sfc M. Boucadair Internet-Draft Orange Updates: 8300 (if approved) 16 February 2022 Intended status: Standards Track Expires: 20 August 2022 Clarifying Ambiguity related to Network Service Header (NSH) OAM Packet draft-boucadair-sfc-oam-packet-00 Abstract This document clarifies an ambiguity in the Network Service Header (NSH) specification related to the handling of O-bit. In particular, this document clarifies the meaning of "OAM packet". This document updates RFC8300. 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 20 August 2022. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2022 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. Boucadair Expires 20 August 2022 [Page 1] Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission February 2022 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. An Update to RFC8300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1. Introduction This document clarifies an ambiguity related to the definition of OAM packet discussed in [RFC8300]. The processing of the O-bit must follow the updated behavior specified in Section 3. 2. Terminology 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. This document makes use of the terms defined in [RFC7665] and [RFC8300]. 3. An Update to RFC8300 This document updates RFC8300 as follows: Boucadair Expires 20 August 2022 [Page 2] Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission February 2022 OLD: O bit: Setting this bit indicates an OAM packet (see [RFC6291]). The actual format and processing of SFC OAM packets is outside the scope of this specification (for example, see [SFC-OAM-FRAMEWORK] for one approach). The O bit MUST be set for OAM packets and MUST NOT be set for non-OAM packets. The O bit MUST NOT be modified along the SFP. SF/SFF/SFC Proxy/Classifier implementations that do not support SFC OAM procedures SHOULD discard packets with O bit set, but MAY support a configurable parameter to enable forwarding received SFC OAM packets unmodified to the next element in the chain. Forwarding OAM packets unmodified by SFC elements that do not support SFC OAM procedures may be acceptable for a subset of OAM functions, but it can result in unexpected outcomes for others; thus, it is recommended to analyze the impact of forwarding an OAM packet for all OAM functions prior to enabling this behavior. The configurable parameter MUST be disabled by default. NEW: O bit: Setting this bit indicates an SFC OAM packet. Such a packet is any NSH-encapasulated packet that exclusively includes an OAM command and/or OAM data. The OAM command (or data) can be included in the Fixed-Length Context Header, optional Context Headers, or the inner packet. The actual format and processing of SFC OAM packets is outside the scope of this specification. The O bit MUST be set for SFC OAM packets and MUST NOT be set for non-OAM packets. The O bit MUST NOT be modified along the SFP. SF/SFF/SFC Proxy/Classifier implementations that do not support SFC OAM procedures SHOULD discard packets with O bit set, but MAY support a configurable parameter to enable forwarding received SFC OAM packets unmodified to the next element in the chain. Forwarding SFC OAM packets unmodified by SFC elements that do not support SFC OAM procedures may be acceptable for a subset of OAM functions, but it can result in unexpected outcomes for others; thus, it is recommended to analyze the impact of forwarding an SFC OAM packet for all OAM functions prior to enabling this behavior. The configurable parameter MUST be disabled by default. Boucadair Expires 20 August 2022 [Page 3] Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission February 2022 4. IANA Considerations This document does not make any request to IANA. 5. Security Considerations Data plane SFC-related security considerations, including privacy, are discussed in Section 6 of [RFC7665] and Section 8 of [RFC8300]. Data icnluded in an SFC OAM packet SHOULD be integrity-protected [RFC9145]. 6. Acknowledgements TBC 7. References 7.1. 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, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [RFC8300] Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300, DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018, . [RFC9145] Boucadair, M., Reddy.K, T., and D. Wing, "Integrity Protection for the Network Service Header (NSH) and Encryption of Sensitive Context Headers", RFC 9145, DOI 10.17487/RFC9145, December 2021, . 7.2. Informative References [RFC7665] Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665, DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015, . Boucadair Expires 20 August 2022 [Page 4] Internet-Draft DOTS Robust Block Transmission February 2022 Author's Address Mohamed Boucadair Orange 35000 Rennes France Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Boucadair Expires 20 August 2022 [Page 5]