draft-ietf-forces-protoextension-03.txt   draft-ietf-forces-protoextension-04.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force J. Hadi Salim Internet Engineering Task Force J. Hadi Salim
Internet-Draft Mojatatu Networks Internet-Draft Mojatatu Networks
Updates: 7121,5810 (if approved) July 3, 2014 Updates: 7121,5810 (if approved) July 30, 2014
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: January 4, 2015 Expires: January 31, 2015
ForCES Protocol Extensions ForCES Protocol Extensions
draft-ietf-forces-protoextension-03 draft-ietf-forces-protoextension-04
Abstract Abstract
Experience in implementing and deploying ForCES architecture has Experience in implementing and deploying ForCES architecture has
demonstrated need for a few small extensions both to ease demonstrated need for a few small extensions both to ease
programmability and to improve wire efficiency of some transactions. programmability and to improve wire efficiency of some transactions.
This documents updates both RFC 5810 and RFC 7121. semantics to This documents updates both RFC 5810 and RFC 7121 semantics to
achieve that end goal. achieve that end goal.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 4, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 31, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Terminology and Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Terminology and Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1.2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Problem Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Problem Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Table Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Error codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Protocol Update Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Table Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Table Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Error codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Protocol Update Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2.1. New Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Table Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2.2. Private Vendor Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2.3. Extended Result TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.1. New Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2.3.1. Extended Result Backward compatibility . . . . . . 9
4.2.2. Vendor Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.3. Large Table Dumping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.3. Extended Result TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.3.1. Extended Result Backward compatibility . . . . . . 9 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3. Large Table Dumping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Appendix A. Appendix A - New FEPO version . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Appendix A - New FEPO version . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1. Terminology and Conventions 1. Introduction
1.1. Requirements Language
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].
1.2. Definitions
This document reiterates the terminology defined by the ForCES
architecture in various documents for the sake of clarity.
FE Model - The FE model is designed to model the logical
processing functions of an FE. The FE model proposed in this
document includes three components; the LFB modeling of individual
Logical Functional Block (LFB model), the logical interconnection
between LFBs (LFB topology), and the FE-level attributes,
including FE capabilities. The FE model provides the basis to
define the information elements exchanged between the CE and the
FE in the ForCES protocol [RFC5810].
LFB (Logical Functional Block) Class (or type) - A template that
represents a fine-grained, logically separable aspect of FE
processing. Most LFBs relate to packet processing in the data
path. LFB classes are the basic building blocks of the FE model.
LFB Instance - As a packet flows through an FE along a data path,
it flows through one or multiple LFB instances, where each LFB is
an instance of a specific LFB class. Multiple instances of the
same LFB class can be present in an FE's data path. Note that we
often refer to LFBs without distinguishing between an LFB class
and LFB instance when we believe the implied reference is obvious
for the given context.
LFB Model - The LFB model describes the content and structures in
an LFB, plus the associated data definition. XML is used to
provide a formal definition of the necessary structures for the
modeling. Four types of information are defined in the LFB model.
The core part of the LFB model is the LFB class definitions; the
other three types of information define constructs associated with
and used by the class definition. These are reusable data types,
supported frame (packet) formats, and metadata.
LFB Metadata - Metadata is used to communicate per-packet state
from one LFB to another, but is not sent across the network. The
FE model defines how such metadata is identified, produced, and
consumed by the LFBs, but not how the per-packet state is
implemented within actual hardware. Metadata is sent between the
FE and the CE on redirect packets.
ForCES Component - A ForCES Component is a well-defined, uniquely
identifiable and addressable ForCES model building block. A
component has a 32-bit ID, name, type, and an optional synopsis
description. These are often referred to simply as components.
LFB Component - An LFB component is a ForCES component that
defines the Operational parameters of the LFBs that must be
visible to the CEs.
ForCES Protocol - Protocol that runs in the Fp reference points in
the ForCES Framework [RFC3746].
ForCES Protocol Layer (ForCES PL) - A layer in the ForCES protocol
architecture that defines the ForCES protocol messages, the
protocol state transfer scheme, and the ForCES protocol
architecture itself as defined in the ForCES Protocol
Specification [RFC5810].
ForCES Protocol Transport Mapping Layer (ForCES TML) - A layer in
ForCES protocol architecture that uses the capabilities of
existing transport protocols to specifically address protocol
message transportation issues, such as how the protocol messages
are mapped to different transport media (like TCP, IP, ATM,
Ethernet, etc.), and how to achieve and implement reliability,
ordering, etc. the ForCES SCTP TML [RFC5811] describes a TML that
is mandated for ForCES.
2. Introduction
Experience in implementing and deploying ForCES architecture has Experience in implementing and deploying ForCES architecture has
demonstrated need for a few small extensions both to ease demonstrated need for a few small extensions both to ease
programmability and to improve wire efficiency of some transactions. programmability and to improve wire efficiency of some transactions.
This document describes a few extensions to the ForCES Protocol This document describes a few extensions to the ForCES Protocol
Specification [RFC5810] semantics to achieve that end goal. Specification [RFC5810] semantics to achieve that end goal.
This document describes and justifies the need for 2 small extensions This document describes and justifies the need for 2 small extensions
which are backward compatible. The document also clarifies details which are backward compatible. The document also clarifies details
of how dumping of a large table residing on an FE is achieved. To of how dumping of a large table residing on an FE is achieved. To
summarize: summarize:
1. A table range operation to allow a controller or control 1. A table range operation to allow a controller or control
application to request an arbitrary range of table rows is application to request an arbitrary range of table rows is
introduced. introduced.
2. Additional error codes returned to the controller (or control 2. Additional error codes returned to the controller (or control
application) by an FE are introduced. Additionally a new application) by an FE are introduced. Additionally a new
extension to carry details on error codes is introduced. As a extension to carry details on error codes is introduced. As a
result the FEPO LFB is updated over [RFC7121]. result the (FE Protocol Object) FEPO LFB is updated over the
definition in [RFC7121].
3. While already supported FE response to a GET request of a large 3. While already supported, an FE response to a GET request of a
table which does not fit in a single PL message is not described large table which does not fit in a single PL message is not
in [RFC5810]. This document clarifies the details. described in [RFC5810]. This document clarifies the details.
3. Problem Overview 1.1. Terminology and Conventions
1.1.1. Requirements Language
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].
1.1.2. Definitions
This document reiterates the terminology defined in several ForCES
documents [RFC3746], [RFC5810], [RFC5811], and [RFC5812] for the sake
of contexual clarity.
FE Model
LFB (Logical Functional Block) Class (or type)
LFB Instance
LFB Model
LFB Metadata
ForCES Component
LFB Component
ForCES Protocol the ForCES Framework [RFC3746]. the ForCES SCTP
TML [RFC5811] describes a TML
ForCES Protocol Layer (ForCES PL)
ForCES Protocol Transport Mapping Layer (ForCES TML)
2. Problem Overview
In this section we present sample use cases to illustrate each In this section we present sample use cases to illustrate each
challenge being addressed. challenge being addressed.
3.1. Table Ranges 2.1. Table Ranges
Consider, for the sake of illustration, an FE table with 1 million Consider, for the sake of illustration, an FE table with 1 million
reasonably sized table rows which are sparsely populated. Assume, reasonably sized table rows which are sparsely populated. Assume,
again for the sake of illustration, that there are 2000 table rows again for the sake of illustration, that there are 2000 table rows
sparsely populated between the row indices 23-10023. sparsely populated between the row indices 23-10023.
Implementation experience has shown that existing approaches for Implementation experience has shown that existing approaches for
retrieving or deleting a sizeable number of table rows is at the retrieving or deleting a sizeable number of table rows is at the
programmatically level (from an application point of view) programmatically level (from an application point of view)
unfriendly, tedious, and abusive of both compute and bandwidth unfriendly, tedious, and abusive of both compute and bandwidth
skipping to change at page 6, line 7 skipping to change at page 5, line 16
indices and stop when the needed 2000 entries are retrieved. indices and stop when the needed 2000 entries are retrieved.
o If the application had knowledge of which table rows existed (not o If the application had knowledge of which table rows existed (not
unreasonable given the controller is supposed to be aware of state unreasonable given the controller is supposed to be aware of state
within an NE), then the application could take advantage of ForCES within an NE), then the application could take advantage of ForCES
batching to send fewer large messages (each with different path batching to send fewer large messages (each with different path
entries for a total of two thousand). entries for a total of two thousand).
As argued, while the above options exist - all are tedious. As argued, while the above options exist - all are tedious.
3.2. Error codes 2.2. Error codes
[RFC5810] has defined a generic set of error codes that are to be [RFC5810] has defined a generic set of error codes that are to be
returned to the CE from an FE. Deployment experience has shown that returned to the CE from an FE. Deployment experience has shown that
it would be useful to have more fine grained error codes. As an it would be useful to have more fine grained error codes. As an
example, the error code E_NOT_SUPPORTED could be mapped to many FE example, the error code E_NOT_SUPPORTED could be mapped to many FE
error source possibilities that need to be then interpreted by the error source possibilities that need to be then interpreted by the
caller based on some understanding of the nature of the sent request. caller based on some understanding of the nature of the sent request.
This makes debugging more time consuming. This makes debugging more time consuming.
4. Protocol Update Proposal 3. Protocol Update Proposal
This section describes proposals to update the protocol for issues This section describes proposals to update the protocol for issues
discussed in Section 3 discussed in Section 2
4.1. Table Ranges 3.1. Table Ranges
We propose to add a Table-range TLV (type ID 0x117) that will be We define a new TLV, TABLERANGE-TLV (type ID 0x117) that will be
associated with the PATH-DATA TLV in the same manner the KEYINFO-TLV associated with the PATH-DATA TLV in the same manner the KEYINFO-TLV
is. is.
+---------------------+---------------------+ +---------------------+---------------------+
| Type (0x117) | Length | | Type (0x117) | Length |
+---------------------+---------------------+ +---------------------+---------------------+
| Start Index | | Start Index |
+-------------------------------------------+ +-------------------------------------------+
| End Index | | End Index |
+-------------------------------------------+ +-------------------------------------------+
skipping to change at page 7, line 13 skipping to change at page 6, line 23
table with component path of "1/6". table with component path of "1/6".
Path flag of F_SELTABRANGE (0x2 i.e bit 1, where bit 0 is F_SELKEY as Path flag of F_SELTABRANGE (0x2 i.e bit 1, where bit 0 is F_SELKEY as
defined in RFC 5810) MUST be set to indicate the presence of the defined in RFC 5810) MUST be set to indicate the presence of the
TABLERANGE-TLV. The pathflag bit F_SELTABRANGE can only be used in a TABLERANGE-TLV. The pathflag bit F_SELTABRANGE can only be used in a
GET or DEL and is mutually exclusive with F_SELKEY. The FE MUST GET or DEL and is mutually exclusive with F_SELKEY. The FE MUST
enforce the path flag constraints and ensure that the selected path enforce the path flag constraints and ensure that the selected path
belongs to a defined indexed table component. Any violation of these belongs to a defined indexed table component. Any violation of these
constraints MUST be rejected with an error code of E_INVALID_TFLAGS constraints MUST be rejected with an error code of E_INVALID_TFLAGS
with a description of what the problem is when using extended error with a description of what the problem is when using extended error
reporting (refer to Section 4.2). reporting (refer to Section 3.2).
The TABLERANGE-TLV contents constitute: The TABLERANGE-TLV contents constitute:
o A 32 bit start index. An index of 0 implies the beggining of the o A 32 bit start index. An index of 0 implies the beggining of the
table row. table row.
o A 32 bit end index. A value of 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF implies the o A 32 bit end index. A value of 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF implies the
last entry. last entry.
The response for a table range query will either be: The response for a table range query will either be:
o The requested table data returned (when at least one referenced o The requested table data returned (when at least one referenced
row is available); in such a case, a response with a path pointing row is available); in such a case, a response with a path pointing
to the table and whose data content contain the row(s) will be to the table and whose data content contain the row(s) will be
sent to the CE. The data content MUST be encapsulated in sent to the CE. The data content MUST be encapsulated in
sparsedata TLV. The sparse data TLV content will have the "I" (in sparsedata TLV. The sparse data TLV content will have the "I" (in
ILV) for each table row indicating the table indices. ILV) for each table row indicating the table indices.
o An EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV (refer to Section 4.2.3) when: o An EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV (refer to Section 3.2.3) when:
* Response is to a range delete request. The Result will either * Response is to a range delete request. The Result will either
be: be:
+ A success if any of the requested-for rows is deleted + A success if any of the requested-for rows is deleted
+ A proper error code if none of the requested for rows can be + A proper error code if none of the requested for rows can be
deleted deleted
* data is absent where the result code of E_EMPTY with an * data is absent where the result code of E_EMPTY with an
optional content string describing the nature of the error optional content string describing the nature of the error
(refer to Section 4.2). (refer to Section 3.2).
* When both a path key and path table range are reflected on the * When both a path key and path table range are reflected on the
the pathflags, an error code of E_INVALID_TFLAGS with an the pathflags, an error code of E_INVALID_TFLAGS with an
optional content string describing the nature of the error optional content string describing the nature of the error
(refer to Section 4.2). (refer to Section 3.2).
* other standard ForCES errors (such as ACL constraints trying to * other standard ForCES errors (such as ACL constraints trying to
retrieve contents of an unreadable table), accessing unknown retrieve contents of an unreadable table), accessing unknown
components etc. components etc.
4.2. Error Codes 3.2. Error Codes
We propose several things: We define several things:
1. A new set of error codes. 1. A new set of error codes.
2. Allocating some reserved codes for vendor use. 2. Allocating some reserved codes for private use.
3. A new TLV, EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV (0x118) that will carry a code 3. A new TLV, EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV (0x118) that will carry a code
(which will be a superset of what is currently specified in (which will be a superset of what is currently specified in
[RFC5810]) but also an optional cause content. This is [RFC5810]) but also an optional cause content. This is
illustrated in Figure 3. illustrated in Figure 3.
4.2.1. New Codes 3.2.1. New Codes
EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV Result Value is 32 bits and is a superset of RFC EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV Result Value is 32 bits and is a superset of RFC
5810 Result TLV Result Value. The new version code space is 32 bits 5810 Result TLV Result Value. The new version code space is 32 bits
as opposed to the RFC 5810 code size of 8 bits. The first 8 bit as opposed to the RFC 5810 code size of 8 bits. The first 8 bit
values are common to both old values are common to both old
+------------+-------------------------+----------------------------+ +------------+-------------------------+----------------------------+
| Code | Mnemonic | Details | | Code | Mnemonic | Details |
+------------+-------------------------+----------------------------+ +------------+-------------------------+----------------------------+
| 0x18 | E_TIMED_OUT | A time out occured while | | 0x18 | E_TIMED_OUT | A time out occured while |
skipping to change at page 9, line 5 skipping to change at page 8, line 12
| 0x1E | E_BUSY | System is Busy | | 0x1E | E_BUSY | System is Busy |
| 0x1F | E_EMPTY | Table is empty | | 0x1F | E_EMPTY | Table is empty |
| 0x20 | E_UNKNOWN | A generic catch all error | | 0x20 | E_UNKNOWN | A generic catch all error |
| | | code. Carries a string to | | | | code. Carries a string to |
| | | further extrapolate what | | | | further extrapolate what |
| | | the error implies. | | | | the error implies. |
+------------+-------------------------+----------------------------+ +------------+-------------------------+----------------------------+
Table 1: New codes Table 1: New codes
4.2.2. Vendor Codes 3.2.2. Private Vendor Codes
Codes 0x100-0x200 are reserved for use as vendor codes. Since these Codes 0x100-0x200 are reserved for use as private codes. Since these
are freely available it is expected that the FE and CE side will both are freely available it is expected that the FE and CE side
understand/interpret the semantics of any used codes. implementations will both understand/interpret the semantics of any
used codes and avoid any conflicts.
4.2.3. Extended Result TLV 3.2.3. Extended Result TLV
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 = EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV | Length | | Type = EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Result Value | | Result Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Optional Cause content | | Optional Cause content |
. . . .
skipping to change at page 9, line 45 skipping to change at page 9, line 6
o The optional result content is defined to further disambiguate the o The optional result content is defined to further disambiguate the
result value. It is expected Utf-8 string values to be used. result value. It is expected Utf-8 string values to be used.
However, vendor specific error codes may choose to specify However, vendor specific error codes may choose to specify
different contents. Additionally, future codes may specify cause different contents. Additionally, future codes may specify cause
contents to be of types other than string.. contents to be of types other than string..
o It is recommended that the maximum size of the cause string should o It is recommended that the maximum size of the cause string should
not exceed 32 bytes. We do not propose the cause string be not exceed 32 bytes. We do not propose the cause string be
standardized. standardized.
4.2.3.1. Extended Result Backward compatibility 3.2.3.1. Extended Result Backward compatibility
To support backward compatibility, we add a new component ID 16 To support backward compatibility, we update and the FEPO LFB
(named EResultAdmin), a capability Component ID 32 (named Appendix A version to 1.2. We also add a new component ID 16 (named
EResultCapab), and updated the version to 1.2 for the FEPO LFB EResultAdmin) and a capability Component ID 32 (named EResultCapab).
Appendix A.
An FE will advertise its capability to support extended TLVs via the An FE will advertise its capability to support extended TLVs via the
EResultCapab table. When an FE is capable of responding with both EResultCapab table. When an FE is capable of responding with both
extended results and older result TLVs, it will have two table rows extended results and older result TLVs, it will have two table rows
one for each supported value. By default an FE capable of supporting one for each supported value. By default an FE capable of supporting
both modes will assume the lowest common denominator i.e EResultAdmin both modes will assume the lowest common denominator i.e EResultAdmin
will be EResultNotSupported; and will issue responses using RESULT- will be EResultNotSupported; and will issue responses using RESULT-
TLVs. TLVs. It should be noted an FE advertising FEPO version 1.2 MUST
support EXTENDEDRESULT-TLVs at minimum.
A master CE can turn on support for extended results by setting the On an FE which supports both RESULT-TLVs and EXTENDEDRESULT-TLVs, a
master CE can turn on support for extended results by setting the
value to 2 in which case the FE MUST switch over to sending only value to 2 in which case the FE MUST switch over to sending only
EXTENDEDRESULT-TLVs. Likewise a master CE can turn off extended EXTENDEDRESULT-TLVs. Likewise a master CE can turn off extended
result responses by writting a 1 to the EResultAdmin. An FE that result responses by writting a 1 to the EResultAdmin. An FE that
does not support one mode or other MUST reject setting of does not support one mode or other MUST reject setting of
EResultAdmin to a value it does not support by responding with an EResultAdmin to a value it does not support by responding with an
error code of E_NOT_SUPPORTED. error code of E_NOT_SUPPORTED.
4.3. Large Table Dumping 3.3. Large Table Dumping
Imagine a GET request to a path that is a table i.e a table dump. Imagine a GET request to a path that is a table i.e a table dump.
Such a request is sent to the FE with a specific correlator, say X. Such a request is sent to the FE with a specific correlator, say X.
Imagine this table to have a large number of entries at the FE. For Imagine this table to have a large number of entries at the FE. For
the sake of illustration, lets say millions of rows. This requires the sake of illustration, lets say millions of rows. This requires
that the FE delivers the response over multiple messages, all using that the FE delivers the response over multiple messages, all using
the same correlator X. the same correlator X.
The protocol document [RFC5810] does not adequately describe how a The protocol document [RFC5810] does not adequately describe how a
GET response to such a large message is delivered. The text in this GET response to such a large message is delivered. The text in this
skipping to change at page 11, line 49 skipping to change at page 10, line 49
| RESULT TLV (SUCCESS) | | RESULT TLV (SUCCESS) |
| | | |
Figure 4: EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV Figure 4: EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV
The last message which carries the EOT flag to go the CE MUST NOT The last message which carries the EOT flag to go the CE MUST NOT
carry any data. This allows us to mirror ForCES 2PC messaging carry any data. This allows us to mirror ForCES 2PC messaging
[RFC5810] where the last message is an empty commit message. GET [RFC5810] where the last message is an empty commit message. GET
response will carry a result code TLV in such a case. response will carry a result code TLV in such a case.
5. Acknowledgements 4. Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Evangelos Haleplidis and Joel Halpern The author would like to thank Evangelos Haleplidis and Joel Halpern
for discussions that made this document better. for discussions that made this document better. Adrian Farrel did an
excellent AD review of the document which improved the quality of
this document.
6. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
This document registers two new top Level TLVs and two new path flags This document registers two new top Level TLVs and two new path flags
and updates an IANA registered FE Protocol object Logical Functional and updates an IANA registered FE Protocol object Logical Functional
Block (LFB). Block (LFB).
XXX: when this document is undergoing IANA review we should update The Appendix A defines an update to the FE Protocol Object LFB to
https://www.iana.org/assignments/forces/forces.xml section on FEPO to version 1.2. XXX: comment to IANA: The IANA registry
have the new version reflected. https://www.iana.org/assignments/forces/forces.xml sub-registy
"Logical Functional Block (LFB) Class Names and Class Identifiers"
will need to be updated for FE Protocol Object LFB version from 1.1
to 1.2 and this document reflected in the reference column.
XXX: comments to IANA - updates required to the "TLV types"
subregistry for the TLVs below.
The following new TLVs are defined: The following new TLVs are defined:
o TABLERANGE-TLV (type ID 0x117) o TABLERANGE-TLV (type ID 0x117)
o EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV (type ID 0x118) o EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV (type ID 0x118)
The following new path flags are defined: XXX: Comment to IANA, section below affects subregistry "RESULT-TLV
Result Values"
o F_SELTABRANGE (value 0x2 i.e bit 1) The Defined RESULT-TLV Result Values are changed:
The Defined Result Values are changed: o codes 0x21-0xFE are unassigned.
o codes 0x21-0xFE are reserved. o codes 0x18-0x20 are defined by this document in Section 3.2.1.
o codes 0x18-0x20 are defined by this document. o codes 0x100-0x200 are reserved for private use.
o codes 0x100-0x200 are reserved for vendor use. XXX: Note to IANA - codes 0x18-0x20 need approval of the designated
expert (In this case Joel Halpern since the author is the other
expert).
7. Security Considerations A a new sub-registry for EXTENDEDRESULT-TLV Result Values needs to be
created. The codes 0x00-0xff are mirrored from the RESULT-TLV Result
Values sub-registry and must not be allocated. The codes 0x100-0x200
are reserved for private use as described earlier and the codes
0x200-0xffffffff are reserved for future use; these codes will be
allocated on First Come First Served basis and require specification
as well approval of an expert review.
6. Security Considerations
The security considerations that have been described in the ForCES The security considerations that have been described in the ForCES
protocol [RFC5810] apply to this document as well. protocol [RFC5810] apply to this document as well.
8. References 7. References
8.1. 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.
[RFC5810] Doria, A., Hadi Salim, J., Haas, R., Khosravi, H., Wang, [RFC5810] Doria, A., Hadi Salim, J., Haas, R., Khosravi, H., Wang,
W., Dong, L., Gopal, R., and J. Halpern, "Forwarding and W., Dong, L., Gopal, R., and J. Halpern, "Forwarding and
Control Element Separation (ForCES) Protocol Control Element Separation (ForCES) Protocol
Specification", RFC 5810, March 2010. Specification", RFC 5810, March 2010.
[RFC5811] Hadi Salim, J. and K. Ogawa, "SCTP-Based Transport Mapping [RFC5811] Hadi Salim, J. and K. Ogawa, "SCTP-Based Transport Mapping
Layer (TML) for the Forwarding and Control Element Layer (TML) for the Forwarding and Control Element
Separation (ForCES) Protocol", RFC 5811, March 2010. Separation (ForCES) Protocol", RFC 5811, March 2010.
[RFC5812] Halpern, J. and J. Hadi Salim, "Forwarding and Control
Element Separation (ForCES) Forwarding Element Model",
RFC 5812, March 2010.
[RFC7121] Ogawa, K., Wang, W., Haleplidis, E., and J. Hadi Salim, [RFC7121] Ogawa, K., Wang, W., Haleplidis, E., and J. Hadi Salim,
"High Availability within a Forwarding and Control Element "High Availability within a Forwarding and Control Element
Separation (ForCES) Network Element", RFC 7121, Separation (ForCES) Network Element", RFC 7121,
February 2014. February 2014.
8.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3746] Yang, L., Dantu, R., Anderson, T., and R. Gopal, [RFC3746] Yang, L., Dantu, R., Anderson, T., and R. Gopal,
"Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) "Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES)
Framework", RFC 3746, April 2004. Framework", RFC 3746, April 2004.
Appendix A. Appendix A - New FEPO version Appendix A. Appendix A - New FEPO version
<LFBLibrary xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:forces:lfbmodel:1.0" <LFBLibrary xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:forces:lfbmodel:1.0"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="lfb-schema.xsd" provides="FEPO"> xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="lfb-schema.xsd" provides="FEPO">
 End of changes. 48 change blocks. 
156 lines changed or deleted 138 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/