< draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-06.txt		draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-07.txt >
	skipping to change at page 1, line 26 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 26 ¶
	Mellanox Technologies Ltd.		Mellanox Technologies Ltd.
	P. Lapukhov		P. Lapukhov
	Facebook		Facebook
	R. Chang		R. Chang
	Barefoot Networks		Barefoot Networks
	D. Bernier		D. Bernier
	Bell Canada		Bell Canada
	July 2, 2017		July 2, 2017
	Data Fields for In-situ OAM		Data Fields for In-situ OAM
	draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-06		draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-07
	Abstract		Abstract
	In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) records		In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) records
	operational and telemetry information in the packet while the packet		operational and telemetry information in the packet while the packet
	traverses a path between two points in the network. This document		traverses a path between two points in the network. This document
	discusses the data fields and associated data types for in-situ OAM.		discusses the data fields and associated data types for in-situ OAM.
	In-situ OAM data fields can be embedded into a variety of transports		In-situ OAM data fields can be embedded into a variety of transports
	such as NSH, Segment Routing, Geneve, native IPv6 (via extension		such as NSH, Segment Routing, Geneve, native IPv6 (via extension
	header), or IPv4. In-situ OAM can be used to complement OAM		header), or IPv4. In-situ OAM can be used to complement OAM
	skipping to change at page 24, line 27 ¶		skipping to change at page 24, line 27 ¶
	IOAM Trace Type		IOAM Trace Type
	IOAM Trace flags		IOAM Trace flags
	IOAM POT Type		IOAM POT Type
	IOAM E2E Type		IOAM E2E Type
	will contain the current set of possibilities defined in this		will contain the current set of possibilities defined in this
	document. New registries in this name space are created via RFC		document. New registries in this name space are created via RFC
	Required process as per [RFC5226].		Required process as per [RFC8126].
	The subsequent sub-sections detail the registries herein contained.		The subsequent sub-sections detail the registries herein contained.
	6.2. IOAM Trace Type Registry		6.2. IOAM Trace Type Registry
	This registry defines code point for each bit in the 16-bit IOAM-		This registry defines code point for each bit in the 16-bit IOAM-
	Trace-Type field for Pre-allocated trace option and Incremental trace		Trace-Type field for Pre-allocated trace option and Incremental trace
	option defined in Section 4.1. The meaning of Bit 0 - 11 for trace		option defined in Section 4.1. The meaning of Bit 0 - 11 for trace
	type are defined in this document in Paragraph 1 of (Section 4.1.1).		type are defined in this document in Paragraph 1 of (Section 4.1.1).
	The meaning for Bit 12 - 15 are available for assignment via RFC		The meaning for Bit 12 - 15 are available for assignment via RFC
	Required process as per [RFC5226].		Required process as per [RFC8126].
	6.3. IOAM Trace Flags Registry		6.3. IOAM Trace Flags Registry
	This registry defines code point for each bit in the 5 bit flags for		This registry defines code point for each bit in the 5 bit flags for
	Pre-allocated trace option and Incremental trace option defined in		Pre-allocated trace option and Incremental trace option defined in
	Section 4.1. The meaning of Bit 0 - 1 for trace flags are defined in		Section 4.1. The meaning of Bit 0 - 1 for trace flags are defined in
	this document in Paragraph 5 of Section 4.1.1. The meaning for Bit 2		this document in Paragraph 5 of Section 4.1.1. The meaning for Bit 2
	- 4 are available for assignment via RFC Required process as per		- 4 are available for assignment via RFC Required process as per
	[RFC5226].		[RFC8126].
	6.4. IOAM POT Type Registry		6.4. IOAM POT Type Registry
	This registry defines 128 code points to define IOAM POT Type for		This registry defines 128 code points to define IOAM POT Type for
	IOAM proof of transit option Section 4.2. The code point value 0 is		IOAM proof of transit option Section 4.2. The code point value 0 is
	defined in this document, 1 - 127 are available for assignment via		defined in this document, 1 - 127 are available for assignment via
	RFC Required process as per [RFC5226].		RFC Required process as per [RFC8126].
	6.5. IOAM E2E Type Registry		6.5. IOAM E2E Type Registry
	This registry defines 256 code points to define IOAM-E2E-Type for		This registry defines 256 code points to define IOAM-E2E-Type for
	IOAM E2E option Section 4.3. The code point value 0 is defined in		IOAM E2E option Section 4.3. The code point value 0 is defined in
	this document, 1 - 255 are available for assignments via RFC Required		this document, 1 - 255 are available for assignments via RFC Required
	process as per [RFC5226].		process as per [RFC8126].
	7. Manageability Considerations		7. Manageability Considerations
	Manageability considerations will be addressed in a later version of		Manageability considerations will be addressed in a later version of
	this document..		this document..
	8. Security Considerations		8. Security Considerations
	Security considerations will be addressed in a later version of this		Security considerations will be addressed in a later version of this
	document. For a discussion of security requirements of in-situ OAM,		document. For a discussion of security requirements of in-situ OAM,
	skipping to change at page 26, line 5 ¶		skipping to change at page 26, line 5 ¶
	people involved in writing it.		people involved in writing it.
	The authors would like to gracefully acknowledge useful review and		The authors would like to gracefully acknowledge useful review and
	insightful comments received from Joe Clarke, Al Morton, and Mickey		insightful comments received from Joe Clarke, Al Morton, and Mickey
	Spiegel.		Spiegel.
	10. References		10. References
	10.1. Normative References		10.1. Normative References
	[I-D.brockners-inband-oam-requirements]
	Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Dara, S., Pignataro, C.,
	Gredler, H., Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mozes, D., Mizrahi,
	T., <>, P., and r. remy@barefootnetworks.com,
	"Requirements for In-situ OAM", draft-brockners-inband-
	oam-requirements-03 (work in progress), March 2017.
	[IEEE1588v2]		[IEEE1588v2]
	Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,		Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
	"1588-2008 - IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock		"1588-2008 - IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock
	Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measurement and		Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measurement and
	Control Systems", IEEE Std 1588-2008, 2008,		Control Systems", IEEE Std 1588-2008, 2008,
	<http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/		<http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/
	standard/1588-2008.html>.		standard/1588-2008.html>.
	[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>.
	[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an		[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
	IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,		Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,		RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
	[RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
	Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
	May 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.
	10.2. Informative References		10.2. Informative References
			[I-D.brockners-inband-oam-requirements]
			Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Dara, S., Pignataro, C.,
			Gredler, H., Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mozes, D., Mizrahi,
			T., <>, P., and r. remy@barefootnetworks.com,
			"Requirements for In-situ OAM", draft-brockners-inband-
			oam-requirements-03 (work in progress), March 2017.
	[I-D.brockners-inband-oam-transport]		[I-D.brockners-inband-oam-transport]
	Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Govindan, V., Pignataro, C.,		Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Govindan, V., Pignataro, C.,
	Gredler, H., Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Mozes,		Gredler, H., Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Mozes,
	D., Lapukhov, P., and R. <>, "Encapsulations for In-situ		D., Lapukhov, P., and R. <>, "Encapsulations for In-situ
	OAM Data", draft-brockners-inband-oam-transport-03 (work		OAM Data", draft-brockners-inband-oam-transport-03 (work
	in progress), March 2017.		in progress), March 2017.
	[I-D.hildebrand-spud-prototype]		[I-D.hildebrand-spud-prototype]
	Hildebrand, J. and B. Trammell, "Substrate Protocol for		Hildebrand, J. and B. Trammell, "Substrate Protocol for
	User Datagrams (SPUD) Prototype", draft-hildebrand-spud-		User Datagrams (SPUD) Prototype", draft-hildebrand-spud-
	skipping to change at page 27, line 29 ¶		skipping to change at page 27, line 24 ¶
	[I-D.lapukhov-dataplane-probe]		[I-D.lapukhov-dataplane-probe]
	Lapukhov, P. and r. remy@barefootnetworks.com, "Data-plane		Lapukhov, P. and r. remy@barefootnetworks.com, "Data-plane
	probe for in-band telemetry collection", draft-lapukhov-		probe for in-band telemetry collection", draft-lapukhov-
	dataplane-probe-01 (work in progress), June 2016.		dataplane-probe-01 (work in progress), June 2016.
	[RFC7665] Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function		[RFC7665] Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
	Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,		Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,		DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7665>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7665>.
			[RFC7799] Morton, A., "Active and Passive Metrics and Methods (with
			Hybrid Types In-Between)", RFC 7799, DOI 10.17487/RFC7799,
			May 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7799>.
	[RFC7820] Mizrahi, T., "UDP Checksum Complement in the One-Way		[RFC7820] Mizrahi, T., "UDP Checksum Complement in the One-Way
	Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) and Two-Way Active		Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) and Two-Way Active
	Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", RFC 7820,		Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", RFC 7820,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC7820, March 2016,		DOI 10.17487/RFC7820, March 2016,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7820>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7820>.
	[RFC7821] Mizrahi, T., "UDP Checksum Complement in the Network Time		[RFC7821] Mizrahi, T., "UDP Checksum Complement in the Network Time
	Protocol (NTP)", RFC 7821, DOI 10.17487/RFC7821, March		Protocol (NTP)", RFC 7821, DOI 10.17487/RFC7821, March
	2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7821>.		2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7821>.
End of changes. 10 change blocks.
	21 lines changed or deleted		21 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/