draft-ietf-mpls-retire-ach-tlv-00.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-retire-ach-tlv-01.txt 
Network Working Group A. Farrel Network Working Group A. Farrel
Internet Draft Juniper Networks Internet Draft Juniper Networks
Category: Standards Track S. Bryant Category: Standards Track S. Bryant
Updates: 5586 (if approved) Cisco Systems Updates: 5586 (if approved) Cisco Systems
Expires: November 23, 2013 May 23, 2013 Expires: December 8, 2013 June 8, 2013
Retiring TLVs from the Associated Channel Header of the MPLS Generic Retiring TLVs from the Associated Channel Header of the MPLS Generic
Associated Channel Associated Channel
draft-ietf-mpls-retire-ach-tlv-00.txt draft-ietf-mpls-retire-ach-tlv-01.txt
Abstract Abstract
The MPLS Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) is a generalization of The MPLS Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) is a generalization of
the applicability of the Pseudowire (PW) Associated Channel Header the applicability of the Pseudowire (PW) Associated Channel Header
(ACH). RFC 5586 defines the concept of TLV constructs that can be (ACH). RFC 5586 defines the concept of TLV constructs that can be
carried in messages on the G-ACh by placing them in the ACH between carried in messages on the G-ACh by placing them in the ACH between
the fixed header fields and the G-ACh message. These TLVs are called the fixed header fields and the G-ACh message. These TLVs are called
ACH TLVs ACH TLVs
No Associated Channel Type yet defined uses an ACH TLV. Furthermore, No Associated Channel Type yet defined uses an ACH TLV. Furthermore,
it is believed that handling TLVs in hardware introduces significant it is believed that handling TLVs in hardware introduces significant
problems to the fast-path, and since G-ACh messages are intended to problems to the fast-path, and since G-ACh messages are intended to
be processed substantially in hardware, the use of TLVs in be processed substantially in hardware, the use of ACH TLVs is
undesirable. undesirable.
This document updates RFC 5586 by retiring ACH TLVs and removing the This document updates RFC 5586 by retiring ACH TLVs and removing the
associated registry. associated registry.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
skipping to change at page 4, line 33 skipping to change at page 4, line 33
G-ACh in a generic way. However, no mechanisms have been proposed at G-ACh in a generic way. However, no mechanisms have been proposed at
the time of writing, and it has generally been considered that it is the time of writing, and it has generally been considered that it is
the responsiblity of the specification that defines G-ACh messages to the responsiblity of the specification that defines G-ACh messages to
consider the security requirements of those messages which may be consider the security requirements of those messages which may be
different for the different applications. different for the different applications.
Otherwise, this document has no implications for security. Otherwise, this document has no implications for security.
7. Acknowledgements 7. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Eric Osborne, Thomas Morin, Lizhong Jin, and Greg Mirsky Thanks to Eric Osborne, Thomas Morin, Lizhong Jin, Greg Mirsky, and
for suggestions to improve the text. Jia He for suggestions to improve the text.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson, [RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
"Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word
 End of changes. 4 change blocks. 
5 lines changed or deleted 5 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/