--- 1/draft-ietf-detnet-ip-05.txt 2020-04-23 23:13:37.402568303 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-detnet-ip-06.txt 2020-04-23 23:13:37.450569527 -0700 @@ -1,25 +1,23 @@ DetNet B. Varga, Ed. Internet-Draft J. Farkas Intended status: Standards Track Ericsson -Expires: August 6, 2020 L. Berger +Expires: October 25, 2020 L. Berger D. Fedyk LabN Consulting, L.L.C. - A. Malis - Independent S. Bryant Futurewei Technologies - February 3, 2020 + April 23, 2020 DetNet Data Plane: IP - draft-ietf-detnet-ip-05 + draft-ietf-detnet-ip-06 Abstract This document specifies the Deterministic Networking data plane when operating in an IP packet switched network. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. @@ -27,21 +25,21 @@ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 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." - This Internet-Draft will expire on August 6, 2020. + This Internet-Draft will expire on October 25, 2020. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. 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 @@ -52,76 +50,76 @@ described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Terms Used In This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. DetNet IP Data Plane Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 4. DetNet IP Data Plane Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 4. DetNet IP Data Plane Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. End-system-specific Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. DetNet Domain-Specific Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 4.3. Forwarding Sub-Layer Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 4.3.1. Class of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 4.3. Forwarding Sub-Layer Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 4.3.1. Class of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.3.2. Quality of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 4.3.3. Path Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 4.3.3. Path Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.4. DetNet Flow Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.5. Bidirectional Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. DetNet IP Data Plane Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 5.1. DetNet IP Flow Identification Procedures . . . . . . . . 12 + 5.1. DetNet IP Flow Identification Procedures . . . . . . . . 13 5.1.1. IP Header Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.1.2. Other Protocol Header Information . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.2. Forwarding Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 5.3. DetNet IP Traffic Treatment Procedures . . . . . . . . . 15 + 5.3. DetNet IP Traffic Treatment Procedures . . . . . . . . . 16 6. Management and Control Information Summary . . . . . . . . . 16 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 11.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 + 10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 + 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 + 11.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 11.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 1. Introduction Deterministic Networking (DetNet) is a service that can be offered by - a network to DetNet flows. DetNet provides these flows extremely low - packet loss rates and assured maximum end-to-end delivery latency. - General background and concepts of DetNet can be found in the DetNet - Architecture [RFC8655]. + a network to DetNet flows. DetNet provides these flows with + extremely low packet loss rates and assured maximum end-to-end + delivery latency. General background and concepts of DetNet can be + found in the DetNet Architecture [RFC8655]. This document specifies the DetNet data plane operation for IP hosts and routers that provide DetNet service to IP encapsulated data. No DetNet-specific encapsulation is defined to support IP flows, instead the existing IP and higher layer protocol header information is used to support flow identification and DetNet service delivery. Common data plane procedures and control information for all DetNet data planes can be found in the [I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework]. The DetNet Architecture models the DetNet related data plane - functions as two sub-layers: functions into two sub-layers: a service - sub-layer and a forwarding sub-layer. The service sub-layer is used - to provide DetNet service protection (e.g., by packet replication and - packet elimination functions) and reordering. The forwarding sub- - layer is used to provide congestion protection (low loss, assured - latency, and limited out-of-order delivery). The service sub-layer - generally requires additional fields to provide its service; for - example see [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]. Since no DetNet-specific fields - are added to support DetNet IP flows, only the forwarding sub-layer - functions are supported using the DetNet IP defined by this document. - Service protection can be provided on a per sub-net basis using - technologies such as MPLS [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls] and Ethernet - as specified in the IEEE 802.1 TSN task group(referred to in this - document simply as IEEE802.1 TSN). + functions as two sub-layers: a service sub-layer and a forwarding + sub-layer. The service sub-layer is used to provide DetNet service + protection (e.g., by packet replication and packet elimination + functions) and reordering. The forwarding sub-layer is used to + provide congestion protection (low loss, assured latency, and limited + out-of-order delivery). The service sub-layer generally requires + additional header fields to provide its service; for example see + [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]. Since no DetNet-specific fields are added to + support DetNet IP flows, only the forwarding sub-layer functions are + supported using the DetNet IP defined by this document. Service + protection can be provided on a per sub-net basis using technologies + such as MPLS [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls] and Ethernet as specified + in the IEEE 802.1 TSN (Time-Sensitive Networking) task group + (referred to in this document simply as IEEE802.1 TSN). This document provides an overview of the DetNet IP data plane in Section 3, considerations that apply to providing DetNet services via the DetNet IP data plane in Section 4. Section 5 provides the procedures for hosts and routers that support IP-based DetNet services. Section 6 summarizes the set of information that is needed to identify an individual DetNet flow. 2. Terminology @@ -135,22 +133,22 @@ The following abbreviations used in this document: CoS Class of Service DetNet Deterministic Networking DN DetNet DiffServ Differentiated Services - DSCP Differentiated Services Code Point + DSCP Differentiated Services Code Point L2 Layer-2 L3 Layer-3 LSP Label-switched path MPLS Multiprotocol Label Switching PREOF Packet Replication, Elimination and Ordering Function @@ -184,27 +182,34 @@ document is the same as that defined in [RFC3290]. Specifically 6-tuple is (destination address, source address, IP protocol, source port, destination port, and differentiated services (DiffServ) code point (DSCP). General background on the use of IP headers, and 5-tuples, to identify flows and support Quality of Service (QoS) can be found in [RFC3670]. [RFC7657] also provides useful background on the delivery of DiffServ and "tuple" based flow identification. Note that a 6-tuple is composed of a 5-tuple plus the addition of a DSCP component. + For some of the protocols 5-tuples and 6-tuples cannot be used + because the port information is not available (e.g., ICMP, IPSec + ESP). Same can be valid for flow aggregates. In such cases using + smaller tuples are appropriate, e.g., a 3-tuple (2 IP addresses, IP + protocol) or even a 2-tuple (all IP traffic between two IP + addresses). + The DetNet IP data plane also allows for optional matching on the IPv6 flow label field, as defined in [RFC8200]. Non-DetNet and DetNet IP packets are identical on the wire. Generally the fields used in flow identification are forwarded unmodified, however modification of these fields is allowed, for - example to a DSCP value, when required by the DetNet service. + example changing the DSCP value, when required by the DetNet service. DetNet flow aggregation may be enabled via the use of wildcards, masks, lists, prefixes and ranges. IP tunnels may also be used to support flow aggregation. In these cases, it is expected that DetNet-aware intermediate nodes will provide DetNet service on the aggregate through resource allocation and congestion control mechanisms. DetNet IP Relay Relay DetNet IP End System Node Node End System @@ -219,28 +224,29 @@ : Link : \ ,-----. / \ ,-----. / +......+ +----[ Sub ]----+ +-[ Sub ]-+ [Network] [Network] `-----' `-----' |<--------------------- DetNet IP --------------------->| Figure 1: A Simple DetNet (DN) Enabled IP Network Figure 1 illustrates a DetNet enabled IP network. The DetNet enabled - end systems originate IP encapsulated traffic those are identified - within the DetNet domain as DetNet flows, relay nodes understand the + end systems originate IP encapsulated traffic that is identified + within the DetNet domain as DetNet flows. Relay nodes understand the forwarding requirements of the DetNet flow and ensure that node, interface and sub-network resources are allocated to ensure DetNet service requirements. The dotted line around the Service component of the Relay Nodes indicates that the transit routers are DetNet service aware but do not perform any DetNet service sub-layer - function, e.g., PREOF. + function, e.g., PREOF (Packet Replication, Elimination and Ordering + Function). Note: The sub-network can represent a TSN, MPLS network or other network technology that can carry DetNet IP traffic. IP Edge Edge IP End System Node Node End System +----------+ +.........+ +.........+ +----------+ | Appl. |<--:Svc Proxy:-- E2E Service---:Svc Proxy:-->| Appl. | +----------+ +.........+ +.........+ +----------+ @@ -267,22 +273,22 @@ Note, that Figure 1 and Figure 2 can be collapsed, so IP DetNet End Systems can communicate over DetNet IP network with IP End System. As non-DetNet and DetNet IP packets are identical on the wire, from data plane perspective, the only difference is that there is flow- associated DetNet information on each DetNet node that defines the flow related characteristics and required forwarding behavior. As shown above, edge nodes provide a Service Proxy function that "associates" one or more IP flows with the appropriate DetNet flow- - specific information and ensures that the receives the proper traffic - treatment within the domain. + specific information and ensures that the flow receives the proper + traffic treatment within the domain. Note: The operation of IEEE802.1 TSN end systems over DetNet enabled IP networks is not described in this document. TSN over MPLS is discribed in [I-D.ietf-detnet-tsn-vpn-over-mpls]. 4. DetNet IP Data Plane Considerations This section provides informative considerations related to providing DetNet service to flows which are identified based on their header information. @@ -412,61 +418,61 @@ Note that not mixing DetNet and non-DetNet traffic within a single 5-tuple, as described above, enables simpler 5-tuple filters to be used (or re-used) at the edges of a DetNet network to prevent non- congestion-responsive DetNet traffic from escaping the DetNet domain. 4.3. Forwarding Sub-Layer Considerations 4.3.1. Class of Service - Class of Service (CoS) for DetNet flows carried in IPv6 is provided - using the standard differentiated services code point (DSCP) field + Class of Service (CoS) for DetNet flows carried in IPv4 and IPv6 is + provided using the standard differentiated services (DSCP) field [RFC2474] and related mechanisms. One additional consideration for DetNet nodes which support CoS services is that they MUST ensure that the CoS service classes do not impact the congestion protection and latency control mechanisms used to provide DetNet QoS. This requirement is similar to the requirement for MPLS LSRs that CoS LSPs cannot impact the resources allocated to TE LSPs [RFC3473]. 4.3.2. Quality of Service Quality of Service (QoS) for DetNet service flows carried in IP MUST be provided locally by the DetNet-aware hosts and routers supporting DetNet flows. Such support leverages the underlying network layer such as 802.1 TSN. The traffic control mechanisms used to deliver QoS for IP encapsulated DetNet flows are expected to be defined in a future document. From an encapsulation perspective, the combination of the 6-tuple i.e., the typical 5-tuple enhanced with the DSCP and - previously mentioned optional field, uniquely identifies a DetNet IP - flow. + previously mentioned optional field (i.e., flow label), uniquely + identifies a DetNet IP flow. Packets that are identified as part of a DetNet IP flow but that have not been the subject of a completed reservation, can disrupt the QoS offered to properly reserved DetNet flows by using resources allocated to the reserved flows. Therefore, the network nodes of a DetNet network MUST ensure that no DetNet allocated resources, e.g., queue or shaper, is used by such flows. There are multiple methods that MAY be used by an implementation to defend service delivery to reserved DetNet flows, including but not limited to: o Treating packets associated with an incomplete reservation as non- DetNet traffic. o Discarding packets associated with an incomplete reservation. o Remarking packets associated with an incomplete reservation. - Remarking can be accomplished by changing the value of the DSCP, - or optional, field to a value that results in the packet no longer - matching any other reserved DetNet IP flow. + Remarking can be accomplished by changing the value of the DSCP + field to a value that results in the packet no longer matching any + other reserved DetNet IP flow. 4.3.3. Path Selection While path selection algorithms and mechanisms are out of scope of the DetNet data plane definition, it is important to highlight the implications of DetNet IP flow identification on path selection and next hops. As mentioned above, the DetNet IP data plane identifies flows using "6-tuple" header information as well as the additional optional header field. DetNet generally allows for both flow- specific traffic treatment and flow-specific next-hops. @@ -500,25 +506,25 @@ management or control function that provisions the aggregate flows must ensure that adequate resources are allocated and configured to provide combined service requirements of the individual flows. As DetNet is concerned about latency and jitter, more than just bandwidth needs to be considered. From a single node perspective, the aggregation of IP flows impacts DetNet IP data plane flow identification and resource allocation. As discussed above, IP flow identification uses the IP "6-tuple" for flow identification. DetNet IP flows can be aggregated using any of - the 6-tuple, and an additional optional field defined in Section 5.1. + the 6-tuple, and an additional optional field (i.e., flow label). The use of prefixes, wildcards, lists, and value ranges allows a DetNet node to identify aggregate DetNet flows. From a resource - allocation perspective, DetNet nodes must provide service to an - aggregate and not on a component flow basis. + allocation perspective, DetNet nodes ought to provide service to an + aggregate rather than on a component flow basis. It is the responsibility of the DetNet controller plane to properly provision the use of these aggregation mechanisms. This includes ensuring that aggregated flows have compatible e.g., the same or very similar QoS and/or CoS characteristics, see Section 4.3.2. It also includes ensuring that per component-flow service requirements are satisfied by the aggregate, see Section 5.3. 4.5. Bidirectional Traffic @@ -544,27 +550,27 @@ identification includes those procedures related to matching IP and higher layer protocol header information to DetNet flow (state) information and service requirements. Flow identification is also sometimes called Traffic classification, for example see [RFC5777]. Forwarding includes those procedures related to next hop selection and delivery. Traffic treatment includes those procedures related to providing an identified flow with the required DetNet service. DetNet IP data plane establishment and operational procedures also have requirements on the control and management systems for DetNet - flows and these are referred in this section. Specifically this + flows and these are referred to in this section. Specifically this section identifies a number of information elements that require support via the management and control interfaces supported by a DetNet node. The specific mechanism used for such support is out of the scope of this document. A summary of the requirements for management and control related information is included. Conformance - language is not used in the summary since applies to future + language is not used in the summary since it applies to future mechanisms such as those that may be provided in YANG models [I-D.ietf-detnet-yang]. 5.1. DetNet IP Flow Identification Procedures IP and higher layer protocol header information is used to identify DetNet flows. All DetNet implementations that support this document MUST identify individual DetNet flows based on the set of information identified in this section. Note, that additional flow identification requirements, e.g., to support other higher layer @@ -634,59 +640,73 @@ that support matching based on this field MUST allow for this field to be ignored for a specific DetNet flow. When this field is used to identify a specific DetNet flow, implementations MAY exclude the IPv6 Next Header field and next header information as part of DetNet flow identification. 5.1.2. Other Protocol Header Information Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow identification based on header information identified in this - section. Support for TCP, UDP and IPsec flows is defined. Future - documents are expected to define support for other protocols. + section. Support for TCP, UDP, ICMP and IPsec flows is defined. + Future documents are expected to define support for other protocols. 5.1.2.1. TCP and UDP DetNet flow identification for TCP [RFC0793] and UDP [RFC0768] is achieved based on the Source and Destination Port fields carried in each protocol's header. These fields share a common format and common DetNet flow identification procedures. + The rules defined in this section only apply when the IPv4 Protocol + or IPv6 Next Header Field contains the IANA defined value for UDP or + TCP. + 5.1.2.1.1. Source Port Field Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow identification based on the Source Port field of a TCP or UDP packet. Implementations MUST support flow identification based on a particular value carried in the field, i.e., an exact value. Implementations SHOULD support range-based port matching. Implementation MUST also allow for the field to be ignored for a specific DetNet flow. 5.1.2.1.2. Destination Port Field Implementations of this document MUST support DetNet flow identification based on the Destination Port field of a TCP or UDP packet. Implementations MUST support flow identification based on a particular value carried in the field, i.e., an exact value. Implementations SHOULD support range-based port matching. Implementation MUST also allow for the field to be ignored for a specific DetNet flow. -5.1.2.2. IPsec AH and ESP +5.1.2.2. ICMP + + DetNet flow identification for ICMP is achieved based on the + protocol's header. Note that ICMP type is not included in the flow + definition. + +5.1.2.3. IPsec AH and ESP IPsec Authentication Header (AH) [RFC4302] and Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) [RFC4303] share a common format for the Security Parameters Index (SPI) field. Implementations MUST support flow identification based on a particular value carried in the field, i.e., an exact value. Implementation SHOULD also allow for the field to be ignored for a specific DetNet flow. + The rules defined in this section only apply when the IPv4 Protocol + or IPv6 Next Header Field contains the IANA defined value for AH or + ESP. + 5.2. Forwarding Procedures General requirements for IP nodes are defined in [RFC1122], [RFC1812] and [RFC8504], and are not modified by this document. The typical next-hop selection process is impacted by DetNet. Specifically, implementations of this document SHALL use management and control information to select the one or more outgoing interfaces and next hops to be used for a packet associated with a DetNet flow. The use of multiple paths or links, e.g., ECMP, to support a single @@ -702,24 +722,22 @@ Implementations of this document MUST ensure that a DetNet flow receives the traffic treatment that is provisioned for it via configuration or the controller plane, e.g., via [I-D.ietf-detnet-yang]. General information on DetNet service can be found in [I-D.ietf-detnet-flow-information-model]. Typical mechanisms used to provide different treatment to different flows includes the allocation of system resources (such as queues and buffers) and provisioning or related parameters (such as shaping, and policing). Support can also be provided via an underlying network technology such as MPLS [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls] or IEEE802.1 - TSN [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn]. Other than in the TSN case, the - specific mechanisms used by a DetNet node to ensure DetNet service - delivery requirements are met for supported DetNet flows is outside - the scope of this document. + TSN [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn]. Other mechanisms than the ones + used in the TSN case are outside the scope of this document. 6. Management and Control Information Summary The following summarizes the set of information that is needed to identify individual and aggregated DetNet flows: o IPv4 and IPv6 source address field. o IPv4 and IPv6 source address prefix length, where a zero (0) value effectively means that the address field is ignored. @@ -732,37 +750,39 @@ o IPv4 protocol field. A limited set of values is allowed, and the ability to ignore this field, e.g., via configuration of the value zero (0), is desirable. o IPv6 next header field. A limited set of values is allowed, and the ability to ignore this field, e.g., via configuration of the value zero (0), is desirable. o For the IPv4 Type of Service and IPv6 Traffic Class Fields: - * If the DSCP field is to be used in flow identification. - Ignoring the DSCP filed is optional. + * Whether or not the DSCP field is used in flow identification. + Use of the DSCP field for flow identification is optional. - * When the DSCP field is used in flow identification, a list of - field values that may be used by a specific flow. + * If the DSCP field is used to identify a flow, then the flow + identification information (for that flow) includes a list of + DSCPs used by that flow. o IPv6 flow label field. This field can be optionally used for matching. When used, can be used instead of matching against the Next Header field. o TCP and UDP Source Port. Exact and wildcard matching is required. Port ranges can optionally be used. o TCP and UDP Destination Port. Exact and wildcard matching is required. Port ranges can optionally be used. - o IPsec Header SPI field. Exact matching is required. + o IPsec Header SPI field. Exact matching is required. Support for + wildcard matching is recommended. This information MUST be provisioned per DetNet flow via configuration, e.g., via the controller or management plane. Information identifying a DetNet flow is ordered and implementations use the first match. This can, for example, be used to provide a DetNet service for a specific UDP flow, with unique Source and Destination Port field values, while providing a different service for the aggregate of all other flows with that same UDP Destination Port value. @@ -823,23 +843,30 @@ The authors wish to thank Pat Thaler, Norman Finn, Loa Anderson, David Black, Rodney Cummings, Ethan Grossman, Tal Mizrahi, David Mozes, Craig Gunther, George Swallow, Yuanlong Jiang and Carlos J. Bernardos for their various contributions to this work. David Black served as technical advisor to the DetNet working group during the development of this document and provided many valuable comments. 10. Contributors - This document is derived from an earlier draft that was edited by - Jouni Korhonen (jouni.nospam@gmail.com) and as such, he contributed - to and authored text in this document. + RFC7322 limits the number of authors listed on the front page of a + draft to a maximum of 5. The editor wishes to thank and acknowledge + the follow authors for contributing text to this draft. + + Jouni Korhonen + Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com + + Andrew G. Malis + Malis Consulting + Email: agmalis@gmail.com 11. References 11.1. Normative references [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980, . [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, @@ -893,71 +920,68 @@ May 2017, . [RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, . 11.2. Informative references [I-D.ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework] - Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A., - Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane - Framework", draft-ietf-detnet-data-plane-framework-03 - (work in progress), October 2019. + Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., and S. + Bryant, "DetNet Data Plane Framework", draft-ietf-detnet- + data-plane-framework-04 (work in progress), February 2020. [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls] Korhonen, J. and B. Varga, "DetNet MPLS Data Plane Encapsulation", draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-mpls-02 (work in progress), March 2019. [I-D.ietf-detnet-flow-information-model] Farkas, J., Varga, B., Cummings, R., Jiang, Y., and D. Fedyk, "DetNet Flow Information Model", draft-ietf-detnet- - flow-information-model-06 (work in progress), October - 2019. + flow-information-model-07 (work in progress), March 2020. [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls] - Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A., - Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: IP over - MPLS", draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls-04 (work in - progress), November 2019. + Varga, B., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A., Bryant, S., + and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: IP over MPLS", draft- + ietf-detnet-ip-over-mpls-05 (work in progress), February + 2020. [I-D.ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn] Varga, B., Farkas, J., Malis, A., and S. Bryant, "DetNet Data Plane: IP over IEEE 802.1 Time Sensitive Networking - (TSN)", draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn-01 (work in - progress), October 2019. + (TSN)", draft-ietf-detnet-ip-over-tsn-02 (work in + progress), March 2020. [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Fedyk, D., Malis, A., Bryant, S., and J. Korhonen, "DetNet Data Plane: MPLS", - draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-04 (work in progress), November - 2019. + draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-05 (work in progress), February + 2020. [I-D.ietf-detnet-security] - Mizrahi, T., Grossman, E., Hacker, A., Das, S., Dowdell, - J., Austad, H., and N. Finn, "Deterministic Networking + Mizrahi, T. and E. Grossman, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Security Considerations", draft-ietf-detnet- - security-07 (work in progress), January 2020. + security-09 (work in progress), March 2020. [I-D.ietf-detnet-tsn-vpn-over-mpls] Varga, B., Farkas, J., Malis, A., Bryant, S., and D. Fedyk, "DetNet Data Plane: IEEE 802.1 Time Sensitive Networking over MPLS", draft-ietf-detnet-tsn-vpn-over- - mpls-01 (work in progress), October 2019. + mpls-02 (work in progress), March 2020. [I-D.ietf-detnet-yang] - Geng, X., Chen, M., Ryoo, Y., Li, Z., and R. Rahman, - "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Configuration YANG - Model", draft-ietf-detnet-yang-04 (work in progress), - November 2019. + Geng, X., Chen, M., Ryoo, Y., Li, Z., Rahman, R., and D. + Fedyk, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Configuration + YANG Model", draft-ietf-detnet-yang-05 (work in progress), + March 2020. [IEEE802.1AE-2018] IEEE Standards Association, "IEEE Std 802.1AE-2018 MAC Security (MACsec)", 2018, . [RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989, . @@ -1028,19 +1052,15 @@ Lou Berger LabN Consulting, L.L.C. Email: lberger@labn.net Don Fedyk LabN Consulting, L.L.C. Email: dfedyk@labn.net - Andrew G. Malis - Independent - - Email: agmalis@gmail.com Stewart Bryant Futurewei Technologies Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com