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/