draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-03.txt   draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-04.txt 
DetNet Working Group G. Mirsky DetNet Working Group G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft ZTE Corp. Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track M. Chen Intended status: Standards Track M. Chen
Expires: 1 October 2021 Huawei Expires: 23 March 2022 Huawei
30 March 2021 19 September 2021
Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic
Networks (DetNet) with MPLS Data Plane Networks (DetNet) with MPLS Data Plane
draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-03 draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam-04
Abstract Abstract
This document defines format and use principals of the Deterministic This document defines format and use principals of the Deterministic
Network (DetNet) service Associated Channel (ACH) over a DetNet Network (DetNet) service Associated Channel (ACH) over a DetNet
network with the MPLS data plane. The DetNet service ACH can be used network with the MPLS data plane. The DetNet service ACH can be used
to carry test packets of active Operations, Administration, and to carry test packets of active Operations, Administration, and
Maintenance protocols that are used to detect DetNet failures and Maintenance protocols that are used to detect DetNet failures and
measure performance metrics. measure performance metrics.
skipping to change at page 1, line 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 37
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 1 October 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on 23 March 2022.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
skipping to change at page 2, line 51 skipping to change at page 2, line 51
Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) protocols are used Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) protocols are used
to detect, localize defects in the network, and monitor network to detect, localize defects in the network, and monitor network
performance. Some OAM functions, e.g., failure detection, work in performance. Some OAM functions, e.g., failure detection, work in
the network proactively, while others, e.g., defect localization, the network proactively, while others, e.g., defect localization,
usually performed on-demand. These tasks achieved by a combination usually performed on-demand. These tasks achieved by a combination
of active and hybrid, as defined in [RFC7799], OAM methods. of active and hybrid, as defined in [RFC7799], OAM methods.
Also, this document defines format and use principals of the DetNet Also, this document defines format and use principals of the DetNet
service Associated Channel over a DetNet network with the MPLS data service Associated Channel over a DetNet network with the MPLS data
plane [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]. plane [RFC8964].
2. Conventions used in this document 2. Conventions used in this document
2.1. Terminology and Acronyms 2.1. Terminology and Acronyms
The term "DetNet OAM" used in this document interchangeably with The term "DetNet OAM" used in this document interchangeably with
longer version "set of OAM protocols, methods and tools for longer version "set of OAM protocols, methods and tools for
Deterministic Networks". Deterministic Networks".
CW Control Word CW Control Word
skipping to change at page 4, line 36 skipping to change at page 4, line 36
plane encapsulation supports OAM mechanisms in such a way to comply plane encapsulation supports OAM mechanisms in such a way to comply
with the OAM requirements listed in [I-D.tpmb-detnet-oam-framework]. with the OAM requirements listed in [I-D.tpmb-detnet-oam-framework].
One of such examples that require special consideration is One of such examples that require special consideration is
requirement #5: requirement #5:
DetNet OAM packets MUST be in-band, i.e., follow precisely the DetNet OAM packets MUST be in-band, i.e., follow precisely the
same path as DetNet data plane traffic both for unidirectional and same path as DetNet data plane traffic both for unidirectional and
bi-directional DetNet paths. bi-directional DetNet paths.
The Det Net data plane encapsulation in transport network with MPLS The Det Net data plane encapsulation in transport network with MPLS
encapsulation specified in [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]. For the MPLS encapsulation specified in [RFC8964]. For the MPLS underlay network,
underlay network, DetNet flows to be encapsulated analogous to DetNet flows to be encapsulated analogous to pseudowires (PW) over
pseudowires (PW) over MPLS packet switched network, as described in MPLS packet switched network, as described in [RFC3985], [RFC4385].
[RFC3985], [RFC4385]. Generic PW MPLS Control Word (CW), defined in Generic PW MPLS Control Word (CW), defined in [RFC4385], for DetNet
[RFC4385], for DetNet displayed in Figure 1. displayed in Figure 1.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 0| Sequence Number | |0 0 0 0| Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: DetNet Control Word Format Figure 1: DetNet Control Word Format
PREF in the DetNet domain composed by a combination of nodes that PREF in the DetNet domain composed by a combination of nodes that
skipping to change at page 5, line 26 skipping to change at page 5, line 26
\2222222 /----+ 3 / \2222222 /----+ 3 /
+------R4------------------------+ +------R4------------------------+
333333333333333333333333 333333333333333333333333
Figure 2: DetNet Data Plane Based on PW Figure 2: DetNet Data Plane Based on PW
3.1. DetNet Active OAM Encapsulation 3.1. DetNet Active OAM Encapsulation
DetNet OAM, like PW OAM, uses PW Associated Channel Header defined in DetNet OAM, like PW OAM, uses PW Associated Channel Header defined in
[RFC4385]. Figure 3 displays the encapsulation of a DetNet MPLS [RFC4385]. Figure 3 displays the encapsulation of a DetNet MPLS
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] active OAM packet. [RFC8964] active OAM packet.
+---------------------------------+ +---------------------------------+
| | | |
| DetNet App-Flow | | DetNet App-Flow |
| Payload Packet | | Payload Packet |
| | | |
+---------------------------------+ <--\ +---------------------------------+ <--\
| DetNet Associated Channel Header| | | DetNet Associated Channel Header| |
+---------------------------------+ +--> DetNet active OAM +---------------------------------+ +--> DetNet active OAM
| S-Label | | MPLS encapsulation | S-Label | | MPLS encapsulation
skipping to change at page 5, line 48 skipping to change at page 5, line 48
| [ F-Label(s) ] | | | [ F-Label(s) ] | |
+---------------------------------+ <--/ +---------------------------------+ <--/
| Data-Link | | Data-Link |
+---------------------------------+ +---------------------------------+
| Physical | | Physical |
+---------------------------------+ +---------------------------------+
Figure 3: DetNet Active OAM Packet Encapsulation in MPLS Data Plane Figure 3: DetNet Active OAM Packet Encapsulation in MPLS Data Plane
Figure 4 displays encapsulation of a test packet of an active DetNet Figure 4 displays encapsulation of a test packet of an active DetNet
OAM protocol in case of MPLS-over-UDP/IP OAM protocol in case of MPLS-over-UDP/IP [RFC9025].
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip].
+---------------------------------+ +---------------------------------+
| | | |
| DetNet App-Flow | | DetNet App-Flow |
| Payload Packet | | Payload Packet |
| | | |
+---------------------------------+ <--\ +---------------------------------+ <--\
| DetNet Associated Channel Header| | | DetNet Associated Channel Header| |
+---------------------------------+ +--> DetNet active OAM +---------------------------------+ +--> DetNet active OAM
| S-Label | | MPLS encapsulation | S-Label | | MPLS encapsulation
skipping to change at page 6, line 43 skipping to change at page 6, line 43
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 1|Version|Sequence Number| Channel Type | |0 0 0 1|Version|Sequence Number| Channel Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: DetNet Associated Channel Header Format Figure 5: DetNet Associated Channel Header Format
The meanings of the fields in the d-ACH are: The meanings of the fields in the d-ACH are:
Bits 0..3 MUST be 0b0001. This value of the first nibble allows Bits 0..3 MUST be 0b0001. This value of the first nibble allows
the packet to be distinguished from an IP packet [RFC4928] and a the packet to be distinguished from an IP packet [RFC4928] and a
DetNet data packet [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]. DetNet data packet [RFC8964].
Version: this is the version number of the d-ACH. This Version: this is the version number of the d-ACH. This
specification defines version 0. specification defines version 0.
Sequence Number: this is unsigned eight bits-long field. The Sequence Number: this is unsigned eight bits-long field. The
originating DetNet node MUST set the value of the Sequence Number originating DetNet node MUST set the value of the Sequence Number
field to a non-zero before packet being transmitted. The field to a non-zero before packet being transmitted. The
originating node MUST monotonically increase the value of the originating node MUST monotonically increase the value of the
Sequence Number field for the every next active OAM packet. Sequence Number field for the every next active OAM packet.
Channel Type: the value of DetNet Associated Channel Type is one Channel Type: the value of DetNet Associated Channel Type is one
of values defined in the IANA PW Associated Channel Type registry. of values defined in the IANA PW Associated Channel Type registry.
The DetNet flow, according to [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls], is identified The DetNet flow, according to [RFC8964], is identified by the S-label
by the S-label that MUST be at the bottom of the stack. Active OAM that MUST be at the bottom of the stack. Active OAM packet MUST have
packet MUST have d-ACH immediately following the S-label. d-ACH immediately following the S-label.
3.2. DetNet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Sub-functions 3.2. DetNet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Sub-functions
Interaction with Active OAM Interaction with Active OAM
At the DetNet service layer, special functions MAY be applied to the At the DetNet service layer, special functions MAY be applied to the
particular DetNet flow - PREF to potentially lower packet loss, particular DetNet flow - PREF to potentially lower packet loss,
improve the probability of on-time packet delivery and Packet improve the probability of on-time packet delivery and Packet
Ordering Function (POF) to ensure in-order packet delivery. As data Ordering Function (POF) to ensure in-order packet delivery. As data
and the active OAM packets have the same Flow ID, S-label, sub- and the active OAM packets have the same Flow ID, S-label, sub-
functions that rely on sequencing information in the DetNet service functions that rely on sequencing information in the DetNet service
skipping to change at page 8, line 23 skipping to change at page 8, line 23
sent to a central controller. In the tunneling model of OAM sent to a central controller. In the tunneling model of OAM
interworking, usually, only one active OAM protocol is used. Its interworking, usually, only one active OAM protocol is used. Its
test packets are tunneled through another domain along with the data test packets are tunneled through another domain along with the data
flow, thus ensuring the fate sharing among test and data packets. flow, thus ensuring the fate sharing among test and data packets.
5.1. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of TSN 5.1. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of TSN
Active DetNet OAM is required to provide the E2E fault management and Active DetNet OAM is required to provide the E2E fault management and
performance monitoring for a DetNet flow. Interworking of DetNet performance monitoring for a DetNet flow. Interworking of DetNet
active OAM with MPLS data plane with the IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive active OAM with MPLS data plane with the IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive
Networking (TSN) domain based on [I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn]. Networking (TSN) domain based on [RFC9037].
In the case of the peering model is used in the fault management OAM, In the case of the peering model is used in the fault management OAM,
then the node that borders both TSN and DetNet MPLS domains MUST then the node that borders both TSN and DetNet MPLS domains MUST
support [RFC7023]. [RFC7023] specified the mapping of defect states support [RFC7023]. [RFC7023] specified the mapping of defect states
between Ethernet Attachment Circuits (ACs) and associated Ethernet between Ethernet Attachment Circuits (ACs) and associated Ethernet
PWs that are part of an end-to-end (E2E) emulated Ethernet service. PWs that are part of an end-to-end (E2E) emulated Ethernet service.
Requirements and mechanisms described in [RFC7023] are equally Requirements and mechanisms described in [RFC7023] are equally
applicable to using the peering model to achieve E2E FM OAM over applicable to using the peering model to achieve E2E FM OAM over
DetNet MPLS and TSN domains. The Connectivity Fault Management (CFM) DetNet MPLS and TSN domains. The Connectivity Fault Management (CFM)
protocol [IEEE.CFM] or in [ITU.Y1731] can provide fast detection of a protocol [IEEE.CFM] or in [ITU.Y1731] can provide fast detection of a
skipping to change at page 9, line 22 skipping to change at page 9, line 22
domain, a TSN endpoint of the DetNet service has also support BFD as domain, a TSN endpoint of the DetNet service has also support BFD as
defined in [RFC5885]. defined in [RFC5885].
5.2. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of DetNet IP 5.2. OAM of DetNet MPLS Interworking with OAM of DetNet IP
Interworking between active OAM segments in DetNet MPLS and DetNet IP Interworking between active OAM segments in DetNet MPLS and DetNet IP
domains can also be realized using either the peering or the domains can also be realized using either the peering or the
tunneling model, as discussed in Section 5.1. Using the same tunneling model, as discussed in Section 5.1. Using the same
protocol, e.g., BFD, over both segments, simplifies the mapping of protocol, e.g., BFD, over both segments, simplifies the mapping of
errors in the peering model. To provide the performance monitoring errors in the peering model. To provide the performance monitoring
over a DetNet IP domain STAMP [RFC8762] and its extensions over a DetNet IP domain STAMP [RFC8762] and its extensions [RFC8972]
[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv] can be used. can be used.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
This document does not have any requests for IANA allocation. This This document does not have any requests for IANA allocation. This
section can be deleted before the publication of the draft. section can be deleted before the publication of the draft.
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
Additionally, security considerations discussed in DetNet Additionally, security considerations discussed in DetNet
specifications: [RFC8655], [I-D.ietf-detnet-security], specifications: [RFC8655], [RFC9055], [RFC8964] are applicable to
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls] are applicable to this document. Security this document. Security concerns and issues related to MPLS OAM
concerns and issues related to MPLS OAM tools like LSP Ping tools like LSP Ping [RFC8029], BFD over PW [RFC5885] also apply to
[RFC8029], BFD over PW [RFC5885] also apply to this specification. this specification.
8. Acknowledgment 8. Acknowledgment
Authors extend their appreciation to Pascal Thubert for his Authors extend their appreciation to Pascal Thubert for his
insightful comments and productive discussion that helped to improve insightful comments and productive discussion that helped to improve
the document. the document.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A. G., Bryant,
S., and J. Korhonen, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet)
Data Plane: MPLS", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-13, 11 October 2020,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-13>.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip]
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A. G., and S.
Bryant, "DetNet Data Plane: MPLS over UDP/IP", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-
ip-08, 14 December 2020, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/
draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-08>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7023] Mohan, D., Ed., Bitar, N., Ed., Sajassi, A., Ed., DeLord, [RFC7023] Mohan, D., Ed., Bitar, N., Ed., Sajassi, A., Ed., DeLord,
S., Niger, P., and R. Qiu, "MPLS and Ethernet Operations, S., Niger, P., and R. Qiu, "MPLS and Ethernet Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Interworking", Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Interworking",
RFC 7023, DOI 10.17487/RFC7023, October 2013, RFC 7023, DOI 10.17487/RFC7023, October 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7023>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7023>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas, [RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655, "Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019, DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>.
9.2. Informational References [RFC8964] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., Bryant,
S., and J. Korhonen, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet)
[I-D.ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn] Data Plane: MPLS", RFC 8964, DOI 10.17487/RFC8964, January
Varga, B., Farkas, J., Malis, A. G., and S. Bryant, 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8964>.
"DetNet Data Plane: MPLS over IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive
Networking (TSN)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn-07, 19 February 2021,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-
tsn-07>.
[I-D.ietf-detnet-security] [RFC9025] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., and S.
Grossman, E., Mizrahi, T., and A. J. Hacker, Bryant, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane:
"Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Security MPLS over UDP/IP", RFC 9025, DOI 10.17487/RFC9025, April
Considerations", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9025>.
ietf-detnet-security-16, 2 March 2021,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-detnet-security-
16>.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv] 9.2. Informational References
Mirsky, G., Min, X., Nydell, H., Foote, R., Masputra, A.,
and E. Ruffini, "Simple Two-Way Active Measurement
Protocol Optional Extensions", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-10, 15 November
2020, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-
option-tlv-10>.
[I-D.tpmb-detnet-oam-framework] [I-D.tpmb-detnet-oam-framework]
Mirsky, G., Theoleyre, F., Papadopoulos, G. Z., and C. J. Mirsky, G., Theoleyre, F., Papadopoulos, G. Z., and C. J.
Bernardos, "Framework of Operations, Administration and Bernardos, "Framework of Operations, Administration and
Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic Networking (DetNet)", Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic Networking (DetNet)",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-tpmb-detnet-oam- Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-tpmb-detnet-oam-
framework-00, 15 January 2021, framework-01, 30 March 2021,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tpmb-detnet-oam- <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-tpmb-detnet-
framework-00>. oam-framework-01>.
[IEEE.CFM] IEEE, "Connectivity Fault Management clause of IEEE [IEEE.CFM] IEEE, "Connectivity Fault Management clause of IEEE
802.1Q", IEEE 802.1Q, 2013. 802.1Q", IEEE 802.1Q, 2013.
[ITU.Y1731] [ITU.Y1731]
ITU-T, "OAM functions and mechanisms for Ethernet based ITU-T, "OAM functions and mechanisms for Ethernet based
Networks", ITU-T Recommendation G.8013/Y.1731, November Networks", ITU-T Recommendation G.8013/Y.1731, November
2013. 2013.
[RFC3985] Bryant, S., Ed. and P. Pate, Ed., "Pseudo Wire Emulation [RFC3985] Bryant, S., Ed. and P. Pate, Ed., "Pseudo Wire Emulation
skipping to change at page 12, line 37 skipping to change at page 12, line 5
L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi, L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi,
"Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid "Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid
Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321, Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321,
January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8321>. January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8321>.
[RFC8762] Mirsky, G., Jun, G., Nydell, H., and R. Foote, "Simple [RFC8762] Mirsky, G., Jun, G., Nydell, H., and R. Foote, "Simple
Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol", RFC 8762, Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol", RFC 8762,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8762, March 2020, DOI 10.17487/RFC8762, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8762>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8762>.
[RFC8972] Mirsky, G., Min, X., Nydell, H., Foote, R., Masputra, A.,
and E. Ruffini, "Simple Two-Way Active Measurement
Protocol Optional Extensions", RFC 8972,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8972, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8972>.
[RFC9037] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Malis, A., and S. Bryant,
"Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: MPLS over
IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN)", RFC 9037,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9037, June 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9037>.
[RFC9055] Grossman, E., Ed., Mizrahi, T., and A. Hacker,
"Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Security
Considerations", RFC 9055, DOI 10.17487/RFC9055, June
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9055>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Greg Mirsky Greg Mirsky
ZTE Corp. Ericsson
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com, gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Mach(Guoyi) Chen Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Huawei Huawei
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
 End of changes. 21 change blocks. 
67 lines changed or deleted 55 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/