draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-06.txt		rfc4783.txt
	Internet Draft Lou Berger - Editor (LabN)
	Updates: 3473		Network Working Group L. Berger, Ed.
			Request for Comments: 4783 LabN
			Updates: 3473 December 2006
	Category: Standards Track		Category: Standards Track
	September 2006
	GMPLS - Communication of Alarm Information		GMPLS - Communication of Alarm Information
	draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-06.txt		Status of This Memo
	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		This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
			and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
	The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at		Copyright Notice
	http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
	The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at		Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006).
	http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document describes an extension to Generalized MPLS (Multi-		This document describes an extension to Generalized MPLS (Multi-
	Protocol Label Switching) signaling to support communication of alarm		Protocol Label Switching) signaling to support communication of alarm
	information. GMPLS signaling already supports the control of alarm		information. GMPLS signaling already supports the control of alarm
	reporting, but not the communication of alarm information. This		reporting, but not the communication of alarm information. This
	document presents both a functional description and GMPLS-RSVP		document presents both a functional description and GMPLS-RSVP
	specifics of such an extension. This document also proposes		specifics of such an extension. This document also proposes
	modification of the RSVP ERROR_SPEC object.		modification of the RSVP ERROR_SPEC object.
	This document updates RFC 3473 "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label		This document updates RFC 3473, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
	Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic		Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
	Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions" through the addition of new,		Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", through the addition of new,
	optional protocol elements. It does not change, and is fully backward		optional protocol elements. It does not change, and is fully
	compatible with the procedures specified in RFC 3473.		backward compatible with, the procedures specified in RFC 3473.
	Contents		Table of Contents
	1 Introduction .............................................. 3		1. Introduction ....................................................3
	1.1 Background ................................................ 3		1.1. Background .................................................3
	2 Alarm Information Communication ........................... 4		2. Alarm Information Communication .................................4
	3 GMPLS-RSVP Details ........................................ 5		3. GMPLS-RSVP Details ..............................................5
	3.1 ALARM_SPEC Objects ........................................ 5		3.1. ALARM_SPEC Objects .........................................5
	3.1.1 IF_ID ALARM_SPEC (and ERROR_SPEC) TLVs .................... 6		3.1.1. IF_ID ALARM_SPEC (and ERROR_SPEC) TLVs ..............5
	3.1.2 Procedures ................................................ 9		3.1.2. Procedures ..........................................9
	3.1.3 Error Codes and Values .................................... 11		3.1.3. Error Codes and Values .............................10
	3.1.4 Backwards Compatibility ................................... 11		3.1.4. Backwards Compatibility ............................11
	3.2 Controlling Alarm Communication ........................... 11		3.2. Controlling Alarm Communication ...........................11
	3.2.1 Updated Admin Status Object ............................... 12		3.2.1. Updated Admin_Status Object ........................11
	3.2.2 Procedures ................................................ 12		3.2.2. Procedures .........................................11
	3.3 Message Formats ........................................... 13		3.3. Message Formats ...........................................12
	3.4 Relationship to GMPLS UNI ................................. 14		3.4. Relationship to GMPLS UNI .................................13
	3.5 Relationship to GMPLS E-NNI .............................. 14		3.5. Relationship to GMPLS E-NNI ...............................14
	4 Acknowledgments ........................................... 15		4. Security Considerations ........................................14
	5 Security Considerations ................................... 15		5. IANA Considerations ............................................15
	6 IANA Considerations ....................................... 16		5.1. New RSVP Object ...........................................15
	6.1 New RSVP Object ........................................... 16		5.2. New Interface ID Types ....................................16
	6.2 New Interface ID Types .................................... 16		5.3. New Registry for Admin-Status Object Bit Fields ...........16
	6.3 New Registry for Admin-Status Object Bit Fields ........... 17		5.4. New RSVP Error Code .......................................16
	6.4 New RSVP Error Code ....................................... 17		6. References .....................................................17
	7 References ................................................ 18		6.1. Normative References ......................................17
	7.1 Normative References ...................................... 18		6.2. Informative References ....................................17
	7.2 Informative References .................................... 18		7. Acknowledgments ................................................18
	8 Contributors .............................................. 19		8. Contributors ...................................................18
	9 Contact Address ........................................... 19
	10 Full Copyright Statement .................................. 20
	11 Intellectual Property ..................................... 20
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	GMPLS Signaling provides mechanisms that can be used to control the		GMPLS signaling provides mechanisms that can be used to control the
	reporting of alarms associated with an LSP. This support is provided		reporting of alarms associated with a label switched path (LSP).
	via Administrative Status Information [RFC3471] and the Admin_Status		This support is provided via Administrative Status Information
	object [RFC3473]. These mechanisms only control if alarm reporting		[RFC3471] and the Admin_Status object [RFC3473]. These mechanisms
	is inhibited. No provision is made for communication of alarm		only control if alarm reporting is inhibited. No provision is made
	information within GMPLS.		for communication of alarm information within GMPLS.
	The extension described in this document defines how the alarm		The extension described in this document defines how the alarm
	information associated with a GMPLS label-switched path (LSP) may be		information associated with a GMPLS LSP may be communicated along the
	communicated along the path of the LSP. Communication both upstream		path of the LSP. Communication both upstream and downstream is
	and downstream is supported. The value in communicating such alarm		supported. The value in communicating such alarm information is that
	information is that this information is then available at every node		this information is then available at every node along the LSP for
	along the LSP for display and diagnostic purposes. Alarm information		display and diagnostic purposes. Alarm information may also be
	may also be useful in certain traffic protection scenarios, but such		useful in certain traffic protection scenarios, but such uses are out
	uses are out of scope of this document. Alarm communication is		of the scope of this document. Alarm communication is supported via
	supported via a new object, new error/alarm information TLVs, and a		a new object, new error/alarm information TLVs, and a new
	new Administrative Status Information bit.		Administrative Status Information bit.
	The communication of alarms, as described in this document, is		The communication of alarms, as described in this document, is
	controllable on a per LSP basis. Such communication may be useful		controllable on a per-LSP basis. Such communication may be useful
	within network configurations where not all nodes support		within network configurations where not all nodes support
	communication to a user for reporting of alarms and/or communication		communication to a user for reporting of alarms and/or communication
	is needed to support specific applications. The support of this		is needed to support specific applications. The support of this
	functionality is optional.		functionality is optional.
	The communication of alarms within GMPLS does not imply any		The communication of alarms within GMPLS does not imply any
	modification in behavior of processing of alarms, or for the		modification in behavior of processing of alarms, or for the
	communication of alarms outside of GMPLS. Additionally, the		communication of alarms outside of GMPLS. Additionally, the
	extension described in this document is not intended to replace any		extension described in this document is not intended to replace any
	(existing) data plane fault propagation techniques.		(existing) data plane fault propagation techniques.
	skipping to change at page 4, line 10		skipping to change at page 4, line 10
	that pass the filtering process are normally raised as alarms. These		that pass the filtering process are normally raised as alarms. These
	alarms are available for display to operators. They also may be		alarms are available for display to operators. They also may be
	collected centrally through means that are out of the scope of this		collected centrally through means that are out of the scope of this
	document.		document.
	Not all data plane problems cause the LSP to be immediately torn		Not all data plane problems cause the LSP to be immediately torn
	down. Further, there may be a desire, particularly in optical		down. Further, there may be a desire, particularly in optical
	transport networks, to retain an LSP and communicate relevant alarm		transport networks, to retain an LSP and communicate relevant alarm
	information even when the data plane state has failed completely.		information even when the data plane state has failed completely.
	Although error information can be reported using PathErr, ResvErr and		Although error information can be reported using PathErr, ResvErr,
	Notify messages, these messages typically indicate a problem in		and Notify messages, these messages typically indicate a problem in
	signaling state and can only report one problem at at a time. This		signaling state and can only report one problem at a time. This
	makes it hard to correlate all of the problems that may be associated		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		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		LSP to view a full list of current problems. This situation is
	exacerbated by the absence of any way to communicate that a problem		exacerbated by the absence of any way to communicate that a problem
	has been resolved and a corresponding alarm cleared.		has been resolved and a corresponding alarm cleared.
	The extensions defined in this document allow an operator or a		The extensions defined in this document allow an operator or a
	software component to obtain a full list of current alarms associated		software component to obtain a full list of current alarms associated
	with all of the resources used to support an LSP. The extensions		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		also ensure that this list is kept up-to-date and synchronized with
	skipping to change at page 4, line 50		skipping to change at page 4, line 50
	included in ERROR_SPEC objects, e.g., when the ERROR_SPEC object is		included in ERROR_SPEC objects, e.g., when the ERROR_SPEC object is
	carried within a Notify message.		carried within a Notify message.
	While the details of alarm information are like the details of		While the details of alarm information are like the details of
	existing error communication, the semantics of processing differ.		existing error communication, the semantics of processing differ.
	Alarm information will typically relate to changes in data plane		Alarm information will typically relate to changes in data plane
	state, without changes in control state. Alarm information will		state, without changes in control state. Alarm information will
	always be associated with in-place LSPs. Such information will also		always be associated with in-place LSPs. Such information will also
	typically be most useful to operators and applications other than		typically be most useful to operators and applications other than
	control plane protocol processing. Finally, while error information		control plane protocol processing. Finally, while error information
	is communicated within PathErr, ResvErr and Notify messages		is communicated within PathErr, ResvErr, and Notify messages
	[RFC3473], alarm information will be carried within Path and Resv		[RFC3473], alarm information will be carried within Path and Resv
	messages.		messages.
	Path messages are used to carry alarm information to downstream nodes		Path messages are used to carry alarm information to downstream
	and Resv messages are used to carry alarm information to upstream		nodes, and Resv messages are used to carry alarm information to
	nodes. The intent of sending alarm information both upstream and		upstream nodes. The intent of sending alarm information both
	downstream is to provide the same visibility to alarm information at		upstream and downstream is to provide the same visibility to alarm
	any point along an LSP. The communication of multiple alarms		information at any point along an LSP. The communication of multiple
	associated with an LSP is supported. In this case, multiple		alarms associated with an LSP is supported. In this case, multiple
	ALARM_SPEC objects will be carried in the Path or Resv messages.		ALARM_SPEC objects will be carried in the Path or Resv messages.
	The addition of alarm information to Path and Resv messages is		The addition of alarm information to Path and Resv messages is
	controlled via a new Administrative Status Information bit.		controlled via a new Administrative Status Information bit.
	Administrative Status Information is carried in the Admin_Status		Administrative Status Information is carried in the Admin_Status
	object.		object.
	3. GMPLS-RSVP Details		3. GMPLS-RSVP Details
	This section provides the GMPLS-RSVP [RFC3473] specification for		This section provides the GMPLS-RSVP [RFC3473] specification for
	communication of alarm information. The communication of alarm		communication of alarm information. The communication of alarm
	information is OPTIONAL. This section applies to nodes that support		information is OPTIONAL. This section applies to nodes that support
	communication of alarm information.		communication of alarm information.
	3.1. ALARM_SPEC Objects		3.1. ALARM_SPEC Objects
	The ALARM_SPEC objects use the same format as the ERROR_SPEC object,		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		but with class number of 198 (assigned by IANA in the form 11bbbbbb,
	11bbbbbb, per Section 3.1.4).		per Section 3.1.4).
	o Class = TBA, C-Type = 1		o Class = 198, C-Type = 1
	Reserved. (C-Type value defined for ERROR_SPEC, but is not defined		Reserved. (C-Type value defined for ERROR_SPEC, but is not
	for use with ALARM_SPEC.)		defined for use with ALARM_SPEC.)
	o Class = TBA, C-Type = 2		o Class = 198, C-Type = 2
	Reserved. (C-Type value defined for ERROR_SPEC, but is not defined		Reserved. (C-Type value defined for ERROR_SPEC, but is not
	for use with ALARM_SPEC.)		defined for use with ALARM_SPEC.)
	o IPv4 IF_ID ALARM_SPEC object: Class = TBA, C-Type = 3		o IPv4 IF_ID ALARM_SPEC object: Class = 198, C-Type = 3
	Definition same as IPv4 IF_ID ERROR_SPEC [RFC3473].		Definition same as IPv4 IF_ID ERROR_SPEC [RFC3473].
	o IPv6 IF_ID ALARM_SPEC object: Class = TBA, C-Type = 4		o IPv6 IF_ID ALARM_SPEC object: Class = 198, C-Type = 4
	Definition same as IPv6 IF_ID ERROR_SPEC [RFC3473].		Definition same as IPv6 IF_ID ERROR_SPEC [RFC3473].
	3.1.1. IF_ID ALARM_SPEC (and ERROR_SPEC) TLVs		3.1.1. IF_ID ALARM_SPEC (and ERROR_SPEC) TLVs
	The following new TLVs are defined for use with the IPv4 and IPv6		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		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		IPv6 IF_ID ERROR_SPEC objects. See [RFC3471] Section 9.1.1 for the
	original definition of these values. Note the length provided below		original definition of these values. Note the length provided below
	is for the total TLV. All TLVs defined in this section are OPTIONAL.		is for the total TLV. All TLVs defined in this section are OPTIONAL.
	The defined TLVs MUST follow any interface identifying TLVs. No		The defined TLVs MUST follow any interface identifying TLVs. No
	rules apply to the relative ordering of the TLVs defined in this		rules apply to the relative ordering of the TLVs defined in this
	section.		section.
	[Note: Type values are TBA (to be assigned) by IANA]
	Type Length Description		Type Length Description
	----------------------------------		----------------------------------
	512 8 REFERENCE_COUNT		512 8 REFERENCE_COUNT
	513 8 SEVERITY		513 8 SEVERITY
	514 8 GLOBAL_TIMESTAMP		514 8 GLOBAL_TIMESTAMP
	515 8 LOCAL_TIMESTAMP		515 8 LOCAL_TIMESTAMP
	516 variable ERROR_STRING		516 variable ERROR_STRING
	The Reference Count TLV has the following format:		The Reference Count TLV has the following format:
	skipping to change at page 6, line 39		skipping to change at page 6, line 30
	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 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 |		| Type | Length |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Reference Count |		| Reference Count |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Reference Count: 32 bits		Reference Count: 32 bits
	The number of times this alarm has been repeated as determined		The number of times this alarm has been repeated as determined
	by the reporting node. This field MUST NOT be set to zero and		by the reporting node. This field MUST NOT be set to zero, and
	TLVs received with this field set to zero MUST be ignored.		TLVs received with this field set to zero MUST be ignored.
	Only one Reference Count TLV may be included in an object.		Only one Reference Count TLV may be included in an object.
	The Severity TLV has the following format:		The Severity TLV has the following format:
	0 1 2 3		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 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 |		| Type | Length |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Reserved |Impact | Severity |		| Reserved |Impact | Severity |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Reserved: 20 bits		Reserved: 20 bits
	This field is reserved. It MUST be set to zero on generation,		This field is reserved. It MUST be set to zero on generation,
	MUST be ignored on receipt and MUST be forwarded unchanged and		MUST be ignored on receipt, and MUST be forwarded unchanged and
	unexamined by transit nodes.		unexamined by transit nodes.
	Impact: 4 bits		Impact: 4 bits
	Indicates the impact of the alarm indicated in the TLV. See		Indicates the impact of the alarm indicated in the TLV. See
	[M.20] for a general discussion on classification of failures.		[M.20] for a general discussion on classification of failures.
	The following values are defined in this document. The details		The following values are defined in this document. The details
	of the semantics may be found in [M.20].		of the semantics may be found in [M.20].
	Value Definition		Value Definition
	skipping to change at page 9, line 16		skipping to change at page 9, line 4
	0 1 2 3		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 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 |		| Type | Length |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| |		| |
	// Error String (NULL padded display string) //		// Error String (NULL padded display string) //
	| |		| |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Error String: 32 bits minimum (variable)		Error String: 32 bits minimum (variable)
	A string of characters in US-ASCII, representing the type of		A string of characters in US-ASCII, representing the type of
	error/alarm. This string is padded to the next largest 4 byte		error/alarm. This string is padded to the next largest 4-byte
	boundary using null characters. Null padding is not required		boundary using null characters. Null padding is not required
	when the string is 32-bit aligned. The contents of error		when the string is 32-bit aligned. The contents of error
	string are implementation dependent. See the condition types		string are implementation dependent. See the condition types
	listed in Appendices of [GR833] for a list of example strings.		listed in Appendices of [GR833] for a list of example strings.
	Note length includes padding.		Note length includes padding.
	Multiple Error String TLVs may be included in an object.		Multiple Error String TLVs may be included in an object.
	3.1.2. Procedures		3.1.2. Procedures
	skipping to change at page 9, line 46		skipping to change at page 9, line 33
	store any alarm information from received ALARM_SPEC objects for		store any alarm information from received ALARM_SPEC objects for
	future use. All ALARM_SPEC objects received in Path messages SHOULD		future use. All ALARM_SPEC objects received in Path messages SHOULD
	be passed unmodified downstream in the corresponding Path messages.		be passed unmodified downstream in the corresponding Path messages.
	All ALARM_SPEC objects received in Resv messages SHOULD be passed		All ALARM_SPEC objects received in Resv messages SHOULD be passed
	unmodified upstream in the corresponding Resv messages. ALARM_SPEC		unmodified upstream in the corresponding Resv messages. ALARM_SPEC
	objects are merged in transmitted Resv messages by including a copy		objects are merged in transmitted Resv messages by including a copy
	of all ALARM_SPEC objects received in corresponding Resv Messages.		of all ALARM_SPEC objects received in corresponding Resv Messages.
	To advertise local alarm information, a node generates an ALARM_SPEC		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		object for each alarm and adds it to both the Path and Resv messages
	for the effected LSP. In all cases, appropriate Error Node Address,		for the impacted LSP.
	Error Code and Error Values MUST be set, see below for a discussion
	on Error Code and Error Values. As the InPlace and NotGuilty flags		In all cases, appropriate Error Node Address, Error Code, and Error
	only have meaning in ERROR_SPEC objects, they SHOULD NOT be set.		Values MUST be set (see below for a discussion on Error Code and
	TLVs SHOULD be included in the ALARM_SPEC object to identify the		Error Values). As the InPlace and NotGuilty flags only have meaning
	interface, if any, associated with the alarm - the TLVs defined in		in ERROR_SPEC objects, they SHOULD NOT be set. TLVs SHOULD be
	[RFC3471] for identifying interfaces in the IF_ID ERROR_SPEC object		included in the ALARM_SPEC object to identify the interface, if any,
	[RFC3473] SHOULD be used for this purpose, but note that TLVs type 4		associated with the alarm. The TLVs defined in [RFC3471] for
	and 5 (component interfaces) are deprecated by [RFC4201] and SHOULD		identifying interfaces in the IF_ID ERROR_SPEC object [RFC3473]
	NOT be used. TLVs SHOULD also be included to indicate the severity		SHOULD be used for this purpose, but note that TLVs type 4 and 5
			(component interfaces) are deprecated by [RFC4201] and SHOULD NOT be
			used. TLVs SHOULD also be included to indicate the severity
	(Severity TLV), the time (Global Timestamp and/or Local Timestamp		(Severity TLV), the time (Global Timestamp and/or Local Timestamp
	TLVs), and a (brief) string (Error String TLV) associated with the		TLVs), and a (brief) string (Error String TLV) associated with the
	alarm. The reference count TLV MAY also be included to indicate the		alarm. The reference count TLV MAY also be included to indicate the
	number of times an alarm has been repeated at the reporting node.		number of times an alarm has been repeated at the reporting node.
	ALARM_SPEC objects received from other nodes are not effected by the		ALARM_SPEC objects received from other nodes are not impacted by the
	addition of local ALARM_SPEC objects, i.e., they continue to be		addition of local ALARM_SPEC objects, i.e., they continue to be
	processed as described above. The choice of which alarm or alarms to		processed as described above. The choice of which alarm or alarms to
	advertise and which to omit is a local policy matter, and may		advertise and which to omit is a local policy matter, and may be
	configurable by the user.		configurable by the user.
	There are two ways to indicate time. A global timestamp TLV is used		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.		to provide an absolute time reference for the occurrence of an alarm.
	The local timestamp TLV is used to provide time reference for the		The local timestamp TLV is used to provide time reference for the
	occurrence of an alarm that is relative to other information		occurrence of an alarm that is relative to other information
	advertised by the node. The global timestamp SHOULD be used on nodes		advertised by the node. The global timestamp SHOULD be used on nodes
	that maintain an absolute time reference. Both timestamp TLVs MAY be		that maintain an absolute time reference. Both timestamp TLVs MAY be
	used simultaneously.		used simultaneously.
	Note, ALARM_SPEC objects SHOULD NOT be added to the Path and Resv		Note, ALARM_SPEC objects SHOULD NOT be added to the Path and Resv
	states of LSPs that are in "alarm communication inhibited state."		states of LSPs that are in "alarm communication inhibited" state.
	ALARM_SPEC objects MAY be added to the state of LSPs that are in an		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		"administratively down" state. These states are indicated by the I
	and A bits of the Admin_Status object, see Section 3.2.		and A bits of the Admin_Status object; see Section 3.2.
	To remove local alarm information, a node simply removes the matching		To remove local alarm information, a node simply removes the matching
	locally generated ALARM_SPEC objects from the outgoing Path and Resv		locally generated ALARM_SPEC objects from the outgoing Path and Resv
	messages. A node MAY modify a locally generated ALARM_SPEC object.		messages. A node MAY modify a locally generated ALARM_SPEC object.
	Normal refresh and trigger message processing applies to Path or Resv		Normal refresh and trigger message processing applies to Path or Resv
	messages 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		ALARM_SPEC objects from one message to the next may include a
	modification in the contents of a specific ALARM_SPEC object, or 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		change in the number of ALARM_SPEC objects present. All changes in
	skipping to change at page 11, line 13		skipping to change at page 10, line 44
	information not being properly or fully communicated.		information not being properly or fully communicated.
	3.1.3. Error Codes and Values		3.1.3. Error Codes and Values
	The Error Codes and Values used in ALARM_SPEC objects are the same as		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		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		both ERROR_SPEC and ALARM_SPEC objects may be assigned to support
	alarm types defined by other standards.		alarm types defined by other standards.
	In this document we define one new Error Code. The Error Code uses		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		the value 31 and is referred to as "Alarms". The values used in the
	used in the Error Values field when the Error Code is "Alarms" are		Error Values field when the Error Code is "Alarms" are the same as
	the same as the values defined in the IANAItuProbableCause Textual		the values defined in the IANAItuProbableCause Textual Convention of
	Convention of IANA-ITU-ALARM-TC-MIB in the Alarm MIB [RFC3877]. Note		IANA-ITU-ALARM-TC-MIB in the Alarm MIB [RFC3877]. Note that these
	these values are managed by IANA, see http://www.iana.org.		values are managed by IANA; see http://www.iana.org.
	3.1.4. Backwards Compatibility		3.1.4. Backwards Compatibility
	The support of ALARM_SPEC objects is OPTIONAL. Non-supporting nodes		The support of ALARM_SPEC objects is OPTIONAL. Non-supporting nodes
	will (according to the rules defined in [RFC2205]) pass the objects		will (according to the rules defined in [RFC2205]) pass the objects
	through the node unmodified, because the ALARM_SPEC object has a C-		through the node unmodified, because the ALARM_SPEC object has a
	Num of the form 11bbbbbb.		C-Num of the form 11bbbbbb.
	This allows alarm information to be collected and examined in a		This allows alarm information to be collected and examined in a
	network built from a collection of nodes some of which support the		network built from a collection of nodes some of which support the
	communication of alarm information, and some of which do not.		communication of alarm information, and some of which do not.
	3.2. Controlling Alarm Communication		3.2. Controlling Alarm Communication
	Alarm information communication is controlled via Administrative		Alarm information communication is controlled via Administrative
	Status Information as carried in the Admin_Status object. A new bit		Status Information as carried in the Admin_Status object. A new bit
	is defined, called the I bit, that indicates when alarm communication		is defined, called the I bit, that indicates when alarm communication
	is to be inhibited. The definition of this bit does not modify the		is to be inhibited. The definition of this bit does not modify the
	procedures defined in Section 7 of [RFC3473].		procedures defined in Section 7 of [RFC3473].
	3.2.1. Updated Admin Status Object		3.2.1. Updated Admin_Status Object
	The format of the Admin_Status object is updated to include the I		The format of the Admin_Status object is updated to include the I
	bit:		bit:
	0 1 2 3		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 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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| Length | Class-Num(196)| C-Type (1) |		| Length | Class-Num(196)| C-Type (1) |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	|R| Reserved |I| |T|A|D|		|R| Reserved |I| |T|A|D|
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Inhibit Alarm Communication (I): 1 bit		Inhibit Alarm Communication (I): 1 bit
	When set, indicates that alarm communication is disabled for		When set, indicates that alarm communication is disabled for
	the LSP and that nodes SHOULD NOT add local alarm information.		the LSP and that nodes SHOULD NOT add local alarm information.
	See section 7.1 of [RFC3473] for the definition of the remaining		See Section 7.1 of [RFC3473] for the definition of the remaining
	bits.		bits.
	3.2.2. Procedures		3.2.2. Procedures
	The I bit may be set and cleared using the procedures defined in		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		Sections 7.2 and 7.3 of [RFC3473]. A node that receives (or
	generates) an Admin_Status object with the A or 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		SHOULD remove all locally generated alarm information from the
	matching LSP's outgoing Path and Resv messages. When a node receives		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)		(or generates) an Admin_Status object with the A and I bits clear (0)
	and there is local alarm information present, it SHOULD add the local		and there is local alarm information present, it SHOULD add the local
	alarm information to the matching LSP's outgoing Path and Resv		alarm information to the matching LSP's outgoing Path and Resv
	messages.		messages.
	The processing of non-locally generated ALARM_SPEC objects MUST NOT		The processing of non-locally generated ALARM_SPEC objects MUST NOT
	be impacted by the contents of the Admin_Status object, that is,		be impacted by the contents of the Admin_Status object; that is,
	received ALARM_SPEC objects MUST be forwarded unchanged regardless of		received ALARM_SPEC objects MUST be forwarded unchanged regardless of
	the received or transmitted settings of the I and A-bits. Note, per		the received or transmitted settings of the I and A bits. Note that,
	[RFC3473], the absence of the Admin_Status object is equivalent to		per [RFC3473], the absence of the Admin_Status object is equivalent
	receiving an object containing values all set to zero (0).		to receiving an object containing values all set to zero (0).
	I bit related processing behavior MAY be overridden locally based on		I bit related processing behavior MAY be overridden locally based on
	configuration.		configuration.
	When generating Notify messages for LSPs with the I bit set, the TLVs		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		described in this document MAY be added to the ERROR_SPEC object sent
	in the the Notify message.		in the Notify message.
	3.3. Message Formats		3.3. Message Formats
	This section presents the RSVP message related formats as modified by		This section presents the RSVP message-related formats as modified by
	this document. The formats specified in [RFC3473] served as the		this document. The formats specified in [RFC3473] served as the
	basis of these formats. The objects are listed in suggested		basis of these formats. The objects are listed in suggested
	ordering.		ordering.
	The format of a Path message is as follows:		The format of a Path message is as follows:
	<Path Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]		<Path Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
	[ [<MESSAGE_ID_ACK> | <MESSAGE_ID_NACK>] ... ]		[ [<MESSAGE_ID_ACK> | <MESSAGE_ID_NACK>] ... ]
	[ <MESSAGE_ID> ]		[ <MESSAGE_ID> ]
	<SESSION> <RSVP_HOP>		<SESSION> <RSVP_HOP>
	skipping to change at page 14, line 8		skipping to change at page 13, line 24
	[ <ADMIN_STATUS> ]		[ <ADMIN_STATUS> ]
	[ <POLICY_DATA> ... ]		[ <POLICY_DATA> ... ]
	[ <ALARM_SPEC> ... ]		[ <ALARM_SPEC> ... ]
	<STYLE> <flow descriptor list>		<STYLE> <flow descriptor list>
	<flow descriptor list> is not modified by this document.		<flow descriptor list> is not modified by this document.
	3.4. Relationship to GMPLS UNI		3.4. Relationship to GMPLS UNI
	[RFC4208] defines how GMPLS may be used in an overlay model to		[RFC4208] defines how GMPLS may be used in an overlay model to
	provide a user-to-network interface. In this model, restrictions may		provide a user-to-network interface (UNI). In this model,
	be applied to the information that is signaled between an edge-node		restrictions may be applied to the information that is signaled
	and a core-node. This restriction allows the core network to limit		between an edge-node and a core-node. This restriction allows the
	the information that is visible outside of the core. This restriction		core network to limit the information that is visible outside of the
	may be made for confidentiality, privacy or security reasons. It may		core. This restriction may be made for confidentiality, privacy, or
	also be made for operational reasons, for example if the information		security reasons. It may also be made for operational reasons, for
	is only applicable within the core network.		example, if the information is only applicable within the core
			network.
	The extensions described in this document are candidates for		The extensions described in this document are candidates for
	filtering as described in [RFC4208]. In particular the following		filtering as described in [RFC4208]. In particular, the following
	observations apply.		observations apply.
	o An ingress or egress core-node MAY filter alarms from the GMPLS		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		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		about the core network, or to indicate that the core network is
	performing or has completed recovery actions for the GMPLS LSP.		performing or has completed recovery actions for the GMPLS LSP.
	o An ingress or egress core-node MAY modify alarms from the GMPLS		o An ingress or egress core-node MAY modify alarms from the GMPLS
	core when sending to a client-node UNI LSP. This may facilitate		core when sending to a client-node UNI LSP. This may facilitate
	the UNI client's ability to understand the failure and its effect		the UNI client's ability to understand the failure and its effect
	on the data plane, and enable the UNI client to take corrective		on the data plane, and enable the UNI client to take corrective
	actions in a more-appropriate manner.		actions in a more appropriate manner.
	o Similarly, an egress core-node MAY choose to not request alarm		o Similarly, an egress core-node MAY choose not to request alarm
	reporting on Path messages that it sends downstream to the overlay		reporting on Path messages that it sends downstream to the overlay
	network.		network.
	3.5. Relationship to GMPLS E-NNI		3.5. Relationship to GMPLS E-NNI
	GMPLS may be used at the external network-to-network (E-NNI)		GMPLS may be used at the external network-to-network interface
	interface, see [ASON-APPL]. At this interface, restrictions may be		(E-NNI); see [ASON-APPL]. At this interface, restrictions may be
	applied to the information that is signaled between an egress and an		applied to the information that is signaled between an egress and an
	ingress core-node.		ingress core-node.
	This restriction allows the ingress core network to limit the		This restriction allows the ingress core network to limit the
	information that is visible outside of its core network. This		information that is visible outside of its core network. This
	restriction may be made for confidentiality, privacy or security		restriction may be made for confidentiality, privacy, or security
	reasons. It may also be made for operational reasons, for example if		reasons. It may also be made for operational reasons, for example,
	the information is only applicable within the core network.		if the information is only applicable within the core network.
	The extensions described in this document are candidates for		The extensions described in this document are candidates for
	filtering as described in [ASON-APPL]. In particular the following		filtering as described in [ASON-APPL]. In particular, the following
	observations apply.		observations apply.
	o An ingress or egress core-node MAY filter internal core network		o An ingress or egress core-node MAY filter internal core network
	alarms. This may be to protect information about the internal		alarms. This may be to protect information about the internal
	network, or to indicate that the core network is performing or has		network or to indicate that the core network is performing or has
	completed recovery actions for this LSP.		completed recovery actions for this LSP.
	o An ingress or egress core-node MAY modify internal core network		o An ingress or egress core-node MAY modify internal core network
	alarms. This may facilitate the peering E-NNI (i.e. the egress		alarms. This may facilitate the peering E-NNI (i.e., the egress
	core-node) to understand the failure and its effect on the data		core-node) to understand the failure and its effect on the data
	plane, and take corrective actions in a more-appropriate manner or		plane, and take corrective actions in a more appropriate manner or
	prolong the generated alarms upstream/downstream as appropriated.		prolong the generated alarms upstream/downstream as appropriated.
	o Similarly, an egress/ingress core-node MAY choose to not request		o Similarly, an egress/ingress core-node MAY choose not to request
	alarm reporting on Path messages that it sends downstream.		alarm reporting on Path messages that it sends downstream.
	4. Acknowledgments		4. Security Considerations
	Valuable comments and input were received from a number of people,
	including Wes Doonan, Bert Wijnen for the DISMAN reference, Tom Petch
	for getting the disman WG interactions started. We also thank David
	Black, Lars Eggert, Russ Housley, Dan Romascanu, and Magnus
	Westerlund, for their valuable comments.
	5. Security Considerations
	Some operators may consider alarm information as sensitive. To		Some operators may consider alarm information as sensitive. To
	support environments where this is the case, implementations SHOULD		support environments where this is the case, implementations SHOULD
	allow the user to disable the generation of ALARM_SPEC objects, or to		allow the user to disable the generation of ALARM_SPEC objects, or to
	filter or correlate them at domain boundaries.		filter or correlate them at domain boundaries.
	This document introduces no additional security considerations. See		This document introduces no additional security considerations. See
	[RFC3473] for relevant security considerations.		[RFC3473] for relevant security considerations.
	It may be noted that if the security considerations of [RFC3473] are		It may be noted that if the security considerations of [RFC3473] are
	breached, alarm information may be spoofed. Such spoofing would be at		breached, alarm information may be spoofed. Such spoofing would be
	most annoying and cause slight degradation of control plane		at most annoying and cause slight degradation of control plane
	performance since the details are provided for information only and		performance since the details are provided for information only and
	do not result in protocol actions beyond the exchange of messages to		do not result in protocol actions beyond the exchange of messages to
	convey the information. If the protocol security is able to be		convey the information. If the protocol security is able to be
	breached sufficiently to allow spoofing of alarm information then		breached sufficiently to allow spoofing of alarm information then
	considerably more interesting and exciting damage can be caused by		considerably more interesting and exciting damage can be caused by
	spoofing other elements of the protocol messages.		spoofing other elements of the protocol messages.
	6. IANA Considerations		5. IANA Considerations
	IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for		IANA administered assignment of new values for namespaces defined in
	namespaces defined in this document and reviewed in this section.		this document and reviewed in this section.
	6.1. New RSVP Object		5.1. New RSVP Object
	Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following		IANA made the following assignments in the "Class Names, Class
	assignments in the "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types"		Numbers, and Class Types" section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry
	section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at		located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters.
	http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters
	A new class named ALARM_SPEC will be created in the 11bbbbbb range		A new class named ALARM_SPEC (198) was created in the 11bbbbbb range
	(197 suggested) with following values		with following values
	o Class = TBA, C-Type = 1		o Class = 198, C-Type = 1
	[RFC-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec]		RFC 4783
	Reserved. (C-Type value defined for ERROR_SPEC, but is not		Reserved. (C-Type value defined for ERROR_SPEC, but is not
	defined for use with ALARM_SPEC.)		defined for use with ALARM_SPEC.)
	o Class = TBA, C-Type = 2		o Class = 198, C-Type = 2
	[RFC-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec]		RFC 4783
	Reserved. (C-Type value defined for ERROR_SPEC, but is not		Reserved. (C-Type value defined for ERROR_SPEC, but is not
	defined for use with ALARM_SPEC.)		defined for use with ALARM_SPEC.)
	o IPv4 IF_ID ALARM_SPEC object: Class = TBA, C-Type = 3		o IPv4 IF_ID ALARM_SPEC object: Class = 198, C-Type = 3
	[RFC-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec]		RFC 4783
	Definition same as IPv4 IF_ID ERROR_SPEC [RFC3473].		Definition same as IPv4 IF_ID ERROR_SPEC [RFC3473].
	o IPv6 IF_ID ALARM_SPEC object: Class = TBA, C-Type = 4		o IPv6 IF_ID ALARM_SPEC object: Class = 198, C-Type = 4
	[RFC-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec]		RFC 4783
	Definition same as IPv6 IF_ID ERROR_SPEC [RFC3473].		Definition same as IPv6 IF_ID ERROR_SPEC [RFC3473].
	The ALARM_SPEC object uses the Error Code and Error Values from the		The ALARM_SPEC object uses the Error Code and Error Values from the
	ERROR_SPEC object.		ERROR_SPEC object.
	6.2. New Interface ID Types		5.2. New Interface ID Types
	Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following		IANA made the following assignments in the "Interface_ID Types"
	assignments in the "Interface_ID Types" section of the "GMPLS		section of the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters" registry located at
	Signaling Parameters" registry located at		http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters.
	http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters
	xx2 8 REFERENCE_COUNT [RFC-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec]		512 8 REFERENCE_COUNT RFC 4783
	xx3 8 SEVERITY [RFC-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec]		513 8 SEVERITY RFC 4783
	xx4 8 GLOBAL_TIMESTAMP [RFC-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec]		514 8 GLOBAL_TIMESTAMP RFC 4783
	xx5 8 LOCAL_TIMESTAMP [RFC-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec]		515 8 LOCAL_TIMESTAMP RFC 4783
	xx6 variable ERROR_STRING [RFC-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec]		516 variable ERROR_STRING RFC 4783
	(The value of 51 is suggested for xx.)
	6.3. New Registry for Admin-Status Object Bit Fields		5.3. New Registry for Admin-Status Object Bit Fields
	Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create a new section		IANA created a new section titled "Administrative Status Information
	titled "Administrative Status Information Flags" in the "GMPLS		Flags" in the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters" registry located at
	Signaling Parameters" registry located at		http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters and made the
	http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters and make the
	following assignments:		following assignments:
	Value Name Reference		Value Name Reference
	----------- -------------------------------- -----------------		----------- -------------------------------- -----------------
	0x80000000 Reflect (R) [RFC3473/RFC3471]		0x80000000 Reflect (R) [RFC3473/RFC3471]
	0x00000010 Inhibit Alarm Communication (I)		0x00000010 Inhibit Alarm Communication (I) RFC 4783
	[RFC-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec]
	0x00000004 Testing (T) [RFC3473/RFC3471]		0x00000004 Testing (T) [RFC3473/RFC3471]
	0x00000002 Administratively down (A) [RFC3473/RFC3471]		0x00000002 Administratively down (A) [RFC3473/RFC3471]
	0x00000001 Deletion in progress (D) [RFC3473/RFC3471]		0x00000001 Deletion in progress (D) [RFC3473/RFC3471]
	6.4. New RSVP Error Code		5.4. New RSVP Error Code
	Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following		IANA made the following assignments in the "Error Codes and Values"
	assignments in the "Error Codes and Values" section of the "RSVP		section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at
	PARAMETERS" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-		http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters.
	parameters
	xx Alarms [RFC-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec]		31 Alarms RFC 4783
	The Error Value sub-codes for this Error Code have values and		The Error Value sub-codes for this Error Code have values and
	meanings identical to the values and meanings defined in the		meanings identical to the values and meanings defined in the
	IANAItuProbableCause Textual Convention of IANA-ITU-ALARM-TC-MIB		IANAItuProbableCause Textual Convention of IANA-ITU-ALARM-TC-MIB
	in the Alarm MIB [RFC3877]. Note these values are already		in the Alarm MIB [RFC3877]. Note that these values are already
	managed the IANA.		managed the IANA.
	(The value of 31 is suggested for xx.)		6. References
	7. References		6.1. Normative References
	7.1. Normative References		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
			Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
	[RFC2205] Braden, R. Ed. et al, "Resource ReserVation Protocol		[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and
	-- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205,		S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) --
	September 1997.		Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September
			1997.
	[RFC3471] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol		[RFC3471] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
	Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional		Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC
	Description", RFC 3471, January 2003.		3471, January 2003.
	[RFC3473] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label		[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
	Switching (GMPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation		Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
	Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",		Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC
	RFC 3473, January 2003.		3473, January 2003.
	[RFC3877] Chisholm, S., Romascanu, D., "Alarm Management		[RFC3877] Chisholm, S. and D. Romascanu, "Alarm Management
	Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3877, September 2004.		Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3877, September 2004.
	[M.3100] ITU Recommendation M.3100, "Generic Network Information		[M.3100] ITU Recommendation M.3100, "Generic Network Information
	Model", 1995		Model", 1995.
	7.2. Informative References		6.2. Informative References
	[RFC4201] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Berger, L., "Link Bundling		[RFC4201] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and L. Berger, "Link Bundling
	in MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201, October 2005.		in MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201, October
			2005.
	[M.20] ITU-T, "MAINTENANCE PHILOSOPHY FOR TELECOMMUNICATION		[M.20] ITU-T, "MAINTENANCE PHILOSOPHY FOR TELECOMMUNICATION
	NETWORKS", Recommendation M.20, October 1992.		NETWORKS", Recommendation M.20, October 1992.
	[GR833] Bellcore, "Network Maintenance: Network Element and		[GR833] Bellcore, "Network Maintenance: Network Element and
	Transport Surveillance Messages" (GR-833-CORE), Issue 3,		Transport Surveillance Messages" (GR-833-CORE), Issue 3,
	February 1999.		February 1999.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC4208] Swallow, G., Drake, J., Ishimatsu, H., and Y. Rekhter,
	Requirement Levels," RFC 2119.		"Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) User-
			Network Interface (UNI): Resource ReserVation Protocol-
	[RFC4208] Swallow, G., Drake, J., Ishimatsu, H., and Rekhter, Y.		Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support for the Overlay
	"Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS)		Model", RFC 4208, October 2005.
	User-Network Interface (UNI): Resource ReserVation
	Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support for the
	Overlay Model", RFC 4208, October 2005.
	[ASON-APPL] D. Papadimitriou et. al., "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)		[ASON-APPL] Papadimitriou, D., et al., "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
	RSVP-TE signaling usage in support of Automatically		RSVP-TE signaling usage in support of Automatically
	Switched Optical Network (ASON),"		Switched Optical Network (ASON)", Work in Progress, July
	draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-ason, work in progress.		2005.
			7. Acknowledgments
			Valuable comments and input were received from a number of people,
			including Wes Doonan, Bert Wijnen for the DISMAN reference, and Tom
			Petch for getting the DISMAN WG interactions started. We also thank
			David Black, Lars Eggert, Russ Housley, Dan Romascanu, and Magnus
			Westerlund for their valuable comments.
	8. Contributors		8. Contributors
	Contributors are listed in alphabetical order:		Contributors are listed in alphabetical order:
	Lou Berger Deborah Brungard		Deborah Brungard
	LabN Consulting, L.L.C. AT&T Labs, Room MT D1-3C22		AT&T Labs, Room MT D1-3C22
	200 Laurel Avenue		200 Laurel Avenue
	Middletown, NJ 07748, USA		Middletown, NJ 07748, USA
	Phone: +1 301-468-9228 Phone: (732) 420-1573		Phone: (732) 420-1573
	Email: lberger@labn.net Email: dbrungard@att.com		EMail: dbrungard@att.com
	Igor Bryskin Adrian Farrel		Igor Bryskin Adrian Farrel
	Movaz Networks, Inc. Old Dog Consulting		Movaz Networks, Inc. Old Dog Consulting
	7926 Jones Branch Drive		7926 Jones Branch Drive
	Suite 615		Suite 615
	McLean VA, 22102, USA Phone: +44 (0) 1978 860944		McLean VA, 22102, USA Phone: +44 (0) 1978 860944
	Email: ibryskin@movaz.com Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk		EMail: ibryskin@movaz.com EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk
	Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel) Arun Satyanarayana		Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel) Arun Satyanarayana
	Francis Wellesplein 1 Cisco Systems, Inc		Francis Wellesplein 1 Cisco Systems, Inc
	B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium 170 West Tasman Dr.		B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium 170 West Tasman Dr.
	San Jose, CA 95134 USA		San Jose, CA 95134 USA
	Phone: +32 3 240-8491 Phone: +1 408 853-3206		Phone: +32 3 240-8491 Phone: +1 408 853-3206
	Email: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be Email: asatyana@cisco.com		EMail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be EMail: asatyana@cisco.com
	9. Contact Address		Editor's Address
	Lou Berger		Lou Berger
	LabN Consulting, L.L.C.		LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
	Phone: +1 301-468-9228		Phone: +1 301-468-9228
	Email: lberger@labn.net		EMail: lberger@labn.net
	10. Full Copyright Statement		Full Copyright Statement
	Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject		Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006).
	to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
	except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.		This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
			contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
			retain all their rights.
	This document and the information contained herein are provided on an		This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
	"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS		"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
	OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET		OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST,
	ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,		AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES,
	INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE		EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT
	INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED		THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY
	WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.		IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
			PURPOSE.
	11. Intellectual Property		Intellectual Property
	The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any		The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
	Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to		Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
	pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in		pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
	this document or the extent to which any license under such rights		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		might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
	made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information		made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
	on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be		on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
	found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.		found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any		Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
	assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an		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		attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
	such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this		such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
	specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at		specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
	http://www.ietf.org/ipr.		http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
	The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any		The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
	copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary		copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
	rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement		rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
	this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-		this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
	ipr@ietf.org.		ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
	Generated on: Thu Sep 7 22:15:17 TST 2006		Acknowledgement
			Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
			Internet Society.
End of changes. 99 change blocks.
	253 lines changed or deleted		237 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.33. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/