draft-ietf-mpls-iana-rsvp-session-flags-00.txt		draft-ietf-mpls-iana-rsvp-session-flags-01.txt
	Network Working Group Adrian Farrel		Network Working Group Adrian Farrel
	Internet Draft Old Dog Consulting		Internet Draft Old Dog Consulting
	Category: Informational		Category: Informational
			Expiration Date: August 2007 February 2007
	Codepoint Registry for The Flags Field in the Resource Reservation		Codepoint Registry for The Flags Field in the Resource Reservation
	Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Session Attribute Object		Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Session Attribute Object
	draft-ietf-mpls-iana-rsvp-session-flags-00.txt		draft-ietf-mpls-iana-rsvp-session-flags-01.txt
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any		By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
	applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware		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		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.		aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that		Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
	skipping to change at page 3, line 5		skipping to change at page 2, line 50
	0x04 SE Style desired		0x04 SE Style desired
	2.2. RFC 4090		2.2. RFC 4090
	[RFC4090] defines the use of two bits as follows:		[RFC4090] defines the use of two bits as follows:
	0x08 Bandwidth protection desired		0x08 Bandwidth protection desired
	0x10 Node protection desired		0x10 Node protection desired
	2.3. RFC XXXX		2.3. RFC 4736
	[RFC Editor:
	Please replace XXXX above with the RFC number assigned for
	draft-ietf-ccamp-loose-path-reopt, and make the same change in the
	references.
	Please remove this note prior to publication.]
	[RFCXXXX] defines the use of one bit as follows:		[RFC4736] defines the use of one bit as follows:
	0x20 Path re-evaluation request		0x20 Path re-evaluation request
	3. Security Considerations		3. Security Considerations
	This informational document exists purely to create an IANA registry.		This informational document exists purely to create an IANA registry.
	Such registries help to protect the IETF process against Denial of		Such registries help to protect the IETF process against Denial of
	Service attacks.		Service attacks.
	Otherwise there are no security considerations for this document.		Otherwise there are no security considerations for this document.
	4. IANA Considerations		4. IANA Considerations
	IANA is requested to create a new codepoint registry as follows.		IANA is requested to create a new codepoint registry as follows.
	The new registry should be placed under the "RSVP-TE Parameters"		The new registry should be placed under the "RSVP-TE Parameters"
	branch of the tree.		branch of the tree.
	The new registry should be termed "Session Attribute Object Flags."		The new registry should be termed "Session Attribute Object Flags."
	Flags from this registry may only be assigned by IETF consensus.		Flags from this registry may only be assigned by IETF consensus
			[RFC2434].
	The registry should reference the flags already defined as described		The registry should reference the flags already defined as described
	in section 2 of this document.		in section 2 of this document.
	5. Acknowledgements		5. Acknowledgements
	Thanks to JP Vasseur and Bill Fenner for reviewing this document.		Thanks to JP Vasseur, Bill Fenner and Thomas Narten for reviewing
			this document.
	6. References		6. References
	6.1 Normative References		6.1 Normative References
	[RFC2205] Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S. and		[RFC2205] Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S. and
	S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) --		S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) --
	Version 1, Functional Specification", RFC 2205,		Version 1, Functional Specification", RFC 2205,
	September 1997.		September 1997.
			[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing
			an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC
			2434, October 1998.
	[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan,		[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan,
	V. and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP		V. and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
	Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.		Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
	[RFC3473] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label		[RFC3473] Berger, L., Editor, "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 3473, January 2003.		RFC 3473, January 2003.
			6.2 Informative References
	[RFC4090] Pan, P., Swallow, G., and Atlas, A., "Fast Reroute		[RFC4090] Pan, P., Swallow, G., and Atlas, A., "Fast Reroute
	Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,		Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
	May 2005.		May 2005.
	[RFCXXXX] Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and Zhang, R.,		[RFC4736] Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and Zhang, R.,
	"Reoptimization of Multiprotocol Label Switching		"Reoptimization of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
	(MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Loosely Routed Label		Traffic Engineering (TE) Loosely Routed Label Switched
	Switch Paths (LSPs)", draft-ietf-ccamp-loose-path-reopt		Path (LSP)", RFC 4736, November 2006.
	work in progress.
	7. Author's Address		7. Author's Address
	Adrian Farrel		Adrian Farrel
	Old Dog Consulting		Old Dog Consulting
	Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk		Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk
	8. Intellectual Property Consideration		8. Intellectual Property Consideration
	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		Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
	to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology		pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
	described in this document or the extent to which any license		this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
	under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it		might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
	represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any		made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
	such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights		on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
	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		attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
	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		specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
	at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.		http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
	The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention		The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
	any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other		copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
	proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required		rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
	to implement this standard. Please address the information to the		this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
	IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.		ipr@ietf.org.
	9. Full Copyright Statement		9. Full Copyright Statement
	Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is		Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
	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		This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
	on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE		contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
	REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND		retain all their rights.
	THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES,
	EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT		This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
	THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR		"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
	ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A		OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
	PARTICULAR PURPOSE.		THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
			OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
			THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
			WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
End of changes. 14 change blocks.
	35 lines changed or deleted		36 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/