idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn-04.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (November 2, 2020) is 1264 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-detnet-ip' is defined on line 517, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-16) exists of draft-ietf-detnet-security-12 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 DetNet B. Varga, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft J. Farkas 4 Intended status: Informational Ericsson 5 Expires: May 6, 2021 A. Malis 6 Malis Consulting 7 S. Bryant 8 Futurewei Technologies 9 November 2, 2020 11 DetNet Data Plane: MPLS over IEEE 802.1 Time Sensitive Networking (TSN) 12 draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn-04 14 Abstract 16 This document specifies the Deterministic Networking MPLS data plane 17 when operating over a TSN sub-network. This document does not define 18 new procedures or processes. Whenever this document makes 19 requirements statements or recommendations, these are taken from 20 normative text in the referenced RFCs. 22 Status of This Memo 24 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 25 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 27 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 28 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 29 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 30 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 32 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 33 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 34 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 35 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 37 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 6, 2021. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 42 document authors. All rights reserved. 44 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 45 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 46 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 47 publication of this document. Please review these documents 48 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 49 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 50 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 51 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 52 described in the Simplified BSD License. 54 Table of Contents 56 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 57 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 2.1. Terms Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 2.3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 3. DetNet MPLS Data Plane Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 4. DetNet MPLS Operation Over IEEE 802.1 TSN Sub-Networks . . . 4 63 4.1. Functions for DetNet Flow to TSN Stream Mapping . . . . . 6 64 4.2. TSN requirements of MPLS DetNet nodes . . . . . . . . . . 6 65 4.3. Service protection within the TSN sub-network . . . . . . 8 66 4.4. Aggregation during DetNet flow to TSN Stream mapping . . 8 67 5. Management and Control Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 68 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 69 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 70 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 71 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 72 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 73 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 74 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 76 1. Introduction 78 Deterministic Networking (DetNet) is a service that can be offered by 79 a network to DetNet flows. DetNet provides these flows with a low 80 packet loss rates and assured maximum end-to-end delivery latency. 81 General background and concepts of DetNet can be found in [RFC8655]. 83 The DetNet Architecture decomposes the DetNet related data plane 84 functions into two sub-layers: a service sub-layer and a forwarding 85 sub-layer. The service sub-layer is used to provide DetNet service 86 protection and reordering. The forwarding sub-layer is used to 87 provides congestion protection (low loss, assured latency, and 88 limited reordering) leveraging MPLS Traffic Engineering mechanisms. 90 [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] specifies the DetNet data plane operation for 91 MPLS-based Packet Switched Network (PSN). MPLS encapsulated DetNet 92 flows can be carried over network technologies that can provide the 93 DetNet required level of service. This document focuses on the 94 scenario where MPLS (DetNet) nodes are interconnected by a IEEE 802.1 95 TSN sub-network. 97 2. Terminology 99 2.1. Terms Used in This Document 101 This document uses the terminology established in the DetNet 102 architecture [RFC8655] and [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls], and the reader is 103 assumed to be familiar with that document and its terminology. 105 2.2. Abbreviations 107 The following abbreviations are used in this document: 109 CW Control Word. 111 DetNet Deterministic Networking. 113 DF DetNet Flow. 115 FRER Frame Replication and Elimination for Redundancy (TSN 116 function). 118 L2 Layer 2. 120 L3 Layer 3. 122 LSR Label Switching Router. 124 MPLS Multiprotocol Label Switching. 126 PE Provider Edge. 128 PREOF Packet Replication, Elimination and Ordering Functions. 130 PSN Packet Switched Network. 132 PW PseudoWire. 134 S-PE Switching Provider Edge. 136 T-PE Terminating Provider Edge. 138 TSN Time-Sensitive Network. 140 2.3. Requirements Language 142 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 143 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 144 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 145 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 146 capitals, as shown here. 148 3. DetNet MPLS Data Plane Overview 150 The basic approach defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] supports the 151 DetNet service sub-layer based on existing pseudowire (PW) 152 encapsulations and mechanisms, and supports the DetNet forwarding 153 sub-layer based on existing MPLS Traffic Engineering encapsulations 154 and mechanisms. 156 A node operating on a DetNet flow in the Detnet service sub-layer, 157 i.e. a node processing a DetNet packet which has the S-Label as top 158 of stack uses the local context associated with that S-Label, for 159 example a received F-Label, to determine what local DetNet 160 operation(s) are applied to that packet. An S-Label may be unique 161 when taken from the platform label space [RFC3031], which would 162 enable correct DetNet flow identification regardless of which input 163 interface or LSP the packet arrives on. The service sub-layer 164 functions (i.e., PREOF) use a DetNet control word (d-CW). 166 The DetNet MPLS data plane builds on MPLS Traffic Engineering 167 encapsulations and mechanisms to provide a forwarding sub-layer that 168 is responsible for providing resource allocation and explicit routes. 169 The forwarding sub-layer is supported by one or more forwarding 170 labels (F-Labels). 172 DetNet edge/relay nodes are DetNet service sub-layer aware, 173 understand the particular needs of DetNet flows and provide both 174 DetNet service and forwarding sub-layer functions. They add, remove 175 and process d-CWs, S-Labels and F-labels as needed. MPLS DetNet 176 nodes and transit nodes include DetNet forwarding sub-layer 177 functions, support for notably explicit routes, and resources 178 allocation to eliminate (or reduce) congestion loss and jitter. 179 Unlike other DetNet node types, transit nodes provide no service sub- 180 layer processing. 182 MPLS (DetNet) nodes and transit nodes interconnected by a TSN sub- 183 network are the primary focus of this document. The mapping of 184 DetNet MPLS flows to TSN streams and TSN protection mechanisms are 185 covered in Section 4. 187 4. DetNet MPLS Operation Over IEEE 802.1 TSN Sub-Networks 189 The DetNet WG collaborates with IEEE 802.1 TSN in order to define a 190 common architecture for both Layer 2 and Layer 3, what maintains 191 consistency across diverse networks. Both DetNet MPLS and TSN use 192 the same techniques to provide their deterministic service: 194 o Service protection. 196 o Resource allocation. 198 o Explicit routes. 200 As described in the DetNet architecture [RFC8655] a sub-network 201 provides from MPLS perspective a single hop connection between MPLS 202 (DetNet) nodes. Functions used for resource allocation and explicit 203 routes are treated as domain internal functions and does not require 204 function interworking across the DetNet MPLS network and the TSN sub- 205 network. 207 In case of the service protection function due to the similarities of 208 the DetNet PREOF and TSN FRER functions some level of interworking is 209 possible. However, such interworking is out-of-scope in this 210 document and left for further study. 212 Figure 1 illustrates a scenario, where two MPLS (DetNet) nodes are 213 interconnected by a TSN sub-network. Node-1 is single homed and 214 Node-2 is dual-homed to the TSN sub-network. 216 MPLS (DetNet) MPLS (DetNet) 217 Node-1 Node-2 219 +----------+ +----------+ 220 <--| Service* |-- DetNet flow ---| Service* |--> 221 +----------+ +----------+ 222 |Forwarding| |Forwarding| 223 +--------.-+ <-TSN Str-> +-.-----.--+ 224 \ ,-------. / / 225 +----[ TSN-Sub ]---+ / 226 [ Network ]--------+ 227 `-------' 228 <---------------- DetNet MPLS ---------------> 230 Note: * no service sub-layer required for transit nodes 232 Figure 1: DetNet Enabled MPLS Network Over a TSN Sub-Network 234 The Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) Task Group of the IEEE 802.1 235 Working Group have defined (and are defining) a number of amendments 236 to IEEE 802.1Q [IEEE8021Q] that provide zero congestion loss and 237 bounded latency in bridged networks. Furthermore IEEE 802.1CB 238 [IEEE8021CB] defines frame replication and elimination functions for 239 reliability that should prove both compatible with and useful to, 240 DetNet networks. All these functions have to identify flows those 241 require TSN treatment. 243 TSN capabilities of the TSN sub-network are made available for MPLS 244 (DetNet) flows via the protocol interworking function defined in 245 Annex C.5 of IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB]. For example, applied on the 246 TSN edge port it can convert an ingress unicast MPLS (DetNet) flow to 247 use a specific Layer-2 multicast destination MAC address and a VLAN, 248 in order to direct the packet through a specific path inside the 249 bridged network. A similar interworking function pair at the other 250 end of the TSN sub-network would restore the packet to its original 251 Layer-2 destination MAC address and VLAN. 253 Placement of TSN functions depends on the TSN capabilities of nodes. 254 MPLS (DetNet) Nodes may or may not support TSN functions. For a 255 given TSN Stream (i.e., DetNet flow) an MPLS (DetNet) node is treated 256 as a Talker or a Listener inside the TSN sub-network. 258 4.1. Functions for DetNet Flow to TSN Stream Mapping 260 Mapping of a DetNet MPLS flow to a TSN Stream is provided via the 261 combination of a passive and an active stream identification function 262 that operate at the frame level. The passive stream identification 263 function is used to catch the MPLS label(s) of a DetNet MPLS flow and 264 the active stream identification function is used to modify the 265 Ethernet header according to the ID of the mapped TSN Stream. 267 Clause 6.8 of IEEE P802.1CBdb [IEEEP8021CBdb] defines a Mask-and- 268 Match Stream identification function that can be used as a passive 269 function for MPLS DetNet flows. 271 Clause 6.6 of IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB] defines an Active Destination 272 MAC and VLAN Stream identification function, what can replace some 273 Ethernet header fields namely (1) the destination MAC-address, (2) 274 the VLAN-ID and (3) priority parameters with alternate values. 275 Replacement is provided for the frame passed down the stack from the 276 upper layers or up the stack from the lower layers. 278 Active Destination MAC and VLAN Stream identification can be used 279 within a Talker to set flow identity or a Listener to recover the 280 original addressing information. It can be used also in a TSN bridge 281 that is providing translation as a proxy service for an End System. 283 4.2. TSN requirements of MPLS DetNet nodes 285 This section covers required behavior of a TSN-aware MPLS (DetNet) 286 node using a TSN sub-network. The implementation of TSN packet 287 processing functions must be compliant with the relevant IEEE 802.1 288 standards. 290 From the TSN sub-network perspective MPLS (DetNet) nodes are treated 291 as Talker or Listener, that may be (1) TSN-unaware or (2) TSN-aware. 293 In cases of TSN-unaware MPLS DetNet nodes the TSN relay nodes within 294 the TSN sub-network must modify the Ethernet encapsulation of the 295 DetNet MPLS flow (e.g., MAC translation, VLAN-ID setting, Sequence 296 number addition, etc.) to allow proper TSN specific handling inside 297 the sub-network. There are no requirements defined for TSN-unaware 298 MPLS DetNet nodes in this document. 300 MPLS (DetNet) nodes being TSN-aware can be treated as a combination 301 of a TSN-unaware Talker/Listener and a TSN-Relay, as shown in 302 Figure 2. In such cases the MPLS (DetNet) node must provide the TSN 303 sub-network specific Ethernet encapsulation over the link(s) towards 304 the sub-network. 306 MPLS (DetNet) 307 Node 308 <----------------------------------> 310 +----------+ 311 <--| Service* |-- DetNet flow ------------------ 312 +----------+ 313 |Forwarding| 314 +----------+ +---------------+ 315 | L2 | | L2 Relay with |<--- TSN --- 316 | | | TSN function | Stream 317 +-----.----+ +--.------.---.-+ 318 \__________/ \ \______ 319 \_________ 320 TSN-unaware 321 Talker / TSN-Bridge 322 Listener Relay 323 <----- TSN Sub-network ----- 324 <------- TSN-aware Tlk/Lstn -------> 326 Note: * no service sub-layer required for transit nodes 328 Figure 2: MPLS (DetNet) Node with TSN Functions 330 A TSN-aware MPLS (DetNet) node impementations must support the Stream 331 Identification TSN component for recognizing flows. 333 A Stream identification component must be able to instantiate the 334 following functions (1) Active Destination MAC and VLAN Stream 335 identification function, (2) Mask-and-Match Stream identification 336 function and (3) the related managed objects in Clause 9 of IEEE 337 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB] and IEEE P802.1CBdb [IEEEP8021CBdb]. 339 A TSN-aware MPLS (DetNet) node implementations must support the 340 Sequencing function and the Sequence encode/decode function as 341 defined in Clause 7.4 and 7.6 of IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB] if FRER is 342 used inside the TSN sub-network. 344 The Sequence encode/decode function must support the Redundancy tag 345 (R-TAG) format as per Clause 7.8 of IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB]. 347 A TSN-aware MPLS (DetNet) node implementations must support the 348 Stream splitting function and the Individual recovery function as 349 defined in Clause 7.7 and 7.5 of IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB] when the 350 node is a replication or elimination point for FRER. 352 4.3. Service protection within the TSN sub-network 354 TSN Streams supporting DetNet flows may use Frame Replication and 355 Elimination for Redundancy (FRER) as defined in Clause 8. of IEEE 356 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB] based on the loss service requirements of the 357 TSN Stream, which is derived from the DetNet service requirements of 358 the DetNet mapped flow. The specific operation of FRER is not 359 modified by the use of DetNet and follows IEEE 802.1CB [IEEE8021CB]. 361 FRER function and the provided service recovery is available only 362 within the TSN sub-network as the TSN Stream-ID and the TSN sequence 363 number are not valid outside the sub-network. An MPLS (DetNet) node 364 represents a L3 border and as such it terminates all related 365 information elements encoded in the L2 frames. 367 As the Stream-ID and the TSN sequence number are paired with the 368 similar MPLS flow parameters, FRER can be combined with PREOF 369 functions. Such service protection interworking scenarios may 370 require to move sequence number fields among TSN (L2) and PW (MPLS) 371 encapsulations and they are left for further study. 373 4.4. Aggregation during DetNet flow to TSN Stream mapping 375 Implementations of this document shall use management and control 376 information to map a DetNet flow to a TSN Stream. N:1 mapping 377 (aggregating DetNet flows in a single TSN Stream) shall be supported. 378 The management or control function that provisions flow mapping shall 379 ensure that adequate resources are allocated and configured to 380 provide proper service requirements of the mapped flows. 382 5. Management and Control Implications 384 DetNet flow and TSN Stream mapping related information are required 385 only for TSN-aware MPLS (DetNet) nodes. From the Data Plane 386 perspective there is no practical difference based on the origin of 387 flow mapping related information (management plane or control plane). 389 The following summarizes the set of information that is needed to 390 configure DetNet MPLS over TSN: 392 o DetNet MPLS related configuration information according to the 393 DetNet role of the DetNet MPLS node, as per 394 [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]. 396 o TSN related configuration information according to the TSN role of 397 the DetNet MPLS node, as per [IEEE8021Q], [IEEE8021CB] and 398 [IEEEP8021CBdb]. 400 o Mapping between DetNet MPLS flow(s) (label information: A-labels, 401 S-labels and F-labels as defined in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]) and 402 TSN Stream(s) (as stream identification information defined in 403 [IEEEP8021CBdb]). Note, that managed objects for TSN Stream 404 identification can be found in [IEEEP8021CBcv]. 406 This information must be provisioned per DetNet flow. 408 Mappings between DetNet and TSN management and control planes are out 409 of scope of the document. Some of the challanges are highligthed 410 below. 412 TSN-aware MPLS DetNet nodes are member of both the DetNet domain and 413 the TSN sub-network. Within the TSN sub-network the TSN-aware MPLS 414 (DetNet) node has a TSN-aware Talker/Listener role, so TSN specific 415 management and control plane functionalities must be implemented. 416 There are many similarities in the management plane techniques used 417 in DetNet and TSN, but that is not the case for the control plane 418 protocols. For example, RSVP-TE and MSRP behaves differently. 419 Therefore management and control plane design is an important aspect 420 of scenarios, where mapping between DetNet and TSN is required. 422 In order to use a TSN sub-network between DetNet nodes, DetNet 423 specific information must be converted to TSN sub-network specific 424 ones. DetNet flow ID and flow related parameters/requirements must 425 be converted to a TSN Stream ID and stream related parameters/ 426 requirements. Note that, as the TSN sub-network is just a portion of 427 the end2end DetNet path (i.e., single hop from MPLS perspective), 428 some parameters (e.g., delay) may differ significantly. Other 429 parameters (like bandwidth) also may have to be tuned due to the L2 430 encapsulation used within the TSN sub-network. 432 In some case it may be challenging to determine some TSN Stream 433 related information. For example, on a TSN-aware MPLS (DetNet) node 434 that acts as a Talker, it is quite obvious which DetNet node is the 435 Listener of the mapped TSN stream (i.e., the MPLS Next-Hop). However 436 it may be not trivial to locate the point/interface where that 437 Listener is connected to the TSN sub-network. Such attributes may 438 require interaction between control and management plane functions 439 and between DetNet and TSN domains. 441 Mapping between DetNet flow identifiers and TSN Stream identifiers, 442 if not provided explicitly, can be done by a TSN-aware MPLS (DetNet) 443 node locally based on information provided for configuration of the 444 TSN Stream identification functions (Mask-and-match Stream 445 identification and Active Stream identification function). 447 Triggering the setup/modification of a TSN Stream in the TSN sub- 448 network is an example where management and/or control plane 449 interactions are required between the DetNet and TSN sub-network. 450 TSN-unaware MPLS (DetNet) nodes make such a triggering even more 451 complicated as they are fully unaware of the sub-network and run 452 independently. 454 Configuration of TSN specific functions (e.g., FRER) inside the TSN 455 sub-network is a TSN domain specific decision and may not be visible 456 in the DetNet domain. Service protection interworking scenarios are 457 left for further study. 459 6. Security Considerations 461 Security considerations for DetNet are described in detail in 462 [I-D.ietf-detnet-security]. General security considerations are 463 described in [RFC8655]. DetNet MPLS data plane specific 464 considerations are summarized in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]. This 465 section considers exclusively security considerations which are 466 specific to the DetNet MPLS over TSN sub-network scenario. 468 The sub-network between DetNet nodes needs to be subject to 469 appropriate confidentiality. Additionally, knowledge of what DetNet/ 470 TSN services are provided by a sub-network may supply information 471 that can be used in a variety of security attacks. The ability to 472 modify information exchanges between connected DetNet nodes may 473 result in bogus operations. Therefore, it is important that the 474 interface between DetNet nodes and TSN sub-network are subject to 475 authorization, authentication, and encryption. 477 The TSN sub-network operates at Layer-2 so various security 478 mechanisms defined by IEEE can be used to secure the connection 479 between the DetNet nodes (e.g., encryption may be provided using 480 MACSec [IEEE802.1AE-2018]). 482 7. IANA Considerations 484 This document makes no IANA requests. 486 8. Acknowledgements 488 The authors wish to thank Norman Finn, Lou Berger, Craig Gunther, 489 Christophe Mangin and Jouni Korhonen for their various contributions 490 to this work. 492 9. References 494 9.1. Normative References 496 [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] 497 Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., Bryant, S., 498 and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: MPLS", draft-ietf- 499 detnet-mpls-13 (work in progress), October 2020. 501 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 502 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 503 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 504 . 506 [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol 507 Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, 508 DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001, 509 . 511 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 512 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 513 May 2017, . 515 9.2. Informative References 517 [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip] 518 Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., and S. 519 Bryant, "DetNet Data Plane: IP", draft-ietf-detnet-ip-07 520 (work in progress), July 2020. 522 [I-D.ietf-detnet-security] 523 Grossman, E., Mizrahi, T., and A. Hacker, "Deterministic 524 Networking (DetNet) Security Considerations", draft-ietf- 525 detnet-security-12 (work in progress), October 2020. 527 [IEEE802.1AE-2018] 528 IEEE Standards Association, "IEEE Std 802.1AE-2018 MAC 529 Security (MACsec)", 2018, 530 . 532 [IEEE8021CB] 533 IEEE 802.1, "Standard for Local and metropolitan area 534 networks - Frame Replication and Elimination for 535 Reliability (IEEE Std 802.1CB-2017)", 2017, 536 . 538 [IEEE8021Q] 539 IEEE 802.1, "Standard for Local and metropolitan area 540 networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks (IEEE Std 802.1Q- 541 2018)", 2018, . 543 [IEEEP8021CBcv] 544 Kehrer, S., "FRER YANG Data Model and Management 545 Information Base Module", IEEE P802.1CBcv 546 /D0.4 P802.1CBcv, August 2020, 547 . 550 [IEEEP8021CBdb] 551 Mangin, C., "Extended Stream identification functions", 552 IEEE P802.1CBdb /D1.0 P802.1CBdb, September 2020, 553 . 556 [RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, 557 "Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655, 558 DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019, 559 . 561 Authors' Addresses 563 Balazs Varga (editor) 564 Ericsson 565 Magyar Tudosok krt. 11. 566 Budapest 1117 567 Hungary 569 Email: balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com 570 Janos Farkas 571 Ericsson 572 Magyar Tudosok krt. 11. 573 Budapest 1117 574 Hungary 576 Email: janos.farkas@ericsson.com 578 Andrew G. Malis 579 Malis Consulting 581 Email: agmalis@gmail.com 583 Stewart Bryant 584 Futurewei Technologies 586 Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com