draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-00.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-01.txt 
MPLS Working Group L. Andersson MPLS Working Group L. Andersson
Internet-Draft Bronze Dragon Consulting Internet-Draft Bronze Dragon Consulting
Updates: 8029, 8611 (if approved) T. Saad Updates: 8029, 8611 (if approved) M. Chen
Intended status: Standards Track Juniper Networks Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Techologies
Expires: April 19, 2020 M. Chen Expires: September 6, 2020 C. Pignataro
Huawei Techologies
C. Pignataro
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
October 17, 2019 T. Saad
Juniper Networks
March 5, 2020
Updating the IANA MPLS LSP Ping Parameters Updating the IANA MPLS LSP Ping Parameters
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-00 draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-01
Abstract Abstract
This document updates RFC 8029 and RFC 8611 that define IANA This document updates RFC 8029 and RFC 8611 that define IANA
registries for MPLS LSP Ping. The updates are mostly for registries for MPLS LSP Ping. The updates are mostly for
clarification and to align this registry with recent developments.. clarification and to align this registry with recent developments..
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
skipping to change at page 1, line 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 37
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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://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 April 19, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 6, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://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
skipping to change at page 2, line 18 skipping to change at page 2, line 18
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirement Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirement Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Updating the Message Types, Reply Mode and Return Codes 2. Updating the Message Types, Reply Mode and Return Codes
Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Updating the TLV and sub-TLV registries . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Updating the TLV and sub-TLV registries . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. General principles the LSP Ping TLV and sub-TLV 3.1. General principles the LSP Ping TLV and sub-TLV
registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.1. Unrecognized Experimental and Private TLVs and sub- 3.1.1. Unrecognized Experimental and Private TLVs and sub-
TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Changes to the LSP Ping registries . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. Changes to the LSP Ping registries . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.1. Common changes to the TLV and sub-TLV registries . . 6 3.2.1. Common changes to the TLV and sub-TLV registries . . 6
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Text chages/updates to related RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. Text changes to RFC 8029 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. New Message Type, Reply Mode and Return Codes registries 7 4.1.1. Comments to this changes to RFC 8029 . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. Common Registration Procedures for TLVs and sub-TLVs . . 8 4.2. Text changes to RFC 8611 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3. IANA assignments for TLVs and sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . 8 4.2.1. Comments to this changes to RFC 8611 . . . . . . . . 9
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.1. New Message Type, Reply Mode and Return Codes registries 9
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.2. Common Registration Procedures for TLVs and sub-TLVs . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.3. IANA assignments for TLVs and sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
When RFC 8029 [RFC8029] was published it contained among other things When RFC 8029 [RFC8029] was published it contained among other things
updates to the "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched updates to the "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched
Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" IANA name space [IANA-LSP-PING]. Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" IANA name space [IANA-LSP-PING].
RFC 8611 [RFC8611] updated the LSP Ping IANA registries to match RFC RFC 8611 [RFC8611] updated the LSP Ping IANA registries to match RFC
8029, but the registrations can be further clarified and their 8029, but the registrations can be further clarified and their
definitions more precise. definitions more precise.
skipping to change at page 4, line 10 skipping to change at page 4, line 17
o In the list that capture the assignment status, the fields that o In the list that capture the assignment status, the fields that
are reserved, i.e. 0, Private Use and Experimental Use are are reserved, i.e. 0, Private Use and Experimental Use are
clearly marked. clearly marked.
* In the Return Codes [IANA-RC] registry the code point "0" * In the Return Codes [IANA-RC] registry the code point "0"
already been assigned. This assignment is not changed and this already been assigned. This assignment is not changed and this
registry will not have the "0" value "Reserved". registry will not have the "0" value "Reserved".
The new Registration Procedures layout and the new assignments for The new Registration Procedures layout and the new assignments for
these registries will be found in Section 5.1. these registries will be found in Section 6.1.
3. Updating the TLV and sub-TLV registries 3. Updating the TLV and sub-TLV registries
When a new LSP Ping sub-TLV registry were created by RFC 8611 When a new LSP Ping sub-TLV registry were created by RFC 8611
[RFC8611] this registry "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" [IANA-Sub-6] was [RFC8611] this registry "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" [IANA-Sub-6] was
set up following the intentions of RFC 8029. set up following the intentions of RFC 8029.
The registry for "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" will serve as a model to The registry for "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" will serve as a model to
change/update the rest of the TLV and sub-TLV registries in this name change/update the rest of the TLV and sub-TLV registries in this name
space. space.
skipping to change at page 4, line 52 skipping to change at page 5, line 30
| | | not recognized. | | | | not recognized. |
| 49162-64511 | RFC Required | This range is for optional TLVs | | 49162-64511 | RFC Required | This range is for optional TLVs |
| | | that can be silently dropped if | | | | that can be silently dropped if |
| | | not recognized. | | | | not recognized. |
| 64512-65535 | Private Use | Not to be assigned | | 64512-65535 | Private Use | Not to be assigned |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6 Registration Procedures Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6 Registration Procedures
This document adds small ranges of code points for Experimental Use This document adds small ranges of code points for Experimental Use
to this registry and to registries listed in Section 5.2. to this registry and to registries listed in Section 6.2.
All registries will be changed to reflect the same model. All registries will be changed to reflect the same model.
3.1. General principles the LSP Ping TLV and sub-TLV registries 3.1. General principles the LSP Ping TLV and sub-TLV registries
The following principles are valid for all the LSP Ping TLV and sub- The following principles are valid for all the LSP Ping TLV and sub-
TLV IANA registries TLV IANA registries
o all mandatory TLVs and sub-TLVs requires a response if the are not o all mandatory TLVs and sub-TLVs requires a response if the are not
recognized recognized
skipping to change at page 6, line 19 skipping to change at page 6, line 43
IETF does not prescribe how recognized or unrecognized Experimental IETF does not prescribe how recognized or unrecognized Experimental
Use and Private Use TLVs and sub-TLVs are handled in experimental or Use and Private Use TLVs and sub-TLVs are handled in experimental or
private networks, that is up to the agency running the experiment or private networks, that is up to the agency running the experiment or
the private network. The statement above relates to how standard the private network. The statement above relates to how standard
compliant implementations will treat the unrecognized TLVs and sub- compliant implementations will treat the unrecognized TLVs and sub-
TLVs from these ranges. TLVs from these ranges.
3.2. Changes to the LSP Ping registries 3.2. Changes to the LSP Ping registries
This section lists the changes to each MPLS LSP Ping Registry, in This section lists the changes to each MPLS LSP Ping Registry, in
Section 5.1, Section 5.2 and Section 5.3 the changes are detailed and Section 6.1, Section 6.2 and Section 6.3 the changes are detailed and
it is shown what the IANA registry version of the registration it is shown what the IANA registry version of the registration
procedures and assignments would look like. procedures and assignments would look like.
3.2.1. Common changes to the TLV and sub-TLV registries 3.2.1. Common changes to the TLV and sub-TLV registries
The following changes are made to the TLV and sub-TLV registries. The following changes are made to the TLV and sub-TLV registries.
o two small set of code points (2 times 4 code points) for o two small set of code points (2 times 4 code points) for
experimental use is added, actually they are take from the range experimental use is added, actually they are take from the range
for "Private Use". for "Private Use".
skipping to change at page 6, line 51 skipping to change at page 7, line 29
are added to the table of registration procedures are added to the table of registration procedures
o A note "Not to be assigned" is added for the registration o A note "Not to be assigned" is added for the registration
procedures "Experimental Use" and "Private Use" procedures "Experimental Use" and "Private Use"
o In the list that capture assignment status, the fields that are o In the list that capture assignment status, the fields that are
reserved, i.e. 0, Experimental Use and Private Use are clearly reserved, i.e. 0, Experimental Use and Private Use are clearly
marked. marked.
The new Registration Procedures description and the new assignments The new Registration Procedures description and the new assignments
for these registries will be found in Section 5.2 and Section 5.3. for these registries will be found in Section 6.2 and Section 6.3.
4. Security Considerations 4. Text chages/updates to related RFCs
TBA Some referenced RFCs are using the concept "mandatory TLVs" and
"mandatory sub-TLVs" to indicate that if a TLV or sub-TLV of the
range 0-16383 or 16384-31743 is present in a message but not
understood, error message need to be sent in response.
5. IANA Considerations Since other RFCs are using "mandatory TLVs" and "mandatory sub-TLVs"
to indicate TLVs and sub-TLVs ths must be present in a message, we
want to discontinue the use of "mandatory" to indicate TLVs and sub-
TLVs that requires an error message in response if not understood.
The changes to the RFCs below are intended to align with this
practice.
4.1. Text changes to RFC 8029
In section 3 RFC 8029 says:
Types less than 32768 (i.e., with the high-order bit equal to 0)
are mandatory TLVs that MUST either be supported by an
implementation or result in the Return Code of 2 ("One or more of
the TLVs was not understood") being sent in the echo response.
Types greater than or equal to 32768 (i.e., with the high-order
bit equal to 1) are optional TLVs that SHOULD be ignored if the
implementation does not understand or support them.
This text is nows changed to:
TLV and sub-TLV Types less than 32768 (i.e., with the high-order
bit equal to 0) are TLVs and sub-TLVs that MUST either be
supported by an implementation or result in the Return Code of 2
("One or more of the TLVs was not understood") being sent in the
echo response.
TLV and sub-TLV Types greater than or equal to 32768 (i.e., with
the high-order bit equal to 1) are TLVs and sub-TLVs that SHOULD
be ignored if the implementation does not understand or support
them.
4.1.1. Comments to this changes to RFC 8029
1. RFC 8029 is a Standard Tracks RFC. Ranges 0-16383 and
32768-49161 are assigned by Standards Action. Ranges 31744-32767
and 49162-64511 are assigned by RFC Required, as specified e.g.
in Section 6.2 in this doucument.
2. The text is change in two ways
First, the ambigous use of "mandatory" and "optional" is
removed,
Second, it is clarified that both un-supported or not
recognized TLVs and sub-TLVs will generate an error message in
the Echo Reply message.
3. The name of the TLV used in the Echo Reply message is "TLV not
understood", however it applies equally to sub-TLVs. If a sub-
TLV is not understood or supported, the entire TLV that includes
the sub-TLV is returned.
4.2. Text changes to RFC 8611
RFC 8611 defines a sub-TLV registry - "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6". The
allocation policies for this registry is described in Section 3 of
this document. The "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" registry is now updated
to align with changes defined in this document.
The registration procedurs for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" registry
will now be like this:
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
| Range | Registration | Note |
| | Procedures | |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
| 0-16383 | Standards Action | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 16384-31743 | RFC Required | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 31744-32767 | Private Use | Not to be assigned |
| 32768-49161 | Standards Action | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | can be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 49162-64511 | RFC Required | This range is for sub-TLVs that |
| | | can be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. |
| 64512-65535 | Private Use | Not to be assigned |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6 Registration Procedures
4.2.1. Comments to this changes to RFC 8611
While it is true that the same rules apply to sub-TLVs and TLVs when
it comes tu return am error message if a TLV or sub-TLV is not
recognized. In the case if the registry for "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6
Registration Procedures" ir only includes sub-TLVs.
The changes described in this section aligns RFC 8611 with the
changes/updates described in the rest of this document.
5. Security Considerations
This document only updates IANA registries, not how the code-points
in the registries are used. This should not create any new threats.
6. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to update the LSP Ping name space as described in IANA is requested to update the LSP Ping name space as described in
this document and documented in the Appendixies. this document and documented in the Appendixies.
5.1. New Message Type, Reply Mode and Return Codes registries 6.1. New Message Type, Reply Mode and Return Codes registries
This section details the updated registration procedures for Message This section details the updated registration procedures for Message
Type, Reply Mode and Return Codes registries. Type, Reply Mode and Return Codes registries.
+---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+ +---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+
| Range | Registration | Note | | Range | Registration | Note |
| | Procedures | | | | Procedures | |
+---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+ +---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+
| 0-191 | Standards Action | | | 0-191 | Standards Action | |
| 192-247 | RFC Required | | | 192-247 | RFC Required | |
skipping to change at page 8, line 13 skipping to change at page 10, line 41
zero has been previously assigned, it is not changed but will remain: zero has been previously assigned, it is not changed but will remain:
+-------+----------------------------------+------------------------+ +-------+----------------------------------+------------------------+
| Value | Meaning | Reference | | Value | Meaning | Reference |
+-------+----------------------------------+------------------------+ +-------+----------------------------------+------------------------+
| 0 | No return code | [RFC8029] | | 0 | No return code | [RFC8029] |
+-------+----------------------------------+------------------------+ +-------+----------------------------------+------------------------+
Assignment for code point 0 in the Return Code registry Assignment for code point 0 in the Return Code registry
5.2. Common Registration Procedures for TLVs and sub-TLVs 6.2. Common Registration Procedures for TLVs and sub-TLVs
This section describes the new registration procedures for the TLV This section describes the new registration procedures for the TLV
and sub-TLV registries. The registry for sub-TLV 9 ([IANA-Sub-9] is and sub-TLV registries. The registry for sub-TLV 9 ([IANA-Sub-9] is
not changed. not changed.
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
| Range | Registration | Note | | Range | Registration | Note |
| | Procedures | | | | Procedures | |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
| 0-16383 | Standards Action | This range is for mandatory | | 0-16383 | Standards Action | This range is for TLVs that |
| | | TLVs or for optional TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not | | | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. | | | | recognized. |
| 16384-31743 | RFC Required | This range is for mandatory | | 16384-31743 | RFC Required | This range is for TLVs that |
| | | TLVs or for optional TLVs that |
| | | require an error message if not | | | | require an error message if not |
| | | recognized. | | | | recognized. |
| 37144-37147 | Experimental Use | Not to be assigned | | 37144-37147 | Experimental Use | Not to be assigned |
| 31748-32767 | Private Use | Not to be assigned | | 31748-32767 | Private Use | Not to be assigned |
| 32768-49161 | Standards Action | This range is for optional TLVs | | 32768-49161 | Standards Action | This range is for TLVs that can |
| | | that can be silently dropped if | | | | be silently dropped if not |
| | | not recognized. | | | | recognized. |
| 49162-64511 | RFC Required | This range is for optional TLVs | | 49162-64511 | RFC Required | This range is for TLVs that can |
| | | that can be silently dropped if | | | | be silently dropped if not |
| | | not recognized. | | | | recognized. |
| 64512-64515 | Experimental Use | Not to be assigned | | 64512-64515 | Experimental Use | Not to be assigned |
| 64515-65535 | Private Use | Not to be assigned | | 64515-65535 | Private Use | Not to be assigned |
+-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+
TLV and sub-TLV Registration Procedures TLV and sub-TLV Registration Procedures
5.3. IANA assignments for TLVs and sub-TLVs 6.3. IANA assignments for TLVs and sub-TLVs
The two tables in this section describes the updated IANA assignments The two tables in this section describes the updated IANA assignments
for the TLV and sub-TLV registries. The registry for sub-TLV 9 for the TLV and sub-TLV registries. The registry for sub-TLV 9
([IANA-Sub-9] is not changed. ([IANA-Sub-9] is not changed.
+-------------+-------------------+------------------+--------------+ +-------------+-------------------+------------------+--------------+
| Type | TLV name | Reference | sub-TLV | | Type | TLV name | Reference | sub-TLV |
| | | | registry | | | | | registry |
+-------------+-------------------+------------------+--------------+ +-------------+-------------------+------------------+--------------+
| 0 | Reserved | This document | | | 0 | Reserved | This document | |
skipping to change at page 9, line 46 skipping to change at page 12, line 46
| 37144-37147 | Reserved for Experimental Use | This document | | 37144-37147 | Reserved for Experimental Use | This document |
| 31748-32767 | Reserved for Private Use | This document | | 31748-32767 | Reserved for Private Use | This document |
| 32768-64511 | [any] | No changes to the | | 32768-64511 | [any] | No changes to the |
| | | current registry. | | | | current registry. |
| 64512-64515 | Reserved for Experimental Use | This document | | 64512-64515 | Reserved for Experimental Use | This document |
| 64515-65535 | Reserved for Private Use | This document | | 64515-65535 | Reserved for Private Use | This document |
+-------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+ +-------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
Sub-TLV Assignments Sub-TLV Assignments
6. Acknowledgements 7. Acknowledgements
TBA The authors wish to thank Adrian Farrel, who both made very useful
comments and agreed to serve as the document shepherd.
7. References The authors also wish to thank Micelle Cotton who very patiently
worked with us to determine how our registries could and should be
updated.
7.1. Normative References 8. References
8.1. Normative References
[IANA-LSP-PING] [IANA-LSP-PING]
"Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths
(LSPs) Ping Parameters", (LSPs) Ping Parameters",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping- <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-
parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xhtml/>. parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xhtml/>.
[IANA-MT] "Message Types", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls- [IANA-MT] "Message Types", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-
lsp-ping-parameters/mpls-lsp-ping- lsp-ping-parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-
parameters.xhtml#message-types>. parameters.xhtml#message-types>.
skipping to change at page 11, line 42 skipping to change at page 14, line 42
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8611] Akiya, N., Swallow, G., Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., [RFC8611] Akiya, N., Swallow, G., Litkowski, S., Decraene, B.,
Drake, J., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping Drake, J., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping
and Traceroute Multipath Support for Link Aggregation and Traceroute Multipath Support for Link Aggregation
Group (LAG) Interfaces", RFC 8611, DOI 10.17487/RFC8611, Group (LAG) Interfaces", RFC 8611, DOI 10.17487/RFC8611,
June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8611>. June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8611>.
7.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[IANA-Sub-9] [IANA-Sub-9]
"Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 9", "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 9",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping- <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-
parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/mpls-lsp-ping- parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-
parameters.xhtml#sub-tlv-9>. parameters.xhtml#sub-tlv-9>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Loa Andersson Loa Andersson
Bronze Dragon Consulting Bronze Dragon Consulting
Email: loa@pi.nu Email: loa@pi.nu
Tarek Saad
Juniper Networks
Email: tsaad.net@gmail.com
Mach Chen Mach Chen
Huawei Techologies Huawei Techologies
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Carlos Pignataro Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Email: cpignata@cisco.com Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Tarek Saad
Juniper Networks
Email: tsaad@juniper.net
 End of changes. 27 change blocks. 
50 lines changed or deleted 157 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/