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/