Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Traffic Classification Data Item
draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-17

Network Working Group                                           B. Cheng
Internet-Draft                                    MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Intended status: Standards Track                              D. Wiggins
Expires: 28 September 2025                                              
                                                               L. Berger
                                                           D. Fedyk, Ed.
                                                 LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
                                                           27 March 2025

 Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Traffic Classification Data Item
            draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-17

Abstract

   This document defines a new Data Item for the Dynamic Link Exchange
   Protocol (DLEP) to support traffic classification.  Traffic
   classification information identifies traffic flows based on frame/
   packet content such as destination address.  The Data Item is defined
   in an extensible and reusable fashion.  Its use will be mandated in
   other documents defining specific DLEP extensions.  This document
   also introduces DLEP Sub-Data Items, and Sub-Data Items are defined
   to support DiffServ and Ethernet traffic classification.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 28 September 2025.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Cheng, et al.           Expires 28 September 2025               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft         DLEP Traffic Classification            March 2025

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Traffic Classification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Traffic Classification Data Item  . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.1.1.  Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item  . . . . . . . .   6
     2.2.  DiffServ Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item . . . . . .   7
       2.2.1.  Router Receive Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.3.  Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item . . . . . .   8
       2.3.1.  Router Receive Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   3.  Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.1.  Data Item Values  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.2.  DLEP Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Registry  . . .  12
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

1.  Introduction

   The Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) is defined in [RFC8175].
   This protocol provides the exchange of link related control
   information between DLEP peers.  DLEP peers are comprised of a modem
   and a router.  DLEP defines a base set of mechanisms as well as
   support for possible extensions.  DLEP defines Data Items which are
   sets of information that can be reused in DLEP messaging.  The DLEP
   specification does not include any flow identification beyond DLEP
   endpoints, i.e., flows are identified based on their DLEP endpoint.

   This document defines DLEP Data Item formats which provide flow
   identification on a more granular basis.  Specifically, it enables a
   router to use traffic flow classification information provided by the
   modem to identify traffic flows based on a combination of information
   found in a data plane header.  (For general background on traffic
   classification see [RFC2475] Section 2.3.)  The Data Item is

Cheng, et al.           Expires 28 September 2025               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft         DLEP Traffic Classification            March 2025

   structured to allow for use of the defined traffic classification
   information with applications such as credit window control as
   specified in [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control].  The credit
   window control document provides an example of combining traffic
   classification and credit window flow control.

   This document defines traffic classification based on a DLEP
   destination and flows identified by either DiffServ [RFC2475]
   Differentiated Services Codepoints (DSCPs) or IEEE 802.1Q [IEEE8021Q]
   Ethernet Priority Code Points (PCPs).  The defined mechanism allows
   for flows to be described in a flexible fashion and when combined
   with applications such as credit window control, allows credit
   windows to be shared across traffic sent to multiple DLEP
   destinations and as part of multiple flows, or used exclusively for
   traffic sent to a particular destination and/or belonging to a
   particular flow.  The extension also supports the "wildcard" matching
   of any flow (DSCP or PCP).  Traffic classification information is
   provided such that it can be readily extended to support other
   traffic classification techniques, or be used by non-credit window
   related extensions, such as [RFC8651] or even 5-tuple IP flows.

   This document defines support for traffic classification using a
   single new Data Item in Section 2.1 for general support and two new
   Sub-Data Items are defined to support identification of flows based
   on DSCPs and PCPs.

1.1.  Key Words

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.  Traffic Classification

   The Traffic Classification Data Item represents a list of flows that
   may be used at the same time to provide different service classes for
   traffic sent from a router to a modem.  The data plane information
   used to identify each flow is represented in a separate Sub-Data
   Item.  The Data Item and Sub-Data Item structure is intended to be
   independent of any specific usage of the flow identification, e.g.,
   flow control.  The Sub-Data Item structure is also intended to allow
   for future traffic classification types, e.g., 5-tuple flows.  While
   the structure of the Data Items is extensible, actual flow
   information is expected to be used in an extension dependent manner.
   Support for DSCP and PCP-based flows are defined via individual Sub-
   Data Items below.  Other types of flow identification, e.g., based on

Cheng, et al.           Expires 28 September 2025               [Page 3]
Internet-Draft         DLEP Traffic Classification            March 2025

   IP protocol and ports, may be defined in the future via new Sub-Data
   Items.  Note that when extensions supporting multiple Sub-Data Item
   types are negotiated, these types MAY be combined in a single Data
   Item.

   Each list of flows is identified using a "Traffic Classification
   Identifier" or "TID" and is expected to represent a valid combination
   of data plane identifiers that may be used at the same time.  Each
   flow is identified via a "Flow Identifier" or "FID".  Each FID is
   defined in a Sub-Data Item which carries the data plane identifier or
   identifiers used to associate traffic with the flow.  A DLEP
   destination address is also needed to complete traffic classification
   information used in extensions such as flow control.  This
   information is expected to be provided in an extension specific
   manner.  For example, this address can be provided by a modem when it
   identifies the traffic classification set in a Destination Up Message
   using the Credit Window Associate Data Item defined in
   [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control].  TID and FID values have
   modem-local scope.

2.1.  Traffic Classification Data Item

   This section defines the Traffic Classification Data Item.  This Data
   Item is used by a modem to provide a router with traffic
   classification information.  When an extension requires use of any
   Data Item, the Data Items, including this Traffic Classification Data
   Item SHOULD be included by a modem in any Session Initialization
   Response Message, e.g., see
   [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control].  Updates to previously
   provided traffic classifications or new traffic classifications MAY
   be sent by a modem by including the Data Item in Session Update
   Messages.  More than one Data Item MAY be included in a message to
   provide information on multiple traffic classifiers.

   The set of traffic classification information provided in the data
   item is identified using a Traffic Classification Identifier, or TID.
   The actual data plane related information used in traffic
   classification is provided in a variable list of Traffic
   Classification Sub-Data Items.

   The format of the Traffic Classification Data Item is:

Cheng, et al.           Expires 28 September 2025               [Page 4]
Internet-Draft         DLEP Traffic Classification            March 2025

        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       | Data Item Type                | Length                        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |Traffic Class. Identifier (TID)|   Num SDIs    |   Reserved    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       ~           Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item 1              ~
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       ~                              ...                              ~
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       ~           Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item n              ~
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Data Item Type:
      TBA1

   Length:
      Variable

      Per [RFC8175] Length is the number of octets in the Data Item,
      excluding the Type and Length fields.  The length here is limited
      by the packet data unit (PDU) length supported.  For example if
      the Packet is limited to 1400 bytes then the length MUST NOT
      exceed this value.  If larger packets are supported the maximum
      MUST be adjusted to be smaller or equal to the maximum PDU.
      Multiple messages can be used if there is more than fits in a
      single TLV.

   Traffic Classification Identifier (TID):
      A 16-bit unsigned integer identifying a traffic classification
      set.  There is no restriction on values used by a modem, and there
      is no requirement for sequential or ordered values.

   Num SDIs:
      An 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the number of Traffic
      Classification Sub-Data Items included in the Data Item.  A value
      of zero (0) is allowed and indicates that no traffic should be
      matched against this TID.

   Reserved:
      For the Traffic Classification Data Item this reserved field is
      currently unused.  It MUST be set to all zeros for this version of
      the Data Item and it is currently ignored on reception.  This
      allows for future extensions of the Data Item if needed.

Cheng, et al.           Expires 28 September 2025               [Page 5]
Internet-Draft         DLEP Traffic Classification            March 2025

   Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item:
      Zero or more Traffic Classification Sub-Data Items of the format
      defined below MAY be included.  The number MUST match the value
      carried in the Num SDIs field.

   A router receiving the Traffic Classification Data Item MUST locate
   the traffic classification information that is associated with the
   TID indicated in each received Data Item.  If no associated traffic
   classification information is found, the router MUST initialize a new
   information set using the values carried in the Data Item.  If the
   associated traffic classification information is found, the router
   MUST replace the corresponding information using the values carried
   in the Data Item.  In both cases, a router MUST also ensure that any
   data plane state, e.g., [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control],
   that is associated with the TID is updated as needed.

2.1.1.  Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item

   All Traffic Classification Sub-Data Items share a common format that
   is patterned after the standard DLEP Data Item format, see [RFC8175]
   Section 11.3.  There is no requirement on, or meaning to Sub-Data
   Item ordering.  Any errors or inconsistencies encountered in parsing
   Sub-Data Items are handled in the same fashion as any other Data Item
   parsing error encountered in DLEP, see [RFC8175].

   The format of the Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item is:

        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       | Sub-Data Item Type            | Length                        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       ~                           Value...                            ~
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Sub-Data Item Type:
      A 16-bit unsigned integer that indicates the type and
      corresponding format of the Sub-Data Item's Value field.  Sub-Data
      Item Types are scoped within the Data Item in which they are
      carried, i.e., the Sub-Data Item Type field MUST be used together
      with the Traffic Classification Data Item Type to identify the
      format of the Sub-Data Item.  Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item
      Types are managed according to the IANA registry described in
      Section 5.2.

   Length:
      Variable

Cheng, et al.           Expires 28 September 2025               [Page 6]
Internet-Draft         DLEP Traffic Classification            March 2025

      Copying [RFC8175], Length is a 16-bit unsigned integer that is the
      number of octets in the Sub-Data Item, excluding the Type and
      Length fields.  The maximum length is limited on a per Sub-Data
      Item Type.

2.2.  DiffServ Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item

   The DiffServ Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item identifies the set
   of DSCPs that should be treated as a single flow, i.e., receive the
   same traffic treatment.  DSCPs are identified in a list of DiffServ
   fields.  An implementation that does not support DSCPs and wants the
   same traffic treatment for all traffic to a destination or
   destinations would indicate 0 DSCPs.

   The format of the DiffServ Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item is:

        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       | Sub-Data Item Type (1)        |  Length                       |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       | Flow Identifier (FID)         |   Num DSCPs   |   DS Field 1  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |   DS Field 2  |      ...      |   DS Field n  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Sub-Data Item Type:
      Sub-Data Item Type with value one (1) identifies the DiffServ
      Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type in the format defined in
      Section 2.1.1.

   Length:
      Variable

      Length is defined above.  For this Sub-Data Item, it is equal to
      three (3) octets plus the value of the Num DSCPs field.  This
      means that the maximum Length base on a FID per DSCP for this TLV
      could be 64 times 3 plus one for Num DSCPs plus one DSCPs or 320
      octets.  The definition can be in multiple Sub-Data Items that are
      much smaller than this.

   Flow Identifier (FID):
      A 16-bit unsigned integer representing the data plane information
      carried in the Sub-Data Item that is to be used in identifying a
      flow.  The value of 0xFFFF is reserved and MUST NOT be used in
      this field.

Cheng, et al.           Expires 28 September 2025               [Page 7]
Internet-Draft         DLEP Traffic Classification            March 2025

   Num DSCPs:
      An 8-bit unsigned integer indicating the number of DSCPs carried
      in the Sub-Data Item.  A zero (0) indicates a (wildcard) match
      against any DSCP value that does not have an explicit match to a
      FID.  A typical use of this is mapping any DSCPs that are not
      explicitly mapped to a default queue.

   DS Field:
      Each DS Field is an 8-bit that carries the DSCP field defined in
      [RFC2474].

                  0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7
                +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
                |         DSCP          |  MBZ  |
                +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

                DSCP: Differentiated Services Codepoint (RFC 2474).
                      MBZ:  Must Be Zero - set to zero when transmitted.

2.2.1.  Router Receive Processing

   A router receiving the Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item MUST
   validate the information on receipt, prior to using the carried
   information, including potentially updating the data behavior as
   determined by the extension requiring the use of the Sub-Data Item.
   Validation failures MUST be treated as an error as described above in
   Section 2.1.1.

   Once validated, the receiver MUST ensure that each DS Field value is
   listed only once across the whole Traffic Classification Data Item.
   Note, this check is across the Data Item and not the individual Sub-
   Data Item.  If the same DS Field value is listed more than once
   within the same Traffic Classification Data Item, the Data Item MUST
   be treated as an error as described above in Section 2.1.1.

2.3.  Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item

   The Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item identifies the VLAN
   and PCPs that should be treated as a single flow, i.e., receive the
   same traffic treatment.  Ethernet Priority Code Point support is
   defined as part of the IEEE 802.1Q [IEEE8021Q] tag format and
   includes a 3 bit "PCP" field.  The tag format also includes a 12 bit
   VLAN identifier (VID) field.  PCPs are identified in a list of
   priority fields.  An implementation that does not support PCPs and
   wants the same traffic treatment for all traffic to a destination or
   destinations would indicate 0 PCPs.  Such an implementation could
   identify a VLAN to use per destination.

Cheng, et al.           Expires 28 September 2025               [Page 8]
Internet-Draft         DLEP Traffic Classification            March 2025

   The format of the Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item is:

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       | Sub-Data Item Type (2)        | Length                        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       | Flow Identifier (FID)         |NumPCPs| VLAN Identifier (VID) |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       | Pri. 1| Pri. 2| ..... | ..... | ..... |  Pad  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Sub-Data Item Type:
      Sub-Data Item Type with value two (2) identifies the Ethernet
      Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type in the format defined in
      Section 2.1.1.

   Length:
      Variable

      Length is defined above.  For this Sub-Data Item, it is equal to
      four (4) plus the number of octets needed to accommodate the
      number of Priority fields indicated by the NumPCPs field.  Note
      that as length is in octets and each Priority field is 4 bits, the
      additional length is the value carried in the NumPCPs field
      divided by two and rounded up to the next higher integer quantity.
      This TLV has maximum length of 4 plus 8 divided by 2 or 16 octets.

   Flow Identifier (FID):
      A 16-bit unsigned integer representing the data plane information
      carried in the Sub-Data Item that is to be used in identifying a
      flow.  The value of 0xFFFF is reserved and MUST NOT be used in
      this field.

   Num PCPs:
      A 4-bit unsigned integer indicating the number of Priority fields
      carried in the Sub-Data Item.  A zero (0) indicates a (wildcard)
      match against any PCP value that does not have an explicit match
      to a FID.  A typical use of a wildcard is mapping any PCPs that
      are not explicitly mapped to a default queue.  The maximum number
      of PCPs 8.

Cheng, et al.           Expires 28 September 2025               [Page 9]
Internet-Draft         DLEP Traffic Classification            March 2025

   VLAN identifier (VID):
      A 12-bit unsigned integer field indicating the VLAN to be used in
      traffic classification.  A value of zero (0) indicates that the
      VID is to be ignored and any VID is to be accepted during traffic
      classification.  Any explicitly mapped VLANs are match first and
      then any VLANs that do not have a mapping map to this default
      mapping.

   Priority:
      Each Priority Field is 4-bits long and indicates a PCP field
      defined in [IEEE8021Q].  Note that zero (0) is a valid value for
      either PCP.

              0   1   2   3
              +---+---+---+---+
              |    PCP    |MBZ|
              +---+---+---+---+

              PCP: Priority Code Point (IEEE8021Q)
                   MBZ:  Must Be Zero - set to zero when transmitted.

   Pad:
      A 4-bit long field included when NumPCPs is an odd number.  This
      field MUST be set to zero by the sender, and MUST be ignored on
      receipt.

2.3.1.  Router Receive Processing

   A router receiving the Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item MUST
   validate the information on receipt, prior to the using the carried
   information, including potentially updating the data behavior as
   determined by the extension requiring the use of the Sub-Data Item.
   Note that validation can include usage specific semantics such as
   those found in [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control].  Any
   failures MUST be treated as an error as described above in
   Section 2.1.1.

   After successful validation, the receiver MUST ensure that each
   Priority Field value is listed only once across the whole Traffic
   Classification Data Item.  Note, this check is across the Data Item
   and not the individual Sub-Data Items.  If the same Priority Field
   value is listed more than once within the same Traffic Classification
   Data Item, the Data Item MUST be treated as an error as described
   above in Section 2.1.1.

Cheng, et al.           Expires 28 September 2025              [Page 10]
Internet-Draft         DLEP Traffic Classification            March 2025

   In cases where both Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item types are
   defined, matching on Ethernet information takes precedence.  More
   specifically, when a packet matches both a DSCP indicated in a
   DiffServ Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item (Section 2.2) and a
   VID/PCP identified in an Ethernet Traffic Classification Sub-Data
   Item (Section 2.3), then the TID associated with the matching VLAN/
   PCP MUST be used.

3.  Compatibility

   The formats defined in this document will only be used when
   extensions require their use.

   The DLEP specification [RFC8175] defines handling of unexpected
   appearances of any Data Items, including those defined in this
   document.

4.  Security Considerations

   This document introduces finer grained flow identification mechanisms
   to DLEP.  These mechanisms expose vulnerabilities similar to existing
   DLEP messages.  An example of a threat to which traffic
   classification might be susceptible is a malicious actor masquerading
   as a DLEP peer could inject an alternate Traffic Classification Data
   Item, changing the mapping of traffic to queues that in turn causes
   delay, congestion or loss to one or more service classes.  Other
   possible threats are given in the Security Considerations of
   [RFC8175] and are also applicable to, but not specific to, traffic
   classification.

   The transport layer security mechanisms documented in [RFC8175], with
   some updated references to external documents listed below, can be
   applied to this document.  Implementations following the "networked
   deployment" model described in the "Implementation Scenarios" of
   [RFC8175] SHOULD refer to [BCP195] for additional details.  The Layer
   2 security mechanisms documented in [RFC8175] can also, with some
   updates, be applied to the mechanism defined in this document.
   Examples of technologies that can be deployed to secure the Layer 2
   link include [IEEE-802.1AE] and [IEEE-8802-1X].

5.  IANA Considerations

5.1.  Data Item Values

   This document requests the following new assignments to the DLEP Data
   Item Registry named "Data Item Type Values" from the range with the
   "Specification Required" policy.  The requested value is as follows:

Cheng, et al.           Expires 28 September 2025              [Page 11]
Internet-Draft         DLEP Traffic Classification            March 2025

                  +===========+========================+
                  | Type Code | Description            |
                  +===========+========================+
                  | TBA1      | Traffic Classification |
                  +-----------+------------------------+

                   Table 1: Requested Data Item Values

5.2.  DLEP Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Registry

   Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to create a new
   DLEP registry, named "Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type
   Values".

   The following table provides initial registry values and the
   [RFC8126] defined policies that should apply to the registry:

      +=============+=================================+=============+
      | Type Code   | Description                     | Reference   |
      +=============+=================================+=============+
      | 0           | Reserved                        |             |
      +-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+
      | 1           | DiffServ Traffic Classification | [RFC2474]   |
      +-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+
      | 2           | Ethernet Traffic Classification | [IEEE8021Q] |
      +-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+
      | 3-65407     | Specification Required          |             |
      +-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+
      | 65408-65534 | Private Use                     |             |
      +-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+
      | 65535       | Reserved                        |             |
      +-------------+---------------------------------+-------------+

                      Table 2: Initial Registry Values

   This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers
   Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to the
   Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type Values registry for the
   DLEP protocol, in accordance with BCP 26 and [RFC8126].

Cheng, et al.           Expires 28 September 2025              [Page 12]
Internet-Draft         DLEP Traffic Classification            March 2025

   This registry encompasses packet traffic classification, where
   standard packet header identifiers in packets or data frames indicate
   Quality of Service (QoS) treatment.  It includes two specific
   registries for widely recognized identifiers used in QoS management
   for IP and Ethernet networks.  Reserved values are set aside for
   similar future identifiers that may emerge to denote QoS treatment.
   However, requests for new entries are not expected to be frequent.

   Allocations within the registry are subject to the following
   requirements:

   1.  Documentation of the intended use of the requested value, in
       compliance with the "Specification Required" policy defined in
       [RFC8126].

   2.  Approval by the Designated Expert (DE) appointed by the IESG.
       The DE must:

       *  Verify that the requested value is clearly documented and its
          purpose and usage are unambiguous.
       *  Ensure the proposed value does not conflict with existing work
          or ongoing efforts within the IETF.
       *  Confirm that any specification requesting a code point has
          undergone review by the MANET working group (or a successor
          mailing list designated by the IESG).
       *  Validate that external specifications requesting code points
          are publicly available, permanently archived, and do not
          conflict with active or published IETF work.
       *  Ensure the review process is conducted in a timely manner,
          with any disputes resolved through consultation with the
          appropriate working groups.

   To simplify future registrations, it is recommended that this
   guidance serves as a standard reference for all DLEP-related
   registries.  Future specifications may include a header note pointing
   to this guidance document.

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

Cheng, et al.           Expires 28 September 2025              [Page 13]
Internet-Draft         DLEP Traffic Classification            March 2025

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8175]  Ratliff, S., Jury, S., Satterwhite, D., Taylor, R., and B.
              Berry, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)", RFC 8175,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8175, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8175>.

6.2.  Informative References

   [BCP195]   Best Current Practice 195,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp195>.
              At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:

              Sheffer, Y., Saint-Andre, P., and T. Fossati,
              "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
              Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
              (DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 9325, DOI 10.17487/RFC9325, November
              2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9325>.

              Moriarty, K. and S. Farrell, "Deprecating TLS 1.0 and TLS
              1.1", BCP 195, RFC 8996, DOI 10.17487/RFC8996, March 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8996>.

   [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control]
              Cheng, B., Wiggins, D., Ratliff, S., Berger, L., and E.
              Kinzie, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Credit-
              Based Flow Control Messages and Data Items", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-
              flow-control-18, 19 March 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/api/v1/doc/document/draft-
              ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control/>.

   [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension]
              Cheng, B., Wiggins, D., Berger, L., and D. E. Eastlake,
              "DLEP DiffServ Aware Credit Window Extension", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-
              extension-21, 3 March 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-manet-
              dlep-da-credit-extension-21>.

   [IEEE-802.1AE]
              "802.1AE-2018 - IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan
              area networks-Media Access Control (MAC) Security",
              <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8585421>.

Cheng, et al.           Expires 28 September 2025              [Page 14]
Internet-Draft         DLEP Traffic Classification            March 2025

   [IEEE-8802-1X]
              "8802-1X-2021 - IEEE/ISO/IEC International Standard-
              Telecommunications and exchange between information
              technology systems--Requirements for local and
              metropolitan area networks--Part 1X:Port-based network
              access control",
              <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9650828>.

   [IEEE8021Q]
              IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
              Networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks",
              DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.10004498, IEEE 802.1Q-2022, July
              2022, <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8403927>.

   [RFC2474]  Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
              "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
              Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.

   [RFC2475]  Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
              and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
              Services", RFC 2475, DOI 10.17487/RFC2475, December 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2475>.

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

   [RFC8651]  Cheng, B., Wiggins, D., and L. Berger, Ed., "Dynamic Link
              Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Control-Plane-Based Pause
              Extension", RFC 8651, DOI 10.17487/RFC8651, October 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8651>.

Appendix A.  Acknowledgments

   The Sub-Data Item format was inspired by Rick Taylor's "Data Item
   Containers".  He also proposed the separation of credit windows from
   traffic classification at IETF98.  Many useful comments were received
   from contributors to the MANET working group.  This document was
   derived from [I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension] as a result of
   discussions at IETF 101.  Many useful comments were received from
   contributors to the MANET working group, notably Ronald in't Velt and
   David Black.

Cheng, et al.           Expires 28 September 2025              [Page 15]
Internet-Draft         DLEP Traffic Classification            March 2025

   We had the honor of working too briefly with David Wiggins on this
   and related DLEP work.  His contribution to the IETF and publication
   of the first and definitive open source DLEP implementation have been
   critical to the acceptance of DLEP.  We mourn his passing on November
   23, 2023.  We wish to recognize his guidance, leadership and
   professional excellence.  We were fortunate to benefit from his
   leadership and friendship.  He shall be missed.

Authors' Addresses

   Bow-Nan Cheng
   MIT Lincoln Laboratory
   Massachusetts Institute of Technology
   244 Wood Street
   Lexington
   Email: bcheng@ll.mit.edu

   David Wiggins
   Email: david@none.org

   Lou Berger
   LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
   Email: lberger@labn.net

   Don Fedyk (editor)
   LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
   Email: dfedyk@labn.net

Cheng, et al.           Expires 28 September 2025              [Page 16]