idnits 2.17.1 draft-suzuki-stfs-ctrl-load-svc-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Cannot find the required boilerplate sections (Copyright, IPR, etc.) in this document. Expected boilerplate is as follows today (2024-04-26) according to https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info : IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.a: This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 2: Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 3: This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Missing expiration date. The document expiration date should appear on the first and last page. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about Internet-Drafts being working documents. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of current Internet-Drafts. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of Shadow Directories. == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 (May 21, 1996) is 10202 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) -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: 'M' on line 124 -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '1' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1190 (ref. '2') (Obsoleted by RFC 1819) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Historic RFC: RFC 1819 (ref. '3') Summary: 9 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group Muneyoshi Suzuki 3 INTERNET DRAFT NTT 4 Expires November 21 , 1996 May 21, 1996 6 ST FlowSpec for the Controlled-Load Service 7 9 Status of this Memo 11 This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working 12 documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, 13 and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute 14 working documents as Internet-Drafts. 16 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 17 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 18 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 19 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress". 21 To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the 22 "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet- Drafts Shadow 23 Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe), 24 munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or 25 ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast). 27 Abstract 29 This memo specifies the ST FlowSpec format for the Controlled-Load 30 service. The ST FlowSpec described in this memo applies to both 31 RFC1190 ST2 and RFC1819 ST2+. 33 1. Introduction 35 This memo specifies the ST FlowSpec format for the Controlled-Load 36 service defined in [1]. The ST FlowSpec described in this memo 37 applies to both the RFC1190 ST2 [2] and the RFC1819 ST2+ [3]. This 38 FlowSpec does not support parameter negotiations except for maximum 39 packet size. This is because, in the ST2 and ST2+ environment, 40 negotiated FlowSpec parameters are not always unique to each target. 41 It is difficult for current datalink technologies to support 42 heterogeneous traffic parameters to multiple receivers. 44 2. FlowSpec Format 46 The ST FlowSpec and RFlowSpec for the Controlled-Load Service have 47 the following format: 49 0 1 2 3 50 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 51 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 52 | PCode | PBytes = 28 | ST FS Ver = 8 | 0(unused) | 53 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 54 | Ver=0 | 0(unused) | Overall Length = 5 | 55 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 56 |Service Num = 5|Data Length = 4| Param ID = 1 | 0(unused) | 57 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 58 | Token Bucket Rate [r] (32-bit IEEE floating point number) | 59 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 60 | Token Bucket Size [b] (32-bit IEEE floating point number) | 61 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 62 | Minimum Policed Unit [m] | 63 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 64 | Maximum Packet Size [M] | 65 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 67 The PCode field identifies common SCMP elements. The PCode value for 68 the ST2 FlowSpec is two (2), for the ST2 RFlowSpec it is twelve (12), 69 and for the ST2+ FlowSpec it is one (1). 71 The PBytes field for the Controlled-Load Service is twenty-eight (28) 72 bytes. 74 The ST FS Ver (ST FlowSpec Version) field identifies the ST FlowSpec 75 version. The ST FlowSpec version number for the Integrated Services 76 is eight (8). 78 The Ver (Controlled-Load Service Version) field identifies the 79 Controlled-Load Service version number. The current version is zero 80 (0). 82 The Overall Length field is always set to five (5) words. 84 The Service Num (Service Number) for the Controlled-Load Service is 85 five (5). 87 The Data Length (Per-Service Data Length) field is always set to four 88 (4) words. 90 The Param ID (Parameter ID) field is always set to one (1). 92 Intention of this field is compatibility with the Integrated Services 93 FlowSpec format for the RSVP and does not have another meaning. 95 Definitions of the Token Bucket Rate [r], the Token Bucket Size [b], 96 the Minimum Policed Unit [m] and the Maximum Packet Size [M] fields 97 are given in [1]. See section 5 of [1] for details. 99 The ST2 or ST2+ agent, that creates the FlowSpec or the RFlowSpec 100 element in the SCMP message, must assign valid values to all fields. 101 The other agents must not modify any values except for the [M] field 102 in the CONNECT message. 104 The [M] field in the CONNECT message is assigned by the origin or the 105 intermediate agent acting as origin, and updated by each agent based 106 on the MTU value of the datalink layer. 108 The negotiated value of [M] is set back to the origin or the 109 intermediate agent acting as origin using the [M] field in the ACCEPT 110 message that corresponds to the CONNECT message. 112 In the original definition of the Controlled-Load Service, the value 113 of the [m] field must be less than or equal to the value of the [M] 114 field. However, in the ST FlowSpec for the Controlled-Load Service, 115 if the value of the [M] field is less than that of the [m] field, the 116 value of the [m] field is regarded as the same value as the [M] 117 field, and must not generate an error. This is because there is a 118 possibility that the value of the [M] field in the CONNECT message 119 may be decreased by negotiation. 121 In the ST2+ SCMP messages, the value of the [M] field must be equal 122 to or less than 65535. In the ST2+ CONNECT message, the ACCEPT 123 message that responds to CONNECT, or the NOTIFY message that contains 124 the FlowSpec field, the value of the [M] field must be equal to the 125 MaxMsgSize field in the message. If these values are not the same, 126 FlowSpec is regarded as an error. 128 If the ST2 or ST2+ agent receives the CONNECT message that contains 129 unacceptable FlowSpec, the agent must generate the REFUSE message. 131 The ST FlowSpec for the Controlled-Load Service does not have the 132 Precedence (see section 4.2.2.3 of [2] or section 9.2.2 of [3]) 133 field. All of the ST2 and ST2+ functions that depend on the 134 Precedence (ex. stream preemption of the ST2+) are not supported. 136 3. Security Considerations 138 Security considerations are not discussed in this memo. 140 References 142 [1] J. Wroclawski, "Specification of the Controlled-Load Network 143 Element Service", Internet Draft, November 1995, 146 [2] C. Topolcic, Ed., "Experimental Internet Stream Protocol, 147 Version 2 (ST-II)", RFC 1190, October 1990. 149 [3] L. Delgrossi, L. Berger, Ed., "Internet Stream Protocol 150 Version 2 (ST2) Protocol Specification - Version ST2+", RFC 1819, 151 August 1995. 153 Acknowledgments 155 I would like to thank for valuable comments from Eric Crawley of 156 BayNetworks and Steve Jackowski of NetManage. 158 Author's Address 160 Muneyoshi Suzuki 161 NTT Telecommunication Networks Laboratories 162 3-9-11, Midori-cho 163 Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180 Japan 165 Phone: +81-422-59-2119 166 Fax: +81-422-59-3203 167 EMail: suzuki@nal.ntt.jp