draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam-05.txt   draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam-06.txt 
SFC WG G. Mirsky SFC WG G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft ZTE Corp. Internet-Draft ZTE Corp.
Updates: 8300 (if approved) W. Meng Updates: 8300 (if approved) W. Meng
Intended status: Standards Track ZTE Corporation Intended status: Standards Track ZTE Corporation
Expires: November 21, 2020 B. Khasnabish Expires: December 4, 2020 B. Khasnabish
C. Wang C. Wang
Individual contributor Individual contributor
May 20, 2020 June 2, 2020
Active OAM for Service Function Chains in Networks Active OAM for Service Function Chains in Networks
draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam-05 draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam-06
Abstract Abstract
A set of requirements for active Operation, Administration and A set of requirements for active Operation, Administration and
Maintenance (OAM) of Service Function Chains (SFCs) in networks is Maintenance (OAM) of Service Function Chains (SFCs) in networks is
presented. Based on these requirements an encapsulation of active presented. Based on these requirements an encapsulation of active
OAM message in SFC and a mechanism to detect and localize defects OAM message in SFC and a mechanism to detect and localize defects
described. Also, this document updates RFC 8300 in the definition of described. Also, this document updates RFC 8300 in the definition of
O (OAM) bit in the Network Service Header (NSH) and defines how the O (OAM) bit in the Network Service Header (NSH) and defines how the
active OAM message identified in SFC NSH. active OAM message identified in SFC NSH.
skipping to change at page 1, line 40 skipping to change at page 1, line 40
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 November 21, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 4, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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
skipping to change at page 3, line 26 skipping to change at page 3, line 26
identities that the packet will visit when it traverses the SFC. The identities that the packet will visit when it traverses the SFC. The
latter entity is being referred to as Rendered Service Path (RSP). latter entity is being referred to as Rendered Service Path (RSP).
The main difference between SFP and RSP is that in the former the The main difference between SFP and RSP is that in the former the
authority to select the SFF/SF has been delegated to the network. authority to select the SFF/SF has been delegated to the network.
This document defines how active Operation, Administration and This document defines how active Operation, Administration and
Maintenance (OAM), per [RFC7799] definition of active OAM, identified Maintenance (OAM), per [RFC7799] definition of active OAM, identified
in Network Service Header (NSH) SFC, lists requirements to improve in Network Service Header (NSH) SFC, lists requirements to improve
the troubleshooting efficiency, and defines SFC Echo request and Echo the troubleshooting efficiency, and defines SFC Echo request and Echo
reply that enables on-demand Continuity Check, Connectivity reply that enables on-demand Continuity Check, Connectivity
Verification among other operations over SFC in networks. Also, this Verification among other operations over SFC in networks addressing
document updates Section 2.2 of [RFC8300] in part of the definition essential SFC OAM functions identified in
of O bit in the (NSH). [I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-framework]. Also, this document updates
Section 2.2 of [RFC8300] in part of the definition of O bit in the
(NSH).
2. Conventions 2. Conventions
2.1. Requirements Language 2.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
skipping to change at page 17, line 25 skipping to change at page 17, line 25
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>.
[RFC8300] Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed., [RFC8300] Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed.,
"Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300, "Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018, DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8300>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8300>.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-sfc-oam-framework]
Aldrin, S., Pignataro, C., Nainar, N., Krishnan, R., and
A. Ghanwani, "Service Function Chaining (SFC) Operations,
Administration and Maintenance (OAM) Framework", draft-
ietf-sfc-oam-framework-15 (work in progress), May 2020.
[RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5, [RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981, RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.
[RFC1423] Balenson, D., "Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic [RFC1423] Balenson, D., "Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic
Mail: Part III: Algorithms, Modes, and Identifiers", Mail: Part III: Algorithms, Modes, and Identifiers",
RFC 1423, DOI 10.17487/RFC1423, February 1993, RFC 1423, DOI 10.17487/RFC1423, February 1993,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1423>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1423>.
[RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302, [RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
 End of changes. 6 change blocks. 
7 lines changed or deleted 15 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/