Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                        K. KompellaRequest for Comments: 3936                              Juniper NetworksUpdates:3209,2205                                              J. LangBCP: 96                                                  Rincon NetworksCategory: Best Current Practice                             October 2004Procedures for Modifying the Resource reSerVation Protocol (RSVP)Status of this Memo   This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the   Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for   improvements.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.Copyright Notice   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).Abstract   This memo specifies procedures for modifying the Resource reSerVation   Protocol (RSVP).  This memo also lays out new assignment guidelines   for number spaces for RSVP messages, object classes, class-types, and   sub-objects.1.  Introduction   This memo specifies procedures for modifying the Resource reSerVation   Protocol (RSVP) [RSVP], including (but not limited to) adding,   updating, extending or obsoleting: messages, message formats and   procedures, object classes and class types, object formats and   procedures; header formats, error codes and subcodes and semantics,   and procedures for sending, receiving, and addressing RSVP messages.   IANA recognizes the following RSVP name spaces: Message Types, Class   Names, Class Numbers, Class Types and Sub-objects, Virtual   Destination Ports, and Error Codes and (Subcode) Values (all of these   will collectively be referred to as RSVP entities in this document).   This memo specifies ranges for each name space and assignment   policies for each range.  New RSVP name spaces must be defined in a   Standards Track RFC which include guidelines for IANA assignments   within the new name spaces.   The assignment policies used in this document are: Standards Action   (as defined in [IANA]), Expert Review, and Organization/Vendor   Private (more simply, "Vendor Private"); the last two are defined in   this document.  The intent of these assignment policies is to ensureKompella & Lang          Best Current Practice                  [Page 1]

RFC 3936             Procedures for Modifying RSVP          October 2004   that extensions to RSVP receive adequate review before code-points   are assigned, without being overly rigid.  Thus, if an extension is   widely accepted and its ramifications are well understood, it may   receive an assignment from the Standards Action space; however, if an   extension is experimental in nature, it receives an assignment from   the Expert Review space, and may, with maturity, move to Standards   Track.  Assignments from the Vendor Private space are not reviewed,   but there are mechanisms in place to ensure that these codepoints can   co-exist in a network without harm.   A standards body other than the IETF that wishes to obtain an   assignment for an RSVP entity must decide from which type of   name/number space they desire their assignment be made from, and then   submit the appropriate documentation.  For example, if the assignment   is to be made from a number space designated as Standards Action, a   Standards Track RFC MUST be submitted in support of the request for   assignment.   This memo updates the IANA Considerations section (section 7) of   [RSVP-TE], replacing the assignment policies stated there.   Conventions used in this document   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this   document are to be interpreted as described inBCP 14,RFC 2119   [KEYWORDS].2.  Assignment Policies for RSVP Entities   For each of the RSVP name spaces identified by IANA, the space is   divided into assignment ranges; the following terms are used in   describing the procedures by which IANA assigns values: "Standards   Action" (as defined in [IANA]), "Expert Review", and   "Organization/Vendor Private", defined below.   "Expert Review" ranges refer to values that are to be reviewed by an   Expert designated by the IESG.  The code points from these ranges are   typically used for experimental extensions; such assignments MUST be   requested by Experimental RFCs that document their use and   processing, and the actual assignments made during the IANA actions   for the document.  Values from "Expert Review" ranges MUST be   registered with IANA.   "Organization/Vendor Private" ranges refer to values that are   enterprise-specific; these MUST NOT be registered with IANA.  For   Vendor Private values, the first 4-octet word of the data field MUST   be an enterprise code [ENT] as registered with the IANA SMI NetworkKompella & Lang          Best Current Practice                  [Page 2]

RFC 3936             Procedures for Modifying RSVP          October 2004   Management Private Enterprise Codes, and the rest of the data   thereafter is for the private use of the registered enterprise.  (For   each RSVP entity that has a Vendor Private range, it must be   specified where exactly the data field starts; see below for   examples.)  In this way, different enterprises, vendors, or Standards   Development Organizations (SDOs) can use the same code point without   fear of collision.2.1.  Message Types   A Message Type is an 8-bit number that identifies the function of the   RSVP message.  Values from 0 through 239 are to be assigned by   Standards Action.  Values from 240 through 255 are to be assigned by   Expert Review.2.2.  Class Names and Numbers   Each class of data objects in an RSVP message is identified by an all   upper-case Class Name and an 8-bit Class Number (also known as   Class-Num or C-Num).  Class Numbers are divided broadly into three   ranges (0-127, 128-191, and 192-255) determined by the two high-order   bits of the Class-Num object (the 'b' below represents a bit).   Note: the first 32-bit word of an Object whose Class-Num or Class-   Type is from the Vendor Private range MUST be that vendor's SMI   enterprise code in network octet order (these enterprise codes can be   obtained from, and registered with, IANA).  An implementation   encountering a Vendor Private object with an SMI enterprise code that   it does not recognize MUST treat that object (and enclosing message)   based on the Class-Num, as specified in [RSVP], section 3.10.      o  Class-Num = 0bbbbbbb         Class Numbers from 0 through 119 are to be assigned by         Standards Action.  Class Numbers from 120 through 123 are to be         assigned by Expert Review.  Class Numbers from 124 through 127         are reserved for Vendor Private Use.      o  Class-Num = 10bbbbbb         Class Numbers from 128 through 183 are to be assigned by         Standards Action.  Class Numbers from 184 through 187 are to be         assigned by Expert Review.  Class Numbers from 188 through 191         are reserved for Vendor Private Use.Kompella & Lang          Best Current Practice                  [Page 3]

RFC 3936             Procedures for Modifying RSVP          October 2004      o  Class-Num = 11bbbbbb         Class Numbers from 192 through 247 are to be assigned by         Standards Action.  Class Numbers from 248 through 251 are to be         assigned by Expert Review.  Class Numbers from 252 through 255         are reserved for Vendor Private Use.2.3.  Class Types   Within each object class there is an 8-bit Class Type (also known as   a C-Type).  Class Types are scoped to a Class Number.  In general,   the appropriateness of allowing assignments of Class Types through   Expert Review or Vendor Private depends on the semantics of the Class   Number itself.  Thus, any new Class Number definition must specify an   appropriate IANA Considerations policy for assigning additional Class   Type values.   For Class Numbers that pre-date this document (specifically, 0, 1,   3-25, 30-37, 42-45, 64, 65, 128-131, 161-165, 192-196, and 207), the   default assignment policy for new Class Types is Standards Action,   unless a Standards Track or Best Current Practice RFC supercedes   this.2.3.1.  Sub-objects   Within an object, sub-objects may be defined, generally as a Type-   Length-Value triple.  This memo defines the assignment policies for   sub-objects of EXPLICIT_ROUTE and RECORD_ROUTE.  An RFC defining new   sub-objects MUST state how IANA is to assign the sub-object Types.   The EXPLICIT_ROUTE object [RSVP-TE] carries a variable length sub-   object that is identified by a 7-bit Type field.  Types 0 through 119   are to be assigned by Standards Action.  Types 120 through 123 are to   be assigned by Expert Review.  Types 124 through 127 are to be   reserved for Vendor Private Use.   The RECORD_ROUTE object [RSVP-TE] carries a variable length sub-   object that is identified by an 8-bit Type field.  Types 0 through   191 are to be assigned by Standards Action.  Types 192 through 251   are to be assigned by Expert Review.  Types 252 through 255 are to be   reserved for Vendor Private Use.   The first four octets of the sub-object contents of a Vendor Private   sub-object of an EXPLICIT_ROUTE or RECORD_ROUTE object MUST be that   vendor's SMI enterprise code in network octet order.Kompella & Lang          Best Current Practice                  [Page 4]

RFC 3936             Procedures for Modifying RSVP          October 20042.4.  Virtual Destination Ports   Virtual destination ports are described in [RSVP-IPSEC], which also   specifies how IANA assignments are to be made.2.5.  Error Codes and Values   An Error Code is an 8-bit quantity that appears in an ERROR_SPEC   object to broadly define an error condition.  With each Error Code   there may be a 16-bit Error Value that further specifies the cause of   the error.  Error Value may be globally defined, in which case the   sub-code component is assigned by IANA.   Error Code values from 0 through 239 are to be assigned by Standards   Action.  Values from 240 through 251 are to be assigned by Expert   Review.  Values from 252 through 255 are reserved for Vendor Private   Use.  If the Error Code is for Vendor Private Use, the first four   octets following the Error Value MUST be the vendor's SMI enterprise   code in network octet order.   Globally defined Error Values are assigned by Standards Action.3.  Modifying RSVP Procedures   RSVP entities have associated procedures describing when and how they   are to be sent, received, processed, and responded to.  A change to a   procedure that affects the processing of an RSVP entity that belongs   to a range designated "Standards Action" MUST be documented in a   Standards Track RFC.  A change to a procedure that affects the   processing of an RSVP entity that belongs to a range designated   "Expert Review" MUST be documented in an Experimental RFC.4.  Acknowledgements   Many thanks to Scott Bradner, who encouraged this project, and made   several helpful comments and suggestions.5.  Security Considerations   It is hoped that the procedures outlined in this memo will ensure   that changes made to RSVP will be better reviewed and thus more   architecturally sound, thereby enhancing the security both of the   protocol and of networks deploying it.6.  IANA Considerations   Seesection 2.Kompella & Lang          Best Current Practice                  [Page 5]

RFC 3936             Procedures for Modifying RSVP          October 20047.  References7.1.  Normative References   [KEYWORDS]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate                Requirement Levels",BCP 14,RFC 2119, March 1997.   [RSVP]       Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and                S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) --                Version 1 Functional Specification",RFC 2205, September                1997.   [RSVP-TE]    Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan,                V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP                Tunnels",RFC 3209, December 2001.7.2.  Informative References   [ENT]        IANA PRIVATE ENTERPRISE NUMBERS,http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers   [IANA]       Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an                IANA Considerations Section in RFCs",BCP 26,RFC 2434,                October 1998.   [RSVP-IPSEC] Berger, L. and T. O'Malley, "RSVP Extensions for IPSEC                Data Flows",RFC 2207, September 1997.8.  Authors' Addresses   Kireeti Kompella   Juniper Networks   1194 N. Mathilda Ave   Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA   EMail:  kireeti@juniper.net   Jonathan P. Lang   Rincon Networks   EMail:  jplang@ieee.orgKompella & Lang          Best Current Practice                  [Page 6]

RFC 3936             Procedures for Modifying RSVP          October 20049.  Full Copyright Statement   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions   contained inBCP 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 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   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in   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   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information   on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF Documents can   be found inBCP 78 andBCP 79.   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any   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   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository athttp://www.ietf.org/ipr.   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-   ipr@ietf.org.Acknowledgement   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the   Internet Society.Kompella & Lang          Best Current Practice                  [Page 7]