[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-doria-forces-protocol) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 RFC 5810

Network Working Group                                  A. Doria (editor)
Internet-Draft                                                      ETRI
Expires: December 9, 2005                                   June 7, 2005


                     ForCES Protocol Specification
                   draft-ietf-forces-protocol-03.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
   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
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 9, 2005.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

Abstract

   This specification documents the Forwarding and Control Element
   Separation protocol.  This protocol is designed to be used between a
   Control Element and a Forwarding Element in a Routing Network
   Element.

Authors

   The participants in the ForCES Protocol Team, co-authors and co-
   editors, of this draft, are:



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   Ligang Dong (Zhejiang Gongshang University), Avri Doria (ETRI), Ram
   Gopal (Nokia), Robert Haas (IBM), Jamal Hadi Salim (Znyx), Hormuzd M
   Khosravi (Intel), and Weiming Wang (Zhejiang Gongshang University).

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    4
     1.1   Sections of this document  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    4
   2.  Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    5
   3.  Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    8
     3.1   Protocol Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    8
       3.1.1   The PL layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   10
       3.1.2   The TML layer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   11
       3.1.3   The FEM/CEM Interface  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   11
     3.2   ForCES Protocol Phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   12
       3.2.1   Pre-association  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   12
       3.2.2   Post-association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   13
     3.3   Protocol Mechanisms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   14
       3.3.1   Transactions, Atomicity, Execution and Responses . .   14
       3.3.2   FE, CE, and FE protocol LFBs . . . . . . . . . . . .   17
       3.3.3   Scaling by Concurrency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   18
   4.  TML Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   20
     4.1   TML Parameterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   21
   5.  Message encapsulation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   22
     5.1   Common Header  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   22
     5.2   Type Length Value  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   25
       5.2.1   Nested TLVs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   26
       5.2.2   Scope of the T in TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   26
   6.  Protocol Construction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   27
     6.1   Protocol Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   27
       6.1.1   Protocol BNF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   27
       6.1.2   Protocol Visualization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   31
     6.2   Core ForCES LFBs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   34
       6.2.1   FE Protocol LFB  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   35
       6.2.2   FE Object LFB  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   36
       6.2.3   CE LFB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   37
     6.3   Semantics of message Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . .   38
     6.4   Association Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   38
       6.4.1   Association Setup Message  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   38
       6.4.2   Association Setup Response Message . . . . . . . . .   40
       6.4.3   Association Teardown Message . . . . . . . . . . . .   42
     6.5   Configuration Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   44
       6.5.1   Config Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   44
       6.5.2   Config Response Message  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   46
     6.6   Query and Query Response Messages  . . . . . . . . . . .   48
       6.6.1   Query Message  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   48
       6.6.2   Query Response Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   50
     6.7   Event Notification and Response Messages . . . . . . . .   51



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


       6.7.1   Event Notification Message . . . . . . . . . . . . .   52
       6.7.2   Event Notification Response Message  . . . . . . . .   54
     6.8   Packet Redirect Message  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   55
     6.9   Heartbeat Message  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   57
     6.10  Operation Summary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   58
   7.  Protocol Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   60
     7.1   Association Setup state  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   60
     7.2   Association Established state or Steady State  . . . . .   61
   8.  High Availability Support  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   64
     8.1   Responsibilities for HA  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   66
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   68
     9.1   No Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   68
       9.1.1   Endpoint Authentication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   68
       9.1.2   Message authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   69
     9.2   ForCES PL and TML security service . . . . . . . . . . .   69
       9.2.1   Endpoint authentication service  . . . . . . . . . .   69
       9.2.2   Message authentication service . . . . . . . . . . .   69
       9.2.3   Confidentiality service  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   70
   10.   Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   71
   11.   References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   72
     11.1  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   72
     11.2  Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   72
       Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   72
   A.  Individual Authors/Editors Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . .   73
   B.  IANA considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   75
   C.  Forces Protocol LFB schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   76
     C.1   Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   77
     C.2   Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   77
     C.3   Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   77
       C.3.1   HBI  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   77
       C.3.2   HBDI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   78
       C.3.3   CurrentRunningVersion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   78
   D.  Use Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   79
   E.  Implementation Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   95
     E.1   TML considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   95
       E.1.1   PL Flag inference by TML . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   95
       E.1.2   Message type inference to Mapping at the TML . . . .   96
   F.  changes between -02 and -03  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   98
   G.  Changes between -01 and -02  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   99
   H.  Changes between -00 and -01  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  100
       Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . .  101










Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


1.  Introduction

   This specification provides a draft definition of an IP-based
   protocol for Control Element control of an Forwarding Element.  The
   protocol is a TLV based protocol that include commands for transport
   of LFB information as well as TLVs for association, configuration,
   status, and events.

   This specification does not specify a transport mechanism for
   messages, but does include a discussion of the services that must be
   provided by the transport interface.

1.1  Sections of this document

   Section 2 provides a glossary of terminology used in the
   specification.

   Section 3 provides an overview of the protocol including a discussion
   on the protocol framework, descriptions of the protocol layer (PL)
   and a transport mapping layer (TML), as well as of the ForCES
   protocol mechanisms.

   While this document does not define the TML, Section 4 details the
   services that the TML must provide.

   The Forces protocol is defined to have a common header for all other
   message types.  The header is defined in Section 5.1, while the
   protocol messages are defined in Section 6.

   Section 7 describes several Protocol Scenarios and includes message
   exchange descriptions.

   Section 8 describes mechanism in the protocol to support high
   availability mechanisms including redundancy and fail over.
   Section 9 defines the security mechanisms provided by the PL and TML.
















Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


2.  Definitions

   This document follows the terminology defined by the ForCES
   Requirements in [RFC3654] and by the ForCES framework in [RFC3746].
   This document also uses the terminology defined by ForCES FE model in
   [FE-MODEL].  We copy the definitions of some of the terminology as
   indicated below:

   Addressable Entity (AE) - A physical device that is directly
   addressable given some interconnect technology.  For example, on IP
   networks, it is a device to which we can communicate using an IP
   address; and on a switch fabric, it is a device to which we can
   communicate using a switch fabric port number.

   Forwarding Element (FE) - A logical entity that implements the ForCES
   protocol.  FEs use the underlying hardware to provide per-packet
   processing and handling as directed/controlled by a CE via the ForCES
   protocol.

   Control Element (CE) - A logical entity that implements the ForCES
   protocol and uses it to instruct one or more FEs how to process
   packets.  CEs handle functionality such as the execution of control
   and signaling protocols.

   Pre-association Phase - The period of time during which a FE Manager
   (see below) and a CE Manager (see below) are determining which FE and
   CE should be part of the same network element.

   Post-association Phase - The period of time during which a FE does
   know which CE is to control it and vice versa, including the time
   during which the CE and FE are establishing communication with one
   another.

   FE Model  - A model that describes the logical processing functions
   of a FE.

   FE Manager (FEM) - A logical entity that operates in the pre-
   association phase and is responsible for determining to which CE(s) a
   FE should communicate.  This process is called CE discovery and may
   involve the FE manager learning the capabilities of available CEs.  A
   FE manager may use anything from a static configuration to a pre-
   association phase protocol (see below) to determine which CE(s) to
   use.  Being a logical entity, a FE manager might be physically
   combined with any of the other logical entities such as FEs.

   CE Manager (CEM) - A logical entity that operates in the pre-
   association phase and is responsible for determining to which FE(s) a
   CE should communicate.  This process is called FE discovery and may



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   involve the CE manager learning the capabilities of available FEs.  A
   CE manager may use anything from a static configuration to a pre-
   association phase protocol (see below) to determine which FE to use.
   Being a logical entity, a CE manager might be physically combined
   with any of the other logical entities such as CEs.

   ForCES Network Element (NE) - An entity composed of one or more CEs
   and one or more FEs.  To entities outside a NE, the NE represents a
   single point of management.  Similarly, a NE usually hides its
   internal organization from external entities.

   High Touch Capability - This term will be used to apply to the
   capabilities found in some forwarders to take action on the contents
   or headers of a packet based on content other than what is found in
   the IP header.  Examples of these capabilities include NAT-PT,
   firewall, and L7 content recognition.

   Datapath -- A conceptual path taken by packets within the forwarding
   plane inside an FE.

   LFB (Logical Function Block) type -- A template representing a fine-
   grained, logically separable and well-defined packet processing
   operation in the datapath.  LFB types are the basic building blocks
   of the FE model.

   LFB (Logical Function Block) Instance -- As a packet flows through an
   FE along a datapath, it flows through one or multiple LFB instances,
   with each implementing an instance of a certain LFB type.  There may
   be multiple instances of the same LFB in an FE's datapath.  Note that
   we often refer to LFBs without distinguishing between LFB type and
   LFB instance when we believe the implied reference is obvious for the
   given context.

   LFB Metadata -- Metadata is used to communicate per-packet state from
   one LFB to another, but is not sent across the network.  The FE model
   defines how such metadata is identified, produced and consumed by the
   LFBs, but not how metadata is encoded within an implementation.

   LFB Attribute -- Operational parameters of the LFBs that must be
   visible to the CEs are conceptualized in the FE model as the LFB
   attributes.  The LFB attributes include, for example, flags, single
   parameter arguments, complex arguments, and tables that the CE can
   read or/and write via the ForCES protocol (see below).

   LFB Topology -- Representation of how the LFB instances are logically
   interconnected and placed along the datapath within one FE.
   Sometimes it is also called intra-FE topology, to be distinguished
   from inter-FE topology.



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   FE Topology -- A representation of how the multiple FEs within a
   single NE are interconnected.  Sometimes this is called inter-FE
   topology, to be distinguished from intra-FE topology (i.e., LFB
   topology).

   Inter-FE Topology -- See FE Topology.

   Intra-FE Topology -- See LFB Topology.

   Following terminologies are defined by this document:

   ForCES Protocol - While there may be multiple protocols used within
   the overall ForCES architecture, the term "ForCES protocol" refers
   only to the protocol used at the Fp reference point in the ForCES
   Framework in RFC3746 [RFC3746].  This protocol does not apply to CE-
   to-CE communication, FE-to-FE communication, or to communication
   between FE and CE managers.  Basically, the ForCES protocol works in
   a master-slave mode in which FEs are slaves and CEs are masters.
   This document defines the specifications for this ForCES protocol.

   ForCES Protocol Layer (ForCES PL) -- A layer in ForCES protocol
   architecture that defines the ForCES protocol messages, the protocol
   state transfer scheme, as well as the ForCES protocol architecture
   itself (including requirements of ForCES TML (see below)).
   Specifications of ForCES PL are defined by this document.

   ForCES Protocol Transport Mapping Layer (ForCES TML) -- A layer in
   ForCES protocol architecture that specifically addresses the protocol
   message transportation issues, such as how the protocol messages are
   mapped to different transport media (like TCP, IP, ATM, Ethernet,
   etc), and how to achieve and implement reliability, multicast,
   ordering, etc.  The ForCES TML is specifically addressed in a
   separate ForCES TML Specification document.


















Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


3.  Overview

   The reader is referred to the Framework document [RFC3746], and in
   particular sections 3 and 4, for an architectural overview and an
   explanation of how the ForCES protocol fits in.  There may be some
   content overlap between the framework document and this section in
   order to provide clarity.

3.1  Protocol Framework

   Figure 1 below is reproduced from the Framework document for clarity.
   It shows a NE with two CEs and two FEs.

                            ---------------------------------------
                            | ForCES Network Element              |
     --------------   Fc    | --------------      --------------  |
     | CE Manager |---------+-|     CE 1   |------|    CE 2    |  |
     --------------         | |            |  Fr  |            |  |
           |                | --------------      --------------  |
           | Fl             |         |  |    Fp       /          |
           |                |       Fp|  |----------| /           |
           |                |         |             |/            |
           |                |         |             |             |
           |                |         |     Fp     /|----|        |
           |                |         |  /--------/      |        |
     --------------     Ff  | --------------      --------------  |
     | FE Manager |---------+-|     FE 1   |  Fi  |     FE 2   |  |
     --------------         | |            |------|            |  |
                            | --------------      --------------  |
                            |   |  |  |  |          |  |  |  |    |
                            ----+--+--+--+----------+--+--+--+-----
                                |  |  |  |          |  |  |  |
                                |  |  |  |          |  |  |  |
                                  Fi/f                   Fi/f

          Fp: CE-FE interface
          Fi: FE-FE interface
          Fr: CE-CE interface
          Fc: Interface between the CE Manager and a CE
          Ff: Interface between the FE Manager and an FE
          Fl: Interface between the CE Manager and the FE Manager
          Fi/f: FE external interface

                  Figure 1: ForCES Architectural Diagram

   The ForCES protocol domain is found in the Fp Reference Point.  The
   Protocol Element configuration reference points, Fc and Ff also play
   a role in the booting up of the Forces Protocol.  The protocol



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   element configuration is out of scope of the ForCES protocol but is
   touched on in this document since it is an integral part of the
   protocol pre-association phase.

   Figure 2 below shows further breakdown of the Fp interface by example
   of a MPLS QoS enabled Network Element.

         -------------------------------------------------
         |       |       |       |       |       |       |
         |OSPF   |RIP    |BGP    |RSVP   |LDP    |. . .  |
         |       |       |       |       |       |       |
         -------------------------------------------------
         |               ForCES Interface                |
         -------------------------------------------------
                                 ^   ^
                                 |   |
                         ForCES  |   |data
                         control |   |packets
                         messages|   |(e.g., routing packets)
                                 |   |
                                 v   v
         -------------------------------------------------
         |               ForCES Interface                |
         -------------------------------------------------
         |       |       |       |       |       |       |
         |LPM Fwd|Meter  |Shaper |MPLS   |Classi-|. . .  |
         |       |       |       |       |fier   |       |
         -------------------------------------------------

                 Figure 2: Examples of CE and FE functions

   The ForCES Interface shown in Figure 2 constitutes two pieces: the PL
   and TML layer.


















Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   This is depicted in Figure 3 below.

         +------------------------------------------------
         |               CE PL layer                     |
         +------------------------------------------------
         |              CE TML layer                     |
         +------------------------------------------------
                                   ^
                                   |
                      ForCES       |   (i.e  Forces data + control
                      PL           |    packets )
                      messages     |
                      over         |
                      specific     |
                      TML          |
                      encaps       |
                      and          |
                      transport    |
                                   |
                                   v
         +------------------------------------------------
         |              FE TML layer                     |
         +------------------------------------------------
         |               FE PL layer                     |
         +------------------------------------------------

                        Figure 3: ForCES Interface

   The PL layer is in fact the ForCES protocol.  Its semantics and
   message layout are defined in this document.  The TML Layer is
   necessary to connect two ForCES PL layers as shown in Figure 3 above.
   The TML is out of scope for this document but is within scope of
   ForCES.  This document defines requirements the PL needs the TML to
   meet.

   Both the PL and the TML layers are standardized by the IETF.  While
   only one PL layer is defined, different TMLs are expected to be
   standardized.  To interoperate the TML layer at the CE and FE are
   expected to conform to the same definition.

   On transmit, the PL layer delivers its messages to the TML layer.
   The TML layer delivers the message to the destination TML layer(s).
   On receive, the TML delivers the message to its destination PL
   layer(s).

3.1.1  The PL layer

   The PL is common to all implementations of ForCES and is standardized



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   by the IETF as defined in this document.  The PL layer is responsible
   for associating an FE or CE to an NE.  It is also responsible for
   tearing down such associations.  An FE uses the PL layer to throw
   various subscribed-to events to the CE PL layer as well as respond to
   various status requests issued from the CE PL.  The CE configures
   both the FE and associated LFBs attributes using the PL layer.  In
   addition the CE may send various requests to the FE to activate or
   deactivate it, reconfigure its HA parametrization, subscribe to
   specific events etc.  More details in Section 6.

3.1.2  The TML layer

   The TML layer is essentially responsible for transport of the PL
   layer messages.  The TML is where the issues of how to achieve
   transport level reliability, congestion control, multicast, ordering,
   etc are handled.  It is expected more than one TML will be
   standardized.  The different TMLs each could implement things
   differently based on capabilities of underlying media and transport.
   However, since each TML is standardized, interoperability is
   guaranteed as long as both endpoints support the same TML.  All
   ForCES Protocol Layer implementations should be portable across all
   TMLs, because all TMLs have the same top edge semantics as defined in
   this document.

3.1.3  The FEM/CEM Interface

   The FEM and CEM components, although valuable in the setup and
   configurations of both the PL and TML layers, are out of scope of the
   ForCES protocol.  The best way to think of them are as
   configurations/parameterizations for the PL and TML before they
   become active (or even at runtime based on implementation).  In the
   simplest case, the FE or CE read a static configuration file which
   they use as the FEM/CEM interface.  RFC 3746 has a lot more detailed
   descriptions on how the FEM and CEM could be used.  We discuss the
   pre-association phase where the CEM and FEM play briefly in section
   Section 3.2.1.

   An example of typical things FEM/CEM would configure would be TML
   specific parameterizations such as:

   a.  how the TML connection should happen (example what IP addresses
       to use, transport modes etc);

   b.  the ID for the FE or CE would also be issued at this point.

   c.  Security parameterization such as keys etc.





Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   d.  Connection association parameters

   Example "send up to 3 association messages each 1 second apart" Vs "
   send up to 4 association messages with increasing exponential
   timeout".

3.2  ForCES Protocol Phases

   ForCES, in relation to NEs, involves two phases: the Pre-Association
   phase where configuration/initialization/bootup of the TML and PL
   layer happens, and the association phase where the ForCES protocol
   operates.

3.2.1  Pre-association

   The ForCES interface is configured during the pre-association phase.
   In a simple setup, the configuration is static and is read from a
   saved config file.  All the parameters for the association phase are
   well known after the pre-association phase is complete.  A protocol
   such as DHCP may be used to retrieve the config parameters instead of
   reading them from a static config file.  Note, this will still be
   considered static pre-association.  Dynamic configuration may also
   happen using the Fc, Ff and Fl reference points.  Vendors may use
   their own proprietary service discovery protocol to pass the
   parameters.

   The following are  scenarios reproduced from the Framework Document
   to show a pre-association example.


      <----Ff ref pt--->              <--Fc ref pt------->
      FE Manager      FE                CE Manager    CE
       |              |                 |             |
       |              |                 |             |
    (security exchange)               (security exchange)
      1|<------------>| authentication 1|<----------->|authentication
       |              |                 |             |
     (FE ID, attributes)              (CE ID, attributes)
      2|<-------------| request        2|<------------|request
       |              |                 |             |
      3|------------->| response       3|------------>|response
      (corresponding CE ID)          (corresponding FE ID)
       |              |                 |             |
       |              |                 |             |

   Figure 4: Examples of a message exchange over the Ff and Fc reference
                                  points




Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


      <-----------Fl ref pt-------------->            |

      FE Manager      FE               CE Manager     CE
       |              |                 |             |
       |              |                 |             |
      (security exchange)               |             |
      1|<------------------------------>|             |
       |              |                 |             |
      (a list of CEs and their attributes)            |
      2|<-------------------------------|             |
       |              |                 |             |
      (a list of FEs and their attributes)            |
      3|------------------------------->|             |
       |              |                 |             |
       |              |                 |             |

     Figure 5: An example of a message exchange over the Fl reference
                                   point

   Before the transition to the association phase, the FEM will have
   established contact with the appropriate CEM component.
   Initialization of the ForCES interface will be completed, and
   authentication as well as capability discovery may be complete as
   well.  Both the FE and CE would have the necessary information for
   connecting to each other for configuration, accounting,
   identification and authentication purposes.  Both sides also would
   have all the necessary protocol parameters such as timers, etc.  The
   Fl reference point may continue to operate during the association
   phase and may be used to force a disassociation of an FE or CE.
   Because the pre-association phase is out of scope, these details are
   not discussed any further in this specification.  The reader is
   referred to the framework document [RFC3746] for more detailed
   discussion.

3.2.2  Post-association

   In this phase, the FE and CE components communicate with each other
   using the ForCES protocol (PL over TML) as defined in this document.
   There are three sub-phases:

   o  Association setup state

   o  Established State

   o  Association teardown state.






Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


3.2.2.1  Association setup state

   The FE attempts to join the NE.  The FE may be rejected or accepted.
   Once granted access into the NE, capabilities exchange happens with
   the CE querying the FE.  Once the CE has the FE capability
   information, the CE can offer an initial configuration (possibly to
   restore state) and can query certain attributes within either an LFB
   or the FE itself.

   More details are provided in the protocol scenarios section.

   On successful completion of this state, the FE joins the NE and is
   moved to the Established State.

3.2.2.2  Association Established state

   In this state the FE is continuously updated or queried.  The FE may
   also send asynchronous event notifications to the CE or synchronous
   heartbeat notifications.  This continues until a termination is
   initiated by either the CE or the FE.

   Refer to section on protocol scenarios Section 7 for more details.

3.3  Protocol Mechanisms

   Various semantics are exposed to the protocol users via the PL header
   including: Transaction capabilities, atomicity of transactions, two
   phase commits, batching/parallelization, High Availability and
   failover as well as command windows.

3.3.1  Transactions, Atomicity, Execution and Responses

   In the master-slave relationship the CE instructs one or more FEs on
   how to execute operations and how to report back the results.

   This section details the different modes of execution that a CE can
   order the FE(s) to perform in Section 3.3.1.1.  It also describes the
   different modes a CE can ask the FE(s) to format the responses back
   after processing the operations requested in Section 3.3.1.2.

3.3.1.1  Execution

   There are two schools of thoughts which are being tossed around at
   the moment on Forces operations from the CE to the FE.  We try to
   support both and leave the details to implementation (the
   intelligence is at the CE).





Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   1.  The CE knows exact details about the resources at the FE (memory,
       table sizes, etc).  When it says "SET" it knows that would work
       etc.  In this scenario, it is contended by the proponents of this
       optimization that when a CE decides to send a command to an FE it
       will work 100%.  In other words, remote operations without any
       transactional properties (given the CE computes the success of
       the tranaaction).

   2.  The classical Two-phase-commit(2PC)[REference to be added here]
       scheme; undo/rollback when things go wrong. undoing is initiated
       by the CE after an error response from any one FE being
       synchronized is received.

   There are 3 execution modes that could be requested for operations
   spanning on one or more LFB selectors:

      Transactional all-or-none.

      Any-of-N independent operations.

      go-to-N loose transaction.


3.3.1.1.1  Requirements for ForCES Transactions

   ForCES transactions MUST support ACIDity [ACID], defined as:

   o  *Atomicity*.  In a transaction involving two or more discrete
      pieces of information, either all of the pieces are committed or
      none are.

   o  *Consistency*.  A transaction either creates a new and valid state
      of data, or, if any failure occurs, returns all data to its state
      before the transaction was started.

   o  *Isolation*.  A transaction in process and not yet committed must
      remain isolated from any other transaction.

   o  *Durability*.  Committed data is saved by the system such that,
      even in the event of a failure and system restart, the data is
      available in its correct state.


3.3.1.1.1.1  Transaction definition

   We define a transaction as a collection of one or more ForCES
   operations within one or more messages MUST have ACID properties.




Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


3.3.1.1.1.2  Transaction protocol

   A 2PC starts with a START | ATOMIC flag on its first message of a
   transaction.  A transaction may span multiple messages.  It is up to
   the CE to keep track of the different seq #s making up a transaction.
   This may then be followed by more messages which are part of the same
   atomic transaction.

   Any failure notified by the FE causes the CE to execute an ABORT to
   all FEs involved in the transaction, rolling back all previously
   executed operations in the transaction.

   The transaction commitment phase is signalled by an empty DONE msg
   type.

   TBD: We may need an ABORT message(used for rollback purposes) or
   maybe a DONE with an ABORT flag to undo will suffice.

3.3.1.1.1.3  Recovery

   Any of the participating FEs, or the CE, or the associations between
   them, may fail after the DONE message has left the CE and before it
   has received all the responses, (possibly the DONE never reached the
   FEs).  At this point it is known that none of the operations failed
   but it is presumed that the data has not yet been made durable by the
   FEs.  The means of detecting such failures may include loss of
   heartbeat (within the scope of ForCES) or mechanisms outside the
   scope of ForCES.  When the associations are re-established, the CE
   will discover a transaction in an intermediate state.  Some FEs will
   have made the data durable and closed the transaction; others may
   have failed while doing so, and may, or may not, still have that
   data.  At this point the transaction enters the recovery phase.

   The CE re-issues an empty DONE message to all FEs involved in the
   transaction.  Those that completed the transaction confirm this to
   the CE.  Those that did not, commit the data and confirm this to the
   CE.  An FE that has lost all records of the transaction MUST reply
   with status UNKNOWN and the actions subsequently taken by the CE are
   implementation dependent.

   This requires knowledge at both the CE and FE; not sure how to signal
   it.  Global flags: ATOMIC, START, ABORT? (used by 2PC) New msg type:
   DONE, ABORT?(used by 2PC)

3.3.1.1.2  one-of-N independent operations

   In which several independent operations are targeted at one or more
   LFB selectors.  Execution continues at the FE when one or more



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   operations fail.  This mode is signalled by a missing ATOMIC flag.

3.3.1.1.3   go-to-N loose transaction

   In which all operations are executed on FE sequentially until first
   failure.  The rest of the operations are not executed but everything
   upto failed is not undone unlike #1. flag: GOTON (global)

3.3.1.1.4  Relation to Multipart messages

      Multipart flags apply.  I.e all messages in a transaction except
      for the last have a MULTIPART flag on.

      There has to be consistency across the multi parts of the
      messages.  In other words the first message starting with mode #1
      above, implies the rest do.  Any inconsitency implies a cancelled
      transaction in which all messages are dropped and the sender
      NACKED.


3.3.1.2  Response formating

   TBD - ISSUE 22

3.3.2  FE, CE, and FE protocol LFBs

   All PL messages follow the LFB structure as this provides more
   flexibility for future enhancements.  This means maintanance and
   configurability of FEs, NE, as well as the protocol require a fit in
   the LFB architecture.  For this reason special LFBs are created to
   accomodate this need.

   In addition, this shows how the ForCES protocol itself can be
   controlled by the very same type of structures (LFBs) it uses to
   control functions such as IP forwarding, filtering, etc.

   To achieve this, the following LFBs are used:

   o  FE Protocol LFB

   o  FE LFB

   o  CE LFB

   These LFBs are detailed in Section 6.2.  A short description is
   provided here:





Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   o  The FE Protocol LFB is a logical entity in each FE that is used to
      control the ForCES protocol.  The CE operates on this LFB to
      subscribe or unsubscribe to Heartbeat messages, define the
      Heartbeat interval, or to discover which ForCES protocol version
      is supported and which TMLs the FE supports.  The FE Protocol LFB
      also contains the various ForCES ID to be used: unicast IDs a
      table of the PL multicast IDs the FE must be listening to.  [TBD:
      do we need a CE Protocol LFB?]

   o  The FE LFB (referred to as "FE attributes" in the model draft)
      should not be confused with the FE Protocol Object.  The FE LFB is
      a logical entity in each FE and contains attributes relative to
      the FE itself, and not to the operation of the ForCES protocol
      between the CE and the FE.  Such attributes can be FEState (refer
      to model draft), vendor, etc.  The FE LFB contains in particular a
      table that maps a virtual LFB Instance ID to one or more Instance
      IDs of LFBs in the FE.

   o  The CE LFB is the counterpart of the FE LFB.  The CE LFB is a
      logical entity in each CE and contains attributes relative to the
      CE itself, and not to the operation of the ForCES protocol between
      the CE and the FE.  This LFB can be used to convey event
      notifications from a CE to FEs.  Some events may be sent by the CE
      without prior subscription by the FEs.


3.3.3  Scaling by Concurrency

   It is desirable that the PL layer not become the bottleneck when
   larger bandwidth pipes become available.  To pick a mythical example
   in today's terms, if a 100Gbps pipe is available and there is
   sufficient work then the PL layer should be able to take advantage of
   this and use all of the 100Gbps pipe.  Two mechanisms are provided to
   achieve this.  The first one is batching and the second one is a
   command window.

   Batching is the ability to send multiple commands (such as Config) in
   one PDU.  The size of the batch will be affected by, amongst other
   things, the path MTU.  The commands may be part of the same
   transaction or part of unrelated transactions that are independent of
   each other.

   Command windowing allows for pipelining of independent transactions
   which do not affect each other.  Each independent transaction could
   consist of one or more batches.






Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


3.3.3.1  Batching

   There are several batching levels at different protocol hierarchies.

   o  multiple PL PDUs can be aggregated under one TML message

   o  multiple LFB classes and instances can be addressed within one PL
      PDU

   o  Multiple operations can be addressed to a single LFB class and
      instance


3.3.3.2  Command Pipelining

   TBD - ISSUE 33



































Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


4.  TML Requirements

   The requirements below are expected to be delivered by the TML.  This
   text does not define how such mechanisms are delivered.  As an
   example they could be defined to be delivered via hardware or inter-
   TML protocol level schemes.

   Each TML must describe how it contributes to achieving the listed
   ForCES requirements.  If for any reason a TML does not provide a
   service listed below a justification needs to be provided.

   1.   Reliability
        As defined by RFC 3654, section 6 #6.

   2.   Security
        TML provides security services to the ForCES PL.  TML layer
        should support the following security services and describe how
        they are achieved.

        *  Endpoint authentication of FE and CE.

        *  Message Authentication

        *  Confidentiality service

   3.   Congestion Control
        The congestion control scheme used needs to be defined.
        Additionally, the circumstances under which notification is sent
        to the PL to notify it of congestion must be defined.

   4.   Uni/multi/broadcast addressing/delivery if any
        If there is any mapping between PL and TML level Uni/Multi/
        Broadcast addressing it needs to be defined.

   5.   Timeliness


   6.   TBD - ISSUE 21

   7.   HA decisions
        It is expected that availability of transport links is the TML's
        responsibility.  However, on config basis, the PL layer may wish
        to participate in link failover schemes and therefore the TML
        must support this capability.
        Please refer to the HA Section Section 8 for details.

   8.   Encapsulations used.
        Different types of TMLs will encapsulate the PL messages on



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


        different types of headers.  The TML needs to specify the
        encapsulation used.

   9.   Prioritization
        It is expected that the TML will be able to handle up to 8
        priority levels needed by the PL layer and will provide
        preferential treatment.
        TML needs to define how this is achieved.

   10.  Protection against DoS attacks
        As described in the Requirements RFC 3654, section 6


4.1  TML Parameterization

   It is expected that it should be possible to use a configuration
   reference point, such as the FEM or the CEM, to configure the TML.

   Some of the configured parameters may include:

   o  PL ID

   o  Connection Type and associated data.  For example if a TML uses
      IP/TCP/UDP then parameters such as TCP and UDP ports, IP addresses
      need to be configured.

   o  Number of transport connections

   o  Connection Capability, such as bandwidth, etc.

   o  Allowed/Supported Connection QoS policy (or Congestion Control
      Policy)



















Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


5.  Message encapsulation

   All PL layer PDUs start with a common header [Section 5.1] followed
   by a one or more TLVs [Section 5.2] which may nest other TLVs
   [Section 5.2.1].

5.1  Common Header

   0                   1                   2                   3
   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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |version| rsvd  | Message Type  |             Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          Source ID                            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        Destination ID                         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        Sequence Number                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                             Flags                             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                          Figure 6: Common Header

   The message is 32 bit aligned.


   Version (4 bit):
       Version number.  Current version is 1.

   rsvd (4 bit):
       Unused at this point.  A receiver should not interpret this
       field.  Senders SHOULD set it to zero.

   Message Type (8 bits):
       Commands are defined in Section 6.

   Source ID  (32 bit):

   Dest ID (32 bit):

       *   Each of the source and Dest IDs are 32 bit IDs which
           recognize the termination points.  Ideas discussed so far are
           desire to recognize if ID belongs to FE or CE by inspection.
           Suggestions for achieving this involves partitioning of the
           ID allocation.  Another alternative maybe to use flags to
           indicate direction (this avoids partition).




Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


       *   IDs will allow multi/broad/unicast

       *   Addressing

           a.  As ForCES may run between multiple CEs and FEs and over
               different protocols such as IPv4 and IPv6, or directly
               over Ethernet or other switching-fabric interconnects, it
               is necessary to create an addressing scheme for ForCES
               entities.  Mappings to the underlying TML-level
               addressing can then be defined as appropriate.

           b.  Fundamentally, unique IDs are assigned to CEs and FEs.  A
               split address space is used to distinguish FEs from CEs.
               Even though we can assume that in a large NE there are
               typically two or more orders of magnitude more FEs than
               CEs, the address space is split uniformly for simplicity.

           c.  Special IDs are reserved for FE broadcast, CE broadcast,
               and NE broadcast.

           d.  Subgroups of FEs belonging, for instance, to the same
               VPN, may be assigned a multicast ID.  Likewise, subgroups
               of CEs that act, for instance, in a back-up mode may be
               assigned a multicast ID.  These FEs and CE multicast IDs
               are chosen in a distinct portion of the ID address space.
               Such a multicast ID may comprise FEs, CEs, or a mix of
               both.

           e.  As a result, the address space allows up to 2^30 (over a
               billion) CEs and the same amount of FEs.

   0                   1                   2                   3
   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
   0               1               2               3
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |TS |                           sub-ID                          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                              Figure 7: ForCES ID Format

           f.  The ForCES ID is 32 bits.  The 2 most significant bits
               called Type Switch (TS) are used to split the ID space as
               follows:

               A.  TS    Corresponding ID range       Assignment

               B.  --    ----------------------       ----------




Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


               C.  0b00   0x00000000 to 0x3FFFFFFF     FE IDs (2^30)

               D.  0b01   0x40000000 to 0x7FFFFFFF     CE IDs (2^30)

               E.  0b10   0x80000000 to 0xBFFFFFFF     reserved

               F.  0b11   0xC0000000 to 0xFFFFFFEF     multicast IDs
                   (2^30 - 16)

               G.  0b11   0xFFFFFFF0 to 0xFFFFFFFC     reserved

               H.  0b11   0xFFFFFFFD                   all CEs broadcast

               I.  0b11   0xFFFFFFFE                   all FEs broadcast

               J.  0b11   0xFFFFFFFF                   all FEs and CEs
                   (NE) broadcast

           g.  It is desirable to address multicast and/or broadcast
               messages to some LFB instances of a given class.  For
               instance, assume FEs FEa and FEb:

               -   FEa has LFBs LFBaX1 and LFBaX2 of class X

               -   similarly, FEb has two LFBs LFBbX1 and LFBbX2 of
                   class X.

               A broadcast message should be addressable to only LFBs
               LFBaX1 and LFBbX1 (this can be the case for instance if
               these two LFBs belong to the same VPN).  To achieve this,
               a VPN ID (3 octets OUI and 4 octets VPN Index) as defined
               in RFC 2685 should be used within the ForCES message body
               as a TLV.

               As an alternative, a particular multicast ID MAY be
               associated to a given VPN ID through some configuration
               means.  Messages delivered to such a multicast ID MUST
               only be applied to LFBs belonging to that VPN ID.


   Sequence (32 bits)
       Unique to a PDU.  [Discussion: There may be impact on the effect
       of subsequence numbers].

   Length (16 bits):
       length of header + the rest of the message in DWORDS (4 byte
       increments).




Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 24]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   Flags(32 bits):
       Identified so far:

       - ACK indicator(2 bit)
           The description for using the two bits is:

               'NoACK' (00)

               'SuccessACK'(01)

               'UnsuccessACK'(10)

               'ACKAll' (11)

       - Priority (3 bits)
           TBD

       - Throttle flag

       - Batch (2 bits)

       - Atomicity (1 or more bits. TBD)




5.2  Type Length Value
























Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 25]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   0                   1                   2                   3
   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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | TLV Type                    | variable TLV Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            Value (Data of size TLV length)                    |
   ~                                                               ~
   ~                                                               ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


       TLV Type:

       The TLV type field is two octets, and indicates the type of data
       encapsulated within the TLV.

       TLV Length:

       The TLV Length field is two octets, and indicates the length of
       this TLV including the TLV Type, TLV Length, and the TLV data.

       TLV Value:

       The TLV Value field carries the data. For extensibility, the TLV
       Value may be a TLV. In fact, this is the case with the
       Netlink2-extension TLV. The Value encapsulated within a TLV is
       dependent of the attribute being configured and is opaque to
       Netlink2 and therefore is not restricted to any particular type
       (example could be ascii strings such as XML, or OIDs etc).

      TLVs must be 32 bit aligned.

                               Figure 8: TLV


5.2.1  Nested TLVs

   TLV values can be other TLVs.  This provides the benefits of protocol
   flexibility (being able to add new extensions by introducing new TLVs
   when needed).  The nesting feature also allows easy mapping between
   the XML LFB definitions to binary PL representation.

5.2.2  Scope of the T in TLV

   The "Type" value in TLV is of global scope.  This means that wherever
   in the PDU hierachy a Type has global connotations.  This is a design
   choice to ease debugging of the protocol.




Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 26]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


6.  Protocol Construction

6.1  Protocol Grammar

   The protocol construction is formally defined using a BNF-like syntax
   to describe the structure of the PDU layout.  This is matched to a
   precise binary format later in the document.

   Since the protocol is very flexible and hierachical in nature, it is
   easier at times to see the visualization layout.  This is provided in
   Section 6.1.2

6.1.1  Protocol BNF

   The format used is based on RFC 2234.  The terminals of this gramar
   are flags, IDcount, IDs, KEYID, KEY_DATA and DATARAW, described after
   the grammar.

   1.  A TLV will have the word "TLV" at the end of its name

   2.  / is used to separate alternatives

   3.  parenthesised elements are treated as a single item

   4.  * before an item indicates 0 or more repetitions 1* before an
       item indicates 1 or more repetitions

   5.  [] around an item indicates that it is optional (equal to *1)

   The BNF of the PL level PDU is as follows:


   PL level PDU :=   MAINHDR 1*LFBselect-TLV
   LFBselec-TLV :=   LFBCLASSID LFBInstance 1*OPER-TLV
   OPER-TLV := 1*PATH-DATA-TLV
   PATH-DATA-TLV := PATH  [DATA]
   PATH := flags IDcount IDs [SELECTOR]
   SELECTOR :=  KEYINFO-TLV
   DATA := DATARAW-TLV / RESULT-TLV / 1*PATH-DATA-TLV
   KEYINFO-TLV := KEYID KEY_DATA
   DATARAW-TLV := encoded data which may nest DATARAW TLVs
   RESULT-TLV := not yet defined.
             Holding result code and optional DATARAW


   o  MAINHDR defines a message type, Target FE/CE ID etc.  The MAINHDR
      also defines the content.  As an example the content of a "config"
      message would be different from an "association" message.



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 27]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   o  LFBCLASSID is a 32 bit unique identifier per LFB class defined at
      class Definition time.

   o  LFBInstance is a 32 bit unique instance identifier of an LFB class

   o  OPERATION is one of {ADD,DEL,etc.} depending on the message type

   o  PATH-DATA-TLV identifies the exact element targeted.  It may have
      zero or more paths associated with it terminated by zero or more
      data values associated.

   o  PATH provides the path to the data being referenced.

      *  flags (16 bits) are used to further refine the operation to be
         applied on the Path.  More on these later.

      *  IDcount(16 bit): count of 32 bit IDs

      *  IDs: zero or more 32bit IDs (whose count is given by IDcount)
         defining the main path.  Depending on the flags, IDs could be
         field IDs only or a mix of field and dynamic IDs.  Zero is used
         for the special case of using the entirety of the containing
         context as the result of the path.

   o  SELECTOR is an optional construct that further defines the PATH.
      Currently, the only defined selector is the KEYINFO-TLV, used for
      selecting an array entry by the value of a key field.  The
      presence of a SELECTOR is correct only when the flags also
      indicate its presence.  A mismatch is a protocol format error.

   o  A KEYINFO TLV contains information used in content keying.

      *  A KeyID is used in a KEYINFO TLV.  It indicates which key for
         the current array is being used as the content key for array
         entry selection.

      *  KEY_DATA is the data to look for in the array, in the fields
         identified by the keyfield.  The information is encoded
         according to the rules for the contents of a DATARAW, and
         represent the field or fields which make up the key identified
         by the KEYID.

   o  DATA may contain a DATARAW or 1 or more further PATH-DATA
      selection DATARAW is only allowed on SET requests, or on responses
      which return content information (GET Response for example.)
      PATH-DATA may be included to extent the path on any request.





Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 28]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


      *  Note: Nested PATH-DATA TLVs are supported as an efficiency
         measure to permit common subexpression extraction.

      *  DATARAW contains "the data" whose path is selected.

   o  RESULT contains the indication of whether the individual SET
      succeeded.  If there is an indication for verbose response, then
      SETRESULT will also contain the DATARAW showing the data that was
      set.  RESULT-TLV is included on the assumption that individual
      parts of a SET request can succeed or fail separately.

   In summary this approach has the following characteristic:

   o  There can be one or more LFB Class + InstanceId combo targeted in
      a message (batch)

   o  There can one or more operations on an addressed LFB classid+
      instanceid combo(batch)

   o  There can be one or more path targets per operation (batch)

   o  Paths may have zero or more data values associated (flexibility
      and operation specific)

   It should be noted that the above is optimized for the case of a
   single classid+instance targeting.  To target multiple instances
   within the same class, multiple LFBselect are needed.

6.1.1.1  Discussion on Grammar

   Data is packed in such a way that a receiver of such data with
   knowledge of the path can correlate what it means by infering in the
   LFB definition.  This is an optimization that helps reducing the
   amount of description for the data in the protocol.

   In other words:

   It is assumed that the type of the data can be inferred by the
   context in which data is used.  Hence, data will not include its type
   information.  The basis for the inference is typically the LFB class
   id and the path.

6.1.1.1.1  Data Packing Rules

   The scheme for packaging data used in this doc adheres to the
   following rules:





Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 29]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   o  The Value of DATARAW TLV  will contain the data being transported.
      This data will be as was described in the LFB definition.

   o  By definition in the Forces protocol, all TLVs are 32 bit aligned.
      Therefore because DATARAW is a TLV, elements not aligned in 32 bit
      values will be padded.

   o  As an example a 16 bit value will have an extra 16 bit pad;
      however two 16 bits values in a structure will be shipped together
      with no padding etc.

   o  Variable sized data will be encapsulated inside another DATARAW
      TLV inside the V of the outer TLV.  For example of this see
      Appendix D example 13.

   o  When a table is refered in the PATH (ids), then the RAWDATA's V
      will contain that tables row content prefixed by its 32 bit index/
      subscript OTOH, when SELECTOR flags are 00, the PATH may contain
      an index pointing to a row in table; in such a case, the RAWDATA's
      V will only contain the content with  the index in order to avoid
      ambiguity.


6.1.1.1.2  Path Flags

   The following flags are currently defined:

   o  SELECTOR Bit: F_SELKEY indicates that a KEY Selector is present
      following this path information, and should be considered in
      evaluating the path.

   o  FIND-EMPTY Bit: This must not be set if the F_SEL_KEY bit is set.
      This must only be used on a create operation.  If set, this
      indicates that although the path identifies an array, the SET
      operation should be applied to the first unused element in the
      array.  The result of the operation will not have this flag set,
      and will have the assigned index in the path.


6.1.1.1.3  Relation of operational flags with global message flags

   Should be noted that other applicable flags such as atomicity
   indicators as well as verbosity result formaters are in the main
   headers flags area.

6.1.1.1.4  Content Path Selection

   The KEYINFO TLV  describes the KEY as well as associated KEY data.



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 30]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   KEYs, used for content searches, are restricted and described in the
   LFB definition.

6.1.1.1.5  Operation TLVs

   It is assumed that specific operations are identified by the type
   code of the TLV.  And that response are also identified by specific
   TLV opcodes

6.1.1.1.6  SET and GET Relationship

   It is expected that a GET-RESPONSE would satisfy the following
   desires:

   o  it would have exactly the same path definitions as that was sent
      in the GET.  The only difference being a GET-RESPONSE will contain
      DATARAW TLVs.

   o  it should be possible that one would take the same GET-RESPONSE
      and convert it to a SET-REPLACE successfully by merely changing
      the T in the operational TLV.

   o  There are exceptions to this rule:

      1.  When a KEY selector is used  with a path in a GET operation,
          that selector is not returned in the GET-RESPONSE; instead the
          cooked result is returned.  Refer to the examples using KEYS
          to see this.

      2.  When dumping a whole table in a GET, the GET-RESPONSE, merely
          editing the T to be SET will endup overwritting the table.


6.1.2  Protocol Visualization

   The figure below shows a general layout of the PL PDU.  A main header
   is followed by one or more LFB selections each of which may contain
   one or more operation.













Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 31]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   main hdr (Config in this case)
        |
        |
        +--- T = LFBselect
        |        |
        |        +-- LFBCLASSID
        |        |
        |        |
        |        +-- LFBInstance
        |        |
        |        +-- T = SET-CREATE
        |        |   |
        |        |   +--  // one or more path targets
        |        |        // with their data here to be added
        |        |
        |        +-- T  = DEL
        |        .   |
        |        .   +--  // one or more path targets to be deleted
        |
        |
        +--- T = LFBselect
        |        |
        |        +-- LFBCLASSID
        |        |
        |        |
        |        +-- LFBInstance
        |        |
        |        + -- T= SET-REPLACE
        |        |
        |        |
        |        + -- T= DEL
        |        |
        |        + -- T= SET-REPLACE
        |
        |
        +--- T = LFBselect
                |
                +-- LFBCLASSID
                |
                +-- LFBInstance
                .
                .
                .



                         Figure 10: PL PDU layout




Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 32]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   The figure below shows an example general layout of the operation
   within a targetted LFB selection.  The idea is to show the different
   nesting levels a path could take to get to the target path.



        T = SET-CREATE
        |  |
        |  +- T = Path-data
        |       |
        |       + -- flags
        |       + -- IDCount
        |       + -- IDs
        |       |
        |       +- T = Path-data
        |          |
        |          + -- flags
        |          + -- IDCount
        |          + -- IDs
        |          |
        |          +- T = Path-data
        |             |
        |             + -- flags
        |             + -- IDCount
        |             + -- IDs
        |             + -- T = KEYINFO
        |             |    + -- KEY_ID
        |             |    + -- KEY_DATA
        |             |
        |             + -- T = DATARAW
        |                  + -- data
        |
        |
        T = SET-REPLACE
        |  |
        |  +- T = Path-data
        |  |  |
        |  |  + -- flags
        |  |  + -- IDCount
        |  |  + -- IDs
        |  |  |
        |  |  + -- T = DATARAW
        |  |          + -- data
        |  +- T = Path-data
        |     |
        |     + -- flags
        |     + -- IDCount
        |     + -- IDs



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 33]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


        |     |
        |     + -- T = DATARAW
        |             + -- data
        T = DEL
           |
           +- T = Path-data
                |
                + -- flags
                + -- IDCount
                + -- IDs
                |
                +- T = Path-data
                   |
                   + -- flags
                   + -- IDCount
                   + -- IDs
                   |
                   +- T = Path-data
                      |
                      + -- flags
                      + -- IDCount
                      + -- IDs
                      + -- T = KEYINFO
                      |    + -- KEY_ID
                      |    + -- KEY_DATA
                      +- T = Path-data
                           |
                           + -- flags
                           + -- IDCount
                           + -- IDs


                    Figure 11: Sample operation layout


6.2  Core ForCES LFBs

   There are three LFBs that are used to control the operation of the
   ForCES protocol and to interact with FEs and CEs:

      FE protocol LFB

      FE LFB

      CE LFB

   Although these LFBs have the same form and interface as other LFBs,
   they are special in many respects: they have fixed well-known LFB



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 34]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   Class and Instance IDs.  They are statically defined (no dynamic
   instantiation allowed) and their status cannot be changed by the
   protocol: any operation to change the state of such LFBs (for
   instance, in order to disable the LFB) must result in an error.
   Moreover, these LFBs must exist before the first ForCES message can
   be sent or received.  All attributes in these LFBs must have pre-
   defined default values.  Finally, these LFBs do not have input or
   output ports and do not integrate into the intra-FE LFB topology.


6.2.1  FE Protocol LFB

   The FE Protocol LFB is a logical entity in each FE that is used to
   control the ForCES protocol.  The FE Protocol LFB Class ID is
   assigned the value 0x1.  The FE LFB Instance ID is assigned the value
   0x1.  There must always be one and only one instance of the FE
   Protocol LFB in an FE.  The values of the attributes in the FE
   Protocol LFB have pre-defined default values that are specified here.
   Unless explicit changes are made to these values using Config
   messages from the CE, these default values MUST be used for the
   operation of the protocol.

   The formal definition of the FE Protocol LFB can be found in
   Appendix C

   The FE Protocol LFB consists of the following elements:

   o  FE Protocol events that can be subscribed/unsubscribed:

      *  FE heartbeat

      *  FE TML events (TBD)

   o  FE Protocol capabilities (read-only):

      *  Supported ForCES protocol version(s) by the FE

      *  Supported ForCES FE model(s) by the FE

      *  Some TML capability description(s)

   o  FE Protocol attributes (can be read and set):

      *  Current version of the ForCES protocol

      *  Current version of the FE model





Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 35]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


      *  FE unicast ID

      *  FE multicast ID(s) (list)

      *  Association Expiry Timer

      *  Heartbeat Interval

      *  Primary CE

      *  FE failover and restart policy

      *  CE failover and restart policy


6.2.2  FE Object LFB

   The FE Object LFB is a logical entity in each FE and contains
   attributes relative to the FE itself, and not to the operation of the
   ForCES protocol.  The FE LFB Class ID is assigned the value 0x2.  The
   FE LFB Instance ID is assigned the value 0x1.  There must always be
   one and only one instance of the FE LFB in an FE.

   The formal definition of the FE Object LFB can be found in [FE-MODEL]

   The FE LFB consists of the following elements:

      FE Events:

      *  FEAllEvents: subscribing to this corresponds to subscribing to
         all events below

      *  FEStatusChange: events that signal FE Status:

         +  Up

         +  Down

         +  Active

         +  Inactive

         +  Failover

      *  FE DoS alert

      *  FE capability change




Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 36]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


      FE attributes:

      *  FEStatus: to set the FE mode as:

         +  Active

         +  Inactive

         +  Shutdown

      *  FELFBInstancelist

      *  FENeighborList

      *  MIID table: a list of virtual LFB Instance IDs that map to a
         list of Instance IDs of LFBs in that FE

      *  FE Behavior Exp. Timer

      *  HA Mode

      *  FE DoS protection policy

      *  FEPrivateData: Proprietary info such as name, vendor, model.

      *  Inter-FE topology Intra-FE topology


6.2.3  CE LFB

   The CE LFB is a logical entity in each CE and contains attributes
   relative to the CE itself, and not to the operation of the ForCES
   protocol.


   The CE LFB consists of the following elements:

      CE Events:

      *  CEAllEvents: subscribing to this corresponds to subscribing to
         all events listed below.

      *  CEStatusChange: events that signal CE Up/Down/Active/Inactive/
         Failover.







Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 37]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


         Note:  Such events do not necessarily need to be subscribed to,
                they can fire even without subscription and be sent to
                the FE


6.3  Semantics of message Direction

   Recall: The PL protocol provides a master(CE)-Slave(FE) relationship.
   The LFBs reside at the FE and are controlled by CE.

   When messages go from the CE, the LFB Selector (Class and instance)
   refers to the destination LFB selection which resides in the FE.

   When messages go from the FE->CE, the LFB Selector (Class and
   instance) refers to the source LFB selection which resides in the FE.

6.4  Association Messages

   The ForCES Association messages are used to establish and teardown
   associations between FEs and CEs.

6.4.1  Association Setup Message

   This message is sent by the FE to the CE to setup a ForCES
   association between them.  This message could also be used by CEs to
   join a ForCES NE, however CE-to-CE communication is not covered by
   this protocol.


   Message transfer direction:
      FE to CE

   Message Header:
      The Message Type in the header is set MessageType= 'Association
      Setup'.  The ACK flag in the header is ignored, because the setup
      message will always expect to get a response from the message
      receiver (CE) whether the setup is successful or not.  The Src ID
      (FE ID) may be set to O in the header which means that the FE
      would like the CE to assign a FE ID for the FE in the setup
      response message.

   Message body:
      The LFB selection points to the FE Object and more than one FE
      Object attribute may be announced in this message.  The layout
      looks like:


   main hdr (eg type =  Association setup)



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 38]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


     |
     |
     +--- T = LFBselect
     |        |
     |        +-- LFBCLASSID = FE object
     |        |
     |        |
     |        +-- LFBInstance = 0x1
     |        |
     |        +--- T = Operation = SHOW
     |             |
     |             +-- Path-data to one or more attibutes
     |                        including FE NAME
     +--- T = LFBselect
              |
              +-- LFBCLASSID = FE Protocol object
              |
              |
              +-- LFBInstance = 0x1
              |
              +--- T = Operation = SHOW
              |
              +-- Path-data to one or more attibutes
                  including suggested HB parameters


     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

    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |        Type = LFB select      |               Length          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                 LFB Class ID = FE Object                      |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                        LFB Instance ID                        |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |        Type = operation Show  |               Length          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    ~          Attributes path and data                             ~
    ~                                                               ~
    ~                                                               ~
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |        Type = LFB select      |               Length          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                 LFB Class ID = FE  Protocol Object            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                        LFB Instance ID                        |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 39]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


    |        Type = operation Show  |               Length          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    ~                                                               ~
    ~          Attributes path and data                             ~
    ~                                                               ~
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



                                  Figure 12

   Type (16 bits):
      LFB Select

   Length (16 bits):
      Length of the TLV including the T and L fields, in bytes.

   FE Object and Protocol LFBs:
      These contains the FE parameters e.g.  HBI will be exchanged with
      the CE using the FE Protocol LFB.


6.4.2  Association Setup Response Message

   This message is sent by the CE to the FE in response to the Setup
   message.  It indicates to the FE whether the setup is successful or
   not, i.e. whether an association is established.


   Message transfer direction:
       CE to FE

   Message Header:
       The Message Type in the header is set MessageType= 'Setup
       Response'.  The ACK flag in the header is always ignored, because
       the setup response message will never expect to get any more
       response from the message receiver (FE).  The Dst ID in the
       header will be set to some FE ID value assigned by the CE if the
       FE had requested that in the setup message (by SrcID = 0).

   Message body:
       The setup response message body consists of LFBSelect & Result
       TLV, the format of which is as follows:


   main hdr (eg type =  Association setup response)
          |



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 40]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


          |
          |
          +--- T = LFBselect
          |        |
          |        +-- LFBCLASSID = FE object
          |        |
          |        |
          |        +-- LFBInstance = 0x1
          |        |
          |        +--- T = Operation = SHOW
          |             |
          |             +-- Path-data to one or more attibutes
          |                        including FE NAME
          |                        May contain RESULT TLVs
          +--- T = LFBselect
                   |
                   +-- LFBCLASSID = FE Protocol object
                   |
                   |
                   +-- LFBInstance = 0x1
                   |
                   +--- T = Operation = SHOW
                      |
                      +-- Path-data to one or more attibutes
                          eg HB parameters
                          May contain RESULT TLVs


     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

    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |        Type = LFB select      |               Length          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                 LFB Class ID = FE Object                      |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                        LFB Instance ID                        |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |        Type = operation Show  |               Length          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    ~          Attributes path and data                             ~
    ~                                                               ~
    ~                                                               ~
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |        Type = LFB select      |               Length          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                 LFB Class ID = FE  Protocol Object            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 41]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


    |                        LFB Instance ID                        |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |        Type = operation Show  |               Length          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    ~                                                               ~
    ~          Attributes path and data                             ~
    ~                                                               ~
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



                                   Figure 13

   Type (16 bits):
       LFB Select

   Length (16 bits):
       Length of the TLV including the T and L fields, in bytes.

   FE Object LFB:
       The FE parameters e.g.  HBI may be exchanged using this LFB.

   Result (16 bits):
       This indicates whether the setup msg was successful or whether
       the FE request was rejected by the CE.


6.4.3  Association Teardown Message

   This message can be sent by the FE or CE to any ForCES element to end
   its ForCES association with that element.


   Message transfer direction:
       CE to FE, or FE to CE (or CE to CE)

   Message Header:
       The Message Type in the header is set MessageType= "Asso.
       Teardown".  The ACK flag in the header is always ignored, because
       the teardown message will never expect to get any response from
       the message receiver.

   Message body:
       The association teardown message body consists of LFBSelect &
       FEReason TLV, the format of which is as follows:





Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 42]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   main hdr (eg type =  Association tear)
      |
      |
      |
      |
      +--- T = LFBselect
                  |
                  +-- LFBCLASSID = FE object
                  |
                  |
                  +-- LFBInstance = 0x1
                  |
                  +--- T = Operation = FEReason
                  |
                  +-- Path-data to string containing reason


     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

    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |        Type = LFB select      |               Length          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                 LFB Class ID = FE Object                      |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                        LFB Instance ID                        |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |         Type = T.reason       |               Length          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                   Reason                                      |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



                                   Figure 14

   Type (16 bits):
       LFB Select

   Length (16 bits):
       Length of the TLV including the T and L fields, in bytes.

   T.reason (32 bits):
       This indicates the reason why the association is being
       terminated.







Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 43]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


6.5  Configuration Messages

   The ForCES Configuration messages are used by the CEs to configure
   the FEs in a ForCES NE and report the results back to the CE.

6.5.1  Config Message

   This message is sent by the CE to the FE to configure FE or LFB
   attributes.  This message is also used by the CE to subscribe/
   unsubscribe to FE and LFB events.


   Message transfer direction:
       CE to FE

   Message Header:
       The Message Type in the header is set MessageType= 'Config'.  The
       ACK flag in the header is can be used by the CE to turn off any
       response from the FE.  The default behavior is to turn on the ACK
       to get the config response from the FE.

   Message body:
       The Config message body consists of one or more TLVs, the format
       of a single (LFB) TLV is as follows:



























Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 44]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   main hdr (eg type = config)
        |
        |
        +--- T = LFBselect
        |        |
        |        +-- LFBCLASSID = target LFB class
        |        |
        |        |
        |        +-- LFBInstance = target LFB instance
        |        |
        |        |
        |        +-- T = operation { SET, DEL }
        |        |   |
        |        |   +--  // one or more path targets
        |        |        // discussed later
        |        |
        |        +-- T = operation { SET, DEL }
        |        |   |
        |        |   +--  // one or more path targets
        |        |        // discussed later
        |        |
        |        +-- T = operation { SET, DEL }
        |        |   |
        |        |   +--  // one or more path targets
        |        |        // discussed later
        |        |


     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |        Type = LFB select      |               Length          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                          LFB Class ID                         |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                        LFB Instance ID                        |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |     Operation (SET)           |               Length          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    ~                         Config path                           ~
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |           Operations (DEL)    |               Length          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    ~                         Config path                           ~
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 45]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


                                   Figure 15

   Type (16 bits):
       LFB Select.

   Length (16 bits):
       Length of the TLV including the T and L fields, in bytes.

   LFB Class ID (16 bits):
       This field uniquely recognizes the LFB class/type.

   LFB Instance ID (16 bits):
       This field uniquely identifies the LFB instance.

   Type (16 bits):
       The operations include, ADD, DEL, UPDATE/REPLACE, DEL ALL, EVENT
       SUBSCRIBE, EVENT UNSUBSCRIBE, CANCEL.

   Length (16 bits):
       Length of the TLV including the T and L fields, in bytes.

   Config path + Data (variable length):
       This will carry LFB specific data (<path>, presentation
       preliminary found in this doc but still TBD. ).  The config data
       might itself be of the form of a TLV.  Should be noted only a
       CREATE, REPLACE will have data while the rest will only carry
       path information of what to DELete or GET.

       *Note:  FE Activate/Deactivate, Shutdown FE commands for State
              Maintenance will be sent using Config messages.

       *Note:  For Event subscription, the events will be defines by the
              individual LFBs.


6.5.2  Config Response Message

   This message is sent by the FE to the CE in response to the Config
   message.  It indicates whether the Config was successful or not on
   the FE and also gives a detailed response regarding the configuration
   result of each attribute.


   Message transfer direction:
       FE to CE






Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 46]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   Message Header:
       The Message Type in the header is set MessageType= 'Config
       Response'.  The ACK flag in the header is always ignored, because
       the config response message will never expect to get any more
       response from the message receiver (CE).

   Message body:
       The Config response message body consists of one or more TLVs,
       the format of a single TLV is as follows:


      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

    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |        Type = LFB select      |               Length          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                          LFB Class ID                         |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                        LFB Instance ID                        |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |    Operations (SET)           |               Length          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |     Operation Result          |           reserved            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    ~                         Config Result                         ~
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |    Type = Operations (DEL)    |               Length          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |     Operation Result          |           reserved            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    ~                         Config Result                         ~
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                                   Figure 16

   Type (16 bits):
       LFB Select.

   Length (16 bits):
       Length of the TLV including the T and L fields, in bytes.







Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 47]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   LFB Class ID (16 bits):
       This field uniquely recognizes the LFB class/type.

   LFB Instance ID (16 bits):
       This field uniquely identifies the LFB instance.

   Type (16 bits):
       The operations are same as those defined for Config messages.

   Length (16 bits):
       Length of the TLV including the T and L fields, in bytes.

   Operation Result (16 bits):
       This indicates the overall result of the config operation,
       whether it was successful or it failed.

   Config Result (variable length):
       This will carry LFB specific results (single or Array LFB
       specific result entries).  The config result might itself be of
       the form of a TLV.


6.6  Query and Query Response Messages

   The ForCES query and query response messages are used by ForCES
   elements (CE or FE) to query LFBs in other ForCES element(s) Current
   version of ForCES protocol limits the use of the messages only for CE
   to query information of FE.

6.6.1  Query Message

   As usual, a query message is composed of a common header and a
   message body that consists of one or more TLV data format.  Detailed
   description of the message is as below.


   Message transfer direction:
       Current version limits the query message transfer direction only
       from CE to FE.

   Message Header:
       The Message Type in the header is set to MessageType= 'Query'.
       The ACK flag in the header SHOULD be set 'ACKAll', meaning a full
       response for a query message is always expected.  If the ACK flag
       is set other values, the meaning of the flag will then be
       ignored, and a full response will still be returned by message
       receiver.




Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 48]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   Message body:
       The query message body consists of (at least) one or more than
       one TLVs that describe entries to be queried.  The TLV is called
       LFBselect TLV and the data format is as below:


     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |        Type = LFBselect       |               Length          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                          LFB Class ID                         |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                        LFB Instance ID                        |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                        Operation TLV                          |
    .                                                               .
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    ~                           ...                                 ~
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                        Operation TLV                          |
    .                                                               .
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                                   Figure 17



   Operation TLV:
       The Operation TLV for the 'Query' message is formatted as:

    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |    Type = GET                 |               Length          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                        PATH-DATA for GET                      |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                                   Figure 18

   PATH-DATA for GET:
       This is generically a PATH-DATA format that has been defined in
       "Protocol Grammar" section in the PATH-DATA BNF definition, with
       the limitation specifically for GET operation that the PATH-DATA
       here will not allow DATARAW-TLV and RESULT-TLV present in the
       data format, so as to meet the genius of a GET operation.

   To better understand the above PDU format, we can show a tree
   structure for the format as below:



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 49]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   main hdr (type = Query)
        |
        |
        +--- T = LFBselect
        |        |
        |        +-- LFBCLASSID = target LFB class
        |        |
        |        |
        |        +-- LFBInstance = target LFB instance
        |        |
        |        |
        |        +-- T = operation { GET }
        |        |   |
        |        |   +--  // one or more path targets
        |        |        // under discussion
        |        +-- T = operation { GET }
        |        |   |
        |        |   +--  // one or more path targets
        |        |

                                 Figure 19


6.6.2  Query Response Message

   When receiving a query message, the receiver should process the
   message and come up with a query result.  The receiver sends the
   query result back to the message sender by use of the Query Response
   Message.  The query result can be the information being queried if
   the query operation is successful, or can also be error codes if the
   query operation fails, indicating the reasons for the failure.

   A query response message is also composed of a common header and a
   message body consists of one or more TLVs describing the query
   result.  Detailed description of the message is as below.


   Message transfer direction:
       Current version limits the query response message transfer
       direction only from FE to CE.

   Message Header:
       The Message Type in the header is set to MessageType=
       'QueryResponse'.  The ACK flag in the header SHOULD be set
       'NoACK', meaning no further response for a query response message
       is expected.  If the ACK flag is set other values, the meaning of
       the flag will then be ignored.  The Sequence Number in the header
       SHOULD keep the same as that of the query message to be



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 50]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


       responded, so that the query message sender can keep track of the
       responses.

   Message body:
       The message body for a query response message consists of (at
       least) one or more than one TLVs that describe query results for
       individual queried entries.  The TLV is also called LFBselect
       TLV, and has exactly the same data format as query message,
       except the Operation TLV content is different.  The order of the
       TLV here matches the TLVs in the corresponding Query message, and
       the TLV numbers should also keep the same.  The Operation TLV
       here is a 'GET-RESPONSE' TLV and the data is  a 'PATH-DATA'
       format for Query Response Data, as below:

    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |    Type = GET-RESPOSE         |               Length          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                        PATH-DATA for GET-RESPONSE             |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                                   Figure 20

   PATH-DATA for GET-RESPONSE:
       This is generically a PATH-DATA format that has been defined in
       "Protocol Grammar" section in the PATH-DATA BNF definition.  The
       response data will be included in the DATARAW-TLV and/or RESULT-
       TLV inside the PATH-DATA format.


6.7  Event Notification and Response Messages

   The Event Notification Message is used to allow one ForCES element to
   asynchronously notify one or more other ForCES elements in the same
   ForCES NE on events occuring in that ForCES element.  The Event
   Notification Response Message is used for the receiver of the Event
   Notification Message to acknowledge the reception of the event
   notification.

   Events in current ForCES protocol can be categorized into following
   types:

   o  Events happened in CE

   o  Events happened in FE

   Events can also be categorized into two classes according to whether
   they need subscription or not.  An event in one ForCES element that



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 51]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   needs to be subscribed will send notifications to other ForCES
   elements only when the other elements have subscribed to the element
   for the event notification.  How to subscribe/unsubscribe for an
   event is described in the Configure Message section.  An event that
   does not need to be subscribed will always send notifications to
   other ForCES elements when the event happens.  Events will be defined
   in the ForCES FE model XML definitions for LFBs as attributes; i.e
   they will have a path to them that can be used by the config message
   to subscribe to.


6.7.1  Event Notification Message

   As usual, an Event Notification Message is composed of a common
   header and a message body that consists of one or more TLV data
   format.  Detailed description of the message is as below.

   Message Transfer Direction:
      FE to CE, or CE to FE

   Message Header:
      The Message Type in the message header is set to
      MessageType = 'EventNotification'.  The ACK flag in the header can
      be set as: ACK flag ='NoACK'|'SuccessAck'|'UnsuccessACK'|'ACKAll'.
      Note that the 'Success' here only means the receiver of the
      message has successfully received the message.

   Message Body:
      The message body for an event notification message consists of (at
      least) one or more than one TLVs that describe the notified
      events.  The TLV is defined as follows:




















Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 52]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |        Type = LFBselect       |               Length          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                          LFB Class ID                         |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                        LFB Instance ID                        |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                        Operation TLV                          |
    .                                                               .
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    ~                           ...                                 ~
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                        Operation TLV                          |
    .                                                               .
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                                  Figure 21

   Operation TLV:
      This is a TLV that describes the event to be notified, as follows:


   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    OPER = REPORT              |               Length          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        PATH-DATA for REPORT                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                                  Figure 22

   PATH-DATA for REPORT:
      This is generically a PATH-DATA format that has been defined in
      "Protocol Grammar" section in the PATH-DATA BNF definition.  The
      report data will be included in the DATARAW-TLV inside the PATH-
      DATA format.

   To better understand the above PDU format, we can show a tree
   structure for the format as below:











Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 53]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   main hdr (type = Event Notification)
        |
        |
        +--- T = LFBselect
        |        |
        |        +-- LFBCLASSID = target LFB class
        |        |
        |        |
        |        +-- LFBInstance = target LFB instance
        |        |
        |        |
        |        +-- T = operation { REPORT }
        |        |   |
        |        |   +--  // one or more path targets
        |        |        // under discussion
        |        +-- T = operation { REPORT }
        |        |   |
        |        |   +--  // one or more path targets
        |        |


                                 Figure 23


6.7.2  Event Notification Response Message

   After sending out an Event Notification Message, the sender may be
   interested in ensuring that the message has been received by
   receivers, especially when the sender thinks the event notification
   is vital for system management.  An Event Notification Response
   Message is used for this purpose.  The ACK flag in the Event
   Notification Message header are used to signal if such acknowledge is
   requested or not by the sender.

   Detailed description of the message is as below:

   Message Transfer Direction:
      From FE to CE or from CE to FE, just inverse to the direction of
      the Event Notification Message that it responses.

   Message Header:
      The Message Type in the header is set MessageType=
      'EventNotificationResponse'.  The ACK flag in the header SHOULD be
      set 'NoACK', meaning no further response for the message is
      expected.  If the ACK flag is set other values, the meaning of the
      flag will then be ignored.  The Sequence Number in the header
      SHOULD keep the same as that of the message to be responded, so
      that the event notificatin message sender can keep track of the



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 54]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


      responses.

   Message Body:
      The message body for an event notification response message
      consists of (at least) one or more than one TLVs that describe the
      notified events.  The TLV is also called LFBselect TLV, and has
      exactly the same data format as Event Notification Message, except
      the Operation TLV inside is different.  The order of the TLV here
      matches the TLVs in the corresponding Event Message, and the TLV
      numbers should keep the same.  The Operation TLV here is a
      'REPORT-RESPONSE' TLV and the data is  a 'PATH-DATA' format for
      event response data, as below:


    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |    Type = REPORT-RESPONSE     |               Length          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                  PATH-DATA for REPORT-RESPONSE                |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                                  Figure 24

   PATH-DATA for REPORT-RESPONSE:
      This is generically a PATH-DATA format that has been defined in
      "Protocol Grammar" section in the PATH-DATA BNF definition.  The
      response data will be included in the RESULT-TLV inside the PATH-
      DATA format.



6.8  Packet Redirect Message

   Packet redirect message is used to transfer data packets between CE
   and FE.  Usually these data packets are IP packets, though they may
   sometimes associated with some metadata generated by other LFBs in
   the model, or they may occasionally be other protocol packets, which
   usually happen when CE and FE are jointly implementing some high-
   touch operations.  Packets redirected from FE to CE are the data
   packets that come from forwarding plane, and usually are the data
   packets that need high-touch operations in CE,or packets for which
   the IP destination address is the NE.  Packets redirected from CE to
   FE are the data packets that come from the CE and are decided by CE
   to put into forwarding plane in FE.

   Supplying such a redirect path between CE and FE actually leads to a
   possibility of this path being DoS attacked.  Attackers may
   maliciously try to send huge spurious packets that will be redirected



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 55]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   by FE to CE, making the redirect path been congested.  ForCES
   protocol and the TML layer will jointly supply approaches to prevent
   such DoS attack.  To define a specific 'Packet Redirect Message'
   makes TML and CE able to distinguish the redirect messages from other
   ForCES protocol messages.

   By properly configuring related LFBs in FE, a packet can also be
   mirrored to CE instead of purely redirected to CE, i.e., the packet
   is duplicated and one is redirected to CE and the other continues its
   way in the LFB topology.



   The Packet Redirect Message data format is formated as follows:

   Message Direction:
      CE to FE or FE to CE

   Message Header:
      The Message Type in the header is set to MessageType=
      'PacketRedirect'.  The ACK flags in the header SHOULD be set
      'NoACK', meaning no response is expected by this message.  If the
      ACK flag is set other values, the meanings will be ignored.

   Message Body:
      Consists of one or more TLVs, with every TLV having the following
      data format:

    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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |        Type = LFBselect       |               Length          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                          LFB Class ID                         |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                        LFB Instance ID                        |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                        Operation TLV                          |
    .                                                               .
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    ~                           ...                                 ~
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                        Operation TLV                          |
    .                                                               .
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                                  Figure 25




Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 56]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   LFB class ID:
      There are only two possible LFB classes here, the 'RedirectSink'
      LFB or the 'RedirectTap' LFB.  If the message is from FE to CE,
      the LFB class should be 'RedirectSink'.  If the message is from CE
      to FE, the LFB class should be 'RedirectTap'.

   Instance ID:
      Instance ID for the 'RedirectSink' LFB or 'RedirectTap' LFB.

   Operation TLV:
      This is a TLV describing one packet of data to be directed via the
      specified LFB above.  The order of the data number is also the
      order the data packet arrives the redirector LFB, that is, the
      Redirected Data #1 should arrive earlier than the Redirected Data
      #2 in this redirector LFB.  The TLV format is as follows:

    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |    Type = PAYLOAD             |               Length          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                        Path(or Sequence Number?)              |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    ~                        Redirected Data                        ~
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                                  Figure 26

   Path(or Sequence Number?):
      [Under discussion and TBD]

   Type:
      [TBD]

   Redirected Data:
      This field will make a detailed description of the data to be
      redirected as well as the data itself.  The encoding of the
      description is based on the ForCES FE model if the redirector LFB
      is defined by FE model, or based on vendor specifications if the
      redirector LFB is defined by vendors.  The description will
      usually include the name (or the name ID) of the redirected packet
      data (such as 'IPv4 Packet', 'IPv6 Packet'), and the packet data
      itself.  It may also include some metadata (metadata name (or name
      ID) and its value)associated with the redirected data packet.


6.9  Heartbeat Message

   The Heartbeat (HB) Message is used for one ForCES element (FE or CE)
   to asynchronously notify one or more other ForCES elements in the



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 57]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   same ForCES NE on its liveness.

   A Heartbeat Message is sent by a ForCES element periodically.  The
   time interval to send the message is set by the Association Setup
   Message described in Section 6.1.1.  A little different from other
   protocol messages, a Heartbeat message is only composed of a common
   header, withe the message body left empty.  Detailed description of
   the message is as below.

   Message Transfer Direction:
       FE to CE, or CE to FE

   Message Header:
       The Message Type in the message header is set to MessageType =
       'Heartbeat'.  The ACK flag in the header SHOULD be set to
       'NoACK', meaning no response from receiver(s) is expected by the
       message sender.  Other values of the ACK flag will always be
       ignored by the message receiver.

   Message Body:
       The message body is empty for the Heartbeat Message.


6.10  Operation Summary

   The following tables summarize the operations and their applicabiity
   to the messages.

   No Operations for the following messages:

      Assoc-Setup

      Assoc-Setup-Resp

      Assoc-Teardown

      Heartbeat














Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 58]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   +-------------------+-------+------------+--------+-------------+
   |     Operation     | Query | Query-Resp | Config | config-Resp |
   +-------------------+-------+------------+--------+-------------+
   |        Set        |       |            |    X   |      X      |
   |                   |       |            |        |             |
   |       Delete      |       |            |    X   |      X      |
   |                   |       |            |        |             |
   |       Update      |       |            |    X   |      X      |
   |                   |       |            |        |             |
   |        Get        |   X   |      X     |        |             |
   |                   |       |            |        |             |
   |  Event subscribe  |       |            |    X   |      X      |
   |                   |       |            |        |             |
   | Event unsubscribe |       |            |    X   |      X      |
   +-------------------+-------+------------+--------+-------------+

     +-----------+--------------+-------------+------------------+
     | Operation | Packet-Redir | Event-Notif | Event-Notif-Resp |
     +-----------+--------------+-------------+------------------+
     |  Payload  |       X      |             |                  |
     |           |              |             |                  |
     |   Event   |              |      X      |         X        |
     +-----------+--------------+-------------+------------------+




























Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 59]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


7.  Protocol Scenarios

7.1  Association Setup state

   The associations among CEs and FEs are initiated via Association
   setup message from the FE.  If a setup request is granted by the CE,
   a successful setup response message is sent to the FE.  If CEs and
   FEs are operating in an insecure environment then the security
   association have to be established between them before any
   association messages can be exchanged.  The TML will take care of
   establishing any security associations.

   This is followed by capability query, topology query.  When the FE is
   ready to start forwarding data traffic, it sends a FE UP Event
   message to the CE.  The CE responds with a FE ACTIVATE State
   Maintenance message to ask the FE to go active and start forwarding
   data traffic.  At this point the association establishment is
   complete.  These sequences of messages are illustrated in the Figure
   below.
































Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 60]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


           FE PL                  CE PL

             |                       |
             |   Asso Setup Req      |
             |---------------------->|
             |                       |
             |   Asso Setup Resp     |
             |<----------------------|
             |                       |
             |    Capability Query   |
             |<----------------------|
             |                       |
             |      Query Resp       |
             |---------------------->|
             |                       |
             |       Topo Query      |
             |<----------------------|
             |                       |
             |   Topo Query Resp     |
             |---------------------->|
             |                       |
             |       FE UP Event     |
             |---------------------->|
             |                       |
             |  Config-Activate FE   |
             |<----------------------|
             |                       |


     Figure 27: Message exchange between CE and FE to establish an NE
                                association

   On successful completion of this state, the FE joins the NE and is
   moved to the Established State or Steady state.

7.2  Association Established state or Steady State

   In this state the FE is continously updated or queried.  The FE may
   also send asynchronous event notifications to the CE or synchronous
   heartbeat messages.  This continues until a termination (or
   deactivation) is initiated by either the CE or FE.  Figure below
   helps illustrate this state.









Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 61]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


           FE PL                   CE PL

             |                       |
             |    Heart Beat         |
             |<----------------------|
             |                       |
             |   Heart Beat          |
             |---------------------->|
             |                       |
             |  Config-Subscribe Ev  |
             |<----------------------|
             |                       |
             |     Config Resp       |
             |---------------------->|
             |                       |
             |  Config-Add LFB Attr  |
             |<----------------------|
             |                       |
             |     Config Resp       |
             |---------------------->|
             |                       |
             |   Query LFB Stats     |
             |<----------------------|
             |                       |
             |    Query Resp         |
             |---------------------->|
             |                       |
             |    FE Event Report    |
             |---------------------->|
             |                       |
             |  Config-Del LFB Attr  |
             |<----------------------|
             |                       |
             |     Config Resp       |
             |---------------------->|
             |                       |
             |    Packet Redirect    |
             |---------------------->|
             |                       |
             |    Heart Beat         |
             |<----------------------|
             .                       .
             .                       .
             |                       |
             |  Config-Activate FE   |
             |<----------------------|
             |                       |




Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 62]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


     Figure 28: Message exchange between CE and FE during steady-state
                               communication

   Note that the sequence of messages shown in the figure serve only as
   examples and the messages exchange sequences could be different from
   what is shown in the figure.  Also, note that the protocol scenarios
   described in this section do not include all the different message
   exchanges which would take place during failover.  That is described
   in the HA section 8.










































Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 63]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


8.  High Availability Support


   The ForCES protocol provides mechanisms for CE redundancy and
   failover, in order to support High Availability as defined in
   [RFC3654].  FE redundancy and FE to FE interaction is currently out
   of scope of this draft.  There can be multiple redundant CEs and FEs
   in a ForCES NE.  However, at any time there can only be one Primary
   CE controlling the FEs and there can be multiple secondary CEs.  The
   FE and the CE PL are aware of the primary and secondary CEs.  This
   information (primary, secondary CEs) is configured in the FE, CE PLs
   during pre-association by FEM, CEM respectively.  Only the primary CE
   sends Control messages to the FEs.  The FE may send its event
   reports, redirection packets to only the Primary CE (Report Primary
   Mode) or it may send these to both primary and secondary CEs (Report
   All Mode).  (The latter helps with keeping state between CEs
   synchronized, although it does not guarantee synchronization.)  This
   behavior or HA Modes are configured during Association setup phase
   but can be changed by the CE anytime during protocol operation.  A
   CE-to-CE synchronization protocol will be needed in most cases to
   support fast failover, however this will not be defined by the ForCES
   protocol.

   During a communication failure between the FE and CE (which is caused
   due to CE or link reasons, i.e. not FE related), the TML on the FE
   will trigger the FE PL regarding this failure.  This can also be
   detected using the HB messages between FEs and CEs.  The FE PL will
   send a message (Event Report) to the Secondary CEs to indicate this
   failure or the CE PL will detect this and one of the Secondary CEs
   takes over as the primary CE for the FE.  During this phase, if the
   original primary CE comes alive and starts sending any commands to
   the FE, the FE should ignore those messages and send an Event to all
   CEs indicating its change in Primary CE.  Thus the FE only has one
   primary CE at a time.

   An explicit message (Config message- Move command) from the primary
   CE, can also be used to change the Primary CE for an FE during normal
   protocol operation.  In order to support fast failover, the FE will
   establish association (setup msg) as well as complete the capability
   exchange with the Primary as well as all the Secondary CEs (in all
   scenarios/modes).










Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 64]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   These two scenarios (Report All, Report Primary) have been
   illustrated in the figures below.


        FE                   CE Primary         CE Secondary
         |                       |                    |
         | Asso Estb,Caps exchg  |                    |
       1 |<--------------------->|                    |
         |                       |                    |
         |         Asso Estb,Caps|exchange            |
       2 |<----------------------|------------------->|
         |                       |                    |
         |     All msgs          |                    |
       3 |<--------------------->|                    |
         |                       |                    |
         |    packet redirection,|events, HBs         |
       4 |-----------------------|------------------->|
         |                       |                    |
         |                   FAILURE                  |
         |                                            |
         |             Event Report (pri CE down)     |
       5 |------------------------------------------->|
         |                                            |
         |                  All Msgs                  |
       6 |------------------------------------------->|


                Figure 29: CE Failover for Report All mode























Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 65]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


         FE                   CE Primary        CE Secondary
         |                       |                    |
         |  Asso Estb,Caps exchg |                    |
       1 |<--------------------->|                    |
         |                       |                    |
         |         Asso Estb,Caps|exchange            |
       2 |<----------------------|------------------->|
         |                       |                    |
         |       All msgs        |                    |
       3 |<--------------------->|                    |
         |                       |                    |
         |            (HeartBeats| only)              |
       4 |-----------------------|------------------->|
         |                       |                    |
         |                   FAILURE                  |
         |                                            |
         |              Event Report (pri CE down)    |
       5 |------------------------------------------->|
         |                                            |
         |                   All Msgs                 |
       6 |------------------------------------------->|


              Figure 30: CE Failover for Report Primary Mode


8.1  Responsibilities for HA

   TML level - Transport level:

   1.  The TML controls logical connection availability and failover.

   2.  The TML also controls peer HA managements.

   At this level, control of all lower layers, for example transport
   level (such as IP addresses, MAC addresses etc) and associated links
   going down are the role of the TML.

   PL Level:
   All the other functionality including configuring the HA behavior
   during setup, the CEIDs are used to identify primary, secondary CEs,
   protocol Messages used to report CE failure (Event Report), Heartbeat
   messages used to detect association failure, messages to change
   primary CE (config - move), and other HA related operations described
   before are the PL responsibility.

   To put the two together, if a path to a primary CE is down, the TML
   would take care of failing over to a backup path, if one is



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 66]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   available.  If the CE is totally unreachable then the PL would be
   informed and it will take the appropriate actions described before.

















































Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 67]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


9.  Security Considerations

   ForCES architecture identified several [Reference Arch] levels of
   security.  ForCES PL uses security services provided by the ForCES
   TML layer.  TML layer provides security services such as endpoint
   authentication service, message authentication service and
   confidentiality service.  Endpoint authentication service is invoked
   at the time of pre-association connection establishment phase and
   message authentication is performed whenever FE or CE receives a
   packet from its peer.

   Following are the general security mechanism that needs to be in
   place for ForCES PL layer.

   o  Security mechanism are session controlled that is once the
      security is turned ON depending upon the chosen security level (No
      Security, Authentication only, Confidentiality), it will be in
      effect for the entire duration of the session.

   o  Operator should configure the same security policies for both
      primary and backup FE's and CE's (if available).  This will ensure
      uniform operations, and to avoid unnecessary complexity in policy
      configuration.

   o  ForCES PL endpoints SHOULD pre-established connections with both
      primary and backup CE's.  This will reduce the security messages
      and enable rapid switchover operations for HA.


9.1  No Security

   When No security is chosen for ForCES protocol communication, both
   endpoint authentication and message authentication service needs be
   performed by ForCES PL layer.  Both these mechanism are weak and does
   not involve cryptographic operation.  Operator can choose "No
   security" level when the ForCES protocol endpoints are within an
   single box.

   In order to have interoperable and uniform implementation across
   various security levels, each CE and FE endpoint MUST implement this
   level.  The operations that are being performed for "No security"
   level is required even if lower TML security services are being used.

9.1.1  Endpoint Authentication

   Each CE and FE PL layer maintain set of associations list as part of
   configuration.  This is done via CEM and FEM interfaces.  FE MUST
   connect to only those CE's that are configured via FEM similarly CE



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 68]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   should accept the connection and establish associations for the FE's
   which are configured via CEM.  CE should validate the FE identifier
   before accepting the connection during the pre-association phase.

9.1.2  Message authentication

   When CE or FE generates initiates a message, the receiving endpoint
   MUST validate the initiator of the message by checking the common
   header CE or FE identifiers.  This will ensure proper protocol
   functioning.  We recommend this extra step processing even if the
   underlying TLM layer security services.

9.2  ForCES PL and TML security service

   This section is applicable if operator wishes to use the TML security
   services.  ForCES TML layer MUST support one or more security service
   such as endpoint authentication service, message authentication
   service, confidentiality service as part of TML security layer
   functions.  It is the responsibility of the operator to select
   appropriate security service and configure security policies
   accordingly.  The details of such configuration is outside the scope
   of ForCES PL and is depending upon the type of transport protocol,
   nature of connection.

   All these configurations should be done prior to starting the CE and
   FE.

   When certificates-based authentication is being used at TML layer,
   the certificate can use ForCES specific naming structure as
   certificate names and accordingly the security policies can be
   configured at CE and FE.

9.2.1  Endpoint authentication service

   When TML security services are enabled.  ForCES TML layer performs
   endpoint authentication.  Security association is established between
   CE and FE and is transparent to the ForCES PL layer.

   We recommend that FE after establishing the connection with the
   primary CE, should establish the security association with the backup
   CE (if available).  During the switchover operation CE's security
   state associated with each SA's are not transferred.  SA between
   primary CE and FE and backup CE and FE are treated as two separate
   SA's.

9.2.2  Message authentication service

   This is TML specific operation and is transparent to ForCES PL



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 69]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   layer[TML document].

9.2.3  Confidentiality service

   This is TML specific operation and is transparent to ForCES PL
   layer.[TML document]













































Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 70]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


10.  Acknowledgments

   The authors of this draft would like to acknowledge and thank the
   following: Alex Audu, Steven Blake, Allan DeKok, Ellen M. Deleganes,
   Yunfei Guo, Joel M. Halpern, Zsolt Haraszti, Jeff Pickering,
   Guangming Wang, Chaoping Wu, Lily L. Yang, and Alistair Munro for
   their contributions.  We would also like to thank David Putzolu, and
   Patrick Droz for their comments and suggestions on the protocol.











































Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 71]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


11.  References

11.1  Normative References

   [RFC2629]  Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
              June 1999.

   [RFC3654]  Khosravi, H. and T. Anderson, "Requirements for Separation
              of IP Control and Forwarding", RFC 3654, November 2003.

   [RFC3746]  Yang, L., Dantu, R., Anderson, T., and R. Gopal,
              "Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES)
              Framework", RFC 3746, April 2004.

11.2  Informational References

   [ACID]     Haerder, T. and A. Reuter, "Principles of Transaction-
              Orientated Database Recovery", 1983.

   [FE-MODEL]
              Yang, L., Halpern, J., Gopal, R., DeKok, A., Haraszti, Z.,
              and S. Blake, "ForCES Forwarding Element Model",
              Feb. 2005.


Author's Address

   Avri Doria
   ETRI
   Lulea University of Technology
   Lulea
   Sweden

   Phone: +1 401 663 5024
   Email: avri@acm.org
















Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 72]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


Appendix A.  Individual Authors/Editors Contact

      Ligang Dong
      Zhejiang Gongshang University
      149 Jiaogong Road
      Hangzhou  310035
      P.R.China
      Phone: +86-571-88071024
      EMail: donglg@mail.hzic.edu.cn


      Avri Doria
      ETRI
      EMail: avri@acm.org


      Ram Gopal
      Nokia
      5, Wayside Road
      Burlington  MA 01803
      USA
      Phone: 1-781-993-3685
      EMail: ram.gopal@nokia.com


      Robert Haas
      IBM
      Saumerstrasse 4
      8803 Ruschlikon
      Switzerland
      EMail: rha@zurich.ibm.com


      Jamal Hadi Salim
      Znyx
      Ottawa, Ontario
      Canada
      EMail: hadi@znyx.com


      Hormuzd M Khosravi
      Intel
      2111 NE 25th Avenue
      Hillsboro, OR  97124
      USA
      Phone: +1 503 264 0334
      EMail: hormuzd.m.khosravi@intel.com




Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 73]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


      Weiming Wang
      Zhejiang Gongshang University
      149 Jiaogong Road
      Hangzhou  310035
      P.R.China
      Phone: +86-571-88057712
      EMail: wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn












































Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 74]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


Appendix B.  IANA considerations

   tbd
















































Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 75]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


Appendix C.  Forces Protocol LFB schema

   The schema described below conforms to the LFB schema (language?)
   described in Forces Model draft[FE-MODEL]

   <LFBLibrary xmlns="http://ietf.org/forces/1.0/lfbmodel"
     xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
     xsi:schemaLocation=
       "http://ietf.org/forces/1.0/lfbmodel
        file:/home/hadi/xmlj1/lfbmodel.xsd" provides="FEPO">
   <!-- XXX  -->
     <LFBClassDefs>
       <LFBClassDef>
         <name>FEPO</name>
         <id>1</id>
         <synopsis>
            The FE Protocol Object
         </synopsis>
         <version>1.0</version>
         <derivedFrom>baseclass</derivedFrom>
         <events>
          <attribute>
             <name>HBstate</name>
             <id>2</id>
             <synopsis>
                Heartbeat event status(yes/no)
             </synopsis>
             <typeRef>boolean</typeRef>
           </attribute>
         </events>
         <capabilities>
           <capability>
              <name>SupportableVersions</name>
              <id>1</id>
              <synopsis>
                 the table of ForCES versions that FE supports
              </synopsis>
              <array type="variable-size">
               <typeRef>u8</typeRef>
              </array>
           </capability>
         </capabilities>
     <attributes>
           <attribute access="read-write">
             <name>HBI</name>
             <id>3</id>
             <synopsis>Heartbeat Interval in millisecs</synopsis>
             <typeRef>uint32</typeRef>



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 76]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


           </attribute>
           <attribute access="read-write">
             <name>HBDI</name>
             <id>4</id>
             <synopsis>Heartbeat Dead Interval in millisecs</synopsis>
             <typeRef>uint32</typeRef>
           </attribute>
           <attribute access="read-only">
             <name>CurrentRunningVersion</name>
             <id>5</id>
             <synopsis>Currently running ForCES version</synopsis>
             <typeRef>u8</typeRef>
           </attribute>
         </attributes>
       </LFBClassDef>
     </LFBClassDefs>
   </LFBLibrary>


C.1  Events

   At the moment only one event, HBstate, can be subscribed to by the
   CE.

   By subscribing to the HBstate event, the CE infact kicks the FE into
   motion to start issuing heartbeats.

C.2  Capabilities

   At the moment only the SupportableVersions capability is owned by
   this LFB.

   Supportable Versions enumerates all ForCES versions that an FE
   supports.

C.3  Attributes


C.3.1  HBI

   This attribute carries the Heartbeat Interval of the heartbeat from
   the FE -> CE in millisecs.  The value of this interval is by default
   set by the FE but could be overwritten in the association setup by
   the CE.

   TBD (this really belongs in the protocol draft but here for capture
   purposes:




Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 77]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   Define it as simply that the CE and FE must hear from each other at
   the configured interval.  The FE on her side generates a heartbeat
   notification if he has nothing else to say.  In otehr words, The lack
   of any messages from the CE to which the FE responded to after a
   period of HBI will result in a FE firing a HB message.  The lack of
   any message within DeadInterval will force the FE to ask for an ACK
   for its HB message (by setting the ACK flag in the header).

   Other adaptive heartbeats schemes which could be used: have the CE
   adjust the FE timers depending on the number of FEs present.
   Example, its 1 sec for upto 100 FEs and 2 seconds for [101,200] 4
   seconds interval for > 200 nodes etc ...  Some adaptation of this is
   used by mmusic mbus protocol.

C.3.2  HBDI

   This attribute carries the Heartbeat Dead Interval in millisecs.

   TBD:

   The original goal for HBDI was for HA purposes - to discover if the
   CE is still around by sending a heartbeat message to the CE with an
   ACK flag in the mainheader to request for a response.  This hasnt
   been discussed in details yet; however, the general view at the time
   was for the FE to associate (failover) to another CE after that
   deadinterval period of not hearing from the CE - as defined by policy
   which resides in that same LFB definition.  Two such failover
   methodologies are mentiooned briefly infact in the protocol draft but
   since the current attributes are unknown, the details are missing
   from the xml.

C.3.3  CurrentRunningVersion

   This attribute describes which version of ForCES is currently
   running.
















Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 78]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


Appendix D.  Use Cases

   Assume LFB with following attributes for the following use cases.



   foo1, type u32, ID = 1

   foo2, type u32, ID = 2

   table1: type array, ID = 3
           elements are:
           t1, type u32, ID = 1
           t2, type u32, ID = 2  // index into table 2
           KEY: nhkey, ID = 1, V = t2

   table2: type array, ID = 4
           elements are:
           j1, type u32, ID = 1
           j2, type u32, ID = 2
           KEY: akey, ID = 1, V = { j1,j2 }

   table3: type array, ID = 5
           elements are:
           someid, type u32, ID = 1
           name, type string variable sized, ID = 2

   table4: type array, ID = 6
           elements are:
           j1, type u32, ID = 1
           j2, type u32, ID = 2
           j3, type u32, ID = 3
           j4, type u32, ID = 4
           KEY: mykey, ID = 1, V = { j1}

   table5: type array, ID = 7
           elements are:
           p1, type u32, ID = 1
           p2, type array, ID = 2, array elements of type-X

   Type-X:
           x1, ID 1, type u32
           x2, ID2 , type u32
                   KEY: tkey, ID = 1, V = { x1}



   All examples will show an attribute suffixed with "v" or "val" to



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 79]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   indicate the value of the referenced attribute. example for attribute
   foo2, foo1v or foo1value will indicate the value of foo1.  In the
   case where F_SEL** are missing (bits equal to 00) then the flags will
   not show any selection.

   1.   To get foo1


   OPER = GET-TLV
           Path-data TLV: IDCount = 1, IDs = 1
   Result:
   OPER = GET-RESPONSE-TLV
           Path-data-TLV:
                   flags=0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 1
                   DATARAW-TLV L = 4+4, V =  foo1v


   2.   To set foo2 to 10

   OPER = SET-REPLACE-TLV
           Path-data-TLV:
                   flags = 0,  IDCount = 1, IDs = 2
                   DATARAW TLV: L = 4+4, V=10

   Result:
   OPER = SET-RESPONSE-TLV
           Path-data-TLV:
                   flags = 0,  IDCount = 1, IDs = 2
                   RESULT-TLV

   3.   To dump table2

   OPER = GET-TLV
           Path-data-TLV:
                   IDCount = 1, IDs = 4
   Result:
   OPER = GET-RESPONSE-TLV
           Path-data-TLV:
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 4
                   DATARAW=TLV: L = XXX, V=
                           a series of: index, j1value,j2value  entries
                           representing the entire table



   4.   Note: One should be able to take a GET-RESPONSE-TLV and convert
        it to a SET-REPLACE-TLV.  If the result in the above example is
        sent back in a SET-REPLACE-TLV, (instead of a GET-RESPONSE_TLV)



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 80]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


        then the entire contents of the table will be replaced at that
        point.

   5.   Multiple operations Example.  To create entry 0-5 of table2
        (Ignore error conditions for now)














































Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 81]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   OPER = SET-CREATE-TLV
           Path-data-TLV:
                   flags = 0 , IDCount = 1, IDs=4
                   PATH-DATA-TLV
                       flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 0
                       DATARAW-TLV containing j1, j2 value for entry 0
                   PATH-DATA-TLV
                       flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 1
                       DATARAW-TLV containing j1, j2 value for entry 1
                   PATH-DATA-TLV
                       flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 2
                       DATARAW-TLV containing j1, j2 value for entry 2
                   PATH-DATA-TLV
                       flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 3
                       DATARAW-TLV containing j1, j2 value for entry 3
                   PATH-DATA-TLV
                       flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 4
                       DATARAW-TLV containing j1, j2 value for entry 4
                   PATH-DATA-TLV
                       flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 5
                       DATARAW-TLV containing j1, j2 value for entry 5


   Result:
   OPER = SET-RESPONSE-TLV
           Path-data-TLV:
                   flags = 0 , IDCount = 1, IDs=4
                   PATH-DATA-TLV
                       flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 0
                       RESULT-TLV
                   PATH-DATA-TLV
                       flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 1
                       RESULT-TLV
                   PATH-DATA-TLV
                       flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 2
                       RESULT-TLV
                   PATH-DATA-TLV
                       flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 3
                       RESULT-TLV
                   PATH-DATA-TLV
                       flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 4
                       RESULT-TLV
                   PATH-DATA-TLV
                       flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 5
                       RESULT-TLV






Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 82]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   6.   Block operations (with holes) example.  Replace entry 0,2 of
        table2

   OPER = SET-REPLACE-TLV
           Path-data TLV:
                   flags =  0 , IDCount = 1, IDs=4
                   PATH-DATA-TLV
                       flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 0
                       DATARAW-TLV containing j1, j2 value for entry 0
                   PATH-DATA-TLV
                       flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 2
                       DATARAW-TLV containing j1, j2 value for entry 2

   Result:
   OPER = SET-REPLACE-TLV
           Path-data TLV:
                   flags =  0 , IDCount = 1, IDs=4
                   PATH-DATA-TLV
                       flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 0
                       RESULT-TLV
                   PATH-DATA-TLV
                       flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 2
                       RESULT-TLV


   7.   Getting rows example.  Get first entry of table2.

   OPER = GET-TLV
           Path-data TLV:
                   IDCount = 2, IDs=4.0

   Result:
   OPER = GET-RESPONSE-TLV
           Path-data TLV:
                   IDCount = 2, IDs=4.0
                   DATARAW TLV, Length = XXX, V =
                           j1value,j2value entry

   8.   Get entry 0-5 of table2.












Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 83]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   OPER = GET-TLV
           Path-data-TLV:
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs=4
                   PATH-DATA-TLV
                       flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 0
                   PATH-DATA-TLV
                       flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 1
                   PATH-DATA-TLV
                       flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 2
                   PATH-DATA-TLV
                       flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 3
                   PATH-DATA-TLV
                       flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 4
                   PATH-DATA-TLV
                       flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 5


   Result:
   OPER = GET-RESPONSE-TLV
           Path-data-TLV:
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs=4
                   PATH-DATA-TLV
                       flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 0
                       DATARAW-TLV containing j1value j2value
                   PATH-DATA-TLV
                       flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 1
                       DATARAW-TLV containing j1value j2value
                   PATH-DATA-TLV
                       flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 2
                       DATARAW-TLV containing j1value j2value
                   PATH-DATA-TLV
                       flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 3
                       DATARAW-TLV containing j1value j2value
                   PATH-DATA-TLV
                       flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 4
                       DATARAW-TLV containing j1value j2value
                   PATH-DATA-TLV
                       flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 5
                       DATARAW-TLV containing j1value j2value


   9.   Create a row in table2, index 5.









Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 84]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   OPER = SET-CREATE-TLV
           Path-data-TLV:
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 2, IDs=4.5
                   DATARAW TLV, Length = XXX
                           j1value,j2value

   Result:
   OPER = SET-RESPONSE-TLV
           Path-data TLV:
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs=4.5
                   RESULT-TLV


   10.  An example of "create and give me an index" Assuming we asked
        for verbose response back in the main message header.


   OPER = SET-CREATE-TLV
           Path-data -TLV:
                   flags = FIND-EMPTY, IDCount = 1, IDs=4
                   DATARAW TLV, Length = XXX
                           j1value,j2value

   Result
   If 7 were the first unused entry in the table:
   OPER = SET-RESPONSE
           Path-data TLV:
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 2, IDs=4.7
                   RESULT-TLV indicating success, and
                           DATARAW-TLV, Length = XXX j1value,j2value


   11.  Dump contents of table1.


   OPER = GET-TLV
           Path-data TLV:
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs=3

   Result:
   OPER = GET-RESPONSE-TLV
           Path-data TLV
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs=3
                   DATARAW TLV, Length = XXXX
                           (depending on size of table1)
                           index, t1value, t2value
                           index, t1value, t2value
                           .



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 85]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


                           .
                           .


   12.  Using Keys.  Get row entry from table4 where j1=100.  Recall, j1
        is a defined key for this table and its keyid is 1.




   OPER = GET-TLV
           Path-data-TLV:
                   flags = F_SELKEY  IDCount = 1, IDs=6
                   KEYINFO-TLV = KEYID=1, KEY_DATA=100

   Result:
   If j1=100 was at index 10
   OPER = GET-RESPONSE-TLV
           Path-data TLV:
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs=6.10
                   DATARAW TLV, Length = XXXX
                           j1value,j2value, j3value, j4value


   13.  Delete  row with KEY match (j1=100, j2=200) in table 2.  Note
        that the j1,j2 pair are a defined key for the table 2.


   OPER = DEL-TLV
           Path-data TLV:
                   flags = F_SELKEY  IDCount = 1, IDs=4
                   KEYINFO TLV:  {KEYID =1 KEY_DATA=100,200}

   Result:
   If (j1=100, j2=200) was at entry 15:
   OPER = DELETE-RESPONSE-TLV
           Path-data TLV:
                   flags = 0  IDCount = 2, IDs=4.15
                   RESULT-TLV (with DATARAW if verbose)


   14.  Dump contents of table3.  It should be noted that this table has
        a column with element name that is variable sized.  The purpose
        of this use case is to show how such an element is to be
        encoded.






Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 86]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   OPER = GET-TLV
           Path-data-TLV:
                   flags = 0 IDCount = 1, IDs=5

   Result:
   OPER = GET-RESPONSE-TLV
        Path-data TLV:
           flags = 0  IDCount = 1, IDs=5
               DATARAW TLV, Length = XXXX
                   index, someidv, TLV: T=DATARAW, L = 4+strlen(namev),
                          V = namev
                   index, someidv, TLV: T=DATARAW, L = 4+strlen(namev),
                          V = namev
                   index, someidv, TLV: T=DATARAW, L = 4+strlen(namev),
                          V = namev
                   index, someidv, TLV: T=DATARAW, L = 4+strlen(namev),
                          V = namev
                   .
                   .
                   .


   15.  Multiple atomic operations.

   16.  Note: This emulates adding a new nexthop entry and then
        atomically updating the L3 entries pointing to an old NH to
        point to a new one.  The assumption is both tables are in the
        same LFB

   17.  Main header has atomic flag set and we are request for verbose/
        full results back; Two operations on the LFB instance, both are
        SET operations.



















Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 87]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   //Operation 1: Add a new entry to table2 index #20.
   OPER = SET-CREATE-TLV
           Path-TLV:
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 2,  IDs=4.20
                   DATARAW TLV, V= j1value,j2value

   // Operation 2: Update table1 entry which
   // was pointing with t2 = 10 to now point to 20
   OPER = SET-REPLACE-TLV
           Path-data-TLV:
                   flags = F_SELKEY, IDCount = 1, IDs=3
                   KEYINFO = KEYID=1 KEY_DATA=10
                   Path-data-TLV
                           flags = 0  IDCount = 1, IDs=2
                           DATARAW TLV, V= 20

   Result:
   //first operation, SET
   OPER = SET-RESPONSE-TLV
           Path-data-TLV
                   flags = 0 IDCount = 3, IDs=4.20
                   RESULT-TLV code = success
                           DATARAW TLV, V = j1value,j2value
   // second opertion SET - assuming entry 16 was updated
   OPER = SET-RESPONSE-TLV
           Path-data TLV
                   flags = 0 IDCount = 2, IDs=3.16
                   Path-Data TLV
                           flags = 0  IDCount = 1, IDs = 2
                           SET-RESULT-TLV code = success
                                   DATARAW TLV, Length = XXXX v=20
   // second opertion SET
   OPER = SET-RESPONSE-TLV
           Path-data TLV
                   flags = 0 IDCount = 1, IDs=3
                   KEYINFO = KEYID=1 KEY_DATA=10
                   Path-Data TLV
                           flags = 0  IDCount = 1, IDs = 2
                           SET-RESULT-TLV code = success
                                   DATARAW TLV, Length = XXXX v=20



   18.  Selective setting (Example posted by Weiming).  On table 4 --
        for indices 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9.  Replace j1 to 100, j2 to 200, j3
        to 300.  Leave j4 as is.

   PER = SET-REPLACE-TLV



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 88]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


       Path-data TLV
           flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 6
           Path-data TLV
               flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 1
               Path-data TLV
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 1
                   DATARAW TLV, Length = XXXX, V = {100}
               Path-data TLV
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 2
                   DATARAW TLV, Length = XXXX, V = {200}
               Path-data TLV
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 3
                   DATARAW TLV, Length = XXXX, V = {300}
           Path-data TLV
               flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 3
               Path-data TLV
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 1
                   DATARAW TLV, Length = XXXX, V = {100}
               Path-data TLV
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 2
                   DATARAW TLV, Length = XXXX, V = {200}
               Path-data TLV
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 3
                   DATARAW TLV, Length = XXXX, V = {300}
           Path-data TLV
               flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 5
               Path-data TLV
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 1
                   DATARAW TLV, Length = XXXX, V = {100}
               Path-data TLV
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 2
                   DATARAW TLV, Length = XXXX, V = {200}
               Path-data TLV
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 3
                   DATARAW TLV, Length = XXXX, V = {300}
           Path-data TLV
               flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 7
               Path-data TLV
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 1
                   DATARAW TLV, Length = XXXX, V = {100}
               Path-data TLV
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 2
                   DATARAW TLV, Length = XXXX, V = {200}
               Path-data TLV
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 3
                   DATARAW TLV, Length = XXXX, V = {300}
           Path-data TLV
               flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 9



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 89]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


               Path-data TLV
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 1
                   DATARAW TLV, Length = XXXX, V = {100}
               Path-data TLV
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 2
                   DATARAW TLV, Length = XXXX, V = {200}
               Path-data TLV
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 3
                   DATARAW TLV, Length = XXXX, V = {300}


   Non-verbose response mode shown:

   OPER = SET-RESPONSE-TLV
       Path-data TLV
           flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 6
           Path-data TLV
               flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 1
               Path-data TLV
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 1
                   RESULT-TLV
               Path-data TLV
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 2
                   RESULT-TLV
               Path-data TLV
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 3
                   RESULT-TLV
           Path-data TLV
               flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 3
               Path-data TLV
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 1
                   RESULT-TLV
               Path-data TLV
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 2
                   RESULT-TLV
               Path-data TLV
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 3
                   RESULT-TLV
           Path-data TLV
               flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 5
               Path-data TLV
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 1
                   RESULT-TLV
               Path-data TLV
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 2
                   RESULT-TLV
               Path-data TLV
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 3



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 90]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


                   RESULT-TLV
           Path-data TLV
               flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 7
               Path-data TLV
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 1
                   RESULT-TLV
               Path-data TLV
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 2
                   RESULT-TLV
               Path-data TLV
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 3
                   RESULT-TLV
           Path-data TLV
               flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 9
               Path-data TLV
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 1
                   RESULT-TLV
               Path-data TLV
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 2
                   RESULT-TLV
               Path-data TLV
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs = 3
                   RESULT-TLV

   19.  Manipulation of table of table examples.  Get x1 from table10
        row with index 4, inside table5 entry 10


   operation = GET-TLV
           Path-data-TLV
                   flags = 0  IDCount = 5, IDs=7.10.2.4.1

   Results:
   operation = GET-RESPONSE-TLV
           Path-data-TLV
                   flags = 0  IDCount = 5, IDs=7.10.2.4.1
                   DATARAW TLV: L=XXXX, V = {x1 value}


   20.  From table5's row 10 table10, get X2s based on on the value of
        x1 equlaing 10 (recal x1 is KeyID 1)










Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 91]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   operation = GET-TLV
           Path-data-TLV
                   flag = F_SELKEY, IDCount=3, IDS = 7.10.2
                   KEYINFO TLV, KEYID = 1, KEYDATA = 10
                   Path-data TLV
                           IDCount = 1, IDS = 2 //select x2

   Results:
   If x1=10 was at entry 11:
   operation = GET-RESPONSE-TLV
           Path-data-TLV
                   flag = 0, IDCount=5, IDS = 7.10.2.11
                   Path-data TLV
                           flags = 0  IDCount = 1, IDS = 2
                           DATARAW TLV: L=XXXX, V = {x2 value}


   21.  Further example of table of table


   Consider table 6 which is defined as:
   table6: type array, ID = 8
           elements are:
           p1, type u32, ID = 1
           p2, type array, ID = 2, array elements of type type-A

   type-A:
           a1, type u32, ID 1,
           a2, type array ID2 ,array elements of type type-B

   type-B:
           b1, type u32, ID 1
           b2, type u32, ID 2

   So lets say we wanted to set by replacing:
   table6.10.p1 to 111
   table6.10.p2.20.a1 to 222
   table6.10.p2.20.a2.30.b1 to 333

   in one message and one operation.

   There are two ways to do this:
   a) using nesting

   operation = SET-REPLACE-TLV
           Path-data-TLV
                   flags = 0  IDCount = 2, IDs=6.10
                   Path-data-TLV



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 92]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


                           flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs=1
                           DATARAW TLV: L=XXXX,
                                   V = {111}
                   Path-data-TLV
                           flags = 0  IDCount = 2, IDs=2.20
                           Path-data-TLV
                                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs=1
                                   DATARAW TLV: L=XXXX,
                                           V = {222}
                           Path-data TLV :
                                   flags = 0, IDCount = 3, IDs=2.30.1
                                   DATARAW TLV: L=XXXX,
                                           V = {333}
   Result:
   operation = SET-RESPONSE-TLV
           Path-data-TLV
                   flags = 0  IDCount = 2, IDs=6.10
                   Path-data-TLV
                           flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs=1
                           RESULT-TLV
                   Path-data-TLV
                           flags = 0  IDCount = 2, IDs=2.20
                           Path-data-TLV
                                   flags = 0, IDCount = 1, IDs=1
                                   RESULT-TLV
                           Path-data TLV :
                                   flags = 0, IDCount = 3, IDs=2.30.1
                                   RESULT-TLV
   b) using a flat path data
   operation = SET-REPLACE-TLV
           Path-data TLV :
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 3, IDs=6.10.1
                   DATARAW TLV: L=XXXX,
                           V = {111}
           Path-data TLV :
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 5, IDs=6.10.1.20.1
                   DATARAW TLV: L=XXXX,
                           V = {222}
           Path-data TLV :
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 7, IDs=6.10.1.20.1.30.1
                   DATARAW TLV: L=XXXX,
                           V = {333}
   Result:
   operation = SET-REPLACE-TLV
           Path-data TLV :
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 3, IDs=6.10.1
                   RESULT-TLV
           Path-data TLV :



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 93]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


                   flags = 0, IDCount = 5, IDs=6.10.1.20.1
                   RESULT-TLV
           Path-data TLV :
                   flags = 0, IDCount = 7, IDs=6.10.1.20.1.30.1
                   RESULT-TLV


   22.  Get a whole LFB (all its attributes etc).

   23.  For example, at startup a CE might well want the entire FE
        OBJECT LFB.  So, in a request targetted at class 1, instance 1,
        one might find:


   operation = GET-TLV
           Path-data-TLV
                   flags = 0  IDCount = 0

   result:
   operation = GET-RESPONSE-TLV
           Path-data-TLV
                   flags = 0  IDCount = 0
                   DATARAW encoding of the FE Object LFB




























Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 94]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


Appendix E.  Implementation Notes

E.1  TML considerations

   Having separated the PL from the TML layer, it became clear that the
   TML layer needed to understand the desires of the PL layer to service
   it.  Example: How does the TML layer map prioritization or
   reliability needs of a PL message?  To see the challenge involved,
   assume that all of the FE TML, FE PL, CE TML and CE PL are
   implemented by different authors probably belonging to different
   organizations.  Three implementation alternatives were discussed.

   As an example, consider a TML which defines that PL messages needing
   reliability get sent over a TCP connection; then TML-PL interfaces
   are:

   o  PL to call a special API: example send_reliable(msg) which is
      translated by the TML to mean send via TCP.

   o  PL to call a generic API: example send(msg) with explicit msg
      flags turned to say "reliability needed" and the TML translates
      this to mean send via TCP.

   o  PL sends the Forces Messages such a message is inferred to mean
      send via TCP by the TML.

   in #1 and #2 the msg includes a ForCES msg with metadata flags which
   ar consumed by the TML layer.

   #3 is a technique that will be referred as inference-by-TML
   technique.  It simplifies the standardization effort since both #1
   and #2 will require standardization of an API.  Two ideas discussed
   for TML inference of PL messages are:

   1.  Looking at the flags in the header.

   2.  Looking at the message type.

   #1 and #2 can still be used if a single organization implements both
   (PL and TML) layers.  It is also reasonable that one organization
   implements the TML and provides an abstraction to another
   organization to implement a PL layer on.

E.1.1  PL Flag inference by TML

   1.  Reliability
       This could be "signalled" from the PL to the TML via the ACK
       flag.  The message type as well could be used to indicate this.



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 95]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


   2.  No reliability
       Could be signalled via missing ACK flag.  The message type as
       well could be used to indicate this.

   3.  Priorities
       A remapping to be defined via the FEM or the CEM interface
       depending on the number of TML priorities available.

   4.  Addressing
       This is TML specific.  For example a TML that is capable of
       multicast transport may map a multicast PL ID to a multicast
       transport address.

   5.  Event notifications
       The TML must be able to send to the PL notifications.

       1.  The TML should be able to send Transport level congestion
           notifications to the PL.

       2.  Link events for HA purposes if configuration requires it

       3.  Events that will trigger PL layer events from the TML.
           As an example, an HA event at the TML layer like a failure of
           CE detected at TML on the FE may belong to this.  In this
           case, a PL event msg will be triggered and sent to CE.

       4.  Events that are intrinsic to the same CE or FE a TML is
           located.  These will not trigger any PL msg, instead, they
           just act as notification to PL core (FE object).  The
           congestion event generated at the transmission source side
           may belong to this, because it usually only needs to tell the
           upper PL at the same side rather than the opposite side that
           congestion has happened along the path.  E.g., a congestion
           event at CE TML layer only need to tell CE PL of this, rather
           than the opposite FE via a PL msg.


E.1.2  Message type inference to Mapping at the TML

   In this case one would define the desires of the different message
   types and what they expect from the TML.  For example:

   1.  Association Setup, Teardown, Config, Query the PL will expect the
       following services from TML: Reliable delivery and highest
       prioritization.

   2.  Packet Redirect, HB Message Types, and  Event Reports the PL will
       require the following services from TML: Medium Prioritization,



Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 96]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


       and notifications when excessive losses are reached.


















































Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 97]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


Appendix F.  changes between -02 and -03

   1.  Remove most all editorial notes and replaced them with entries in
       tracker.

   2.  Marked TBD with tracker issue number

   3.  In section on config message replaced GET in the example figures
       to SET

   4.  ISSUE: 12 - replaced Command with Message type in Common Header

   5.  ISSUE: 12 - in Data Packing Rules replaced 'sans' with 'without
       the'

   6.  Removed an uncountably large multitude of tabs that were making
       xml2rfc-1.29 choke

   7.  fixed many nits
































Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 98]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


Appendix G.  Changes between -01 and -02

   1.   Renamed definitions.xml to Definitions.xml

   2.   Added Alistair Munro to acks list.

   3.   path-data additions + full BNF conformant to RFC 2234

   4.   Appendix C with examples. #3 and #4 are the biggest changes
        incorporate many many days of discussion.

   5.   appendix with beginings of FE protocol LFB xml.  The FE Object
        is referenced as being in the Model draft

   6.   Some cosmetic things like:

        1.  For readability, introducing section 'protocol construction'
            which now encapsulates 'Protocol Messages' (which used to be
            a top section)

        2.  A new subsection "protocol grammar' goes underneath the same
            section.

        3.  added TLV definition subsection

        4.  Many new "editorial notes"

   7.   Closure of all but one outstanding issue from the tracker.

   8.   Any other cosmetic changes posted (Hormuzd, David, Robert,
        Avri).

   9.   Rearranged text a little to introduce new sections to make text
        more readable

   10.  Rewrote the atomicity section (still under construction input
        text on ACID from Robert and Alistair)

   11.  fixed up the model reference to have all authors and added acid
        reference

   12.  Weiming's updates to query and event msgs to add path-data.









Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005               [Page 99]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


Appendix H.  Changes between -00 and -01

   1.  Major Protocol changes

       *  Restructured message format to apply operation to LFB as
          opposed to having operation be the primary organizing
          principle

       *  Worked with model team to bring the draft into harmony with
          their model approach

   2.  Document changes

       *  Replaced FE protocol Object and FE Object sections with
          combined section on FE, CE and FE protocol LFBs

       *  Removed minor version id

       *  Added Header flags

       *  Added BNF description of message structure

       *  Added tree structure description of PDUs

       *  Added section on each type of LFB

       *  Added structural description of each message

       *  Moved query messages section to come after config message
          section

       *  Replace state maintenance section

       *  Added section with tables showing the operations relevant to
          particular messages

       *  Reworked HA section

       *  Many spelling and grammatical corrections












Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005              [Page 100]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


Intellectual Property Statement

   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 procedures with respect to rights in RFC 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-ipr@ietf.org.

   The IETF has been notified of intellectual property rights claimed in
   regard to some or all of the specification contained in this
   document.  For more information consult the online list of claimed
   rights.


Disclaimer of Validity

   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.


Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).  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.





Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005              [Page 101]

Internet-Draft                   ForCES                        June 2005


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.















































Doria (editor)          Expires December 9, 2005              [Page 102]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/