idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-17.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The document date (27 March 2025) is 204 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-19) exists of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control-18 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group B. Cheng 3 Internet-Draft MIT Lincoln Laboratory 4 Intended status: Standards Track D. Wiggins 5 Expires: 28 September 2025 6 L. Berger 7 D. Fedyk, Ed. 8 LabN Consulting, L.L.C. 9 27 March 2025 11 Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Traffic Classification Data Item 12 draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-17 14 Abstract 16 This document defines a new Data Item for the Dynamic Link Exchange 17 Protocol (DLEP) to support traffic classification. Traffic 18 classification information identifies traffic flows based on frame/ 19 packet content such as destination address. The Data Item is defined 20 in an extensible and reusable fashion. Its use will be mandated in 21 other documents defining specific DLEP extensions. This document 22 also introduces DLEP Sub-Data Items, and Sub-Data Items are defined 23 to support DiffServ and Ethernet traffic classification. 25 Status of This Memo 27 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 28 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 30 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 31 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 32 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 33 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 35 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 36 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 37 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 38 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 40 This Internet-Draft will expire on 28 September 2025. 42 Copyright Notice 44 Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 45 document authors. All rights reserved. 47 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 48 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ 49 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. 50 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 51 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components 52 extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as 53 described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are 54 provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. 56 Table of Contents 58 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 59 1.1. Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 2. Traffic Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 2.1. Traffic Classification Data Item . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 2.1.1. Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item . . . . . . . . 6 63 2.2. DiffServ Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item . . . . . . 7 64 2.2.1. Router Receive Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 65 2.3. Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item . . . . . . 8 66 2.3.1. Router Receive Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 67 3. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 68 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 69 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 70 5.1. Data Item Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 71 5.2. DLEP Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Registry . . . 12 72 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 73 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 74 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 75 Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 76 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 78 1. Introduction 80 The Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) is defined in [RFC8175]. 81 This protocol provides the exchange of link related control 82 information between DLEP peers. DLEP peers are comprised of a modem 83 and a router. DLEP defines a base set of mechanisms as well as 84 support for possible extensions. DLEP defines Data Items which are 85 sets of information that can be reused in DLEP messaging. The DLEP 86 specification does not include any flow identification beyond DLEP 87 endpoints, i.e., flows are identified based on their DLEP endpoint. 89 This document defines DLEP Data Item formats which provide flow 90 identification on a more granular basis. Specifically, it enables a 91 router to use traffic flow classification information provided by the 92 modem to identify traffic flows based on a combination of information 93 found in a data plane header. (For general background on traffic 94 classification see [RFC2475] Section 2.3.) The Data Item is 95 structured to allow for use of the defined traffic classification 96 information with applications such as credit window control as 97 specified in [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control]. The credit 98 window control document provides an example of combining traffic 99 classification and credit window flow control. 101 This document defines traffic classification based on a DLEP 102 destination and flows identified by either DiffServ [RFC2475] 103 Differentiated Services Codepoints (DSCPs) or IEEE 802.1Q [IEEE8021Q] 104 Ethernet Priority Code Points (PCPs). The defined mechanism allows 105 for flows to be described in a flexible fashion and when combined 106 with applications such as credit window control, allows credit 107 windows to be shared across traffic sent to multiple DLEP 108 destinations and as part of multiple flows, or used exclusively for 109 traffic sent to a particular destination and/or belonging to a 110 particular flow. The extension also supports the "wildcard" matching 111 of any flow (DSCP or PCP). Traffic classification information is 112 provided such that it can be readily extended to support other 113 traffic classification techniques, or be used by non-credit window 114 related extensions, such as [RFC8651] or even 5-tuple IP flows. 116 This document defines support for traffic classification using a 117 single new Data Item in Section 2.1 for general support and two new 118 Sub-Data Items are defined to support identification of flows based 119 on DSCPs and PCPs. 121 1.1. Key Words 123 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 124 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 125 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 126 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 127 capitals, as shown here. 129 2. Traffic Classification 131 The Traffic Classification Data Item represents a list of flows that 132 may be used at the same time to provide different service classes for 133 traffic sent from a router to a modem. The data plane information 134 used to identify each flow is represented in a separate Sub-Data 135 Item. The Data Item and Sub-Data Item structure is intended to be 136 independent of any specific usage of the flow identification, e.g., 137 flow control. The Sub-Data Item structure is also intended to allow 138 for future traffic classification types, e.g., 5-tuple flows. While 139 the structure of the Data Items is extensible, actual flow 140 information is expected to be used in an extension dependent manner. 141 Support for DSCP and PCP-based flows are defined via individual Sub- 142 Data Items below. Other types of flow identification, e.g., based on 143 IP protocol and ports, may be defined in the future via new Sub-Data 144 Items. Note that when extensions supporting multiple Sub-Data Item 145 types are negotiated, these types MAY be combined in a single Data 146 Item. 148 Each list of flows is identified using a "Traffic Classification 149 Identifier" or "TID" and is expected to represent a valid combination 150 of data plane identifiers that may be used at the same time. Each 151 flow is identified via a "Flow Identifier" or "FID". Each FID is 152 defined in a Sub-Data Item which carries the data plane identifier or 153 identifiers used to associate traffic with the flow. A DLEP 154 destination address is also needed to complete traffic classification 155 information used in extensions such as flow control. This 156 information is expected to be provided in an extension specific 157 manner. For example, this address can be provided by a modem when it 158 identifies the traffic classification set in a Destination Up Message 159 using the Credit Window Associate Data Item defined in 160 [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control]. TID and FID values have 161 modem-local scope. 163 2.1. Traffic Classification Data Item 165 This section defines the Traffic Classification Data Item. This Data 166 Item is used by a modem to provide a router with traffic 167 classification information. When an extension requires use of any 168 Data Item, the Data Items, including this Traffic Classification Data 169 Item SHOULD be included by a modem in any Session Initialization 170 Response Message, e.g., see 171 [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control]. Updates to previously 172 provided traffic classifications or new traffic classifications MAY 173 be sent by a modem by including the Data Item in Session Update 174 Messages. More than one Data Item MAY be included in a message to 175 provide information on multiple traffic classifiers. 177 The set of traffic classification information provided in the data 178 item is identified using a Traffic Classification Identifier, or TID. 179 The actual data plane related information used in traffic 180 classification is provided in a variable list of Traffic 181 Classification Sub-Data Items. 183 The format of the Traffic Classification Data Item is: 185 0 1 2 3 186 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 1 187 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 188 | Data Item Type | Length | 189 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 190 |Traffic Class. Identifier (TID)| Num SDIs | Reserved | 191 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 192 ~ Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item 1 ~ 193 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 194 ~ ... ~ 195 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 196 ~ Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item n ~ 197 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 199 Data Item Type: 200 TBA1 202 Length: 203 Variable 205 Per [RFC8175] Length is the number of octets in the Data Item, 206 excluding the Type and Length fields. The length here is limited 207 by the packet data unit (PDU) length supported. For example if 208 the Packet is limited to 1400 bytes then the length MUST NOT 209 exceed this value. If larger packets are supported the maximum 210 MUST be adjusted to be smaller or equal to the maximum PDU. 211 Multiple messages can be used if there is more than fits in a 212 single TLV. 214 Traffic Classification Identifier (TID): 215 A 16-bit unsigned integer identifying a traffic classification 216 set. There is no restriction on values used by a modem, and there 217 is no requirement for sequential or ordered values. 219 Num SDIs: 220 An 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the number of Traffic 221 Classification Sub-Data Items included in the Data Item. A value 222 of zero (0) is allowed and indicates that no traffic should be 223 matched against this TID. 225 Reserved: 226 For the Traffic Classification Data Item this reserved field is 227 currently unused. It MUST be set to all zeros for this version of 228 the Data Item and it is currently ignored on reception. This 229 allows for future extensions of the Data Item if needed. 231 Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item: 232 Zero or more Traffic Classification Sub-Data Items of the format 233 defined below MAY be included. The number MUST match the value 234 carried in the Num SDIs field. 236 A router receiving the Traffic Classification Data Item MUST locate 237 the traffic classification information that is associated with the 238 TID indicated in each received Data Item. If no associated traffic 239 classification information is found, the router MUST initialize a new 240 information set using the values carried in the Data Item. If the 241 associated traffic classification information is found, the router 242 MUST replace the corresponding information using the values carried 243 in the Data Item. In both cases, a router MUST also ensure that any 244 data plane state, e.g., [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control], 245 that is associated with the TID is updated as needed. 247 2.1.1. Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item 249 All Traffic Classification Sub-Data Items share a common format that 250 is patterned after the standard DLEP Data Item format, see [RFC8175] 251 Section 11.3. There is no requirement on, or meaning to Sub-Data 252 Item ordering. Any errors or inconsistencies encountered in parsing 253 Sub-Data Items are handled in the same fashion as any other Data Item 254 parsing error encountered in DLEP, see [RFC8175]. 256 The format of the Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item is: 258 0 1 2 3 259 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 1 260 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 261 | Sub-Data Item Type | Length | 262 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 263 ~ Value... ~ 264 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 266 Sub-Data Item Type: 267 A 16-bit unsigned integer that indicates the type and 268 corresponding format of the Sub-Data Item's Value field. Sub-Data 269 Item Types are scoped within the Data Item in which they are 270 carried, i.e., the Sub-Data Item Type field MUST be used together 271 with the Traffic Classification Data Item Type to identify the 272 format of the Sub-Data Item. Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item 273 Types are managed according to the IANA registry described in 274 Section 5.2. 276 Length: 277 Variable 278 Copying [RFC8175], Length is a 16-bit unsigned integer that is the 279 number of octets in the Sub-Data Item, excluding the Type and 280 Length fields. The maximum length is limited on a per Sub-Data 281 Item Type. 283 2.2. DiffServ Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item 285 The DiffServ Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item identifies the set 286 of DSCPs that should be treated as a single flow, i.e., receive the 287 same traffic treatment. DSCPs are identified in a list of DiffServ 288 fields. An implementation that does not support DSCPs and wants the 289 same traffic treatment for all traffic to a destination or 290 destinations would indicate 0 DSCPs. 292 The format of the DiffServ Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item is: 294 0 1 2 3 295 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 1 296 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 297 | Sub-Data Item Type (1) | Length | 298 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 299 | Flow Identifier (FID) | Num DSCPs | DS Field 1 | 300 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 301 | DS Field 2 | ... | DS Field n | 302 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 304 Sub-Data Item Type: 305 Sub-Data Item Type with value one (1) identifies the DiffServ 306 Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type in the format defined in 307 Section 2.1.1. 309 Length: 310 Variable 312 Length is defined above. For this Sub-Data Item, it is equal to 313 three (3) octets plus the value of the Num DSCPs field. This 314 means that the maximum Length base on a FID per DSCP for this TLV 315 could be 64 times 3 plus one for Num DSCPs plus one DSCPs or 320 316 octets. The definition can be in multiple Sub-Data Items that are 317 much smaller than this. 319 Flow Identifier (FID): 320 A 16-bit unsigned integer representing the data plane information 321 carried in the Sub-Data Item that is to be used in identifying a 322 flow. The value of 0xFFFF is reserved and MUST NOT be used in 323 this field. 325 Num DSCPs: 326 An 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the number of DSCPs carried 327 in the Sub-Data Item. A zero (0) indicates a (wildcard) match 328 against any DSCP value that does not have an explicit match to a 329 FID. A typical use of this is mapping any DSCPs that are not 330 explicitly mapped to a default queue. 332 DS Field: 333 Each DS Field is an 8-bit that carries the DSCP field defined in 334 [RFC2474]. 336 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 337 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 338 | DSCP | MBZ | 339 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 341 DSCP: Differentiated Services Codepoint (RFC 2474). 342 MBZ: Must Be Zero - set to zero when transmitted. 344 2.2.1. Router Receive Processing 346 A router receiving the Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item MUST 347 validate the information on receipt, prior to using the carried 348 information, including potentially updating the data behavior as 349 determined by the extension requiring the use of the Sub-Data Item. 350 Validation failures MUST be treated as an error as described above in 351 Section 2.1.1. 353 Once validated, the receiver MUST ensure that each DS Field value is 354 listed only once across the whole Traffic Classification Data Item. 355 Note, this check is across the Data Item and not the individual Sub- 356 Data Item. If the same DS Field value is listed more than once 357 within the same Traffic Classification Data Item, the Data Item MUST 358 be treated as an error as described above in Section 2.1.1. 360 2.3. Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item 362 The Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item identifies the VLAN 363 and PCPs that should be treated as a single flow, i.e., receive the 364 same traffic treatment. Ethernet Priority Code Point support is 365 defined as part of the IEEE 802.1Q [IEEE8021Q] tag format and 366 includes a 3 bit "PCP" field. The tag format also includes a 12 bit 367 VLAN identifier (VID) field. PCPs are identified in a list of 368 priority fields. An implementation that does not support PCPs and 369 wants the same traffic treatment for all traffic to a destination or 370 destinations would indicate 0 PCPs. Such an implementation could 371 identify a VLAN to use per destination. 373 The format of the Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item is: 375 0 1 2 3 376 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 1 377 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 378 | Sub-Data Item Type (2) | Length | 379 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 380 | Flow Identifier (FID) |NumPCPs| VLAN Identifier (VID) | 381 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 382 | Pri. 1| Pri. 2| ..... | ..... | ..... | Pad | 383 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 385 Sub-Data Item Type: 386 Sub-Data Item Type with value two (2) identifies the Ethernet 387 Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type in the format defined in 388 Section 2.1.1. 390 Length: 391 Variable 393 Length is defined above. For this Sub-Data Item, it is equal to 394 four (4) plus the number of octets needed to accommodate the 395 number of Priority fields indicated by the NumPCPs field. Note 396 that as length is in octets and each Priority field is 4 bits, the 397 additional length is the value carried in the NumPCPs field 398 divided by two and rounded up to the next higher integer quantity. 399 This TLV has maximum length of 4 plus 8 divided by 2 or 16 octets. 401 Flow Identifier (FID): 402 A 16-bit unsigned integer representing the data plane information 403 carried in the Sub-Data Item that is to be used in identifying a 404 flow. The value of 0xFFFF is reserved and MUST NOT be used in 405 this field. 407 Num PCPs: 408 A 4-bit unsigned integer indicating the number of Priority fields 409 carried in the Sub-Data Item. A zero (0) indicates a (wildcard) 410 match against any PCP value that does not have an explicit match 411 to a FID. A typical use of a wildcard is mapping any PCPs that 412 are not explicitly mapped to a default queue. The maximum number 413 of PCPs 8. 415 VLAN identifier (VID): 416 A 12-bit unsigned integer field indicating the VLAN to be used in 417 traffic classification. A value of zero (0) indicates that the 418 VID is to be ignored and any VID is to be accepted during traffic 419 classification. Any explicitly mapped VLANs are match first and 420 then any VLANs that do not have a mapping map to this default 421 mapping. 423 Priority: 424 Each Priority Field is 4-bits long and indicates a PCP field 425 defined in [IEEE8021Q]. Note that zero (0) is a valid value for 426 either PCP. 428 0 1 2 3 429 +---+---+---+---+ 430 | PCP |MBZ| 431 +---+---+---+---+ 433 PCP: Priority Code Point (IEEE8021Q) 434 MBZ: Must Be Zero - set to zero when transmitted. 436 Pad: 437 A 4-bit long field included when NumPCPs is an odd number. This 438 field MUST be set to zero by the sender, and MUST be ignored on 439 receipt. 441 2.3.1. Router Receive Processing 443 A router receiving the Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item MUST 444 validate the information on receipt, prior to the using the carried 445 information, including potentially updating the data behavior as 446 determined by the extension requiring the use of the Sub-Data Item. 447 Note that validation can include usage specific semantics such as 448 those found in [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control]. Any 449 failures MUST be treated as an error as described above in 450 Section 2.1.1. 452 After successful validation, the receiver MUST ensure that each 453 Priority Field value is listed only once across the whole Traffic 454 Classification Data Item. Note, this check is across the Data Item 455 and not the individual Sub-Data Items. If the same Priority Field 456 value is listed more than once within the same Traffic Classification 457 Data Item, the Data Item MUST be treated as an error as described 458 above in Section 2.1.1. 460 In cases where both Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item types are 461 defined, matching on Ethernet information takes precedence. More 462 specifically, when a packet matches both a DSCP indicated in a 463 DiffServ Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item (Section 2.2) and a 464 VID/PCP identified in an Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub-Data 465 Item (Section 2.3), then the TID associated with the matching VLAN/ 466 PCP MUST be used. 468 3. Compatibility 470 The formats defined in this document will only be used when 471 extensions require their use. 473 The DLEP specification [RFC8175] defines handling of unexpected 474 appearances of any Data Items, including those defined in this 475 document. 477 4. Security Considerations 479 This document introduces finer grained flow identification mechanisms 480 to DLEP. These mechanisms expose vulnerabilities similar to existing 481 DLEP messages. An example of a threat to which traffic 482 classification might be susceptible is a malicious actor masquerading 483 as a DLEP peer could inject an alternate Traffic Classification Data 484 Item, changing the mapping of traffic to queues that in turn causes 485 delay, congestion or loss to one or more service classes. Other 486 possible threats are given in the Security Considerations of 487 [RFC8175] and are also applicable to, but not specific to, traffic 488 classification. 490 The transport layer security mechanisms documented in [RFC8175], with 491 some updated references to external documents listed below, can be 492 applied to this document. Implementations following the "networked 493 deployment" model described in the "Implementation Scenarios" of 494 [RFC8175] SHOULD refer to [BCP195] for additional details. The Layer 495 2 security mechanisms documented in [RFC8175] can also, with some 496 updates, be applied to the mechanism defined in this document. 497 Examples of technologies that can be deployed to secure the Layer 2 498 link include [IEEE-802.1AE] and [IEEE-8802-1X]. 500 5. IANA Considerations 502 5.1. Data Item Values 504 This document requests the following new assignments to the DLEP Data 505 Item Registry named "Data Item Type Values" from the range with the 506 "Specification Required" policy. The requested value is as follows: 508 +===========+========================+ 509 | Type Code | Description | 510 +===========+========================+ 511 | TBA1 | Traffic Classification | 512 +-----------+------------------------+ 514 Table 1: Requested Data Item Values 516 5.2. DLEP Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Registry 518 Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to create a new 519 DLEP registry, named "Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type 520 Values". 522 The following table provides initial registry values and the 523 [RFC8126] defined policies that should apply to the registry: 525 +=============+=================================+=============+ 526 | Type Code | Description | Reference | 527 +=============+=================================+=============+ 528 | 0 | Reserved | | 529 +-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+ 530 | 1 | DiffServ Traffic Classification | [RFC2474] | 531 +-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+ 532 | 2 | Ethernet Traffic Classification | [IEEE8021Q] | 533 +-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+ 534 | 3-65407 | Specification Required | | 535 +-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+ 536 | 65408-65534 | Private Use | | 537 +-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+ 538 | 65535 | Reserved | | 539 +-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+ 541 Table 2: Initial Registry Values 543 This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers 544 Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to the 545 Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type Values registry for the 546 DLEP protocol, in accordance with BCP 26 and [RFC8126]. 548 This registry encompasses packet traffic classification, where 549 standard packet header identifiers in packets or data frames indicate 550 Quality of Service (QoS) treatment. It includes two specific 551 registries for widely recognized identifiers used in QoS management 552 for IP and Ethernet networks. Reserved values are set aside for 553 similar future identifiers that may emerge to denote QoS treatment. 554 However, requests for new entries are not expected to be frequent. 556 Allocations within the registry are subject to the following 557 requirements: 559 1. Documentation of the intended use of the requested value, in 560 compliance with the "Specification Required" policy defined in 561 [RFC8126]. 563 2. Approval by the Designated Expert (DE) appointed by the IESG. 564 The DE must: 566 * Verify that the requested value is clearly documented and its 567 purpose and usage are unambiguous. 568 * Ensure the proposed value does not conflict with existing work 569 or ongoing efforts within the IETF. 570 * Confirm that any specification requesting a code point has 571 undergone review by the MANET working group (or a successor 572 mailing list designated by the IESG). 573 * Validate that external specifications requesting code points 574 are publicly available, permanently archived, and do not 575 conflict with active or published IETF work. 576 * Ensure the review process is conducted in a timely manner, 577 with any disputes resolved through consultation with the 578 appropriate working groups. 580 To simplify future registrations, it is recommended that this 581 guidance serves as a standard reference for all DLEP-related 582 registries. Future specifications may include a header note pointing 583 to this guidance document. 585 6. References 587 6.1. Normative References 589 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 590 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 591 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 592 . 594 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 595 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 596 May 2017, . 598 [RFC8175] Ratliff, S., Jury, S., Satterwhite, D., Taylor, R., and B. 599 Berry, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)", RFC 8175, 600 DOI 10.17487/RFC8175, June 2017, 601 . 603 6.2. Informative References 605 [BCP195] Best Current Practice 195, 606 . 607 At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following: 609 Sheffer, Y., Saint-Andre, P., and T. Fossati, 610 "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer 611 Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security 612 (DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 9325, DOI 10.17487/RFC9325, November 613 2022, . 615 Moriarty, K. and S. Farrell, "Deprecating TLS 1.0 and TLS 616 1.1", BCP 195, RFC 8996, DOI 10.17487/RFC8996, March 2021, 617 . 619 [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control] 620 Cheng, B., Wiggins, D., Ratliff, S., Berger, L., and E. 621 Kinzie, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Credit- 622 Based Flow Control Messages and Data Items", Work in 623 Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit- 624 flow-control-18, 19 March 2025, 625 . 628 [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension] 629 Cheng, B., Wiggins, D., Berger, L., and D. E. Eastlake, 630 "DLEP DiffServ Aware Credit Window Extension", Work in 631 Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit- 632 extension-21, 3 March 2025, 633 . 636 [IEEE-802.1AE] 637 "802.1AE-2018 - IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan 638 area networks-Media Access Control (MAC) Security", 639 . 641 [IEEE-8802-1X] 642 "8802-1X-2021 - IEEE/ISO/IEC International Standard- 643 Telecommunications and exchange between information 644 technology systems--Requirements for local and 645 metropolitan area networks--Part 1X:Port-based network 646 access control", 647 . 649 [IEEE8021Q] 650 IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area 651 Networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks", 652 DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.10004498, IEEE 802.1Q-2022, July 653 2022, . 655 [RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black, 656 "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS 657 Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, 658 DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998, 659 . 661 [RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z., 662 and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated 663 Services", RFC 2475, DOI 10.17487/RFC2475, December 1998, 664 . 666 [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 667 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, 668 RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, 669 . 671 [RFC8651] Cheng, B., Wiggins, D., and L. Berger, Ed., "Dynamic Link 672 Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Control-Plane-Based Pause 673 Extension", RFC 8651, DOI 10.17487/RFC8651, October 2019, 674 . 676 Appendix A. Acknowledgments 678 The Sub-Data Item format was inspired by Rick Taylor's "Data Item 679 Containers". He also proposed the separation of credit windows from 680 traffic classification at IETF98. Many useful comments were received 681 from contributors to the MANET working group. This document was 682 derived from [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension] as a result of 683 discussions at IETF 101. Many useful comments were received from 684 contributors to the MANET working group, notably Ronald in't Velt and 685 David Black. 687 We had the honor of working too briefly with David Wiggins on this 688 and related DLEP work. His contribution to the IETF and publication 689 of the first and definitive open source DLEP implementation have been 690 critical to the acceptance of DLEP. We mourn his passing on November 691 23, 2023. We wish to recognize his guidance, leadership and 692 professional excellence. We were fortunate to benefit from his 693 leadership and friendship. He shall be missed. 695 Authors' Addresses 697 Bow-Nan Cheng 698 MIT Lincoln Laboratory 699 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 700 244 Wood Street 701 Lexington 702 Email: bcheng@ll.mit.edu 704 David Wiggins 705 Email: david@none.org 707 Lou Berger 708 LabN Consulting, L.L.C. 709 Email: lberger@labn.net 711 Don Fedyk (editor) 712 LabN Consulting, L.L.C. 713 Email: dfedyk@labn.net