idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension-05.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 (November 20, 2019) is 1620 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 MIT Lincoln Laboratory 4 Intended status: Standards Track L. Berger, Ed. 5 Expires: May 23, 2020 LabN Consulting, L.L.C. 6 November 20, 2019 8 Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Latency Range Extension 9 draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension-05 11 Abstract 13 This document defines an extension to the Dynamic Link Exchange 14 Protocol (DLEP) to provide the range of latency that can be 15 experienced on a link. 17 Status of This Memo 19 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 20 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 22 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 23 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 24 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 25 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 27 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 28 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 29 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 30 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 23, 2020. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 37 document authors. All rights reserved. 39 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 40 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 41 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 42 publication of this document. Please review these documents 43 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 44 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 45 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 46 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 47 described in the Simplified BSD License. 49 Table of Contents 51 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 52 1.1. Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 53 2. Extension Usage and Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 54 3. Latency Range Data Item . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 5.1. Extension Type Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 5.2. Data Item Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 1. Introduction 65 The Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) is defined in [RFC8175]. 66 It provides the exchange of link related control information between 67 DLEP peers. DLEP peers are comprised of a modem and a router. DLEP 68 defines a base set of mechanisms as well as support for possible 69 extensions. This document defines one such extension. 71 The base DLEP specification includes the Latency metric which 72 provides a single latency value on a link, which is implementation 73 dependent. This document adds the ability to relay the minimum and 74 maximum latency range seen on a link. The extension defined in this 75 document is referred to as "Latency Range". 77 This document defines a new DLEP Extension Type Value in Section 2 78 which is used to indicate the use of the extension, and one new DLEP 79 Data Item in Section 3. 81 1.1. Key Words 83 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 84 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 85 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 86 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 87 capitals, as shown here. 89 2. Extension Usage and Identification 91 The use of the Latency Range Extension SHOULD be configurable. To 92 indicate that the Latency Range Extension is to be used, an 93 implementation MUST include the Latency Range Extension Type Value in 94 the Extensions Supported Data Item. The Extensions Supported Data 95 Item is sent and processed according to [RFC8175]. 97 Note: the usage of the extension defined in this document does not 98 impact processing associated with the Latency Data Item defined in 99 [RFC8175]. 101 The Latency Range Extension Type Value is TBA1, see Section 5. 103 3. Latency Range Data Item 105 The Latency Range Data Item serves much the same purpose as the 106 Latency Data Item defined in [RFC8175] with the addition of being 107 able to communicate the latency range that can be experienced by 108 traffic on a link. The Latency Range Data Item MUST be included in 109 the Session Initialization Response Message, with default values to 110 be used on a session-wide basis. The Latency Range Data Item also 111 MAY be carried in any message where the Latency Data Item [RFC8175] 112 is allowed and is carried as an additional data item. When present, 113 the Latency Range Data Item MUST be processed according to the same 114 rules as the Latency Data Item defined in [RFC8175]. 116 The format of the Latency Range Data Item is: 118 0 1 2 3 119 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 1 120 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 121 | Data Item Type | Length | 122 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 123 | Maximum Latency : 124 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 125 : Maximum Latency | 126 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 127 | Minimum Latency : 128 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 129 : Minimum Latency | 130 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 132 Data Item Type: TBA2 134 Length: 16 136 Maximum Latency: 138 A 64-bit unsigned integer, representing the longest transmission 139 delay, in microseconds, that a packet encounters as it is 140 transmitted over the link. 142 Minimum Latency: 144 A 64-bit unsigned integer, representing the shortest transmission 145 delay, in microseconds, that a packet can encounter as it is 146 transmitted over the link. 148 4. Security Considerations 150 The extension introduces a new Data Item for DLEP. The extension 151 does not inherently introduce any additional vulnerabilities above 152 those documented in [RFC8175]. The approach taken to Security in 153 that document applies equally when running the extension defined in 154 this document. 156 5. IANA Considerations 158 This document requests the assignment of two values by IANA. All 159 assignments are to registries defined by [RFC8175]. 161 5.1. Extension Type Value 163 This document requests one new assignment to the DLEP Extensions 164 Registry named "Extension Type Values" in the range with the 165 "Specification Required" policy. The requested value is as follows: 167 +------+---------------+ 168 | Code | Description | 169 +------+---------------+ 170 | TBA1 | Latency Range | 171 +------+---------------+ 173 Table 1: Requested Extension Type Value 175 5.2. Data Item Value 177 This document requests one new assignment to the DLEP Data Item 178 Registry named "Data Item Type Values" in the range with the 179 "Specification Required" policy. The requested values are as 180 follows: 182 +-----------+---------------+ 183 | Type Code | Description | 184 +-----------+---------------+ 185 | TBA2 | Latency Range | 186 +-----------+---------------+ 188 Table 2: Requested Data Item Values 190 6. Normative References 192 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 193 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 194 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 195 . 197 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 198 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 199 May 2017, . 201 [RFC8175] Ratliff, S., Jury, S., Satterwhite, D., Taylor, R., and B. 202 Berry, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)", RFC 8175, 203 DOI 10.17487/RFC8175, June 2017, 204 . 206 Appendix A. Acknowledgments 208 Helpful comments were received from members of the MANET working 209 grouping, including Ronald in 't Velt, Henning Rogge, and Victoria 210 Pritchard. 212 Authors' Addresses 214 Bow-Nan Cheng 215 MIT Lincoln Laboratory 216 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 217 244 Wood Street 218 Lexington, MA 02421-6426 220 Email: bcheng@ll.mit.edu 222 Lou Berger (editor) 223 LabN Consulting, L.L.C. 225 Email: lberger@labn.net