One document matched: draft-kompella-rsvp-change-00.txt
Network Working Group K. Kompella
Internet Draft Juniper Networks
Category: Best Current Practice J. Lang
Expires: August 2003 Consultant
February 2003
Procedures for Modifying RSVP
draft-kompella-rsvp-change-00.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Kompella & Lang Best Current Practice [Page 1]
Internet Draft Procedures for Modifying RSVP February 2003
Abstract
This memo specifies procedures for modifying the Resource Reservation
Protocol (RSVP). This memo also includes an IANA Considerations
section that lays out new assignment guidelines for number spaces for
RSVP messages, object classes, class-types and sub-objects.
Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [KEYWORDS].
1. Introduction
This memo specifies procedures for modifying the Resource Reservation
Protocol (RSVP) [RSVP], including (but not limited to) adding,
updating, extending or making obsolete: messages, message formats and
procedures; object classes and class types, object formats and
procedures; header formats; error codes and subcodes and semantics;
and procedures for sending, receiving and addressing RSVP messages.
IANA recognizes the following RSVP names spaces: Messages Types;
Class Names, Class Numbers, Class Types and Sub-objects; Virtual
Destination Ports; and Error Codes and (Subcode) Values (henceforth
referred to as RSVP entities). This memo specifies for each name
space ranges that are "for Private Use", "to be assigned by Expert
Review", and "to be assigned by Standards Action" (these terms are
defined in [IANA]).
Assignments made from RSVP number spaces set aside for Private Use
(i.e., for proprietary extensions) need not be documented.
Independent RSVP implementations using the same Private Use code
points will in general not interoperate, so care should be exercised
in using these code points in a multi-vendor network.
Assignments made from RSVP number spaces to be assigned by Expert
Review are to be reviewed by an Expert designated by the IESG. It is
upto the discretion of the Expert whether such assignments need to be
documented, and what form and detail such documentation takes. The
intent in this document is that code points from these ranges are
used for Experimental extensions; it is RECOMMENDED that such
assignments be accompanied by Experimental RFCs. If deployment
suggests that these extensions are useful, then they should be
described in Standards Track RFCs, and new code points from the
Standards Action ranges be assigned.
Kompella & Lang Best Current Practice [Page 2]
Internet Draft Procedures for Modifying RSVP February 2003
Assignments from RSVP number spaces to be assigned by Standards
Action MUST be documented by a Standards Track RFC, typically
submitted to an IETF Working Group, but in any case following the
usual IETF procedures for Proposed Standards.
2. Modifying RSVP Procedures
RSVP entities have associated procedures describing when and how they
are to be sent, received and processed. If it is desired to change a
procedure that affects the processing of an RSVP entity that belongs
to a range designated "Standards Action", such a change MUST be
documented in a Standards Track RFC.
3. Normative References
[KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997
[RSVP] Braden, R. Ed., L. Zhang, S. Berson, S. Herzog, and S. Jamin,
"Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional
Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
4. Informative References
[IANA] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for IANA
Considerations", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.
[RSVP-IPSEC] Berger, L., and T. O'Malley, "RSVP Extensions for IPSEC
Data Flows", RFC 2207, September 1997.
[RSVP-TE] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., and Swallow, G.,
"RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels," RFC 3209, December
2001.
Kompella & Lang Best Current Practice [Page 3]
Internet Draft Procedures for Modifying RSVP February 2003
5. Security Considerations
It is hoped that the procedures outlined in this memo will ensure
that changes made to RSVP will be better reviewed and thus be more
architecturally sound, thereby enhancing the security both of the
protocol and of networks deploying it.
6. IANA Considerations
For each of the RSVP name spaces identified by IANA, the space is
divided into assigment ranges as follows.
6.1. Message Types
A Message Type is an 8-bit number that identifies the function of the
RSVP message. Values from 0 through 239 are to be assigned by
Standards Action. Values from 240 through 251 are to be assigned by
Expert Review. Values from 252 through 255 are reserved for Private
Use.
6.2. Class Names and Numbers
Each class of data object in an RSVP message is identified by an all
upper-case Class Name and an 8-bit Class Number (also known as C-
Num). Class Numbers are divided broadly into three ranges (0-127,
128-191, and 192-255) determined by the two high-order bits of the
Class-Num object (the 'b' represents a bit).
o Class-Num = 0bbbbbbb
Class Numbers from 0 through 119 are to be assigned by
Standards Action. Class Numbers from 120 through 123 are to be
assigned by Expert Review. Class Numbers from 124 through 127
are reserved for Private Use.
o Class-Num = 10bbbbbb
Class Numbers from 128 through 183 are to be assigned by
Standards Action. Class Numbers from 184 through 187 are to be
assigned by Expert Review. Class Numbers from 188 through 191
are reserved for Private Use.
o Class-Num = 11bbbbbb
Class Numbers from 192 through 247 are to be assigned by
Standards Action. Class Numbers from 248 through 251 are to be
assigned by Expert Review. Class Numbers from 252 through 255
Kompella & Lang Best Current Practice [Page 4]
Internet Draft Procedures for Modifying RSVP February 2003
are reserved for Private Use.
6.3. Class Types
Within each object class there is an 8-bit Class Type (also known as
a C-Type). Class Types are scoped to a Class Number. For each
object class, Class Types from 0 to 191 are to be assigned by
Standards Action. Class Types from 192 through 223 are to be
assigned by Expert Review. Class Types from 224 through 255 are
reserved for Private Use.
6.3.1. Sub-objects
Within a Class Type, sub-objects may be defined, generally as a Type-
Length-Value triple. These sub-objects are also registered with
IANA, and appropriate ranges of values will be set aside for these.
For now, the following are defined.
The EXPLICIT_ROUTE object [RSVP-TE] carries a variable length sub-
object that is identified by a 7-bit Type field. Types 0 through 119
are to be assigned by Standards Action. Types 120 through 123 are to
be assigned by Expert Review. Types 124 through 127 are to be
reserved for Private Use.
The RECORD_ROUTE object [RSVP-TE] carries a variable length sub-
object that is identified by an 8-bit Type field. Types 0 through
119 are to be assigned by Standards Action. Types 120 through 123 are
to be assigned by Expert Review. Types 124 through 127 are to be
reserved for Private Use. Types 128 through 247 are to be assigned
by Standards Action. Types 248 through 251 are to be assigned by
Expert Review. Types 252 through 255 are to be reserved for Private
Use.
6.4. Virtual Destination Ports
Virtual destination ports are described in [RSVP-IPSEC], which also
specifies how IANA assignments are to be made.
6.5. Error Codes and Values
An Error Code is an 8-bit quantity that appears in an ERROR_SPEC
object to broadly define an error condition. With each Error Code
there may be a 16-bit Error Value that further specifies the cause of
the error. Error Value may be globally defined, in which case the
sub-code component is assigned by IANA.
Error Code values from 0 through 239 are to be assigned by Standards
Action. Values from 240 through 251 are to be assigned by Expert
Kompella & Lang Best Current Practice [Page 5]
Internet Draft Procedures for Modifying RSVP February 2003
Review. Values from 252 through 255 are reserved for Private Use.
Globally defined Error Values are assigned by Standards Action.
Acknowledgments
Many thanks to Scott Bradner, who was not discouraging. More cannot
be said without his explicit permission.
Authors' Addresses
Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
Email: kireeti@juniper.net
Jonathan P. Lang
Email: jplang@ieee.org
Full Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
Kompella & Lang Best Current Practice [Page 6]
Internet Draft Procedures for Modifying RSVP February 2003
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Kompella & Lang Best Current Practice [Page 7]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-21 09:59:00 |