idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry-03.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 (Using the creation date from RFC4656, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2000-11-22) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (September 11, 2015) is 3143 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group A. Morton 3 Internet-Draft AT&T Labs 4 Updates: 4656 (if approved) September 11, 2015 5 Intended status: Standards Track 6 Expires: March 14, 2016 8 Registries for the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol - OWAMP 9 draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry-03 11 Abstract 13 This memo describes the registries for OWAMP - the One-Way Active 14 Measurement Protocol. The registries allow assignment of MODE bit 15 positions and OWAMP Command numbers. The memo also requests that 16 IANA establish the registries for new features, called the OWAMP- 17 Modes registry and the OWAMP Control Command Number registry. This 18 memo updates RFC 4656. 20 Requirements Language 22 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 23 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 24 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 26 Status of This Memo 28 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 29 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 31 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 32 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 33 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 34 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 36 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 37 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 38 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 39 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 41 This Internet-Draft will expire on March 14, 2016. 43 Copyright Notice 45 Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 46 document authors. All rights reserved. 48 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 49 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 50 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 51 publication of this document. Please review these documents 52 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 53 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 54 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 55 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 56 described in the Simplified BSD License. 58 Table of Contents 60 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 61 2. Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 3. IANA Considerations for OWAMP Control Registries . . . . . . 3 63 3.1. Control Command Number Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 3.1.1. Registry Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 3.1.2. Registry Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 3.1.3. Experimental Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 67 3.1.4. OWAMP-Control Command Numbers Initial Contents . . . 3 68 3.2. OWAMP-Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 3.2.1. Registry Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 3.2.2. Registry Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 71 3.2.3. Experimental Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 72 3.2.4. OWAMP-Modes Initial Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 73 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 74 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 75 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 76 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 77 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 78 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 80 1. Introduction 82 The One-way Active Measurement Protocol, OWAMP [RFC4656] was prepared 83 to support measurements of metrics specified by the IP Performance 84 Metrics (IPPM) working group in the IETF. The Two-Way Active 85 Measurement Protocol, TWAMP [RFC5357] is an extension of OWAMP. The 86 TWAMP specification gathered wide review as it approached completion, 87 and the by-products were several recommendations for new features in 88 TWAMP. As a result, a registry of new features was established for 89 TWAMP. However, there were no new features proposed for OWAMP until 90 recently [I-D.ietf-ippm-ipsec]. 92 This memo establishes the needed registries for OWAMP, and updates 93 [RFC4656]. 95 2. Purpose and Scope 97 The purpose and scope of this memo is to describe and request the 98 establishment of registries for future OWAMP [RFC4656] extensions. 99 IANA already administers the "Two-way Active Measurement Protocol 100 (TWAMP) Parameters", and this request follows a similar form (with 101 one exception identified below). 103 This memo also provides the initial contents for the OWAMP 104 registries. 106 3. IANA Considerations for OWAMP Control Registries 108 OWAMP-Control protocol coordinates the measurement capability. All 109 OWAMP-Control messages follow specifications defined in section 3 of 110 [RFC4656]. 112 3.1. Control Command Number Registry 114 IANA is requested to create an OWAMP-Control Command Number registry. 116 OWAMP-Control Commands follow specifications defined in section 3.4 117 of [RFC4656]. 119 3.1.1. Registry Specification 121 OWAMP-Control Command Numbers are specified in the first octet of 122 OWAMP-Control-Client command messages consistent with section 3 of 123 [RFC4656]. There are a maximum of 256 command numbers. 125 3.1.2. Registry Management 127 Because the "OWAMP-Control Command Numbers" registry can contain only 128 256 values, and because OWAMP is an IETF protocol, these registries 129 MUST be updated only by "IETF Review" as specified in [RFC5226] (an 130 RFC that documents registry use and is approved by the IESG). 132 3.1.3. Experimental Numbers 134 One experimental value is currently assigned in the Command Numbers 135 Registry, as indicated in the initial contents below. 137 3.1.4. OWAMP-Control Command Numbers Initial Contents 139 OWAMP-Control Commands follows the procedure defined in section 3.5 140 of [RFC4656] (and in the remainder of section 3). 142 The complete set of OWAMP-Control Command Numbers are as follows 143 (including two reserved values): 145 OWAMP-Control Command Numbers Registry 147 Value Description Semantics Reference 148 Definition 149 ========================================================== 150 0 Reserved 151 1 Request-Session Section 3.5 RFC 4656 152 2 Start-Sessions Section 3.7 RFC 4656 153 3 Stop-Sessions Section 3.8 RFC 4656 154 4 Fetch-Sessions Section 3.9 RFC 4656 155 5-253 Unassigned 156 254 Experimentation Section 3.1.4 This Memo 157 255 Reserved 159 where "This Memo" is the published version of draft-ietf-ippm-owamp- 160 registry 162 3.2. OWAMP-Modes 164 IANA is requested to create an OWAMP-Modes registry. 166 3.2.1. Registry Specification 168 OWAMP-Modes are specified in OWAMP Server Greeting messages and Set- 169 up Response messages consistent with section 3.1 of [RFC4656]. Modes 170 are currently indicated by setting single bits in the 32-bit Modes 171 Field. However, more complex encoding may be used in the future. 173 3.2.2. Registry Management 175 Because the "OWAMP-Modes" are based on only 32 bit positions with 176 each position conveying a unique feature, and because OWAMP is an 177 IETF protocol, these registries MUST be updated only by "IETF Review" 178 as specified in [RFC5226] (an RFC that documents registry use and is 179 approved by the IESG). IANA SHOULD allocate monotonically increasing 180 bit positions when requested. 182 3.2.3. Experimental Numbers 184 No experimental bit positions are currently assigned in the Modes 185 Registry, as indicated in the initial contents below. 187 3.2.4. OWAMP-Modes Initial Contents 189 OWAMP-Control connection establishment follows the procedure defined 190 in section 3.1 of [RFC4656]. 192 In the OWAMP-Modes registry, assignments are straightforward on the 193 basis of bit positions, and there are no references to values - this 194 is a difference from the comparable TWAMP registry (and a topic for 195 improvement in the TWAMP-Modes registry which is reconciled in 196 [I-D.ietf-ippm-ipsec]). 198 An Extension of the OWAMP-Modes is proposed in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ipsec]. 199 With this extension, the complete set of OWAMP Mode bit positions are 200 as follows (including one reserved bit position): 202 OWAMP-Modes Registry 204 Bit Semantics 205 Pos. Description Definition Reference 206 ===================================================== 207 0 Unauthenticated Section 3.1 RFC4656 208 1 Authenticated Section 3.1 RFC4656 209 2 Encrypted Section 3.1 RFC4656 210 3 Reserved Section 3.2.4 This Memo 211 ------------------------------------------------------ 212 4 IKEv2-derived Shared Section 3.2.4 This Memo 213 Secret Key and Section 5 RFC-to-be 214 ------------------------------------------------------ 215 5-31 Unassigned 217 (where RFC-to-be is the published version of draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec, 218 and where "This Memo" is draft-ietf-ippm-owamp-registry ) 220 In the original OWAMP Modes field, setting bit position 0, 1 or 2 221 indicated the security mode of the Control protocol, and the Test 222 protocol inherited the same mode (see section 4 of [RFC4656]). 224 The value of the Modes Field sent by the Server in the Server- 225 Greeting message is the bit-wise OR of the modes (bit positions) that 226 it is willing to support during this session. Thus, the five least 227 significant bits of the Modes 32-bit Field are used. When no other 228 features are activated, the 27 most significant bits MUST be zero. A 229 Control-Client conforming to [RFC4656] MAY ignore the values in the 230 29 most significant bits of the Modes Field, or it MAY support 231 features that are communicated in other bit positions, such as the 232 IKEv2-derived Shared Secret Key extension [I-D.ietf-ippm-ipsec]. 234 OWAMP and TWAMP registries for Modes may grow to contain different 235 features and functions due to the inherent differences in one-way and 236 two-way measurement configurations and the metrics they measure. No 237 attempt will be made to coordinate them unnecessarily, except the 238 Reserved bit position 3 above. This is available for assignment if a 239 mixed security mode similar to[RFC5618] is defined for OWAMP, and 240 would allow alignment with the comparable TWAMP feature. 242 4. Security Considerations 244 As this memo simply requests the creation of OWAMP registries, it 245 presents no new security or privacy issues for the Internet. 247 The security considerations that apply to any active measurement of 248 live networks are relevant here as well. See [RFC4656] and 249 [RFC5357]. 251 Privacy considerations for measurement systems, particularly when 252 Internet users participate in the tests in some way, are described in 253 [I-D.ietf-lmap-framework]. 255 5. Acknowledgements 257 The author would like to thank Kostas Pentikousis, Nalini Elkins, 258 Mike Ackermann, and Greg Mirsky for insightful reviews and comments. 259 We thought Spencer Dawkins caught the last of the small errors in his 260 AD review, but Nevil Brownlee found a few more during OPS-DIR review. 261 Roni Even found our use of "IETF Consensus" was out of date with 262 [RFC5226]. Michelle Cotton helped to clarify the IANA 263 considerations. 265 6. References 267 6.1. Normative References 269 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 270 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 271 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 272 . 274 [RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M. 275 Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol 276 (OWAMP)", RFC 4656, DOI 10.17487/RFC4656, September 2006, 277 . 279 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 280 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 281 DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, 282 . 284 [RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J. 285 Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", 286 RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008, 287 . 289 6.2. Informative References 291 [I-D.ietf-ippm-ipsec] 292 Pentikousis, K., Zhang, E., and Y. Cui, "IKEv2-derived 293 Shared Secret Key for O/TWAMP", draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-11 294 (work in progress), August 2015. 296 [I-D.ietf-lmap-framework] 297 Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T., 298 Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A framework for Large-Scale 299 Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", draft-ietf- 300 lmap-framework-14 (work in progress), April 2015. 302 [RFC5618] Morton, A. and K. Hedayat, "Mixed Security Mode for the 303 Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", RFC 5618, 304 DOI 10.17487/RFC5618, August 2009, 305 . 307 Author's Address 309 Al Morton 310 AT&T Labs 311 200 Laurel Avenue South 312 Middletown,, NJ 07748 313 USA 315 Phone: +1 732 420 1571 316 Fax: +1 732 368 1192 317 Email: acmorton@att.com 318 URI: http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/