--- 1/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-01.txt 2006-02-04 22:55:12.000000000 +0100 +++ 2/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-02.txt 2006-02-04 22:55:12.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,18 +1,20 @@ Internet Draft Lou Berger - Editor (Movaz Networks) +Updates: 3473 Category: Standards Track -Expiration Date: March 2005 - September 2004 +Expiration Date: May 2005 + + November 2004 GMPLS - Communication of Alarm Information - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-01.txt + draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-02.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, or will be disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that @@ -40,39 +42,39 @@ specifics of such an extension. This document also proposes modification of the RSVP ERROR_SPEC object. Contents 1 Introduction .............................................. 3 1.1 Background ................................................ 3 2 Alarm Information Communication ........................... 4 3 GMPLS-RSVP Details ........................................ 5 3.1 ALARM_SPEC Objects ........................................ 5 - 3.1.1 IF_ID ALARM_SPEC (and ERROR_SPEC) TLVs .................... 5 + 3.1.1 IF_ID ALARM_SPEC (and ERROR_SPEC) TLVs .................... 6 3.1.2 Procedures ................................................ 9 3.1.3 Error Codes and Values .................................... 10 3.1.4 Backwards Compatibility ................................... 10 - 3.2 Controlling Alarm Communication ........................... 10 - 3.2.1 Updated Admin Status Object ............................... 10 + 3.2 Controlling Alarm Communication ........................... 11 + 3.2.1 Updated Admin Status Object ............................... 11 3.2.2 Procedures ................................................ 11 - 3.3 Message Formats ........................................... 11 - 3.4 Relationship to GMPLS UNI ................................. 12 - 3.5 Relationship to GMPLS E-NNI .............................. 13 + 3.3 Message Formats ........................................... 12 + 3.4 Relationship to GMPLS UNI ................................. 13 + 3.5 Relationship to GMPLS E-NNI .............................. 14 4 Security Considerations ................................... 14 - 5 IANA Considerations ....................................... 14 + 5 IANA Considerations ....................................... 15 6 References ................................................ 15 6.1 Normative References ...................................... 15 - 6.2 Informative References .................................... 15 - 7 Contributors .............................................. 16 - 8 Contact Address ........................................... 16 - 9 Full Copyright Statement .................................. 17 -10 Intellectual Property ..................................... 17 + 6.2 Informative References .................................... 16 + 7 Contributors .............................................. 17 + 8 Contact Address ........................................... 17 + 9 Full Copyright Statement .................................. 18 +10 Intellectual Property ..................................... 18 1. Introduction GMPLS Signaling provides mechanisms that can be used to control the reporting of alarms associated with an LSP. This support is provided via Administrative Status Information [RFC3471] and the Admin_Status object [RFC3473]. These mechanisms only control if alarm reporting is inhibited. No provision is made for communication of alarm information within GMPLS. @@ -89,21 +91,23 @@ The communication of alarms, as described in this document, is controllable on a per LSP basis. Such communication may be useful within network configurations where not all nodes support communication to a user for reporting of alarms and/or communication is needed to support specific applications. The support of this functionality is optional. The communication of alarms within GMPLS does not imply any modification in behavior of processing of alarms, or for the - communication of alarms outside of GMPLS. + communication of alarms outside of GMPLS. Additionally, the + extension described in this document is not intended to replace any + (existing) data plane fault propagation techniques. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 1.1. Background Problems with data plane state can often be detected by associated data plane hardware components. Such data plane problems are typically filtered based on elapsed time and local policy. Problems @@ -116,21 +120,22 @@ down. Further, there may be a desire, particularly in optical transport networks, to retain an LSP and communicate relevant alarm information even when the data plane state has failed completely. Although error information can be reported using PathErr, ResvErr and Notify messages, these messages typically indicate a problem in signaling state and can only report one problem at at a time. This makes it hard to correlate all of the problems that may be associated with a single LSP and to allow an operator examining the status of an LSP to view a full list of current problems. This situation is - exacerbated by the absence of any way to communicate that a problem + exa +cerbated by the absence of any way to communicate that a problem has been resolved and a corresponding alarm cleared. The extensions defined in this document allow an operator or a software component to obtain a full list of current alarms associated with all of the resources used to support an LSP. The extensions also ensure that this list is kept up-to-date and synchronized with the real alarm status in the network. Finally, the extensions make the list available at every node traversed by an LSP. 2. Alarm Information Communication @@ -180,42 +185,42 @@ communication of alarm information. The communication of alarm information is optional. This section applies to nodes that support communication of alarm information. 3.1. ALARM_SPEC Objects The ALARM_SPEC objects use the same format as the ERROR_SPEC object, but with class number of TBA (to be assigned by IANA in the form 11bbbbbb). - o IPv4 ALARM_SPEC object: Class = TBA, C-Type = 1 - Definition same as IPv4 ERROR_SPEC [RFC2205]. + o Class = TBA, C-Type = 1 + Reserved. - o IPv6 ALARM_SPEC object: Class = TBA, C-Type = 2 - Definition same as IPv6 ERROR_SPEC [RFC2205]. + o Class = TBA, C-Type = 2 + Reserved. o IPv4 IF_ID ALARM_SPEC object: Class = TBA, C-Type = 3 Definition same as IPv4 IF_ID ERROR_SPEC [RFC3473]. o IPv6 IF_ID ALARM_SPEC object: Class = TBA, C-Type = 4 Definition same as IPv6 IF_ID ERROR_SPEC [RFC3473]. 3.1.1. IF_ID ALARM_SPEC (and ERROR_SPEC) TLVs The following new TLVs are defined for use with the IPv4 and IPv6 IF_ID ALARM_SPEC objects. They may also be used with the IPv4 and IPv6 IF_ID ERROR_SPEC objects. See [RFC3471] section 9.1.1 for the original definition of these values. Note the length provided below is for the total TLV. All TLVs defined in this section are optional. - - No rules apply to the relative ordering of these TLVs. These TLVs - MUST be listed after any interface identifying TLVs. + The defined TLVs MUST follow any interface identifying TLVs. No + rules apply to the relative ordering of the TLVs defined in this + section. [Note: Type values are TBA (to be assigned) by IANA] Type Length Description ---------------------------------- 512 8 REFERENCE_COUNT 513 8 SEVERITY 514 8 GLOBAL_TIMESTAMP 515 8 LOCAL_TIMESTAMP 516 variable ERROR_STRING @@ -225,22 +230,22 @@ 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reference Count | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Reference Count: 32 bits - The number of times this alarm has been repeated. This field - MUST NOT be set to zero. + The number of times this alarm has been repeated as determined + by the reporting node. This field MUST NOT be set to zero. Only one Reference Count TLV may be included in an object. The Severity TLV has the following format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ @@ -239,62 +244,67 @@ The Severity TLV has the following format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved |Impact | Severity | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - Reserved: 24 bits - This field is reserved. It MUST be set to zero on generation - and MUST be ignored on receipt. + This field is reserved. It MUST be set to zero on generation, + MUST be ignored on receipt and MUST be forwarded unchanged and + unexamined by transit nodes. Impact: 4 bits - Indicates the impact of the alarm indicated in the TLV. The - following values are defined: + Indicates the impact of the alarm indicated in the TLV. See + [M.20] for a general discussion on classification of failures. + The following values are defined: Value Definition ----- --------------------- 0 Unspecified impact - 1 Non-Service Affecting - 2 Service Affecting + 1 Non-Service Affecting (Data traffic not interrupted) + 2 Service Affecting (Data traffic is interrupted) Severity: 8 bits - Indicates the impact of the alarm indicated in the TLV. The - following values are defined: + Indicates the impact of the alarm indicated in the TLV. See + [RFC3877] for more information on severity. The following + values are defined: Value Definition ----- ---------- - 0 Reserved - 1 Critical - 2 Major - 3 Minor - 4 Warning + 0 Cleared + 1 Indeterminate + 2 Critical + 3 Major + 4 Minor + 5 Warning Only one Severity TLV may be included in an object. The Global Timestamp TLV has the following format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Global Timestamp | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +Berger, et. al. + Global Timestamp: 32 bits The number of seconds since 0000 UT on 1 January 1970, according to the clock on the node that originates this TLV. Only one Global Timestamp TLV may be included in an object. The Local Timestamp TLV has the following format: 0 1 2 3 @@ -317,92 +327,97 @@ 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | // Error String (NULL padded display string) // | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - Error String: 32 bits minimum (variable) A string of characters, representing the type of error/alarm. This string is padded to the next largest 4 byte boundary using null characters. Null padding is not required when the string is 32-bit aligned. The contents of error string are implementation dependent. See the condition types listed in - Appendices of [GR833] for a list of example strings. + Appendices of [GR833] for a list of example strings. Note + length includes padding. Multiple Error String TLVs may be included in an object. 3.1.2. Procedures This section applies to nodes that support the communication of alarm information. ALARM_SPEC objects are carried in Path and Resv - messages. Multiple ALARM_SPEC objects MAY be present. The IPv4 and - IPv6 formats of the ALARM_SPEC object, C-Type 1 and 2, SHOULD NOT be - used as they do not support the inclusion of the TLVs defined above. + messages. Multiple ALARM_SPEC objects MAY be present. Nodes that support the communication of alarm information, SHOULD - record the information contained in a received ALARM_SPECs for later + record the information contained in a received ALARM_SPEC for later use. All ALARM_SPEC objects received in Path messages SHOULD be passed unmodified downstream in the corresponding Path messages. All ALARM_SPEC objects received in Resv messages SHOULD be passed unmodified upstream in the corresponding Resv messages. ALARM_SPEC objects are merged in transmitted Resv messages by including a copy of all ALARM_SPEC objects received in corresponding Resv Messages. To advertise local alarm information, a node generates an ALARM_SPEC object for each alarm and adds it to both the Path and Resv messages - for the affected LSP. The IPv4 or IPv6 IF_ID ALARM_SPEC object - format SHOULD be used. In all cases, appropriate Error Node Address, + for the effected LSP. In all cases, appropriate Error Node Address, Error Code and Error Values MUST be set, see below for a discussion on Error Code and Error Values. The InPlace and NotGuilty flags - SHOULD NOT be set. When the IPv4 or IPv6 IF_ID ALARM_SPEC object - format is used, TLVs SHOULD be included to identify the interface, if - any, the severity, the time and a brief string associated with the - alarm. The reference count TLV MAY also be included. ALARM_SPEC - objects received from other nodes are not effected by the addition of - local ALARM_SPEC objects, i.e., they continue to be processed as - described above. The choice of which alarm or alarms to advertise - and which to omit is a local policy matter, and may configurable by - the user. + SHOULD NOT be set. TLVs SHOULD be included to identify the + interface, if any, the severity, the time and a (brief) string + associated with the alarm. The reference count TLV MAY also be + included. ALARM_SPEC objects received from other nodes are not + effected by the addition of local ALARM_SPEC objects, i.e., they + continue to be processed as described above. The choice of which + alarm or alarms to advertise and which to omit is a local policy + matter, and may configurable by the user. - Note, ALARM_SPEC objects SHOULD NOT be added to LSPs that are in - "alarm communication inhibited." ALARM_SPEC objects MAY be added to - LSPs that are "administratively down". These states are indicated by - the I and A bits of the Admin_Status object, see Section 3.2. + There are two ways to indicate time. A global timestamp TLV is used + to provide an absolute time reference for the occurrence of an alarm. + The local timestamp TLV is used to provide time reference for the + occurrence of an alarm that is relative to other information + advertised by the node. The global timestamp SHOULD be used on nodes + that maintain an absolute time reference. Both timestamp TLVs MAY be + used simultaneously. + + Note, ALARM_SPEC objects SHOULD NOT be added to the state of LSPs + that are in "alarm communication inhibited state." ALARM_SPEC + objects MAY be added to the state of LSPs that are in an + "administratively down" state. These states are indicated by the I + and A bits of the Admin_Status object, see Section 3.2. To remove local alarm information, a node simply removes the matching locally generated ALARM_SPEC objects from the outgoing Path and Resv messages. A node MAY modify a locally generated ALARM_SPEC object. Normal refresh and trigger message processing applies to Path or Resv - message that contain ALARM_SPEC objects. Note that changes in + messages that contain ALARM_SPEC objects. Note that changes in ALARM_SPEC objects from one message to the next may include a modification in the contents of a specific ALARM_SPEC object, or a change in the number of ALARM_SPEC objects present. All changes in ALARM_SPEC objects SHOULD be processed as trigger messages. 3.1.3. Error Codes and Values The Error Codes and Values used in ALARM_SPEC objects are the same as those used in ERROR_SPEC objects. New Error Code values for use with both ERROR_SPEC and ALARM_SPEC objects may be assigned to support alarm types defined by other standards. In this document we define one new Error Code. The Error Code uses the value TBA (by IANA) and is referred to as "Alarms". The values used in the Error Values field are the same as the values used for - IANAItuProbableCause in the Alarm MIB [ALARM-MIB]. Note these values + IANAItuProbableCause in the Alarm MIB [RFC3877]. Note these values are managed by IANA, see http://www.iana.org. 3.1.4. Backwards Compatibility The support of ALARM_SPEC objects is optional. Non-supporting nodes will pass the objects through the node unmodified, because the ALARM_SPEC object has a C-Num of the form 11bbbbbb. This allows alarm information to be collected and examined in a network built from a collection of nodes some of which support the @@ -431,40 +447,47 @@ Inhibit Alarm Communication (I): 1 bit When set, indicates that alarm communication is disabled for the LSP and that nodes SHOULD NOT add local alarm information. See [RFC3471] for the definition of the remaining bits. 3.2.2. Procedures The I bit may be set and cleared using the procedures defined in Sections 7.2 and 7.3 of [RFC3473]. A node that receives (or - generates) an Admin_Status object with the A and I bits set (1), + generates) an Admin_Status object with the A or I bits set (1), SHOULD remove all locally generated alarm information from the matching LSP's outgoing Path and Resv messages. When a node receives (or generates) an Admin_Status object with the A and I bits clear - (0), it should add any local alarm information to the matching LSP's - outgoing Path and Resv messages. The processing of non-locally - generated ALARM_SPEC objects MUST NOT be impacted by the contents of - the Admin_Status object. Note, per [RFC3473], the absence of the - Admin_Status object is equivalent to receiving an object containing - values all set to zero (0). + (0), it SHOULD add any local alarm information to the matching LSP's + outgoing Path and Resv messages. + + The processing of non-locally generated ALARM_SPEC objects MUST NOT + be impacted by the contents of the Admin_Status object, that is, + received ALARM_SPEC objects MUST be forwarded unchanged regardless of + the received or transmitted settings of the I and A-bits. Note, per + [RFC3473], the absence of the Admin_Status object is equivalent to + receiving an object containing values all set to zero (0). + + I bit related processing behavior MAY be overridden locally based on + configuration. When generating Notify messages for LSPs with the I bit set, the TLVs described in this document MAY be added to the ERROR_SPEC object sent in the the Notify message. 3.3. Message Formats This section presents the RSVP message related formats as modified by this document. The formats specified in [RFC3473] served as the - basis of these formats. + basis of these formats. The objects are listed in suggested + ordering. The format of a Path message is as follows: ::= [ ] [ [ | ] ... ] [ ] [ ] @@ -503,157 +526,146 @@ and a core-node. This restriction allows the core network to limit the information that is visible outside of the core. This restriction may be made for confidentiality, privacy or security reasons. It may also be made for operational reasons, for example if the information is only applicable within the core network. The extensions described in this document are candidates for filtering as described in [GMPLS-UNI]. In particular the following observations apply. - o An ingress or egress core-node MAY filter alarms from the GMPLS core - to the overlay UNI LSP. This may be to protect information about the - core network, or to indicate that the core network is performing or - has completed recovery actions for the GMPLS LSP. + o An ingress or egress core-node MAY filter alarms from the GMPLS + core to a client-node UNI LSP. This may be to protect information + about the core network, or to indicate that the core network is + performing or has completed recovery actions for the GMPLS LSP. o An ingress or egress core-node MAY modify alarms from the GMPLS - core when sending to the overlay UNI LSP. This may facilitate the - UNI client's ability to understand the failure and its effect on the - data plane, and enable the UNI client to take corrective actions in a - more-appropriate manner. + core when sending to a client-node UNI LSP. This may facilitate + the UNI client's ability to understand the failure and its effect + on the data plane, and enable the UNI client to take corrective + actions in a more-appropriate manner. o Similarly, an egress core-node MAY choose to not request alarm reporting on Path messages that it sends downstream to the overlay network. - o Further, even when alarm reporting is requested along the whole - length of an overlay LSP, an ingress or egress core-node MAY choose - to selectively filter alarms that are reported to the overlay - network. This may be to protect information about the core network, - or may reflect the fact that the core network intends to take - remedial action and does not want the overlay network to operate on - the alarm information. - 3.5. Relationship to GMPLS E-NNI GMPLS may be used at the external network-to-network (E-NNI) - interface, see [GMPLS-ASON]. At this interface, restrictions may be + interface, see [GMPLS-ENNI]. At this interface, restrictions may be applied to the information that is signaled between an egress and an ingress core- node. This restriction allows the ingress core network to limit the information that is visible outside of its core network. This restriction may be made for confidentiality, privacy or security reasons. It may also be made for operational reasons, for example if the information is only applicable within the core network. The extensions described in this document are candidates for - filtering as described in [GMPLS-ASON]. In particular the following + filtering as described in [GMPLS-ENNI]. In particular the following observations apply. - o An ingress or egress core-node MAY filter internal core network alarms. - This may be to protect information about the internal network, or to - indicate that the core network is performing or has completed recovery - actions for this LSP. + o An ingress or egress core-node MAY filter internal core network + alarms. This may be to protect information about the internal + network, or to indicate that the core network is performing or has + completed recovery actions for this LSP. - o An ingress or egress core-node MAY modify internal core network alarms. - This may facilitate the peering E-NNI (i.e. the egress core-node) to - understand the failure and its effect on the data plane, and take - corrective actions in a more-appropriate manner or prolong the - generated alarms upstream/downstream as appropriated. + o An ingress or egress core-node MAY modify internal core network + alarms. This may facilitate the peering E-NNI (i.e. the egress + core-node) to understand the failure and its effect on the data + plane, and take corrective actions in a more-appropriate manner or + prolong the generated alarms upstream/downstream as appropriated. o Similarly, an egress/ingress core-node MAY choose to not request alarm reporting on Path messages that it sends downstream. - o Further, even when alarm reporting is requested along the whole - length of an end-to-end LSP, an egress or an ingress core-node MAY - choose to selectively filter alarms that are reported through the - UNI. This may be to protect information about the whole core network, - or may reflect the fact that the core network intends to take - remedial action and does not want the overlay network to operate - on the alarm information. - 4. Security Considerations Some operators may consider alarm information as sensitive. To support environments where this is the case, implementations SHOULD - allow the user to disable the generation of ALARM_SPEC objects. + allow the user to disable the generation of ALARM_SPEC objects, or to + filter or correlate them at domain boundaries. This document introduces no additional security considerations. See [RFC3473] for relevant security considerations. 5. IANA Considerations IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for namespaces defined in this document. This section uses the terminology of BCP 26 "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" [BCP26]. This document defines a new RSVP "ALARM_SPEC object" with a Class-Num - of the form 11bbbbbb. The value 197 is suggested. The C-type values - associated with this object should read "Same values as ERROR_SPEC - (C-Num 6)". The text associated with ALARM_SPEC object should also - read "The ALARM_SPEC object uses the Error Code and Values from the - ERROR_SPEC object." + of the form 11bbbbbb, see section 3.1. The value 197 is suggested. + The C-type values associated with this object should read "Same + values as ERROR_SPEC (C-Num 6), with the exception of C-Types 1 and 2 + which are reserved". The text associated with ALARM_SPEC object + should also read "The ALARM_SPEC objec +t uses the Error Code and + Values from the ERROR_SPEC object." Additionally, Section 3.1.3 defines a new Error Code. The Error Code - is "Alarms" and uses Error Values defined in the Alarm MIB [ALARM- - MIB]. The suggested Error code value is 28. + is "Alarms" and uses Error Values defined in the Alarm MIB [RFC3877]. + The suggested Error code value is 28. This document also defines the TLVs for use with the IF_ID ERROR_SPEC objects defined in [RFC3473]. Please see Section 3.1.1 for a list of TLV description and (suggested) type values. Note that the type values are not sequential with existing ERROR_SPEC object TLV assignments. This is intentional and is intended to provide space for future error TLVs. This document also defines the I bit in the Admin Status Object, see Section 3.2.1. This bit field was originally defined in Section 7.1 - of [RFC3473]. We recommend that IANA being managing assignment of + of [RFC3473]. We recommend that IANA begin managing assignment of bits in the Admin Status Object, and that the bits be allocated through IETF Consensus actions. 6. References 6.1. Normative References [RFC3471] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003. [RFC3473] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. -[ALARM-MIB] Chisholm, S., Romascanu, D., "Alarm MIB", - draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-18.txt, February 2004 +[RFC3877] Chisholm, S., Romascanu, D., "Alarm MIB", + draft-ietf-disman-alarm-mib-18.txt, September 2004. 6.2. Informative References +[M.20] ITU-T, "MAINTENANCE PHILOSOPHY FOR TELECOMMUNICATION + NETWORKS", Recommendation M.20, October 1992. [GR833] Bellcore, "Network Maintenance: Network Element and Transport Surveillance Messages" (GR-833-CORE), Issue 3, February 1999. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels," RFC 2119. [GMPLS-UNI] Swallow, G., Drake, J., Ishimatsu, H., and Rekhter, Y. "GMPLS UNI: RSVP Support for the Overlay Model", - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-02.txt, October 2003, + draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-05.txt, October 2004, work in progress. [GMPLS-ENNI] Papadimitriou, D., Editor, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) RSVP-TE Signaling in support of Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)", - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-ason-01.txt, January 2004, + draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-ason-02.txt, July 2004, work in progress. 7. Contributors Contributors are listed in alphabetical order: Lou Berger Deborah Brungard Movaz Networks, Inc. AT&T Labs, Room MT D1-3C22 7926 Jones Branch Drive 200 Laurel Avenue Suite 615 @@ -716,12 +728,10 @@ 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. - -Generated on: Tue Sep 21 09:52:18 2004