOI 10.17487/RFC 9025, April
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 9025>.
7.2. Informative References
[IANA-G-ACh-Types]
IANA, "MPLS Generalized Associated Channel (G-ACh) Types
(including Pseudowire Associated Channel Types)",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/g-ach-parameters/>.
[IEEE.802.1CBdb]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks--Frame Replication and Elimination for
Reliability--Amendment 2: Extended Stream Identification
Functions", IEEE Std 802.1CBdb-2021, December 2021.
[IEEE.802.1Q]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
Network--Bridges and Bridged Networks", IEEE Std 802.1Q-
2018, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2018.8403927, July 2018,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2018.8403927>.
[IEEE802.1TSNTG]
IEEE 802.1, "Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) Task Group",
TSN Standards, <https://1.ieee802.org/tsn/>.
[ITU.Y1731]
ITU-T, "Operation, administration and maintenance (OAM)
functions and mechanisms for Ethernet-based networks",
ITU-T Recommendation G.8013/Y.1731, June 2023.
[OAM-FRAMEWORK]
Mirsky, G., Theoleyre, F., Papadopoulos, G. Z., Bernardos,
CJ., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, "Framework of Operations,
Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic
Networking (DetNet)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework-11, 8 January 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-detnet-
oam-framework-11>.
[RFC 3985] Bryant, S., Ed. and P. Pate, Ed., "Pseudo Wire Emulation
Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 3985, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3985>.
[RFC 4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
"Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4385,
February 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4385>.
[RFC 4928] Swallow, G., Bryant, S., and L. Andersson, "Avoiding Equal
Cost Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks", BCP 128,
RFC 4928, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4928, June 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4928>.
[RFC 5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5880, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5880>.
[RFC 5885] Nadeau, T., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Bidirectional
Forwarding Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual
Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)", RFC 5885,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 5885, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5885>.
[RFC 6049] Morton, A. and E. Stephan, "Spatial Composition of
Metrics", RFC 6049, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6049, January 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6049>.
[RFC 6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 6374, September 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6374>.
[RFC 7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7799,
May 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7799>.
[RFC 8029] 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/RFC 8029, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8029>.
[RFC 8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8126>.
[RFC 8762] Mirsky, G., Jun, G., Nydell, H., and R. Foote, "Simple
Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol", RFC 8762,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 8762, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8762>.
[RFC 8972] Mirsky, G., Min, X., Nydell, H., Foote, R., Masputra, A.,
and E. Ruffini, "Simple Two-Way Active Measurement
Protocol Optional Extensions", RFC 8972,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 8972, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8972>.
[RFC 9037] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Malis, A., and S. Bryant,
"Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: MPLS over
IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN)", RFC 9037,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 9037, June 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 9037>.
[RFC 9055] Grossman, E., Ed., Mizrahi, T., and A. Hacker,
"Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Security
Considerations", RFC 9055, DOI 10.17487/RFC 9055, June
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 9055>.
Acknowledgments
The authors extend their appreciation to Pascal Thubert for his
insightful comments and productive discussion that helped to improve
the document. The authors are enormously grateful to János Farkas
for his detailed comments and the inspiring discussion that made this
document clearer and stronger. The authors recognize helpful reviews
and suggestions from Andrew Malis, David Black, Tianran Zhou, and
Kiran Makhijani. And special thanks to Ethan Grossman for his
fantastic help in improving the document.
Authors' Addresses
Greg Mirsky
Ericsson
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Huawei
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Balazs Varga
Ericsson
Budapest
Magyar Tudosok krt. 11.
1117
Hungary
Email: balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 28972 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Thursday, February 29th, 2024
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
