draft-ietf-mpls-iana-rsvp-session-flags-01.txt   rfc4859.txt 
Network Working Group Adrian Farrel Network Working Group A. Farrel
Internet Draft Old Dog Consulting Request for Comments: 4859 Old Dog Consulting
Category: Informational Codepoint Registry for the Flags Field in
Expiration Date: August 2007 February 2007 the Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
Session Attribute Object
Codepoint Registry for The Flags Field in the Resource Reservation
Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Session Attribute Object
draft-ietf-mpls-iana-rsvp-session-flags-01.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
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
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Status of This Memo
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference memo is unlimited.
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at Copyright Notice
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract Abstract
This document provides instructions to IANA for the creation of a new This document provides instructions to IANA for the creation of a new
codepoint registry for the flags field in the Session Attribute codepoint registry for the flags field in the Session Attribute
object of the Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineeging object of the Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE) signaling messages used in Multiprotocol Label Switching (RSVP-TE) signaling messages used in Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) signaling. (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) signaling.
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) [RFC2205] has been extended The Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) [RFC2205] has been extended
as Rsvp for Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for use in Multiprotocol as RSVP for Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for use in Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS) signaling [RFC3209] and Generalized MPLS Label Switching (MPLS) signaling [RFC3209] and Generalized MPLS
(GMPLS) [RFC3473]. (GMPLS) [RFC3473].
[RFC3209] introduced a new signaling object, the Session Attribute [RFC3209] introduced a new signaling object, the Session Attribute
object, that is carried on the RSVP Path message. The Session object, that is carried on the RSVP Path message. The Session
Attribute object contains an eight-bit field of flags. Attribute object contains an eight-bit field of flags.
The original specification of RSVP-TE assigned uses to three of The original specification of RSVP-TE assigned uses to three of these
these bit flags. Subsequent MPLS and GMPLS RFCs have assigned further bit flags. Subsequent MPLS and GMPLS RFCs have assigned further
flags. flags.
There is a need for a codepoint registry to track the use of the bit There is a need for a codepoint registry to track the use of the bit
flags in this field, to ensure that bits are not assigned more than flags in this field, to ensure that bits are not assigned more than
once, and to define the procedures by which such bits may be once, and to define the procedures by which such bits may be
assigned. assigned.
This document lists the current bit usage and provides information This document lists the current bit usage and provides information
for IANA to create a new registry. This document does not define the for IANA to create a new registry. This document does not define the
uses of specific bits - definitive procedures for the use of the uses of specific bits -- definitive procedures for the use of the
bits can be found in the referenced RFCs. bits can be found in the referenced RFCs.
2. Existing Usage 2. Existing Usage
2.1. RFC 3209 2.1. RFC 3209
[RFC3209] defines the use of three bits as follows: [RFC3209] defines the use of three bits as follows:
0x01 Local protection desired 0x01 Local protection desired
skipping to change at page 3, line 8 skipping to change at page 2, line 39
2.3. RFC 4736 2.3. RFC 4736
[RFC4736] 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 has created a new codepoint registry as follows.
The new registry should be placed under the "RSVP-TE Parameters" The new registry has been 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 has been 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]. [RFC2434].
The registry should reference the flags already defined as described The registry references the flags already defined as described in
in section 2 of this document. Section 2 of this document.
5. Acknowledgements 5. Acknowledgements
Thanks to JP Vasseur, Bill Fenner and Thomas Narten for reviewing Thanks to JP Vasseur, Bill Fenner, and Thomas Narten for reviewing
this document. 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., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S. and S.
S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version
Version 1, Functional Specification", RFC 2205, 1, Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
September 1997.
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
2434, October 1998. October 1998.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.
V. and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP 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., Ed., "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
RFC 3473, January 2003. 3473, January 2003.
6.2 Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[RFC4090] Pan, P., Swallow, G., and Atlas, A., "Fast Reroute [RFC4090] Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed., "Fast
Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
May 2005. May 2005.
[RFC4736] Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and Zhang, R., [RFC4736] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang,
"Reoptimization of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) "Reoptimization of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Traffic Engineering (TE) Loosely Routed Label Switched Traffic Engineering (TE) Loosely Routed Label Switched
Path (LSP)", RFC 4736, November 2006. Path (LSP)", RFC 4736, November 2006.
7. Author's Address 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 Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is 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 on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
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.
Intellectual Property
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 to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be on the procedures with respect to rights 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 of attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use 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 at specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr. http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ipr@ietf.org. ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
9. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions Acknowledgement
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 on an Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS Internet Society.
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
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. 30 change blocks. 
71 lines changed or deleted 62 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/