idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-00.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The 'Updates: ' line in the draft header should list only the _numbers_ of the RFCs which will be updated by this document (if approved); it should not include the word 'RFC' in the list. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (September 27, 2018) is 2036 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) == Missing Reference: 'RFC8113' is mentioned on line 146, but not defined ** Obsolete undefined reference: RFC 8113 (Obsoleted by RFC 9304) == Missing Reference: 'ThisDocument' is mentioned on line 151, but not defined == Outdated reference: A later version (-31) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-15 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 LISP M. Boucadair 3 Internet-Draft C. Jacquenet 4 Obsoletes: 8113 (if approved) Orange 5 Updates: rfc6833bis (if approved) September 27, 2018 6 Intended status: Standards Track 7 Expires: March 31, 2019 9 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP): Shared Extension Message & IANA 10 Registry for Packet Type Allocations 11 draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-00 13 Abstract 15 This document specifies a Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) 16 shared message type for defining future extensions and conducting 17 experiments without consuming a LISP packet type codepoint for each 18 extension. 20 This document obsoletes RFC 8113. 22 This document updates I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis. 24 Status of This Memo 26 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 27 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 29 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 30 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 31 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 32 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 34 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 35 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 36 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 37 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 39 This Internet-Draft will expire on March 31, 2019. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 44 document authors. All rights reserved. 46 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 47 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 48 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 49 publication of this document. Please review these documents 50 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 51 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 52 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 53 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 54 described in the Simplified BSD License. 56 Table of Contents 58 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 59 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 60 3. LISP Shared Extension Message Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 5.1. LISP Packet Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 5.2. Sub-Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 1. Introduction 71 The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) base specification, 72 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis], defines a set of primitives that are 73 identified with a packet type code. Several extensions have been 74 proposed to add more LISP functionalities. It is expected that 75 additional LISP extensions will be proposed in the future. 77 The "LISP Packet Types" IANA registry (see Section 5) is used to ease 78 the tracking of LISP message types. 80 Because of the limited type space [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] and the 81 need to conduct experiments to assess new LISP extensions, this 82 document specifies a shared LISP extension message type and describes 83 a procedure for registering LISP shared extension sub-types (see 84 Section 3). Concretely, one single LISP message type code is 85 dedicated to future LISP extensions; sub-types are used to uniquely 86 identify a given LISP extension making use of the shared LISP 87 extension message type. These identifiers are selected by the 88 author(s) of the corresponding LISP specification that introduces a 89 new LISP extension message type. 91 2. Requirements Language 93 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 94 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 95 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 96 14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 97 capitals, as shown here. 99 3. LISP Shared Extension Message Type 101 Figure 1 depicts the common format of the LISP shared extension 102 message. The type field MUST be set to 15 (see Section 5). 104 0 1 2 3 105 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 1 106 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 107 |Type=15| Sub-type | extension-specific | 108 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 109 // extension-specific // 110 // // 111 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 113 Figure 1: LISP Shared Extension Message Type 115 The "Sub-type" field conveys a unique identifier that MUST be 116 registered with IANA (see Section 5.2). 118 The exact structure of the 'extension-specific' portion of the 119 message is specified in the corresponding specification document. 121 4. Security Considerations 123 This document does not introduce any additional security issues other 124 than those discussed in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. 126 5. IANA Considerations 128 5.1. LISP Packet Types 130 IANA has created a protocol registry for LISP Packet Types, numbered 131 0-15. 133 The values in the ranges 5-7 and 9-14 can be assigned via Standards 134 Action [RFC8126]. Documents that request for a new LISP packet type 135 may indicate a preferred value in the corresponding IANA sections. 137 IANA is requested to replace the reference to RFC8113 with the RFC 138 number to be assigned to this document. 140 Also, IANA is requested to update the table as follows: 142 OLD: 144 Message Code Reference 145 ================================= ==== =============== 146 LISP Shared Extension Message 15 [RFC8113] 148 NEW: 149 Message Code Reference 150 ================================= ==== =============== 151 LISP Shared Extension Message 15 [ThisDocument] 153 5.2. Sub-Types 155 IANA has created the "LISP Shared Extension Message Type Sub-types" 156 registry. IANA is requested to update that registry by replacing the 157 reference to RFC8113 with the RFC number to be assigned to this 158 document. 160 The values in the range 0-1023 are assigned via Standards Action. 161 This range is provisioned to anticipate, in particular, the 162 exhaustion of the LISP Packet types. 164 The values in the range 1024-4095 are assigned on a First Come, First 165 Served (FCFS) basis. The registration procedure should provide IANA 166 with the desired codepoint and a point of contact; providing a short 167 description (together with an acronym, if relevant) of the foreseen 168 usage of the extension message is also encouraged. 170 6. Acknowledgments 172 This work is partly funded by ANR LISP-Lab project #ANR-13-INFR- 173 009-X. 175 Many thanks to Luigi Iannone, Dino Farinacci, and Alvaro Retana for 176 the review. 178 Thanks to Geoff Huston for the RtgDir directorate review. 180 7. Normative References 182 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] 183 Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio, 184 "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane", 185 draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-15 (work in progress), 186 September 2018. 188 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 189 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 190 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 191 . 193 [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 194 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, 195 RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, 196 . 198 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 199 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 200 May 2017, . 202 Authors' Addresses 204 Mohamed Boucadair 205 Orange 206 Rennes 35000 207 France 209 EMail: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com 211 Christian Jacquenet 212 Orange 213 Rennes 35000 214 France 216 EMail: christian.jacquenet@orange.com