idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01.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 (November 5, 2018) is 1997 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 147, but not defined ** Obsolete undefined reference: RFC 8113 (Obsoleted by RFC 9304) == Missing Reference: 'ThisDocument' is mentioned on line 152, but not defined == Outdated reference: A later version (-31) exists of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-19 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).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) November 5, 2018 6 Intended status: Standards Track 7 Expires: May 9, 2019 9 Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP): Shared Extension Message & IANA 10 Registry for Packet Type Allocations 11 draft-ietf-lisp-rfc8113bis-01 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 May 9, 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. Changes from RFC 8113 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 68 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 1. Introduction 72 The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) base specification, 73 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis], defines a set of primitives that are 74 identified with a packet type code. Several extensions have been 75 proposed to add more LISP functionalities. It is expected that 76 additional LISP extensions will be proposed in the future. 78 The "LISP Packet Types" IANA registry (see Section 5) is used to ease 79 the tracking of LISP message types. 81 Because of the limited type space [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] and the 82 need to conduct experiments to assess new LISP extensions, this 83 document specifies a shared LISP extension message type and describes 84 a procedure for registering LISP shared extension sub-types (see 85 Section 3). Concretely, one single LISP message type code is 86 dedicated to future LISP extensions; sub-types are used to uniquely 87 identify a given LISP extension making use of the shared LISP 88 extension message type. These identifiers are selected by the 89 author(s) of the corresponding LISP specification that introduces a 90 new LISP extension message type. 92 2. Requirements Language 94 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 95 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 96 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 97 14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 98 capitals, as shown here. 100 3. LISP Shared Extension Message Type 102 Figure 1 depicts the common format of the LISP shared extension 103 message. The type field MUST be set to 15 (see Section 5). 105 0 1 2 3 106 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 1 107 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 108 |Type=15| Sub-type | extension-specific | 109 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 110 // extension-specific // 111 // // 112 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 114 Figure 1: LISP Shared Extension Message Type 116 The "Sub-type" field conveys a unique identifier that MUST be 117 registered with IANA (see Section 5.2). 119 The exact structure of the 'extension-specific' portion of the 120 message is specified in the corresponding specification document. 122 4. Security Considerations 124 This document does not introduce any additional security issues other 125 than those discussed in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. 127 5. IANA Considerations 129 5.1. LISP Packet Types 131 IANA has created a protocol registry for LISP Packet Types, numbered 132 0-15. 134 The values in the ranges 5-7 and 9-14 can be assigned via Standards 135 Action [RFC8126]. Documents that request for a new LISP packet type 136 may indicate a preferred value in the corresponding IANA sections. 138 IANA is requested to replace the reference to RFC8113 with the RFC 139 number to be assigned to this document. 141 Also, IANA is requested to update the table as follows: 143 OLD: 145 Message Code Reference 146 ================================= ==== =============== 147 LISP Shared Extension Message 15 [RFC8113] 149 NEW: 150 Message Code Reference 151 ================================= ==== =============== 152 LISP Shared Extension Message 15 [ThisDocument] 154 5.2. Sub-Types 156 IANA has created the "LISP Shared Extension Message Type Sub-types" 157 registry. IANA is requested to update that registry by replacing the 158 reference to RFC8113 with the RFC number to be assigned to this 159 document. 161 The values in the range 0-1023 are assigned via Standards Action. 162 This range is provisioned to anticipate, in particular, the 163 exhaustion of the LISP Packet types. 165 The values in the range 1024-4095 are assigned on a First Come, First 166 Served (FCFS) basis. The registration procedure should provide IANA 167 with the desired codepoint and a point of contact; providing a short 168 description (together with an acronym, if relevant) of the foreseen 169 usage of the extension message is also encouraged. 171 6. Changes from RFC 8113 173 The following changes were made from RFC 8113: 175 o Change the status from Experimental to Standard track. 177 o Indicate explicitly that the shared extension is used for two 178 purposes: extend the type space and conduct experiments to assess 179 new LISP extensions. Therefore, this document updates 180 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. 182 o Delete pointers to some examples illustrating how the shared 183 extension message is used to extend the LISP protocol. 185 o Request IANA to update the "IANA LISP Packet Types" and ""LISP 186 Shared Extension Message Type Sub-types" registries to point to 187 this document instead of RFC8113. 189 7. Acknowledgments 191 This work is partly funded by ANR LISP-Lab project #ANR-13-INFR- 192 009-X. 194 Many thanks to Luigi Iannone, Dino Farinacci, and Alvaro Retana for 195 the review. 197 Thanks to Geoff Huston for the RtgDir directorate review. 199 8. Normative References 201 [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] 202 Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio, 203 "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane", 204 draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-19 (work in progress), October 205 2018. 207 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 208 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 209 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 210 . 212 [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 213 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, 214 RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, 215 . 217 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 218 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 219 May 2017, . 221 Authors' Addresses 223 Mohamed Boucadair 224 Orange 225 Rennes 35000 226 France 228 EMail: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com 230 Christian Jacquenet 231 Orange 232 Rennes 35000 233 France 235 EMail: christian.jacquenet@orange.com