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

Versions: 00 01 02

Network Working Group                                           B. Cheng
Internet-Draft                                                D. Wiggins
Intended status: Standards Track                  MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Expires: May 22, 2020                                          L. Berger
                                                 LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
                                                       November 19, 2019


                 DLEP Traffic Classification Data Item
            draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-02

Abstract

   This document defines a new Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)
   Data Item that is used to support traffic classification.  Traffic
   classification information is used to identify traffic flows based on
   frame/packet content such as destination address.  The Data Item is
   defined in an extensible and reusable fashion.  It's use will be
   mandated in other documents defining specific DLEP extensions.  This
   document aloas introduces DLEP sub data items, and sub data items are
   defined to support DiffServ and Ethernet traffic classification.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 22, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents



Cheng, et al.             Expires May 22, 2020                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft         DLEP Traffic Classification         November 2019


   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Traffic Classification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Traffic Classification Data Item  . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.1.1.  Traffic Classification Sub Data Item  . . . . . . . .   6
     2.2.  DiffServ Traffic Classification Sub Data Item . . . . . .   7
       2.2.1.  Router Receive Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.3.  Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub Data Item . . . . . .   8
       2.3.1.  Router Receive Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   3.  Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.1.  Data Item Values  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.2.  DLEP Traffic Classification Sub Data Item Registry  . . .  11
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction

   The Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) is defined in [RFC8175].
   It provides the exchange of link related control information between
   DLEP peers.  DLEP peers are comprised of a modem and a router.  DLEP
   defines a base set of mechanisms as well as support for possible
   extensions.  DLEP defines Data Items which are sets of information
   that can be reused in DLEP messaging.  The base DLEP specification
   does not include any flow identification beyond DLEP endpoints.  This
   document defines DLEP Data Item formats which provide flow
   identification on a more granular basis.  Specifically it enables
   traffic sent by a router to use traffic flow classification
   information provided by the modem to identify which traffic flows.
   In this case, a flow is identified based on information found in a
   data plane header and one or more matches are associated with a
   single flow.  (For general background on traffic classification see
   [RFC2475] Section 2.3.)  Credit windows may be shared or dedicated on
   a per flow basis.  The Data Item is structured to allow for reuse of
   the defined traffic classification information with applications such




Cheng, et al.             Expires May 22, 2020                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft         DLEP Traffic Classification         November 2019


   as credit window control, such as found in
   [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension]

   This document defines traffic classification based on a DLEP
   destination and flows identified by either DiffServ [RFC2475] DSCPs
   (differentiated services codepoints) or IEEE 802.1Q
   [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] Ethernet Priority Code Points (PCP).  The defined
   mechanism allows for flows to be described in a flexible fashion and
   when combined with applications such as credit window control, allows
   credit windows to be shared across traffic sent to multiple DLEP
   destinations and flows, or used exclusively for traffic sent to a
   particular destination and/or flow.  The extension also supports the
   "wildcard" matching of any flow (DSCP or PCP).  Traffic
   classification information is provided such that it can be readily
   extended to support other traffic classification techniques, or be
   used by non-credit window related extensions, such as
   [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-pause-extension] or even 5-tuple IP flows.

   This document defines support for traffic classification using a
   single new Data Item in Section 2.1 for general support and two new
   sub Data Items are defined to support identification of flows based
   on DSCPs and PCPs.

1.1.  Key Words

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.  Traffic Classification

   The Traffic Classification Data Item is used to represent a list of
   flows that may be used at the same time for traffic sent from a
   router to a modem.  The data plane information used to identify each
   flow is represented in a separate sub Data Item.  The Data Item and
   Sub Data Item structure is intended to be independent of any specific
   usage of the flow identification, e.g., flow control.  The Sub Data
   Item structure is also intended to allow for future traffic
   classification types, e.g., 5-tuple flows.  While the structure of
   the Data Items is extensible, actual flow information is expected to
   be used in an extension dependent manner.  Support for DSCP and PCP-
   based flows are defined via individual sub Data Items below.  Other
   types of flow identification, e.g., based on IP protocol and ports,
   may be defined in the future via new sub Data Items.





Cheng, et al.             Expires May 22, 2020                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft         DLEP Traffic Classification         November 2019


   The list of flows contained in the Data Item can be used per sender
   or shared across multiple senders.  Each list of flows is identified
   using a "Traffic Classification Identifier" or "TID" and is expected
   to represent a valid combination of data plane identifiers that may
   be used at the same time.  Each flow is identified via a "Flow
   Identifier" or "FID".  Each FID is defined in a sub Data Item which
   carries the data plane identifier or identifiers used to associate
   traffic with the flow.  A DLEP destination address is also needed to
   complete traffic classification information used in extensions such
   as flow control.  This information is expected to be provided in an
   extension specific manner.  For example, this address can be provided
   by a modem when it identifies the traffic classification set in a
   Destination Up Message using the Credit Window Associate Data Item
   defined in [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control].  The scope of
   TID and FID values is a modem.

2.1.  Traffic Classification Data Item

   This sections defines the Traffic Classification Data Item.  This
   Data Item is used by a modem to provide a router with traffic
   classification information.  When an extension requires use of this
   Data Item the Traffic Classification Data Item SHOULD be included by
   a modem in any Session Initialization Response Message, e.g., see
   [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension].  Updates to previously
   provided traffic classifications or new traffic classifications MAY
   be sent by a modem by including the Data Item in Session Update
   Messages.  More than one Data Item MAY be included in a message to
   provide information on multiple traffic classifiers.

   The set of traffic classification information provided in the data
   item is identified using a Traffic Classification Identifier, or TID.
   The actual data plane related information used in traffic
   classification is provided in a variable list of Traffic
   Classification Sub Data Items.

   The format of the Traffic Classification Data Item is:















Cheng, et al.             Expires May 22, 2020                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft         DLEP Traffic Classification         November 2019


        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       | Data Item Type                | Length                        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |Traffic Class. Identifier (TID)|   Num SDIs    |   Reserved    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |           Traffic Classification Sub Data Item 1              |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       :                                ...                            :
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |           Traffic Classification Sub Data Item n              |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Data Item Type:  TBA1

   Length:  Variable

      Per [RFC8175] Length is the number of octets in the Data Item,
      excluding the Type and Length fields.

    Traffic Classification Identifier (TID):

      A 16-bit unsigned integer identifying a traffic classification
      set.  There is no restriction on values used by a modem, and there
      is no requirement for sequential or ordered values.

   Num SDIs:

      An 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the number of Traffic
      Classification Sub Data Items included in the Data Item.  A value
      of zero (0) is allowed and indicates that no traffic should be
      matched against this TID.

   Reserved:

      MUST be set to zero by the sender (a modem) and ignored by the
      receiver (a router).

   Traffic Classification Sub Data Item:

      Zero or more Traffic Classification Sub Data Items of the format
      defined below MAY be included.  The number MUST match the value
      carried in the Num SDIs field.

   A router receiving the Traffic Classification Data Item MUST locate
   the traffic classification information that is associated with the
   TID indicated in each received Data Item.  If no associated traffic



Cheng, et al.             Expires May 22, 2020                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft         DLEP Traffic Classification         November 2019


   classification information is found, the router MUST initialize a new
   information set using the values carried in the Data Item.  When
   associated traffic classification information is found, the router
   MUST update the information using the values carried in the Data
   Item.  In both cases, a router MUST also ensure that any data plane
   state, e.g., [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control], that is
   associated with the TID is updated as needed.

2.1.1.  Traffic Classification Sub Data Item

   All Traffic Classification Sub Data Items share a common format that
   is patterned after the standard DLEP Data Item format, see [RFC8175]
   Section 11.3.  There is no requirement on, or meaning to sub Data
   Item ordering.  Any errors or inconsistencies encountered in parsing
   sub Data Items are handled in the same fashion as any other Data Item
   parsing error encountered in DLEP.

   The format of the Traffic Classification Sub Data Item is:

        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       | Sub Data Item Type            | Length                        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                           Value...                            :
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Sub Data Item Type:

      A 16-bit unsigned integer that indicates the type and
      corresponding format of the Sub Data Item's Value field.  Sub Data
      Item Types are scoped within the Data Item in which they are
      carried, i.e., the Sub Data Item Type field MUST be used together
      with the Traffic Classification Data Item Type to identify the
      format of the Sub Data Item.  Traffic Classification Sub Data Item
      Types are managed according to the IANA registry described in
      Section 5.2.

   Length:  Variable

      Copying [RFC8175], Length is a 16-bit unsigned integer that is the
      number of octets in the sub Data Item, excluding the Type and
      Length fields.








Cheng, et al.             Expires May 22, 2020                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft         DLEP Traffic Classification         November 2019


2.2.  DiffServ Traffic Classification Sub Data Item

   The DiffServ Traffic Classification Sub Data Item is used to identify
   the set of DSCPs that should be treated as a single flow, i.e.,
   receive the same traffic treatment.  DSCPs are identified in a list
   of DiffServ fields.  An implementation that does not support DSCPs
   and wants the same traffic treatment for all traffic to a destination
   or destinations would indicate 0 DSCPs.

   The format of the DiffServ Traffic Classification Sub Data Item is:

        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       | Must be one (1)               | Length                        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       | Flow Identifier (FID)         |   Num DSCPs   |   DS Field 1  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |   DS Field 2  |      ...      |   DS Field n  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Length:  Variable

      Length is defined above.  For this Sub Data Item, it is equal to
      three (3) plus the value of the Num DSCPs field.

   Flow Identifier (FID):

      A 16-bit unsigned integer representing the data plane information
      carried in the sub Data Item that is to be used in identifying a
      flow.  The value of 0xFFFF is reserved and MUST NOT be used in
      this field.

   Num DSCPs:

      An 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the number of DSCPs carried
      in the sub Data Item.  A zero (0) indicates a (wildcard) match
      against any DSCP value.

   DS Field:

      Each DS Field is an 8-bit whose definition is the same as
      [RFC2474].








Cheng, et al.             Expires May 22, 2020                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft         DLEP Traffic Classification         November 2019


               0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7
             +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
             |         DSCP          |  CU   |
             +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

               DSCP: differentiated services codepoint
               CU:   currently unused, MUST be zero

2.2.1.  Router Receive Processing

   A router receiving the Traffic Classification Sub Data Item MUST
   validate the information on receipt, prior to using the carried
   information, including potentially updating the data behavior as
   determined by the extension requiring the use of the Sub Data Item.
   Validation failures MUST be treated as an error as described above.

   Once validated, the receiver MUST ensure that each DS Field value is
   listed only once across the whole Traffic Classification Data Item.
   Note, this check is across the Data Item and not the individual sub
   Data Item.  If the same DS Field value is listed more than once
   within the same Traffic Classification Data Item, the Data Item MUST
   be treated as an error as described above.

2.3.  Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub Data Item

   The Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub Data Item is used to identify
   the VLAN and PCPs that should be treated as a single flow, i.e.,
   receive the same traffic treatment.  Ethernet Priority Code Point
   support is defined as part of the IEEE 802.1Q [IEEE.802.1Q_2014] tag
   format and includes a 3 bit "PCP" field.  The tag format also
   includes a 12 bit VLAN identifier (VID) field.  PCPs are identified
   in a list of priority fields.  An implementation that does not
   support PCPs and wants the same traffic treatment for all traffic to
   a destination or destinations would indicate 0 PCPs.  Such an
   implementation could identify a VLAN to use per destination.

   The format of the Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub Data Item is:

       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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       | Must be two (2)               | Length                        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       | Flow Identifier (FID)         |NumPCPs| VLAN Identifier (VID) |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       | Pri. 1| Pri. 2| ..... | ..... | ..... |  Pad  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+




Cheng, et al.             Expires May 22, 2020                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft         DLEP Traffic Classification         November 2019


   Length:  Variable

      Length is defined above.  For this Sub Data Item, it is equal to
      four (4) plus the number of octets needed to carry the carried
      Priority fields is indicated by the NumPCPs field.  Note that as
      length is in octets and each Priority field is 4 bits, the
      additional length is the value carried in the NumPCPs field
      divided by two and rounded up to the next higher integer quantity.

   Flow Identifier (FID):

      A 16-bit unsigned integer representing the data plane information
      carried in the sub Data Item that is to be used in identifying a
      flow.  The value of 0xFFFF is reserved and MUST NOT be used in
      this field.

   Num PCPs:

      A 4-bit unsigned integer indicating the number of Priority fields
      carried in the sub Data Item.  A zero (0) indicates a (wildcard)
      match against any PCP value.

   VLAN identifier (VID):

      A 12-bit unsigned integer field indicating the VLAN to be used in
      traffic classification.  A value of zero (0) indicates that the
      VID is to be ignored and any VID is to be accepted during traffic
      classification.

   Priority:

      Each Priority Field is 4-bits long and indicates a PCP field
      defined in [IEEE.802.1Q_2014].  Note that zero (0) is a valid
      value for either PCP or DEI.

           0   1   2   3
           +---+---+---+---+
           |    PCP    |DEI|
           +---+---+---+---+

           PCP: Priority code point
           DEI: currently unused, MUST be zero

   Pad:

      A 4-bit long field included when NumPCPs is an odd number.  This
      field MUST be set to zero when added, and MIST be ignored on
      receipt.



Cheng, et al.             Expires May 22, 2020                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft         DLEP Traffic Classification         November 2019


2.3.1.  Router Receive Processing

   A router receiving the Traffic Classification Sub Data Item MUST
   validate the information on receipt, prior to the using the carried
   information, including potentially updating the data behavior as
   determined by the extension requiring the use of the Sub Data Item.
   Validation failures MUST be treated as an error as described above.

   Once validated, the receiver MUST ensure that each Priority Field
   value is listed only once across the whole Traffic Classification
   Data Item.  Note, this check is across the Data Item and not the
   individual sub Data Item.  If the same Priority Field value is listed
   more than once within the same Traffic Classification Data Item, the
   Data Item MUST be treated as an error as described above.

3.  Compatibility

   The formats defined in this document will only be used when
   extensions require their use.

4.  Security Considerations

   This document introduces finer grain flow identification mechanisms
   to DLEP.  These mechanisms do not inherently introduce any additional
   vulnerabilities above those documented in [RFC8175].  The approach
   taken to Security in that document applies equally to the mechanism
   defined in this document.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests the assignment of several values by IANA.  All
   assignments are to registries defined by [RFC8175].

5.1.  Data Item Values

   This document requests the following new assignments to the DLEP Data
   Item Registry named "Data Item Type Values" in the range with the
   "Specification Required" policy.  The requested values are as
   follows:

                  +-----------+------------------------+
                  | Type Code | Description            |
                  +-----------+------------------------+
                  | TBA1      | Traffic Classification |
                  +-----------+------------------------+

                    Table 1: Requested Data Item Values




Cheng, et al.             Expires May 22, 2020                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft         DLEP Traffic Classification         November 2019


5.2.  DLEP Traffic Classification Sub Data Item Registry

   Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to create a new
   DLEP registry, named "Traffic Classification Sub Data Item Type
   Values".

   The following table provides initial registry values and the
   [RFC8126] defined policies that should apply to the registry:

             +-------------+---------------------------------+
             | Type Code   | Description                     |
             +-------------+---------------------------------+
             | 0           | Reserved                        |
             |             |                                 |
             | 1           | DiffServ Traffic Classification |
             |             |                                 |
             | 2           | Ethernet Traffic Classification |
             |             |                                 |
             | 3-65407     | Specification Required          |
             |             |                                 |
             | 65408-65534 | Private Use                     |
             |             |                                 |
             | 65535       | Reserved                        |
             +-------------+---------------------------------+

                     Table 2: Initial Registry Values

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8175]  Ratliff, S., Jury, S., Satterwhite, D., Taylor, R., and B.
              Berry, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)", RFC 8175,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8175, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8175>.







Cheng, et al.             Expires May 22, 2020                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft         DLEP Traffic Classification         November 2019


6.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control]
              Cheng, B., Wiggins, D., Berger, L., and S. Ratliff, "DLEP
              Credit-Based Flow Control Messages and Data Items", draft-
              ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control-04 (work in progress),
              March 2019.

   [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension]
              Cheng, B., Wiggins, D., and L. Berger, "DLEP DiffServ
              Aware Credit Window Extension", draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-
              credit-extension-07 (work in progress), March 2019.

   [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-pause-extension]
              Cheng, B., Wiggins, D., and L. Berger, "DLEP Control Plane
              Based Pause Extension", draft-ietf-manet-dlep-pause-
              extension-08 (work in progress), June 2019.

   [IEEE.802.1Q_2014]
              IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
              networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks", IEEE 802.1Q-2014,
              DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2014.6991462, December 2014,
              <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/
              opac?punumber=6991460>.

   [RFC2474]  Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
              "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
              Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.

   [RFC2475]  Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
              and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
              Services", RFC 2475, DOI 10.17487/RFC2475, December 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2475>.

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

Appendix A.  Acknowledgments

   The sub Data Item format was inspired by Rick Taylor's "Data Item
   Containers".  He also proposed the separation of credit windows from
   traffic classification at IETF98.  Many useful comments were received
   from contributors to the MANET working group.  This document was




Cheng, et al.             Expires May 22, 2020                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft         DLEP Traffic Classification         November 2019


   derived from [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension] as a result of
   discussions at IETF101.

Authors' Addresses

   Bow-Nan Cheng
   MIT Lincoln Laboratory
   Massachusetts Institute of Technology
   244 Wood Street
   Lexington, MA  02421-6426

   Email: bcheng@ll.mit.edu


   David Wiggins
   MIT Lincoln Laboratory
   Massachusetts Institute of Technology
   244 Wood Street
   Lexington, MA  02421-6426

   Email: David.Wiggins@ll.mit.edu


   Lou Berger
   LabN Consulting, L.L.C.

   Email: lberger@labn.net
























Cheng, et al.             Expires May 22, 2020                 [Page 13]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/