Network Working Group K. Kompella
Request for Comments: 3936 Juniper Networks
Updates: 3209, 2205 J. Lang
BCP: 96 Rincon Networks
Category: Best Current Practice October 2004
Procedures 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 ensure
Kompella & 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 in BCP 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 Network
Kompella & 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 2004
2.4. 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
See section 2.
Kompella & Lang Best Current Practice [Page 5]
RFC 3936 Procedures for Modifying RSVP October 2004
7. References
7.1. 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:
[email protected]
Jonathan P. Lang
Rincon Networks
EMail:
[email protected]
Kompella & Lang Best Current Practice [Page 6]
RFC 3936 Procedures for Modifying RSVP October 2004
9. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
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 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 in BCP 78 and BCP 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 at
http://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-
[email protected].
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Kompella & Lang Best Current Practice [Page 7]
