draft-ietf-mpls-iana-rsvp-session-flags-00.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-iana-rsvp-session-flags-01.txt 
Network Working Group Adrian Farrel Network Working Group Adrian Farrel
Internet Draft Old Dog Consulting Internet Draft Old Dog Consulting
Category: Informational Category: Informational
Expiration Date: August 2007 February 2007
Codepoint Registry for The Flags Field in the Resource Reservation Codepoint Registry for The Flags Field in the Resource Reservation
Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Session Attribute Object Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Session Attribute Object
draft-ietf-mpls-iana-rsvp-session-flags-00.txt draft-ietf-mpls-iana-rsvp-session-flags-01.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 3, line 5 skipping to change at page 2, line 50
0x04 SE Style desired 0x04 SE Style desired
2.2. RFC 4090 2.2. RFC 4090
[RFC4090] defines the use of two bits as follows: [RFC4090] defines the use of two bits as follows:
0x08 Bandwidth protection desired 0x08 Bandwidth protection desired
0x10 Node protection desired 0x10 Node protection desired
2.3. RFC XXXX 2.3. RFC 4736
[RFC Editor:
Please replace XXXX above with the RFC number assigned for
draft-ietf-ccamp-loose-path-reopt, and make the same change in the
references.
Please remove this note prior to publication.]
[RFCXXXX] defines the use of one bit as follows: [RFC4736] defines the use of one bit as follows:
0x20 Path re-evaluation request 0x20 Path re-evaluation request
3. Security Considerations 3. Security Considerations
This informational document exists purely to create an IANA registry. This informational document exists purely to create an IANA registry.
Such registries help to protect the IETF process against Denial of Such registries help to protect the IETF process against Denial of
Service attacks. Service attacks.
Otherwise there are no security considerations for this document. Otherwise there are no security considerations for this document.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to create a new codepoint registry as follows. IANA is requested to create a new codepoint registry as follows.
The new registry should be placed under the "RSVP-TE Parameters" The new registry should be placed under the "RSVP-TE Parameters"
branch of the tree. branch of the tree.
The new registry should be termed "Session Attribute Object Flags." The new registry should be termed "Session Attribute Object Flags."
Flags from this registry may only be assigned by IETF consensus. Flags from this registry may only be assigned by IETF consensus
[RFC2434].
The registry should reference the flags already defined as described The registry should reference the flags already defined as described
in section 2 of this document. in section 2 of this document.
5. Acknowledgements 5. Acknowledgements
Thanks to JP Vasseur and Bill Fenner for reviewing this document. Thanks to JP Vasseur, Bill Fenner and Thomas Narten for reviewing
this document.
6. References 6. References
6.1 Normative References 6.1 Normative References
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S. and [RFC2205] Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S. and
S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) --
Version 1, Functional Specification", RFC 2205, Version 1, Functional Specification", RFC 2205,
September 1997. September 1997.
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing
an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC
2434, October 1998.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan,
V. and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP V. and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC3473] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation Switching (GMPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",
RFC 3473, January 2003. RFC 3473, January 2003.
6.2 Informative References
[RFC4090] Pan, P., Swallow, G., and Atlas, A., "Fast Reroute [RFC4090] Pan, P., Swallow, G., and Atlas, A., "Fast Reroute
Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
May 2005. May 2005.
[RFCXXXX] Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and Zhang, R., [RFC4736] Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and Zhang, R.,
"Reoptimization of Multiprotocol Label Switching "Reoptimization of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
(MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Loosely Routed Label Traffic Engineering (TE) Loosely Routed Label Switched
Switch Paths (LSPs)", draft-ietf-ccamp-loose-path-reopt Path (LSP)", RFC 4736, November 2006.
work in progress.
7. Author's Address 7. Author's Address
Adrian Farrel Adrian Farrel
Old Dog Consulting Old Dog Consulting
Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk
8. Intellectual Property Consideration 8. Intellectual Property Consideration
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
described in this document or the extent to which any license this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
to implement this standard. Please address the information to the this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. ipr@ietf.org.
9. Full Copyright Statement 9. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP
78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their
rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND retain all their rights.
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
 End of changes. 14 change blocks. 
35 lines changed or deleted 36 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.33. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/