idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension-02.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 date (February 14, 2018) is 2263 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) No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group B. Cheng 3 Internet-Draft Lincoln Laboratory 4 Intended status: Standards Track L. Berger, Ed. 5 Expires: August 18, 2018 LabN Consulting, L.L.C. 6 February 14, 2018 8 DLEP Latency Range Extension 9 draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension-02 11 Abstract 13 This document defines an extension to the DLEP protocol to provide 14 the range of latency that may be experienced on a link. 16 Status of This Memo 18 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 19 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 21 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 22 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 23 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 24 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 26 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 27 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 28 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 29 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 31 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 18, 2018. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 36 document authors. All rights reserved. 38 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 39 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 40 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 41 publication of this document. Please review these documents 42 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 43 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 44 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 45 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 46 described in the Simplified BSD License. 48 Table of Contents 50 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 51 1.1. Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 52 2. Extension Usage and Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 53 3. Latency Range Data Item . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 5.1. Extension Type Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 5.2. Data Item Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 1. Introduction 64 The Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) is defined in [RFC8175]. 65 It provides the exchange of link related control information between 66 DLEP peers. DLEP peers are comprised of a modem and a router. DLEP 67 defines a base set of mechanisms as well as support for possible 68 extensions. This document defines one such extension. 70 The base DLEP specification includes the Latency metric which 71 provides a single latency value on a link, which is implementation 72 dependent. This document adds the ability to relay the minimum and 73 maximum latency range seen on a link. The extension defined in this 74 document is referred to as "Latency Range". 76 This document defines a new DLEP Extension Type Value in Section 2 77 which is used to indicate the use of the extension, and one new DLEP 78 Data Item in Section 3. 80 1.1. Key Words 82 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 83 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 84 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 85 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 86 capitals, as shown here. 88 2. Extension Usage and Identification 90 The use of the Latency Range Extension SHOULD be configurable. To 91 indicate that the Latency Range Extension is to be used, an 92 implementation MUST include the Latency Range Extension Type Value in 93 the Extensions Supported Data Item. The Extensions Supported Data 94 Item is sent and processed according to [RFC8175]. 96 The Latency Range Extension Type Value is TBA1, see Section 5. 98 3. Latency Range Data Item 100 The Latency Range Data Item serves much the same purpose as the 101 Latency Data Item defined in [RFC8175] with the addition of being 102 able to communicate the latency range that may be experienced by 103 traffic on a link. The Latency Range Data Item MAY be carried in the 104 same messages and MUST be processed according to the same rules as 105 the Latency Data Item defined in [RFC8175]. 107 The format of the Latency Range Data Item is: 109 0 1 2 3 110 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 1 111 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 112 | Data Item Type | Length | 113 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 114 | Maximum Latency : 115 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 116 : Maximum Latency | 117 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 118 | Minimum Latency : 119 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 120 : Minimum Latency | 121 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 123 Data Item Type: TBA2 125 Length: 16 127 Maximum Latency: 129 A 64-bit unsigned integer, representing the longest transmission 130 delay, in microseconds, that a packet encounters as it is 131 transmitted over the link. 133 Minimum Latency: 135 A 64-bit unsigned integer, representing the shortest transmission 136 delay, in microseconds, that a packet encounters as it is 137 transmitted over the link. 139 4. Security Considerations 141 The extension introduces a new Data Item for the DLEP protocol. The 142 extension does not inherently introduce any additional threats above 143 those documented in [RFC8175]. The approach taken to Security in 144 that document applies equally when running the extension defined in 145 this document. 147 5. IANA Considerations 149 This document requests the assignment of 2 values by IANA. All 150 assignments are to registries defined by [RFC8175]. 152 5.1. Extension Type Value 154 This document requests one new assignment to the DLEP Extensions 155 Registry named "Extension Type Values" in the range with the 156 "Specification Required" policy. The requested value is as follows: 158 +------+---------------+ 159 | Code | Description | 160 +------+---------------+ 161 | TBA1 | Latency Range | 162 +------+---------------+ 164 Table 1: Requested Extension Type Value 166 5.2. Data Item Value 168 This document requests one new assignment to the DLEP Data Item 169 Registry named "Data Item Type Values" in the range with the 170 "Specification Required" policy. The requested values are as 171 follows: 173 +-----------+---------------+ 174 | Type Code | Description | 175 +-----------+---------------+ 176 | TBA2 | Latency Range | 177 +-----------+---------------+ 179 Table 2: Requested Data Item Values 181 6. Normative References 183 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 184 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 185 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 186 . 188 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 189 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 190 May 2017, . 192 [RFC8175] Ratliff, S., Jury, S., Satterwhite, D., Taylor, R., and B. 193 Berry, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)", RFC 8175, 194 DOI 10.17487/RFC8175, June 2017, 195 . 197 Appendix A. Acknowledgments 199 Helpful comments were received from members of the MANET working 200 grouping, including Ronald in 't Velt, Henning Rogge, and Victoria 201 Pritchard. 203 Authors' Addresses 205 Bow-Nan Cheng 206 Lincoln Laboratory 207 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 208 244 Wood Street 209 Lexington, MA 02421-6426 211 Email: bcheng@ll.mit.edu 213 Lou Berger (editor) 214 LabN Consulting, L.L.C. 216 Email: lberger@labn.net