< draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-04.txt		draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-05.txt >
	DetNet B. Varga, Ed.		DetNet B. Varga, Ed.
	Internet-Draft J. Farkas		Internet-Draft J. Farkas
	Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson		Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson
	Expires: May 24, 2020 L. Berger		Expires: August 6, 2020 L. Berger
	D. Fedyk		D. Fedyk
	LabN Consulting, L.L.C.		LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
	A. Malis		A. Malis
	Independent		Independent
	S. Bryant		S. Bryant
	Futurewei Technologies		Futurewei Technologies
	J. Korhonen		J. Korhonen
	November 21, 2019		February 3, 2020
	DetNet Data Plane: MPLS		DetNet Data Plane: MPLS
	draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-04		draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-05
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document specifies the Deterministic Networking data plane when		This document specifies the Deterministic Networking data plane when
	operating over an MPLS Packet Switched Networks.		operating over an MPLS Packet Switched Networks.
	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
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	skipping to change at page 1, line 39 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 39 ¶
	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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at https://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 May 24, 2020.		This Internet-Draft will expire on August 6, 2020.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2020 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
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(https://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
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	skipping to change at page 2, line 29 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 29 ¶
	3.2. DetNet MPLS Data Plane Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		3.2. DetNet MPLS Data Plane Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	4. MPLS-Based DetNet Data Plane Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		4. MPLS-Based DetNet Data Plane Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	4.1. DetNet Over MPLS Encapsulation Components . . . . . . . . 8		4.1. DetNet Over MPLS Encapsulation Components . . . . . . . . 8
	4.2. MPLS Data Plane Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		4.2. MPLS Data Plane Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	4.2.1. DetNet Control Word and the DetNet Sequence Number . 10		4.2.1. DetNet Control Word and the DetNet Sequence Number . 10
	4.2.2. S-Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		4.2.2. S-Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	4.2.3. F-Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		4.2.3. F-Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	4.3. OAM Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		4.3. OAM Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	4.4. Flow Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		4.4. Flow Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	4.4.1. Aggregation Via LSP Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		4.4.1. Aggregation Via LSP Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	4.4.2. Aggregating DetNet Flows as a new DetNet flow . . . . 17		4.4.2. Aggregating DetNet Flows as a new DetNet flow . . . . 18
	4.5. Service Sub-Layer Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		4.5. Service Sub-Layer Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	4.5.1. Edge Node Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		4.5.1. Edge Node Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	4.5.2. Relay Node Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		4.5.2. Relay Node Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	4.6. Forwarding Sub-Layer Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 20		4.6. Forwarding Sub-Layer Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	4.6.1. Class of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20		4.6.1. Class of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	4.6.2. Quality of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20		4.6.2. Quality of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	5. Management and Control Information Summary . . . . . . . . . 21		5. Management and Control Information Summary . . . . . . . . . 21
	5.1. Service Sub-Layer Information Summary . . . . . . . . . . 21		5.1. Service Sub-Layer Information Summary . . . . . . . . . . 22
	5.1.1. Service Aggregation Information Summary . . . . . . . 22		5.1.1. Service Aggregation Information Summary . . . . . . . 23
	5.2. Forwarding Sub-Layer Information Summary . . . . . . . . 23		5.2. Forwarding Sub-Layer Information Summary . . . . . . . . 23
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
	7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25		7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
	8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25		8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
	9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25		9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
	9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25		9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
	9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27		9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	skipping to change at page 3, line 48 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 48 ¶
	found in the DetNet Data Plane Framework		found in the DetNet Data Plane Framework
	[I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework].		[I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework].
	2. Terminology		2. Terminology
	2.1. Terms Used in This Document		2.1. Terms Used in This Document
	This document uses the terminology established in the DetNet		This document uses the terminology established in the DetNet
	architecture [RFC8655] and the the DetNet Data Plane Framework		architecture [RFC8655] and the the DetNet Data Plane Framework
	[I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework]. The reader is assumed to be		[I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework]. The reader is assumed to be
	familiar with these documents and any terminology defined therein.		familiar with these documents, any terminology defined therein and
			basic MPLS related terminologies in [RFC3031].
	The following terminology is introduced in this document:		The following terminology is introduced in this document:
	F-Label A Detnet "forwarding" label that identifies the LSP		F-Label A Detnet "forwarding" label that identifies the LSP
	used to forward a DetNet flow across an MPLS PSN, e.g.,		used to forward a DetNet flow across an MPLS PSN, e.g.,
	a hop-by-hop label used between label switching routers		a hop-by-hop label used between label switching routers
	(LSR).		(LSR).
	S-Label A DetNet "service" label that is used between DetNet		S-Label A DetNet "service" label that is used between DetNet
	nodes that implement also the DetNet service sub-layer		nodes that implement also the DetNet service sub-layer
	skipping to change at page 9, line 15 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 15 ¶
	the use of the Associated Channel method described in [RFC4385]. The		the use of the Associated Channel method described in [RFC4385]. The
	DetNet sequence number is carried in the DetNet Control word which		DetNet sequence number is carried in the DetNet Control word which
	carries the Data/OAM discriminator. To simplify implementation and		carries the Data/OAM discriminator. To simplify implementation and
	to maximize interoperability two sequence number sizes are supported:		to maximize interoperability two sequence number sizes are supported:
	a 16 bit sequence number and a 28 bit sequence number. The 16 bit		a 16 bit sequence number and a 28 bit sequence number. The 16 bit
	sequence number is needed to support some types of legacy clients.		sequence number is needed to support some types of legacy clients.
	The 28 bit sequence number is used in situations where it is		The 28 bit sequence number is used in situations where it is
	necessary ensure that in high speed networks the sequence number		necessary ensure that in high speed networks the sequence number
	space does not wrap whilst packets are in flight.		space does not wrap whilst packets are in flight.
	The LSP used to forward the DetNet packet may be of any type (MPLS-		The LSP used to forward the DetNet packet is not restricted regarding
	LDP, MPLS-TE, MPLS-TP [RFC5921], or MPLS-SR		any method used for establishing that LSP (for example, MPLS-LDP,
	[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]). The LSP (F-Label) label		MPLS-TE, MPLS-TP [RFC5921], MPLS-SR [RFC8660], etc.). The LSP
	and/or the S-Label may be used to indicate the queue processing as		(F-Label) label and/or the S-Label may be used to indicate the queue
	well as the forwarding parameters. Note that the possible use of		processing as well as the forwarding parameters. Note that the
	Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) means that the S-Label may be the only		possible use of Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) means that the S-Label
	label received at the terminating DetNet service.		may be the only label received at the terminating DetNet service.
	4.2. MPLS Data Plane Encapsulation		4.2. MPLS Data Plane Encapsulation
	Figure 4 illustrates a DetNet data plane MPLS encapsulation. The		Figure 4 illustrates a DetNet data plane MPLS encapsulation. The
	MPLS-based encapsulation of the DetNet flows is well suited for the		MPLS-based encapsulation of the DetNet flows is well suited for the
	scenarios described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework].		scenarios described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework].
	Furthermore, an end to end DetNet service i.e., native DetNet		Furthermore, an end to end DetNet service i.e., native DetNet
	deployment (see Section 3.2) is also possible if DetNet end systems		deployment (see Section 3.2) is also possible if DetNet end systems
	are capable of initiating and termination MPLS encapsulated packets.		are capable of initiating and termination MPLS encapsulated packets.
	skipping to change at page 10, line 31 ¶		skipping to change at page 10, line 31 ¶
	| Physical |		| Physical |
	+---------------------------------+		+---------------------------------+
	Figure 4: Encapsulation of a DetNet App-Flow in an MPLS PSN		Figure 4: Encapsulation of a DetNet App-Flow in an MPLS PSN
	4.2.1. DetNet Control Word and the DetNet Sequence Number		4.2.1. DetNet Control Word and the DetNet Sequence Number
	A DetNet control word (d-CW) conforms to the Generic PW MPLS Control		A DetNet control word (d-CW) conforms to the Generic PW MPLS Control
	Word (PWMCW) defined in [RFC4385]. The d-CW formatted as shown in		Word (PWMCW) defined in [RFC4385]. The d-CW formatted as shown in
	Figure 5 MUST be present in all DetNet packets containing app-flow		Figure 5 MUST be present in all DetNet packets containing app-flow
	data.		data. This format of the d-CW was created in order (1) to allow
			larger S/N space to avoid S/N rollover frequency in some applications
			and (2) to allow non-skip zero S/N what simplifies implementation.
	0 1 2 3		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 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 |		|0 0 0 0| Sequence Number |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 5: DetNet Control Word		Figure 5: DetNet Control Word
	(bits 0 to 3)		(bits 0 to 3)
	skipping to change at page 17, line 11 ¶		skipping to change at page 17, line 11 ¶
	As shown in Figure 3 of [RFC5085] when the first nibble of the d-CW		As shown in Figure 3 of [RFC5085] when the first nibble of the d-CW
	is 0x0 the payload following the d-CW is normal user data. However,		is 0x0 the payload following the d-CW is normal user data. However,
	when the first nibble of the d-CW is 0X1, the payload that follows		when the first nibble of the d-CW is 0X1, the payload that follows
	the d-DW is an OAM payload with the OAM type indicated by the value		the d-DW is an OAM payload with the OAM type indicated by the value
	in the d-CW Channel Type field.		in the d-CW Channel Type field.
	The reader is referred to [RFC5085] for a more detailed description		The reader is referred to [RFC5085] for a more detailed description
	of the Associated Channel mechanism, and to the DetNet work on OAM		of the Associated Channel mechanism, and to the DetNet work on OAM
	for more information DetNet OAM.		for more information DetNet OAM.
			Additional considerations on DetNet-specific OAM are subjects for
			further study.
	4.4. Flow Aggregation		4.4. Flow Aggregation
	The ability to aggregate individual flows, and their associated		The ability to aggregate individual flows, and their associated
	resource control, into a larger aggregate is an important technique		resource control, into a larger aggregate is an important technique
	for improving scaling of control in the data, management and control		for improving scaling of control in the data, management and control
	planes. The DetNet data plane allows for the aggregation of DetNet		planes. The DetNet data plane allows for the aggregation of DetNet
	flows, to improved scaling. There are two methods of supporting flow		flows, to improved scaling. There are two methods of supporting flow
	aggregation covered in this section.		aggregation covered in this section.
	The resource control and management aspects of aggregation (including		The resource control and management aspects of aggregation (including
	skipping to change at page 24, line 10 ¶		skipping to change at page 24, line 19 ¶
	forwarded as a transit node, or provided to the service sub-layer.		forwarded as a transit node, or provided to the service sub-layer.
	It is the responsibility of the DetNet controller plane to properly		It is the responsibility of the DetNet controller plane to properly
	provision both flow identification information and the flow specific		provision both flow identification information and the flow specific
	resources needed to provided the traffic treatment needed to meet		resources needed to provided the traffic treatment needed to meet
	each flow's service requirements. This applies for aggregated and		each flow's service requirements. This applies for aggregated and
	individual flows.		individual flows.
	6. Security Considerations		6. Security Considerations
	Security considerations for DetNet are described in detail in		General security considerations are described in [RFC8655].
	[I-D.ietf-detnet-security]. General security considerations are		Additionally, security considerations and a threat analysis are
	described in [RFC8655]. This section considers exclusively security		described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-security]. This section considers
	considerations which are specific to the DetNet MPLS data plane.		exclusively security considerations which are specific to the DetNet
			MPLS data plane.
	Security aspects which are unique to DetNet are those whose aim is to		Security aspects which are unique to DetNet are those whose aim is to
	provide the specific quality of service aspects of DetNet, which are		provide the specific quality of service aspects of DetNet, which are
	primarily to deliver data flows with extremely low packet loss rates		primarily to deliver data flows with extremely low packet loss rates
	and bounded end-to-end delivery latency.		and bounded end-to-end delivery latency.
	The primary considerations for the data plane is to maintain		The primary considerations for the data plane is to maintain
	integrity of data and delivery of the associated DetNet service		integrity of data and delivery of the associated DetNet service
	traversing the DetNet network. Application flows can be protected		traversing the DetNet network. Application flows can be protected
	through whatever means is provided by the underlying technology. For		through whatever means is provided by the underlying technology. For
	skipping to change at page 27, line 5 ¶		skipping to change at page 27, line 9 ¶
	[RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching		[RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
	(MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic		(MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
	Class" Field", RFC 5462, DOI 10.17487/RFC5462, February		Class" Field", RFC 5462, DOI 10.17487/RFC5462, February
	2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5462>.		2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5462>.
	[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC		[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
	2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,		2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
	May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.		May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
			[RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
			"Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>.
	9.2. Informative References		9.2. Informative References
	[I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework]		[I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework]
	Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A.,		Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A.,
	Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane		Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane
	Framework", draft-ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework-03		Framework", draft-ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework-03
	(work in progress), October 2019.		(work in progress), October 2019.
	[I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]		[I-D.ietf-detnet-ip]
	Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A.,		Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A.,
	Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: IP",		Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: IP",
	draft-ietf-detnet-ip-03 (work in progress), October 2019.		draft-ietf-detnet-ip-04 (work in progress), November 2019.
	[I-D.ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls]		[I-D.ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls]
	Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A.,		Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A.,
	Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: IP over		Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: IP over
	MPLS", draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls-03 (work in		MPLS", draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls-04 (work in
	progress), October 2019.		progress), November 2019.
	[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn]		[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn]
	Varga, B., Farkas, J., Malis, A., and S. Bryant, "DetNet		Varga, B., Farkas, J., Malis, A., and S. Bryant, "DetNet
	Data Plane: MPLS over IEEE 802.1 Time Sensitive Networking		Data Plane: MPLS over IEEE 802.1 Time Sensitive Networking
	(TSN)", draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn-01 (work in		(TSN)", draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn-01 (work in
	progress), October 2019.		progress), October 2019.
	[I-D.ietf-detnet-security]		[I-D.ietf-detnet-security]
	Mizrahi, T., Grossman, E., Hacker, A., Das, S., Dowdell,		Mizrahi, T., Grossman, E., Hacker, A., Das, S., Dowdell,
	J., Austad, H., and N. Finn, "Deterministic Networking		J., Austad, H., and N. Finn, "Deterministic Networking
	(DetNet) Security Considerations", draft-ietf-detnet-		(DetNet) Security Considerations", draft-ietf-detnet-
	security-06 (work in progress), November 2019.		security-07 (work in progress), January 2020.
	[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]
	Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B.,
	Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS
	data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-22
	(work in progress), May 2019.
	[IEEE802.1AE-2018]		[IEEE802.1AE-2018]
	IEEE Standards Association, "IEEE Std 802.1AE-2018 MAC		IEEE Standards Association, "IEEE Std 802.1AE-2018 MAC
	Security (MACsec)", 2018,		Security (MACsec)", 2018,
	<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8585421>.		<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8585421>.
	[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.		[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
	Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1		Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
	Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205,		Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205,
	September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.		September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.
	skipping to change at page 29, line 26 ¶		skipping to change at page 29, line 31 ¶
	RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,		RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
	[RFC8306] Zhao, Q., Dhody, D., Ed., Palleti, R., and D. King,		[RFC8306] Zhao, Q., Dhody, D., Ed., Palleti, R., and D. King,
	"Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication		"Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication
	Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic		Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic
	Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 8306,		Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 8306,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC8306, November 2017,		DOI 10.17487/RFC8306, November 2017,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8306>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8306>.
	[RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,		[RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S.,
	"Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655,		Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
	DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019,		Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>.		DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Balazs Varga (editor)		Balazs Varga (editor)
	Ericsson		Ericsson
	Magyar Tudosok krt. 11.		Magyar Tudosok krt. 11.
	Budapest 1117		Budapest 1117
	Hungary		Hungary
	Email: balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com		Email: balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com
End of changes. 18 change blocks.
	36 lines changed or deleted		43 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/